this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2025
298 points (93.6% liked)
Political Memes
2033 readers
823 users here now
Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, OP is probably referring to the invasion as a whole, as well as the genocide and cultural/social repression carried out by the Chinese government on Tibet during its ongoing occupation of the country.
You can free slaves without needing to annex the region. Claiming an independent country for your own government to control permanently (regardless of supposed initial intent) is called imperialism.
The kidnapping of a child for the purposes of destroying/controlling the religion of a culture you conquered definitely is imperialism.
As is the shelling of civilian populations to quell protests, shelling major sacred monasteries / cultural heritage sites, imprisonment and torture of women during womenâs uprising, installing your own government controlled head of a religion because the original one said bad things against your imperialist government etc.
Those are probably what OP is referring to when they mean the PRC acted imperialist when it used âmilitary interventions, and cultural influence to maintain their dominance over other nationsâ like Tibet.
^ that quoted section is from the ProleWiki page for Imperialism btw, so even by the communist/socialist definition of imperialism, the occupation of Tibet by the PRC was/is imperialist
Tibet wasn't an "independent country," it was one of countless warlord states that emerged following the fall of the Qing. Both the CCP and the KMT recognized the need to pacify these states and reunify the country, so much so that they were both willing to put aside ideological differences and form a temporary alliance in order to do it. Tibet was always part of China, is still claimed by Taiwan, and never received international recognition as an independent country, just from like, Mongolia and one or two other countries.
If you want to treat Tibet as an independent country, then should we also treat all the other warlord states that were put down by the united front the same way? Should we just say that whoever has de facto control of a region is the rightful owner of it - even if it's a theocracy with a brutal system of serfdom?
The original one was a slave owner wtf
I don't have a very strong opinion on Tibet as I haven't been there and investigated, but anyone defending the Lamas China drove out knows even less and is just trying to twist anything at all into hostile evidence.
The Dalai Lama currently in exile assumed his political power at age 15 AFTER the PRC invaded. So unless the PRC didnât end feudalism in 1950 like they say they did (and also assuming the slavery actually happened the way the PRC said it did despite others claiming it is mostly just PRC propaganda used to try and legitimize their invasion) I donât think you can really call him a slave owner.
Regardless, the only one trying to twist things seems to be you because once again, you are trying to draw attention away from the main argument which is that the PRCs actions were imperialist.
Even if the slave owner claim was correct, that wouldnât negate the other events and imperialist actions I listed. However, because you canât refute those claims you instead chose to default to ad hominem, trying to attack me or my reliability rather than the evidence I listed.