I think it’s a little racist to remove agency from people who’ve made moves equally validly explained as self-defence and preservation against a hostile invader.
The invader was only hostile to the wealthy landowners who quite literally enslaved the people in literally feudal Tibet. Imagine if China had given international recognition to Marie Antoinette during the French Revolution, and people were treating her as a sort of government in exile. This is literally what the US is doing with the fucking Dalai Lama
China invaded as part of a Tibetan civil war over the way that Amdo (or maybe Kham, can’t recall which right now) was governed by Lhasa and the Dali Lama. It was hostile to the Lhasa government and partisan on the side of the faction that asked for China’s help to win the war, and promised obedient vassalage in return.
The society in pre-PRC conquest of Tibet was similar to Nepal. Yes, it involved indentured labour, but it had already began a process of legislating against many of the worst practices in the decades prior to 1951. Should (or should have) the PRC, or any nation, invade Nepal?
Imagine if the US says that Iran, North Korea, or China’s treatment of its citizens is cassus belli and annexes them after an overwhelming show of force (similar to the post WW2 vassalage of South Korea, when the USSR and USA bilaterally agreed to take split control of finally independent Korea).
The Bourbon survivors, such as the Duke of Orleans, were literally taken in by other nations in Europe and treated as a government in exile. Can you not see how that’s a logical understandable choice. Claiming the Duke of Orleans was an Austrian stooge for accepting aid from Austro-Hungary would be, I think you’d agree, ridiculous.
I think it’s a little racist to remove agency from people who’ve made moves equally validly explained as self-defence and preservation against a hostile invader.
The invader was only hostile to the wealthy landowners who quite literally enslaved the people in literally feudal Tibet. Imagine if China had given international recognition to Marie Antoinette during the French Revolution, and people were treating her as a sort of government in exile. This is literally what the US is doing with the fucking Dalai Lama
China invaded as part of a Tibetan civil war over the way that Amdo (or maybe Kham, can’t recall which right now) was governed by Lhasa and the Dali Lama. It was hostile to the Lhasa government and partisan on the side of the faction that asked for China’s help to win the war, and promised obedient vassalage in return.
The society in pre-PRC conquest of Tibet was similar to Nepal. Yes, it involved indentured labour, but it had already began a process of legislating against many of the worst practices in the decades prior to 1951. Should (or should have) the PRC, or any nation, invade Nepal?
Imagine if the US says that Iran, North Korea, or China’s treatment of its citizens is cassus belli and annexes them after an overwhelming show of force (similar to the post WW2 vassalage of South Korea, when the USSR and USA bilaterally agreed to take split control of finally independent Korea).
The Bourbon survivors, such as the Duke of Orleans, were literally taken in by other nations in Europe and treated as a government in exile. Can you not see how that’s a logical understandable choice. Claiming the Duke of Orleans was an Austrian stooge for accepting aid from Austro-Hungary would be, I think you’d agree, ridiculous.