I’m pretty sure virtually all of the Tibetan people are happy to no longer be suffering under theocratic feudalism. Happy to no longer be illiterate serfs and slaves living in depredation under a god-king. I doubt many of them are sad that CIA asset Dalai “suck my tongue” Lama is in exile.[1]
and stop brutalising and denying political self determination to the people of Hong Kong
Hey, thank you for the links! I don’t consider all of them impartial enough to weigh very heavily for me personally, but several of them have made me more informed or changed how I see certain global issues!
I’d like to point to some things that still support my original perspective and see if you have thoughts to share, additional sources, reasons to consider those sources with skepticism, etc. I’m not really here to argue, I expect I won’t walk away with the same perspective you have but I’d still love to learn from how you see things and see what you know that would change my view of world politics (if that’s okay with you :) and no pressure for a fast reply or anything, I understand I’m essentially asking a lot of intellectal labor from you)
The nature of global information is such that I can’t really treat any sources as being free from propaganda fueled narratives. I’m of the belief/understanding the west and the “communist block” countries both engage in information warfare and propaganda to shape narratives to their favor, so I just do my best to sift through things, refer to well respected sources with various perspectives, and do my best to integrate it into a world view as best I can 😅
That first article in the first linked comment was very interesting and I appreciate that it was from independent academics
Their page for China also includes articles describing continued preemptive crackdowns on the anniversary of the tianamen square massacre, and other human rights issues. https://www.hrw.org/asia/china-and-tibet do you believe the hrw isn’t a reputable or trustworthy source? They’re very critical of the US, and when I looked for criticisms they’ve faced it was mostly just countries being unhappy that they were criticized. Including groups criticising them for being too harsh on Israel, who the US is extremely close with. If you have additional context or perspective I’d be interested in your thoughts :)
In the article about the dali lama having made an agreement with the CIA to undermine China it says
In 1999, the Dalai Lama suggested that the CIA Tibetan program had been harmful to Tibet because it primarily served American interests, claiming “once the American policy toward China changed, they stopped their help … The Americans had a different agenda from the Tibetans.”
Gyalo Thondup, the Dalai Lama’s elder brother, also expressed frustration with the role of the CIA in Tibetan affairs. In a 2009 interview, he stated “I never asked for CIA military assistance. I asked for political help. I wanted to publicize the Tibet situation, to make a little noise. The Americans promised to help make Tibet an independent country. All those promises were broken.” He continues, claiming that America “didn’t want to help Tibet. It just wanted to make trouble for China. It had no far-sighted policy for Tibet. I wasn’t trained for this (clandestine operations). We didn’t know about power politics.”
Which suggests that Tibet would still like independence and to be considered independent from China. I still learned a lot from it though!
In the article about protesters initiating violence in Hong Kong, after doing a lot of reading to make sure I get the involved parties correct, the article is saying that the violent attackers in white shirts were pro hongkong government triad, or pro China, triad members and they victims were train riders and pro democracy protesters who were returning home from protest regarding the extradition treaty that would allow for the Hong Kong government to extradite people to mainland china (but there were a lot of victims that were just people). That doesn’t really support the narrative you were describing at all. Additional thoughts welcome :)
If you actually read all this I appreciate it! Thank you for the original group of links also. We don’t see the world quite the same way but I think it’s really important to not be hostile towards people with different perspectives from you. If people put together what we know we stand more of a chance of understanding the world as accurately as we can, and I appreciate your perspective even if I walk away with a different perception or understand of the narrative :)
We’re doing this again?
Good thing China wasn’t and isn’t doing that, unless you consider jailing of US-backed radical Salafi terrorists to be an atrocity.
.
I’m pretty sure virtually all of the Tibetan people are happy to no longer be suffering under theocratic feudalism. Happy to no longer be illiterate serfs and slaves living in depredation under a god-king. I doubt many of them are sad that CIA asset Dalai “suck my tongue” Lama is in exile.[1]
The UK’s 99 year lease to subjugate the people of Hong Kong ended, a lease which had been forced upon Imperial China at gunpoint during the century of humiliation. Hong Kong reintegration after the lease expired was a foregone conclusion. The last minute, US-backed attempt at color revolution failed. It was the so-called “revolutionaries” who brought the brutality, by the way.
Hey, thank you for the links! I don’t consider all of them impartial enough to weigh very heavily for me personally, but several of them have made me more informed or changed how I see certain global issues!
I’d like to point to some things that still support my original perspective and see if you have thoughts to share, additional sources, reasons to consider those sources with skepticism, etc. I’m not really here to argue, I expect I won’t walk away with the same perspective you have but I’d still love to learn from how you see things and see what you know that would change my view of world politics (if that’s okay with you :) and no pressure for a fast reply or anything, I understand I’m essentially asking a lot of intellectal labor from you)
The nature of global information is such that I can’t really treat any sources as being free from propaganda fueled narratives. I’m of the belief/understanding the west and the “communist block” countries both engage in information warfare and propaganda to shape narratives to their favor, so I just do my best to sift through things, refer to well respected sources with various perspectives, and do my best to integrate it into a world view as best I can 😅
That first article in the first linked comment was very interesting and I appreciate that it was from independent academics
When I double checked the info about the ugyhur Muslims the source I went to to make sure I had the spelling and broad nature of the conflict right was the human rights watch, who has been very critical of the US government, and our close allies in Israel https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/19/break-their-lineage-break-their-roots/chinas-crimes-against-humanity-targeting its a loooong document with a ton of claims and sources, it seems fairly robust.
Their page for China also includes articles describing continued preemptive crackdowns on the anniversary of the tianamen square massacre, and other human rights issues. https://www.hrw.org/asia/china-and-tibet do you believe the hrw isn’t a reputable or trustworthy source? They’re very critical of the US, and when I looked for criticisms they’ve faced it was mostly just countries being unhappy that they were criticized. Including groups criticising them for being too harsh on Israel, who the US is extremely close with. If you have additional context or perspective I’d be interested in your thoughts :)
In the article about the dali lama having made an agreement with the CIA to undermine China it says
Which suggests that Tibet would still like independence and to be considered independent from China. I still learned a lot from it though!
In the article about protesters initiating violence in Hong Kong, after doing a lot of reading to make sure I get the involved parties correct, the article is saying that the violent attackers in white shirts were pro hongkong government triad, or pro China, triad members and they victims were train riders and pro democracy protesters who were returning home from protest regarding the extradition treaty that would allow for the Hong Kong government to extradite people to mainland china (but there were a lot of victims that were just people). That doesn’t really support the narrative you were describing at all. Additional thoughts welcome :)
If you actually read all this I appreciate it! Thank you for the original group of links also. We don’t see the world quite the same way but I think it’s really important to not be hostile towards people with different perspectives from you. If people put together what we know we stand more of a chance of understanding the world as accurately as we can, and I appreciate your perspective even if I walk away with a different perception or understand of the narrative :)