3 ms·

> I am not sure why the Free Tibet movement died out in America and Europe Realism. Movements without a realistic goal tend to become quite niche, unless there

> I am not sure why the Free Tibet movement died out in America and Europe Realism. Movements without a realistic goal tend to become quite niche, unless there's another hook to keep them going. With the rise of China as an economic and nuclear power, and one with no interest in even talking about Tibet as something other than a part of their empire, a populist movement to pressure politicians to "Free Tibet" is about as useful as a populist movement to get politicians to conquer the concept of entropy. People, even very passionate and politically active people, moved on to causes with at least some hope, or at least the perception of hope.

g-b-r 2y ago
What? From my recollection, when it was decided to admit China in the WTO, every problem was set aside for the asserted belief that growth would result in democracy, human rights and hence the solution of those problems. By the time it became clear that things wouldn't have gone that way, the west had bound itself to China too much to be able to do something about Tibet (without reshoring the manufacturing).
- EA-3167 2y ago
  Even with reshoring, it's not as though China would just shrug and give up Tibet, and a military confrontation with them over Tibet would be profoundly unpopular in any reasonably foreseeable political landscape. There is no underlying racial animus to drive focus on the issue, as there is with conflicts in the Middle East. For most Americans Tibet is a place they've never been, know precious little about, and while they may feel badly when the situation is explained, it isn't going to weigh heavily on them. It would be hard to explain why that's something to be prioritized over the MENA region, Russia and Ukraine, or places like Mali, Niger, and Sudan.
  - g-b-r 2y ago
    If the west wasn't so dependent on China, it could offer something in return for improving the treatment of Tibetans. The Tibetan issue used to be felt very strongly, even in America, I believe. It probably largely still is, but it's much less on the forefront, and probably seen as too hard to solve. And maybe the younger generations don't know it well. Anyway, if it became more feasible to improve the situation, I think there would be a lot of support and pressure to do it. Sure, probably not to the point of entering into a war with a nuclear country, but that wouldn't be needed. The support for Tibet was due to the fascination for the culture, the people and the places, I imagine. People so peaceful, places so beautiful, and a culture so fascinating, violated in this way. It's just outrageous, and very hard to comprehend. Of course anyhow, a reshoring anytime soon is extremely unlikely. I'm not sure what you meant with the racial animus in the Middle East, by the way
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    Is it just due to numbers? Middle East conflict has Muslims all over the world engaging and amplifying the issue. But there are few Tibetans and no allies of theirs to really speak of in the same way (as with the international Muslim community).

g-b-r 2y ago

What? From my recollection, when it was decided to admit China in the WTO, every problem was set aside for the asserted belief that growth would result in democracy, human rights and hence the solution of those problems. By the time it became clear that things wouldn't have gone that way, the west had bound itself to China too much to be able to do something about Tibet (without reshoring the manufacturing).

EA-3167 2y ago
Even with reshoring, it's not as though China would just shrug and give up Tibet, and a military confrontation with them over Tibet would be profoundly unpopular in any reasonably foreseeable political landscape. There is no underlying racial animus to drive focus on the issue, as there is with conflicts in the Middle East. For most Americans Tibet is a place they've never been, know precious little about, and while they may feel badly when the situation is explained, it isn't going to weigh heavily on them. It would be hard to explain why that's something to be prioritized over the MENA region, Russia and Ukraine, or places like Mali, Niger, and Sudan.
- g-b-r 2y ago
  If the west wasn't so dependent on China, it could offer something in return for improving the treatment of Tibetans. The Tibetan issue used to be felt very strongly, even in America, I believe. It probably largely still is, but it's much less on the forefront, and probably seen as too hard to solve. And maybe the younger generations don't know it well. Anyway, if it became more feasible to improve the situation, I think there would be a lot of support and pressure to do it. Sure, probably not to the point of entering into a war with a nuclear country, but that wouldn't be needed. The support for Tibet was due to the fascination for the culture, the people and the places, I imagine. People so peaceful, places so beautiful, and a culture so fascinating, violated in this way. It's just outrageous, and very hard to comprehend. Of course anyhow, a reshoring anytime soon is extremely unlikely. I'm not sure what you meant with the racial animus in the Middle East, by the way
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Is it just due to numbers? Middle East conflict has Muslims all over the world engaging and amplifying the issue. But there are few Tibetans and no allies of theirs to really speak of in the same way (as with the international Muslim community).