3 ms·
Yes because the Tibetan Sovereignty is a silly concept. It was already used decades ago by colonial regimes to try to split the young Republic, basically as a w
by derelicta 2y ago
Yes because the Tibetan Sovereignty is a silly concept. It was already used decades ago by colonial regimes to try to split the young Republic, basically as a way to hurt it and prevent the Tibetan ascent to democracy. It doesn't matter for western power that Tibet was a backward slave system.
- BSDobelix 2y ago>Tibet was a backward slave system. -4/5 of the Tibetians were actually slaves (western media calls it bond servant if it's about tibet...sounds better) -Infant mortality was astronomically high. -Education was absent outside monastery's. -The Dalai Lama accepted the post of Vice-President of the National People's Congress and was even friends with Xi's father. -Some "other" entity told the Lama he'd probably be killed and fled to India. So yes, the story we want here in the West probably isn't the right one, nor is the "East" version, I might say.
- JambalayaJimbo 2y agoThat’s irrelevant, the model is still political by taking such a stance on Tibetan sovereignty
- powerapple 2y agoWhy is it political? Is it political to say California is in US? The question may be political, the answer is not though.