Take aways: don’t be racist judging by a sexualised western lens. If there’s more, you’d think that the PRC would have had everyone shouting it from the root tops by now right?
As for the corporeal punishment, the most extreme cases had already been legislated against in the decades before 1951.
But even if they hadn’t, which they had, I don’t think you agree that human rights deficiency is justification for invasion and annexation. The Qing Empire’s slow slicing and other forms of corporeal punishment, child sex cases, etc., didn’t justify Imperial Japan, the British, Germans, or whomever’s, imperial expansion.
Reformed theocracy as a form of government is peachy keen then? LOL. “We said we’re sorry and we won’t do the eye gouging thing anymore, now let us resume the child abduction.”
As soon as the US gives all the land back to natives and pays reparations to blacks and repatriates the money stolen from workers by the capitalists I’ll consider the idea of China relinquishing Tibet back to the theocracy (I probably won’t to be fair since we know that will never happen).
Also tongue sucking is a Tibetan greeting now is it? How TF you can say “western sexualized lens” with a straight face is mind boggling.
Could be peachy, we won’t know since their self governance and ability to have their own Tibetan characteristic revolution has now been completely quashed.
I linked the other comment for a reason. If Tibetans and people from that culture don’t seem to think it’s a big deal, I’m inclined to agree them rather than trample over them because they’re backwards ignorant savages who don’t understand things.
Obvioisly though, coerced child adopting isn’t a good thing. But it is much down in the other PRC regions and Nepal too, I don’t see why that trend wouldn’t’ve applied to an independent Tibet.
Part of opposing imperialism is to be against it whenever it happens. If you’re only against imperialism when one said does it, your not anti-imperialism, you’re just anti-that other side.
This has already been pretty heavily discussed down below.
https://vger.app/inbox/lemmynsfw.com/c/world@lemmy.world/comments/22949064/0.10764805.10764949.10767861.10770960.10780683.10781641
Take aways: don’t be racist judging by a sexualised western lens. If there’s more, you’d think that the PRC would have had everyone shouting it from the root tops by now right?
As for the corporeal punishment, the most extreme cases had already been legislated against in the decades before 1951.
But even if they hadn’t, which they had, I don’t think you agree that human rights deficiency is justification for invasion and annexation. The Qing Empire’s slow slicing and other forms of corporeal punishment, child sex cases, etc., didn’t justify Imperial Japan, the British, Germans, or whomever’s, imperial expansion.
Reformed theocracy as a form of government is peachy keen then? LOL. “We said we’re sorry and we won’t do the eye gouging thing anymore, now let us resume the child abduction.”
As soon as the US gives all the land back to natives and pays reparations to blacks and repatriates the money stolen from workers by the capitalists I’ll consider the idea of China relinquishing Tibet back to the theocracy (I probably won’t to be fair since we know that will never happen).
Also tongue sucking is a Tibetan greeting now is it? How TF you can say “western sexualized lens” with a straight face is mind boggling.
Could be peachy, we won’t know since their self governance and ability to have their own Tibetan characteristic revolution has now been completely quashed.
I linked the other comment for a reason. If Tibetans and people from that culture don’t seem to think it’s a big deal, I’m inclined to agree them rather than trample over them because they’re backwards ignorant savages who don’t understand things.
Obvioisly though, coerced child adopting isn’t a good thing. But it is much down in the other PRC regions and Nepal too, I don’t see why that trend wouldn’t’ve applied to an independent Tibet.
Part of opposing imperialism is to be against it whenever it happens. If you’re only against imperialism when one said does it, your not anti-imperialism, you’re just anti-that other side.