The Dalai Lama currently in exile assumed his political power at age 15 AFTER the PRC invaded. So unless the PRC didn’t end feudalism in 1950 like they say they did (and also assuming the slavery actually happened the way the PRC said it did despite others claiming it is mostly just PRC propaganda used to try and legitimize their invasion) I don’t think you can really call him a slave owner.
Regardless, the only one trying to twist things seems to be you because once again, you are trying to draw attention away from the main argument which is that the PRCs actions were imperialist.
Even if the slave owner claim was correct, that wouldn’t negate the other events and imperialist actions I listed. However, because you can’t refute those claims you instead chose to default to ad hominem, trying to attack me or my reliability rather than the evidence I listed.
The Dalai Lama currently in exile assumed his political power at age 15 AFTER the PRC invaded. So unless the PRC didn’t end feudalism in 1950 like they say they did (and also assuming the slavery actually happened the way the PRC said it did despite others claiming it is mostly just PRC propaganda used to try and legitimize their invasion) I don’t think you can really call him a slave owner.
Regardless, the only one trying to twist things seems to be you because once again, you are trying to draw attention away from the main argument which is that the PRCs actions were imperialist.
Even if the slave owner claim was correct, that wouldn’t negate the other events and imperialist actions I listed. However, because you can’t refute those claims you instead chose to default to ad hominem, trying to attack me or my reliability rather than the evidence I listed.