| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago |
| > One was coloniser and another one was a colony This is an America-centric geopolitical model with zero predictive power. China annexed Tibet in 1951 [1]. Xinjiang has been fighting colonization from the Qings, Soviets, Nationalists and PRC for over a century. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Tibet_by_China |
|
| ▲ | chihuahua 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I think GP was referring to the fact that the United States is made up of former colonies of Great Britain, but that was such a long time ago, I don't see how it matters for the moon landing. |
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | It’s a neo-leftist international model that divides everyone into colonizer and colonized nations without particular regard for history or reality. The former are bad and powerful. The latter weak and victims. It offers no predictions, policy prescriptions beyond railing and an infinity of excuses for justifying pretty much anything for the latter and against the former, down to subgroups within each nation. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | RobotToaster 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It was part of China since 1720, it briefly declared independence in 1913 but that was recognised by no foreign nation [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet |
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Correct. Conquered or colonized in 1720 [1]. A century before the British colonized China with almost the same model (small garrison, literal Mandarin in charge). Put another way, the British controlled Hong Kong for longer than China has Tibet. The coloniser-colonised model works in the New World. It’s silly outside it as a general model. (And it misfires completely when comparing America and China. Both were colonies. Both have colonized and hegemonised.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_expedition_to_Tibet_(1... |
|
