Well there are so many points of historical and political-economy analysis that fundamentally differentiate the medieval feudalism of the himalayan plateau societies from the colonial chattel slaver system of the early USA that it is too much to address here.
But let’s not pretend that Tibet was liberated from a cruel economy and then given a path to self determination and control over immigration. It was annexed and is being settled like other settler-states. If the remnants of all former empires laid claim to their former conquests the world would burn.
Most nation-states have slavery-by-another-name running inside their prison systems, including China. Fuck that weak excuse. Geopolitics and centralized power did this, not that heroic myth that is just a variant of manifest destiny. Slavers liberating slaves, pfft.
But let’s not pretend that Tibet was liberated from a cruel economy and then given a path to self determination and control over immigration. If the remnants of all former empires laid claim to their former conquests the world would burn.
Do the former Confederate states have control over immigration, or is that handled at the federal level? Do those states have “a path to self-determination,” including a path towards secession, or towards reinstituting slavery? No, they are, quite correctly, bound by federal laws and follow the same rules as everyone else. Should we treat the Union reestablishing control over the Confederacy as, “an empire laying claim to its former conquests?” They had been a part of the Union for a much shorter time than Tibet had been part of China.
Most nation-states have slavery-by-another-name running inside their prison systems, including China… Slavers liberating slaves, pfft.
Yes, and the Union had prisons too. This doesn’t change the fact that ending the formal institution of slavery was a major, important step that materially improved the lives of the freed slaves. You’re dismissing all progress unless it instantly creates a perfect utopia overnight. This was a big one I heard, “The Northerners were hypocrites because their factories had harsh conditions.”
So far, I have yet to hear an argument that passes the, “Can this be used to justify the CSA” test, and as the CSA was unjustified those arguments must be wrong. You say that the systems were different, and yes, that’s true. The question is whether they were different in any relevant way. They were both cruel systems of involuntary servitude.
All of your arguments are just justifying cruel, inhumane, oppressive, authoritarian systems, and twisting words around to present it as “anti-authoritarian.” My upbringing has innoculated me against that sort of thing.
Well there are so many points of historical and political-economy analysis that fundamentally differentiate the medieval feudalism of the himalayan plateau societies from the colonial chattel slaver system of the early USA that it is too much to address here.
But let’s not pretend that Tibet was liberated from a cruel economy and then given a path to self determination and control over immigration. It was annexed and is being settled like other settler-states. If the remnants of all former empires laid claim to their former conquests the world would burn.
Most nation-states have slavery-by-another-name running inside their prison systems, including China. Fuck that weak excuse. Geopolitics and centralized power did this, not that heroic myth that is just a variant of manifest destiny. Slavers liberating slaves, pfft.
Truly Tibetan slaves and American slaves are apples and oranges, I say it all the time, lol.
Do the former Confederate states have control over immigration, or is that handled at the federal level? Do those states have “a path to self-determination,” including a path towards secession, or towards reinstituting slavery? No, they are, quite correctly, bound by federal laws and follow the same rules as everyone else. Should we treat the Union reestablishing control over the Confederacy as, “an empire laying claim to its former conquests?” They had been a part of the Union for a much shorter time than Tibet had been part of China.
Yes, and the Union had prisons too. This doesn’t change the fact that ending the formal institution of slavery was a major, important step that materially improved the lives of the freed slaves. You’re dismissing all progress unless it instantly creates a perfect utopia overnight. This was a big one I heard, “The Northerners were hypocrites because their factories had harsh conditions.”
So far, I have yet to hear an argument that passes the, “Can this be used to justify the CSA” test, and as the CSA was unjustified those arguments must be wrong. You say that the systems were different, and yes, that’s true. The question is whether they were different in any relevant way. They were both cruel systems of involuntary servitude.
All of your arguments are just justifying cruel, inhumane, oppressive, authoritarian systems, and twisting words around to present it as “anti-authoritarian.” My upbringing has innoculated me against that sort of thing.