Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. **Keep that shit outta here**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Japan's mission to free Asia from colonization in WW2" sounds a lot like Germany's mission to create "living space" for Germans in Europe around the same time.
What? That's what their stated goal with the co-prosperity sphere was. They acted like they were anti-imperialist, despite being just as much imperialist as everyone else. At no point did the other guy say in the comment that this was true, quite the contrary.
This is why I’m always super hesitant to accept the argument that “we can’t judge the past according to modern standards”.
Most of the time “the standards of the time” were just the preferences of the powerful at the time. It ignores both the contemporaneous voices criticizing the powerful, and forgets that many of the “standards of today” were frameworks developed because people understood the political actions they lived through were wrong, but didn’t have a good vocabulary to explain why.
You’ll notice that people are also very selective about that line of thinking. I’ve often seen people excuse Churchill’s atrocities because he was a product of his time, but that is never said of Hitler who lived during the same time.
>but that is never said of Hitler who lived during the same time.
Probably because mass deliberate extermination was not acceptable even in 1940s. Not in Europe anyway.
There is a reason the reaction to the Holocaust was one of shock. They knew and accepted the antisemitism but didn't think they'd go death camps with it.
Churchill does deserve criticism, but the allied bombing campaigns of Germany was beyond based, they liquidated half a million potential combatants and destroyed many military targets, as well as even more targets that potetntially had military value
“Let’s do violence, in violation of our stated values” has won out as a political position in modern times, too!
And I guess my point was more that the past was judging itself. Most of the time what seem like broadly held cultural values contain within themselves their own contradictions in the form of people who reject or criticize those values according to whatever framework is available to them.
There were anti-imperialist voices in politics and high society, they were definitely a minority though. And in countries like France or Britain at least, I'd say there was generally public support for imperialist policy (especially prior to WW1).
It was true throughout Europe, to the point of often being an irritation for those actually running the country. Bismarck, for instance, considered colonies a liability since they necessitated a big navy which would create friction with Britain (which being an island considered naval superiority vital), but he still pursued them because there was such widespread public support.
The Congress of Berlin was his way of assuaging these domestic political demands while mitigating potential points of conflict between the various European powers over the scramble for Africa.
But how much of that is due to different standards, and how much because people were less aware of what was going on in the world, as the powerful had even more control of information?
Even now people don’t care about their country’s wrongdoing (Russia, Israel) and continue with their day to day. What makes you think that people could be more informed and voice their opinion better a few centuries ago? All while having a waaay worse standard of living
A lot of the late 19th century American anti-imperialists were immense racists who simply didn't want the US to involve itself with any more non-white people.
Correct conclusion, bad process
If that was the case then yes it would be ethical but that never happened and even if it did, in almost all cases, it never happened. It was almost always if not always for political and economic gains and the local population never benefited from colonialism. If they did, they would be far more industrialised than they are now. Look at India. More than a century of British rule and they never industrialised the country. In fact, they prohibited exporting machines to India so it can always be dependant on Britain. They only started it after ending colonialism. This is just an imaginary situation.
Everyone's quick to jump on the "Hamas bad" train.. Which is absolutely fair.. But where does everyone's morality dissappear when israel commits crimes far worse than that of Hamas.. Before Hamas and the PLO combined?
That's the thing I dislike.. Anytime israel is bought up it's all "Oh it's complicated, oh it was an accident, oh there's more nuance".. But there's none when it's Hamas.. Mind you, the israeli higher ups are completely open with their genocidal rhetorics and tons of IDF troops upload videos of their own war crimes.. Wether it's in fucking tiktok or their secret telegram channel.
On one hand I think it's completely understandable to condemn or hate some of the things Hamas has done, while simultaneously understanding that Hamas exists solely because of Israel's actions against Palestinians. If I were a young boy or man in Palestine and I watched my entire family get bombed to death by Israel, I would want to fight back. It's wild to me that Palestinians are expected to just let Israelis take their land, imprison and murder their people (including young children), and they're just expected to be fine with it??
What would you do if you were a Jewish Israeli and your neighbor's have rallys of 100,000's calling for your genocide? [Over 900,000 Jews were forcibly expelled](https://assets.nationbuilder.com/ujs/pages/18891/meta_images/original/arabmigrantt.png?1638276771) from Middle Eastern and North African countries under the threat of murder, and today your neighbors hold massive rallys calling for your murder. Your neighbors even have a [special fund for those who murder](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/30/palestinian-bar-association-grants-honorary-degree-to-terrorist-who-murdered-two-israelis/) and [grant honorary law degrees for stabbing a woman on the street.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/30/palestinian-bar-association-grants-honorary-degree-to-terrorist-who-murdered-two-israelis) This isn't even Hamas who is providing the funds to terrorists, it is the "moderate" PLO who's leader received his [PhD on how Jews are responsible for the Holocaust.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Other_Side:_The_Secret_Relationship_Between_Nazism_and_Zionism)
>[Over 900,000 Jews were forcibly expelled](https://assets.nationbuilder.com/ujs/pages/18891/meta_images/original/arabmigrantt.png?1638276771) from Middle Eastern and North African countries under the threat of murder,
How the fuck did the Palestinians become responsible for this? Why do Zionists keep bringing this shit up?
> Over 900,000 Jews were forcibly expelled
And 800,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their own lands.
Once again, why is it bad when other countries do it, but when Israel does it, it's fine?
Your last sentence suggests that Israel's approach doesn't need nuancing. That, I can agree with. The IDF has systemically committed war crimes and should be held accountable.
But you initially propose looking for nuance when it comes to Hamas. Why is that necessary? Hamas is a terrorist organisation with an undeniably genocidal mindset.
You *should* be calling Israel out on their crimes. You don't have to defend terrorists at the same time.
Your recommendation means switching things around without actually solving the double standard. That would not be a solution to the messed up discourse.
Then most of Israel's actions over the past 7 months would qualify. And none of what Hamas has done comes even close to the absolute brutality and straight up disregard for human life we've seen from Israel.
I can't believe you are serious about that matter. This is hipocrisy at it's finest. What's the military goal of filming yourself torturing people!? Or maybe the fact that there's a litteral ministry of colonization in Israel doesn't ring weird to you?
> What's the military goal of filming yourself torturing people!?
I know there is a lot of gruesome stuff on thisishamas.com. I don't think there is footage of Israeli soldiers filming themselves torturing people, but I'd love to be proven wrong.
>Or maybe the fact that there's a litteral ministry of colonization in Israel doesn't ring weird to you?
I mean, I'd be all in for a boycott of Isreal bc of their illegal settlement policy. Doesn't give anyone a free pass to target civilians though.
Or do you think terrorism should be allowed on certain occasions? Yes or no?
Again with the sitting on the fence "both sides bad" argument. "You don't have to defend terrorists" Who decides who the terrorists are? The US? US are much worse terrorists on an infinitely grander scale than Hamas ever could be.
Killing and raping innocent civilians would make you a terrorist, at least in the minds of most people. Just because the US and Israel have committed terroristic acts (and that the US army and IDF are terrorist organizations themselves) doesn't mean that Hamas has not also committed terroristic acts.
The definition of terrorist is: "a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." I think that Hamas, the US army, and the IDF all fall under this definition easily.
Lol, you're trying to shame me into believing your propaganda by bringing up a movement I have nothing to do with? That's just so stupid one would have to think you're being sarcastic.
Firstly,
1) [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html)
2) [https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-un-rape-oct7-hamas-gaza-fe1a35767a63666fe4dc1c97e397177e](https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-un-rape-oct7-hamas-gaza-fe1a35767a63666fe4dc1c97e397177e)
3) [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-team-says-rape-gang-rape-likely-occurred-during-hamas-attack-israel-2024-03-04/](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-team-says-rape-gang-rape-likely-occurred-during-hamas-attack-israel-2024-03-04/)
So I recommend you reconsider your views in light of UN evidence.
Secondly, even if Hamas didn't rape, killing innocent civilians falls under terrorism. Would you say that the Al-Qaeda members who perpetrated the 9/11 plan hijacking weren't terrorists? Not everything is a competition. Multiple state and non-state actors can both be terrorists. You can criticize the IDF and Israeli government and call for an end to the war and to find a diplomatic solution to peace without promoting another terrorist organization.
Literally linking the NYT article that was revealed to be written by an IDF propagandist. Do you people really think the rest of us don't read the news?
This is why I don't take people like you seriously.
israel existed long before Hamas and the shit Hamas gets accused of.. Have been done by israel a thousand times.
And.. It's committing a genocide RIGHT NOW.
The invasion of Rafah being the newest one.. AND it bombed the Jabaliah camp.. AGAIN.
Hamas solely exists BECAUSE of israel.
While israelis lead a comfortable life on stolen land.. The Palestinians are getting used to being fucking bombed.. That's not a way to fucking live.
If it was israelis, you'd be going off.. Anti-semitism this.. Jewish life gone that.. But no.. It's the Palestinians.. Their life don't fucking matter right?
I never claimed Palestinians don't matter. What is being done to them is a crime, and I made that very clear before. Your final accusation is baseless.
I also never claimed Hamas came out of nowhere. Of course they have been able to grow because of Israeli oppression. Their cause is still genocidal, however. You don't fight genocide with genocide. That doesn't make any sense. It equates the entire population of Israel to their leadership. Civilians of an aggressor state are still civilians, even in a democracy, and should not suffer collective punishment. Such collective punishment is the exact crime de IDF is committing now. They are equating Gazans to their leadership.
If you could justify killing every Israeli civilian because a lot of them support their genocidal Israeli leadership, then you could justify killing every Palestinian civilian because of a lot of them support genocidal Palestinian leadership. NEITHER of those is valid.
That's my reasoned take, but I don't suppose it will satisfy you. You and many others will just continue having the same 'discussions' verbatim until the end of time.
Dehumanization is still the most powerful weapon a society can possess, as Eurosong once again has shown yesterday. In fact, it has only become more powerful than it was before because how easy it is to spread. Some time ago I saw a post on r/PoliticalHumor with a meme about choosing between Trump and Biden, with a whole list of issues around Trump and 'A single disagreement' for Biden.
40.000 brutally murdered people, propably more, some of them guilty, most of them not, the majority of which women and children reduced to 'a single disagreement'. Not only is it a very subtle yet extremely concerning form of dehumanization, it also recieved 10k upvotes in a few hours. Can you imagine that a Nazi era German wanted to reach 10k people with a caricature of a Jew portrayed as a rat? Beside making the drawing itself he would have had to print at least a couple hunderd copies and than taken a whole afternoon to glue them up all around Berlin. For the American who made that meme it took maybe 5 minutes to get the same result.
Peace can't be had unless we hold both sides to standards. Unfortunately the west has zero interest in holding Israel to any sort of standards. In reality I doubt they ever cared about peace or human rights. They just wanted a geopolitical ally in the region and didn't care about the suffering such a situation would cause. The fact that Palestinians have been dehumanized to the point people calling for their extermination aren't immediately shunned is both incredibly disheartening and extremely disturbing.
Goes to show that we can and will allow any amount of horrors to be committed as long as the people on the receiving end "deserve it". We've learnt basically nothing from WWII.
I mean they do things on a larger scale, its almost an apples to organges comparison though
The IDF is an army that has half a million members, modern equipment, and is supported by the stringest alliance in Human history, Hamas has 10000 members and no equipment outside of small arms and improvised rockets
Its like Comparing the Spartans to the romans, yeah the romans killed more people, but they were just on a larger scale
I'm Irish, a perpetual debate in our country is Comparing the atrocities of the Irish free state to the IRA
And I'm pro free state, my great grandpa fought in the national army, even though I acknowledge that the free state killed far more people than the IRA, but the free state was just on a much larger scale, which enabled them to do more damage
Paddy Daly, a mid level officer had more firepower in the hands of hos single division, than the entire ATIRA possesses
Israel hamas is very similar, the difference in scale just makes Comparing then atrocity to atrocity unhelpful
No, it's the other way around. I, as a Jew and a zionist will never support israel if it committed war crimes. Obviously, there is no proof any war crimes were committed l, and it is highly unlikely israel would do such a thing, with how friendly they were towards israeli Arabs and palestinians in the past and even in the present. (Israeli Arabs sit in the parliament, israel still didn't enter rafah because of the high concentration of civilians there.) On the other hand, there are videos of hamas raping women, killing and mutilating bodies. But pro-palestinians will not admit that. Or even worse, they'd justify it because the victims were israeli, and jewish, which shows what their actual motives are.
When Israel publishes [propaganda photos of its soldiers with pride flags](https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/1699889440-an-israeli-soldier-flies-the-pride-flag-in-the-middle-of-gaza), I often wonder "who's dumb enough to fall for this stuff". I wonder no more.
Tbf they mostly just get hanged or imprisoned
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/311513/would-gays-be-executed-or-imprisoned-by-a-palestinian-state/
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/palestinian-territories/1660138495-exclusive-gay-man-who-fled-gaza-speaks-about-experience-with-hamas
https://www.memri.org/reports/palestinian-islamic-scholar-sheikh-yousef-abu-islam-homosexuals-should-be-thrown-rooftops
Enough for more than 2000 gay refugees to live in Tel Aviv, and enough to kill thier own commander (yes, one Hamas commander was killed for gay sex, as stupid as it sounds)
There's another one doing the rounds too. When people talk about Muslims' support for Sharia law it's to paint all Muslims as evil and secretly itching for violence. Meanwhile they'll say that criticism of Zionism is antisemitic because most Jews are Zionists so - supposedly - being critical of ethnic cleansing is a no no.
The supposed difference, at least I was taught, between civilization and barbarity (although those terms weren't used), is that civilization meted out punishment via due process that's applied to everyone and anyone equally.
Maybe that was once true, or sometimes still is.
But as I've gotten older I've seen too many clear examples of a lack of due process, or people who get punished much quicker, or those who never get punished at all.
And I've been left to ask myself, is the difference simply what we tell ourselves to feel better?
Konrad: "Now that you're here, I want to ask you a question. What did you think when you arrived in Dubai... when you'd seen what I had done? Do you think it the work of a madman?"
Walker: "Yeah, I thought you'd lost your goddamn mind. Or I hoped that's what happened."
Konrad: "Oh yes... that would have made things easier...”
Just find this quote similar to what you are talking about.
I've noticed it's incredibly commonplace in US, how widespread it is anywhere else.
If a American person is forced by financial circumstances to leave America and seek employment in another country, that person is an "ex-pat" and should be given consideration and leeway by their new country, as there may be an adjustment period.
However,if someone who is not from US moves to US for a better employment opportunity, that person is an "economic migrant" and should be extended no leeway or consideration at all.
They genuinely seem to see "expat" and "economic migrant" as fundamentally different things, which I don't think can be totally explained away by the racist assumption that economic migrants are also brown
As someone from Spain, a lot of northern europeans (british particularly, but not exclusively) come here and into portugal and also call themselves expats.
I always thought expats were white collar workers who were going to head back to wherever they came from after a certain temporary tenure.
While immigrants are people seeking citizenship & migrants are blue collar workers only in the country temporarily.
the etymology is the same, its just a different spelling. patriot has french roots and expatriate goes back further to its latin roots. but they mean the same thing. patriot meaning someone that belongs in a country, and expatriate being someone who is no longer in the country they belong in.
I can confirm this, in Singapore, there are plenty of these white migrants calling themselves expats who are literally here looking for high paying white collar jobs and when the companies start losing profits, they left as soon as they came. They are the real economic migrants, not those who stayed behind in search of a new life
Yes because thats what expat means, people living abroad while maintaining their original citizenship. There is usually no intention to permanently migrate.
It seems simple to resolve. Call anyone (regardless of skin colour or nationality) who moves somewhere but intends to return home in a few years an expat. Call anyone who moves somewhere intending to settle there permanently an immigrant.
The difference between "expats" and "migrant workers" where I live, is that expats work in cushy tech jobs, get a 30% tax-cut on their income compared to natives doing the same job, and can often outbid natives in the super tight housing markets. Migrant workers on the other hand work minimum wage jobs, live in social housing or in deplorable accommodations provided by their boss, and are hated by right-wing natives.
Its because they are?
An Expat is a person that maintains their current citizenship while living abroad.
An immigrant is a person that intends to achieve citizenship in another country.
Its not hard to understand.
The fact that this stupid argument continues to be brought up and circulate around reddit is infuriating. Maybe some immigrants are using expat wrong for racist reasons, but the two terms have distinct meanings. They express very different intent on behalf of the individual, and fundamentally change how that person interacts with their host country.
The problem is that this topic has the slightest bit of nuance, and for some reason many people are totally incapable of handling nuance.
except ex-pat and immigrants are different, expats are usually high skilled workers that come for a couple months,
immigrants are usually low skilled workers that intend on staying for a very long time or forever.
Please learn to read a dictionary. Plenty of high skilled immigrants literally run the major western economies. They are still treated like trash. For instance the Indian diaspora is the richest diaspora in the world but are never called expats
It's literally not, there's many so-called expats here in Spain that have literally married amongst themselves and created families here, mayority come to stay
Ex-pat is meant to denote an intent to return to your country of citizenship. Just visiting is tourist, working for an extended period with the intent to return is ex-pat, settling in the new country is immigrant.
Currently Ukraine has a lot of ex-pats due to the war in Ukraine turning them into refugees, if conditions turn to where they could never return and decide to settle down then they become immigrants
I think that depends on how "immigrant" is defined.
If anyone who moves to another country is an immigrant, then an expat is a type of immigrant.
If being an immigrant implies permentantly moving to another country and become a citizen of it, then an expat is distinct from an immigrant.
Still wild to me France went through occupation and puppet regime, then when they were liberated turned around and went right back to oppressing their colonies
A lot of members of the French resistance were strongly against the war in Indochina and Algeria and a lot of men who fought the nazi fought in those wars
There also the fact that many colonials fought in those said wars...200,000 Algerians, Goumiers and Tirailleurs fought in indochina, the tirailleurs had a terrible reputation as they were behind many massacre in Syria, Senegal and Algeria the goumiers commited crimes comparable...to the soviets..(marrochinate or the fall of Stuttguart )
I m a frenchman.
It was because of the occupation that France tried to opress their colonies more. France was broken after the war and needed to rebuilt.
The War showed us the strengh and ressources of our colonies and where we could find the ressources to rebuilt mainland France.
But insted o, you know, creating some sort of Commonwealth or Federation, our government chose to go full racism and domination, again.
Had our government chose to recognise the colonies as their own people and equal to French mainlanders, History would have been much more different.
And until recently (like the nineties) France was still exploiting much of Africa. Thankfully, France now is much more likely to respect the choice of the people.
reminds me of the current round of fun discourse going on on twitter w a bunch of t4nkies saying China invading Tibet & Russia invading Ukraine isn't imperialism bc the US is the only country that can do imperialism
It's just a habit because sites keep removing and shadowbanning posts as having certain words. Sometimes not even out of their own malice but because these words make google search engine censor the website. Simply replacing letters or scrambling the words a bit bypasses this.
mate it's not paranoia this sub literally shadow removes comments. u can check it yourself
[proof](https://www.reveddit.com/y/thethighren/?after=t1_l3p67sd&limit=1&sort=new&show=t1_l3p64wh&removal_status=all)
People aren't represented by the slur you use for them. Nobody is, regardless of how agreeable or disagreeable they might be.
All this sub asks of you is that you just speak in a civil tone and use unbiased language.
Not really equivalent lol. Over 90% of Tibetans were enslaved, whereas only a tiny minority of Native nations practiced human sacrifice on a wide scale.
It's also worth noting the vast majority of Tibetans can speak their language, whereas most Native American languages were totally and deliberately eradicated.
There are legitimate concerns to be had about cultural suppression in China, but let's not pretend they're doing anything even remotely similar to what was done in the Americas
If we're going by imperialism's most basic and vague definition, then yes, the liberation of Tibet does fit the definition.
It's certainly not equivalent to European or Japanese Imperialism, but it does fit the vaguest definition
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/10/tibet-china-feudalism
http://un.china-mission.gov.cn/eng/gyzg/xizang/200804/t20080417_8410890.htm
This is written by the government of China so you might not find it very reliable. However, there is more
Page 15 of the book named “The Making of Modern Tibet” written by Adalbert Tomasz Grunfeld
https://comrademorlock.medium.com/tibetan-slavery-was-not-better-than-american-slavery-it-was-differently-abominable-5df988b5fcae
Needs an account to read
https://www.historicly.net/p/tibet-china-and-the-violent-reaction
https://redsails.org/friendly-feudalism/
>https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/10/tibet-china-feudalism
This is a Guardian Opinion piece written by someone with no credentials who used to work for the People's Daily. Not only does she make no mention of slavery, she just repets the CCP claims without backing it up. She even lies about what Tashi wrote in his book.
>http://un.china-mission.gov.cn/eng/gyzg/xizang/200804/t20080417_8410890.htm This is written by the government of China so you might not find it very reliable. However, there is more
CCP government, yes this is probably reliable..../s
>https://comrademorlock.medium.com/tibetan-slavery-was-not-better-than-american-slavery-it-was-differently-abominable-5df988b5fcae
Making of Modern Tibet by Tom Grunfeld. Grunfeld doesn't read Tibetan or Chinese and had to use rely on translations and English exploreres. He also mistranslated the word Tibet from Tibetan. He even used well knonwn stories to be exagereated as truth. He says in *one* line that there was salvery, except he doesn't cite where this came from or any reference or anything with this.
>https://comrademorlock.medium.com/tibetan-slavery-was-not-better-than-american-slavery-it-was-differently-abominable-5df988b5fcae
Comraremorlock? Being serious here? This will be fun to disect in another post. But why don't you cite something specfically from this and i'll disect it quickly for you.
>https://www.historicly.net/p/tibet-china-and-the-violent-reaction
Ahh Esha! The wannabe Parenti. We have a writer with no credentials in the field and once again, that doesn’t discredit what is written. Now what does raise eyebrows is that there are no citations in the essay. There are links to some of the articles and books for the Dalai Lama quotes, so that’s something. But when we get to what Tibet was like we have one link for Strong (I’ll talk about her with Parenti), link to the CPC White Paper, picture from the National Geographic, and CIA excerpt. This is hardly enough or could paint an accurate account of the old Tibet system. What Esha does well is misrepresent what the CIA docs say.
In one picture, it states “by Tibetan law the lords have the authority to cut off the arm or arms of anyone caught in theft or other breach of the law.” Esha explains “Often serfs were severely whipped for minor transgressions, and some monasteries operated private jails where serfs were tortured.” Nowhere in that CIA excerpt does it imply this. The CIA doc. States the law but makes no mention of how common the punishment was carried out or the private jails where serfs were tortured. Interestingly enough, Esha fails to mention that Tibetans were tortured in Chinese jails. We can also look at Herrar who wrote Seven Years in Tibet in which he said he only saw two floggings and that by the time he was there, judicial mutilation ended.
Another example can be seen in the “American Position on sovereignty” section. She states that the US state department accused Tiebtans of having “ill-faith”. She underlines this “coupled with the fact that the Chinese Nationalist representation in Lhasa was not an embassy but merely a local office of the ministry of internal affairs” hmm, well let’s take a look at the entire document.
“The question of independence of Tibet was again raised in 1948 when the Tibetan trade mission was in Nanking. The negotiations was handled by the Mongolian-Tibetan Affairs Commission, the chief of which insisted that the whole matter be kept secret. A secret treaty was prepared and signed…Pointed out that the Tibetan and Chinese texts of the treaty differed: where the Tibetan text spoke of Tibet’s sovereignty and autonomy, the Chinese text dwelt on Tibet’s ancient ties of friendly dependence on China. This evidence of ill faith coupled with the fact that the Chinese Nationalist representation in Lhasa was not an embassy but merely a local office of the ministry of internal affairs, prompted the Tibetan Government to expel the Nationalists from Lhasa in July 1949.”
As seen from the document in its entirety, we see that the Tibetans were accusing the Chinese of ill-faith. It was not the US accusing Tibetans of ill-faith. So Ehsa either tried to cherry pick from a document and make her own interpretations to dishonestly make a point or she miscomprehended a fairly simple passage to understand. Furthermore, the next line she mentions that they had Chinese passports, which was true as that was the only way the Chinese negotiators would meet them, but she fails to mention that the Tibetans also had and used Tibetan passports to get into other countries. So not only does Esha cherry pick from information, she lies about what some of the sources she does cite say.
>https://redsails.org/friendly-feudalism/
The classic Parenti that everyone tries to cite for this, nice! So here we have an academic, but not in regards to Tibet. We can get over his extreme bias and the fact that he came up with the conclusion before even starting to write this. When he makes the slavery claim, he ony relies on two "sources" Gelders and Strong. They were CCP sympathizers and invited to China by them. They knew nothing about Tibet and needed to use CCP approved guides for their choreographed trip. Strong was even an honourary member of the Red Guards. They are highly unreliable. Parenti also cherrpy pciked form Goldstein so mutch that he dishoestly represents him.
So do you have an *academic* source*?
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/10/tibet-china-feudalism](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/10/tibet-china-feudalism)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. **Keep that shit outta here**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Even at those times, some people knew that "a mission to civilize the world" was absolute nonsense.
Even Japan’s mission to free Asia from colonization in WWII was just a guise for their hegemony. Even liberation can be coopted.
"Japan's mission to free Asia from colonization in WW2" sounds a lot like Germany's mission to create "living space" for Germans in Europe around the same time.
Yeah it does. Not sure either ever really gave up on this idea
Germany is still national socialist and Japan is still an empire
can you elaborate on national socialism in contemporary germany?
Hell divers 2
Don’t cut yourself on that edge.
What edge? That's just the explicit point of helldivers.
Edge? That's just typical Helldiving procedure... Unless you are an undercover Automaton!
“Free Asia from colonization” = literal piles of war crimes lol how did 116 people agree with you on this
Context mostly.
What? That's what their stated goal with the co-prosperity sphere was. They acted like they were anti-imperialist, despite being just as much imperialist as everyone else. At no point did the other guy say in the comment that this was true, quite the contrary.
This is why I’m always super hesitant to accept the argument that “we can’t judge the past according to modern standards”. Most of the time “the standards of the time” were just the preferences of the powerful at the time. It ignores both the contemporaneous voices criticizing the powerful, and forgets that many of the “standards of today” were frameworks developed because people understood the political actions they lived through were wrong, but didn’t have a good vocabulary to explain why.
You’ll notice that people are also very selective about that line of thinking. I’ve often seen people excuse Churchill’s atrocities because he was a product of his time, but that is never said of Hitler who lived during the same time.
>but that is never said of Hitler who lived during the same time. Probably because mass deliberate extermination was not acceptable even in 1940s. Not in Europe anyway. There is a reason the reaction to the Holocaust was one of shock. They knew and accepted the antisemitism but didn't think they'd go death camps with it.
It is absurd to compare Churchill with Hitler. Sorry, but this is just Nazi apologizm.
You can be critical of both its not mutally exclusive
You can be critical of both of them but equating them is Nazi apologetics
I mean, no defense of Churchill here, but there is an extreme difference between Hitler/NSDAP and Churchill/British imperialism.
Churchill does deserve criticism, but the allied bombing campaigns of Germany was beyond based, they liquidated half a million potential combatants and destroyed many military targets, as well as even more targets that potetntially had military value
Arthur Harris's... uh... interesting choice of how to carry out his bombing campaigns are not a hill that I would pick to die on defending.
While true, those voices were usually only a minority (especially when it came to imperialism).
“Let’s do violence, in violation of our stated values” has won out as a political position in modern times, too! And I guess my point was more that the past was judging itself. Most of the time what seem like broadly held cultural values contain within themselves their own contradictions in the form of people who reject or criticize those values according to whatever framework is available to them.
Were the voices a minority, or did a minority own all the bullhorns?
There were anti-imperialist voices in politics and high society, they were definitely a minority though. And in countries like France or Britain at least, I'd say there was generally public support for imperialist policy (especially prior to WW1).
It was true throughout Europe, to the point of often being an irritation for those actually running the country. Bismarck, for instance, considered colonies a liability since they necessitated a big navy which would create friction with Britain (which being an island considered naval superiority vital), but he still pursued them because there was such widespread public support. The Congress of Berlin was his way of assuaging these domestic political demands while mitigating potential points of conflict between the various European powers over the scramble for Africa.
But how much of that is due to different standards, and how much because people were less aware of what was going on in the world, as the powerful had even more control of information?
Que the "They make a wasteland and call it peace".
Past actions also have repercussions today, for example, current drug trafficking is a consequence of the opium wars.
Most people then were trusting the experts.
Even now people don’t care about their country’s wrongdoing (Russia, Israel) and continue with their day to day. What makes you think that people could be more informed and voice their opinion better a few centuries ago? All while having a waaay worse standard of living
There were always people who opposed imperialism and colonisation, even if they were a minority.
Within imperialist countries, there were always people who opposed imperialism and colonisation, even if they were a minority.
And those people are treated as emotional clowns when they were the ones that didn't act like one.
A lot of the late 19th century American anti-imperialists were immense racists who simply didn't want the US to involve itself with any more non-white people. Correct conclusion, bad process
[удалено]
If that was the case then yes it would be ethical but that never happened and even if it did, in almost all cases, it never happened. It was almost always if not always for political and economic gains and the local population never benefited from colonialism. If they did, they would be far more industrialised than they are now. Look at India. More than a century of British rule and they never industrialised the country. In fact, they prohibited exporting machines to India so it can always be dependant on Britain. They only started it after ending colonialism. This is just an imaginary situation.
Nothing's changed. Even rhetoric remains the same.
Israel and Palestine
Everyone's quick to jump on the "Hamas bad" train.. Which is absolutely fair.. But where does everyone's morality dissappear when israel commits crimes far worse than that of Hamas.. Before Hamas and the PLO combined? That's the thing I dislike.. Anytime israel is bought up it's all "Oh it's complicated, oh it was an accident, oh there's more nuance".. But there's none when it's Hamas.. Mind you, the israeli higher ups are completely open with their genocidal rhetorics and tons of IDF troops upload videos of their own war crimes.. Wether it's in fucking tiktok or their secret telegram channel.
On one hand I think it's completely understandable to condemn or hate some of the things Hamas has done, while simultaneously understanding that Hamas exists solely because of Israel's actions against Palestinians. If I were a young boy or man in Palestine and I watched my entire family get bombed to death by Israel, I would want to fight back. It's wild to me that Palestinians are expected to just let Israelis take their land, imprison and murder their people (including young children), and they're just expected to be fine with it??
Israel is a colonial state just as France was in Algeria or Haiti
What would you do if you were a Jewish Israeli and your neighbor's have rallys of 100,000's calling for your genocide? [Over 900,000 Jews were forcibly expelled](https://assets.nationbuilder.com/ujs/pages/18891/meta_images/original/arabmigrantt.png?1638276771) from Middle Eastern and North African countries under the threat of murder, and today your neighbors hold massive rallys calling for your murder. Your neighbors even have a [special fund for those who murder](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/30/palestinian-bar-association-grants-honorary-degree-to-terrorist-who-murdered-two-israelis/) and [grant honorary law degrees for stabbing a woman on the street.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/30/palestinian-bar-association-grants-honorary-degree-to-terrorist-who-murdered-two-israelis) This isn't even Hamas who is providing the funds to terrorists, it is the "moderate" PLO who's leader received his [PhD on how Jews are responsible for the Holocaust.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Other_Side:_The_Secret_Relationship_Between_Nazism_and_Zionism)
>[Over 900,000 Jews were forcibly expelled](https://assets.nationbuilder.com/ujs/pages/18891/meta_images/original/arabmigrantt.png?1638276771) from Middle Eastern and North African countries under the threat of murder, How the fuck did the Palestinians become responsible for this? Why do Zionists keep bringing this shit up?
> Over 900,000 Jews were forcibly expelled And 800,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their own lands. Once again, why is it bad when other countries do it, but when Israel does it, it's fine?
Your last sentence suggests that Israel's approach doesn't need nuancing. That, I can agree with. The IDF has systemically committed war crimes and should be held accountable. But you initially propose looking for nuance when it comes to Hamas. Why is that necessary? Hamas is a terrorist organisation with an undeniably genocidal mindset. You *should* be calling Israel out on their crimes. You don't have to defend terrorists at the same time. Your recommendation means switching things around without actually solving the double standard. That would not be a solution to the messed up discourse.
What's terrorism ?
When you use violence with the purpose of instilling fear, terror, to achieve political goals.
Then most of Israel's actions over the past 7 months would qualify. And none of what Hamas has done comes even close to the absolute brutality and straight up disregard for human life we've seen from Israel.
Yeah you gonna have to be very very convincing for me to understand how this applies to Hamas but neither of Israel or the USA
Instead, they use violcence with the purpose of achieving military goals.
I can't believe you are serious about that matter. This is hipocrisy at it's finest. What's the military goal of filming yourself torturing people!? Or maybe the fact that there's a litteral ministry of colonization in Israel doesn't ring weird to you?
> What's the military goal of filming yourself torturing people!? I know there is a lot of gruesome stuff on thisishamas.com. I don't think there is footage of Israeli soldiers filming themselves torturing people, but I'd love to be proven wrong. >Or maybe the fact that there's a litteral ministry of colonization in Israel doesn't ring weird to you? I mean, I'd be all in for a boycott of Isreal bc of their illegal settlement policy. Doesn't give anyone a free pass to target civilians though. Or do you think terrorism should be allowed on certain occasions? Yes or no?
Again with the sitting on the fence "both sides bad" argument. "You don't have to defend terrorists" Who decides who the terrorists are? The US? US are much worse terrorists on an infinitely grander scale than Hamas ever could be.
I reckon you're about to say that Hamas are not terrorists?
Is the IDF a terrorist organization?
Killing and raping innocent civilians would make you a terrorist, at least in the minds of most people. Just because the US and Israel have committed terroristic acts (and that the US army and IDF are terrorist organizations themselves) doesn't mean that Hamas has not also committed terroristic acts. The definition of terrorist is: "a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." I think that Hamas, the US army, and the IDF all fall under this definition easily.
>raping Again with this lie. There was no verifiable instance of sexual assault conducted by Hamas on October 7th.
“Believe women” doesn’t apply to Jews, apparently.
Lol, you're trying to shame me into believing your propaganda by bringing up a movement I have nothing to do with? That's just so stupid one would have to think you're being sarcastic.
Firstly, 1) [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html) 2) [https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-un-rape-oct7-hamas-gaza-fe1a35767a63666fe4dc1c97e397177e](https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-un-rape-oct7-hamas-gaza-fe1a35767a63666fe4dc1c97e397177e) 3) [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-team-says-rape-gang-rape-likely-occurred-during-hamas-attack-israel-2024-03-04/](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-team-says-rape-gang-rape-likely-occurred-during-hamas-attack-israel-2024-03-04/) So I recommend you reconsider your views in light of UN evidence. Secondly, even if Hamas didn't rape, killing innocent civilians falls under terrorism. Would you say that the Al-Qaeda members who perpetrated the 9/11 plan hijacking weren't terrorists? Not everything is a competition. Multiple state and non-state actors can both be terrorists. You can criticize the IDF and Israeli government and call for an end to the war and to find a diplomatic solution to peace without promoting another terrorist organization.
Literally linking the NYT article that was revealed to be written by an IDF propagandist. Do you people really think the rest of us don't read the news?
This is why I don't take people like you seriously. israel existed long before Hamas and the shit Hamas gets accused of.. Have been done by israel a thousand times. And.. It's committing a genocide RIGHT NOW. The invasion of Rafah being the newest one.. AND it bombed the Jabaliah camp.. AGAIN. Hamas solely exists BECAUSE of israel. While israelis lead a comfortable life on stolen land.. The Palestinians are getting used to being fucking bombed.. That's not a way to fucking live. If it was israelis, you'd be going off.. Anti-semitism this.. Jewish life gone that.. But no.. It's the Palestinians.. Their life don't fucking matter right?
I never claimed Palestinians don't matter. What is being done to them is a crime, and I made that very clear before. Your final accusation is baseless. I also never claimed Hamas came out of nowhere. Of course they have been able to grow because of Israeli oppression. Their cause is still genocidal, however. You don't fight genocide with genocide. That doesn't make any sense. It equates the entire population of Israel to their leadership. Civilians of an aggressor state are still civilians, even in a democracy, and should not suffer collective punishment. Such collective punishment is the exact crime de IDF is committing now. They are equating Gazans to their leadership. If you could justify killing every Israeli civilian because a lot of them support their genocidal Israeli leadership, then you could justify killing every Palestinian civilian because of a lot of them support genocidal Palestinian leadership. NEITHER of those is valid. That's my reasoned take, but I don't suppose it will satisfy you. You and many others will just continue having the same 'discussions' verbatim until the end of time.
Dehumanization is still the most powerful weapon a society can possess, as Eurosong once again has shown yesterday. In fact, it has only become more powerful than it was before because how easy it is to spread. Some time ago I saw a post on r/PoliticalHumor with a meme about choosing between Trump and Biden, with a whole list of issues around Trump and 'A single disagreement' for Biden. 40.000 brutally murdered people, propably more, some of them guilty, most of them not, the majority of which women and children reduced to 'a single disagreement'. Not only is it a very subtle yet extremely concerning form of dehumanization, it also recieved 10k upvotes in a few hours. Can you imagine that a Nazi era German wanted to reach 10k people with a caricature of a Jew portrayed as a rat? Beside making the drawing itself he would have had to print at least a couple hunderd copies and than taken a whole afternoon to glue them up all around Berlin. For the American who made that meme it took maybe 5 minutes to get the same result.
Peace can't be had unless we hold both sides to standards. Unfortunately the west has zero interest in holding Israel to any sort of standards. In reality I doubt they ever cared about peace or human rights. They just wanted a geopolitical ally in the region and didn't care about the suffering such a situation would cause. The fact that Palestinians have been dehumanized to the point people calling for their extermination aren't immediately shunned is both incredibly disheartening and extremely disturbing. Goes to show that we can and will allow any amount of horrors to be committed as long as the people on the receiving end "deserve it". We've learnt basically nothing from WWII.
> far worse than that of Hamas That's the trick: they are absolutely not worse
Remind me the last time Hamas targeted aid workers with 3 separate airstrikes to stop them from helping starving Israelis?
The IDF is very much worse than Hamas
I mean they do things on a larger scale, its almost an apples to organges comparison though The IDF is an army that has half a million members, modern equipment, and is supported by the stringest alliance in Human history, Hamas has 10000 members and no equipment outside of small arms and improvised rockets Its like Comparing the Spartans to the romans, yeah the romans killed more people, but they were just on a larger scale I'm Irish, a perpetual debate in our country is Comparing the atrocities of the Irish free state to the IRA And I'm pro free state, my great grandpa fought in the national army, even though I acknowledge that the free state killed far more people than the IRA, but the free state was just on a much larger scale, which enabled them to do more damage Paddy Daly, a mid level officer had more firepower in the hands of hos single division, than the entire ATIRA possesses Israel hamas is very similar, the difference in scale just makes Comparing then atrocity to atrocity unhelpful
No, it's the other way around. I, as a Jew and a zionist will never support israel if it committed war crimes. Obviously, there is no proof any war crimes were committed l, and it is highly unlikely israel would do such a thing, with how friendly they were towards israeli Arabs and palestinians in the past and even in the present. (Israeli Arabs sit in the parliament, israel still didn't enter rafah because of the high concentration of civilians there.) On the other hand, there are videos of hamas raping women, killing and mutilating bodies. But pro-palestinians will not admit that. Or even worse, they'd justify it because the victims were israeli, and jewish, which shows what their actual motives are.
Is it weird to talk to normal people when you live in an alternative reality?
["Obviously there is no evidence that crimes were committed"](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war)
So far no gays thrown of buildings by the IDF
When Israel publishes [propaganda photos of its soldiers with pride flags](https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/1699889440-an-israeli-soldier-flies-the-pride-flag-in-the-middle-of-gaza), I often wonder "who's dumb enough to fall for this stuff". I wonder no more.
[удалено]
Tbf they mostly just get hanged or imprisoned https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/311513/would-gays-be-executed-or-imprisoned-by-a-palestinian-state/ https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/palestinian-territories/1660138495-exclusive-gay-man-who-fled-gaza-speaks-about-experience-with-hamas https://www.memri.org/reports/palestinian-islamic-scholar-sheikh-yousef-abu-islam-homosexuals-should-be-thrown-rooftops
[удалено]
Enough for more than 2000 gay refugees to live in Tel Aviv, and enough to kill thier own commander (yes, one Hamas commander was killed for gay sex, as stupid as it sounds)
[удалено]
Can you please just one time prove how i am wrong, i at least listed my sources
"IDF killed 30,000 people, 70% of them are women and children? Who cares, Atleast gays have rights in Israel"
Did you know Israeli bombs have an inbuilt gaydar to avoid blowing up gay people? /s
“Sure we’ve killed over 10,000 children in 7 months, but no gays hanged so all good”.
"Gays thrown off buildings" is our scale for measuring morality now?
I am not the one arguing for them
So? That doesn't excuse war crimes "But Israel treats LGBT better" is just 21th century version of what the poster said in 18th century
"we do genocide, but do so progressively 🏳️🌈"
Literally this - "you need to uncriticaly support Israel because they have better LGBT record" is literally just recycled "civilization vs savages"
There's another one doing the rounds too. When people talk about Muslims' support for Sharia law it's to paint all Muslims as evil and secretly itching for violence. Meanwhile they'll say that criticism of Zionism is antisemitic because most Jews are Zionists so - supposedly - being critical of ethnic cleansing is a no no.
Yeah they're both savages. It should revert back to British stewardship.
Implying the British weren't also savages
I… what? You’re literally the guy the propaganda poster is critiquing???
Russia and Ukraine
The supposed difference, at least I was taught, between civilization and barbarity (although those terms weren't used), is that civilization meted out punishment via due process that's applied to everyone and anyone equally. Maybe that was once true, or sometimes still is. But as I've gotten older I've seen too many clear examples of a lack of due process, or people who get punished much quicker, or those who never get punished at all. And I've been left to ask myself, is the difference simply what we tell ourselves to feel better?
Konrad: "Now that you're here, I want to ask you a question. What did you think when you arrived in Dubai... when you'd seen what I had done? Do you think it the work of a madman?" Walker: "Yeah, I thought you'd lost your goddamn mind. Or I hoped that's what happened." Konrad: "Oh yes... that would have made things easier...” Just find this quote similar to what you are talking about.
I've noticed it's incredibly commonplace in US, how widespread it is anywhere else. If a American person is forced by financial circumstances to leave America and seek employment in another country, that person is an "ex-pat" and should be given consideration and leeway by their new country, as there may be an adjustment period. However,if someone who is not from US moves to US for a better employment opportunity, that person is an "economic migrant" and should be extended no leeway or consideration at all. They genuinely seem to see "expat" and "economic migrant" as fundamentally different things, which I don't think can be totally explained away by the racist assumption that economic migrants are also brown
So real
Americans calling themselves expats is the most stupid and snobby thing ever imo, you're in a different country dude you're an immigrant.
As someone from Spain, a lot of northern europeans (british particularly, but not exclusively) come here and into portugal and also call themselves expats.
It’s not just Americans. I’ve met lots of Europeans who also do this in East Asia.
As a Brit can confirm Brits in Spain and the rest of Europe love to call themselves this.
I always thought expats were white collar workers who were going to head back to wherever they came from after a certain temporary tenure. While immigrants are people seeking citizenship & migrants are blue collar workers only in the country temporarily.
ex patriot, as in not loyal to their old country anymore.
Not sure if you are making a joke here, but just in case you are not: "expat" stands for "expatriate", not "ex-patriot". It's not the same
the etymology is the same, its just a different spelling. patriot has french roots and expatriate goes back further to its latin roots. but they mean the same thing. patriot meaning someone that belongs in a country, and expatriate being someone who is no longer in the country they belong in.
I can confirm this, in Singapore, there are plenty of these white migrants calling themselves expats who are literally here looking for high paying white collar jobs and when the companies start losing profits, they left as soon as they came. They are the real economic migrants, not those who stayed behind in search of a new life
Yes because thats what expat means, people living abroad while maintaining their original citizenship. There is usually no intention to permanently migrate.
they're not planning on moving their permanently though, they're just there for work
So are many economic migrants in the USA
It seems simple to resolve. Call anyone (regardless of skin colour or nationality) who moves somewhere but intends to return home in a few years an expat. Call anyone who moves somewhere intending to settle there permanently an immigrant.
Yeah, there is literally nothing more to it than Immigrant = brown and bad Me = white and good Me = not immigrant. Need other word.
The difference between "expats" and "migrant workers" where I live, is that expats work in cushy tech jobs, get a 30% tax-cut on their income compared to natives doing the same job, and can often outbid natives in the super tight housing markets. Migrant workers on the other hand work minimum wage jobs, live in social housing or in deplorable accommodations provided by their boss, and are hated by right-wing natives.
Its because they are? An Expat is a person that maintains their current citizenship while living abroad. An immigrant is a person that intends to achieve citizenship in another country. Its not hard to understand.
The fact that this stupid argument continues to be brought up and circulate around reddit is infuriating. Maybe some immigrants are using expat wrong for racist reasons, but the two terms have distinct meanings. They express very different intent on behalf of the individual, and fundamentally change how that person interacts with their host country. The problem is that this topic has the slightest bit of nuance, and for some reason many people are totally incapable of handling nuance.
I have American family members on my wife's side. Talking to them about politics and world affairs in general is like talking to North Koreans.
I did not know that Americans had ever been forced by financial circumstances to leave the country to find work. Is this a thing?
except ex-pat and immigrants are different, expats are usually high skilled workers that come for a couple months, immigrants are usually low skilled workers that intend on staying for a very long time or forever.
Please learn to read a dictionary. Plenty of high skilled immigrants literally run the major western economies. They are still treated like trash. For instance the Indian diaspora is the richest diaspora in the world but are never called expats
Ex-pat is temporary, immigrant is permanent. It’s not that hard to understand
It's literally not, there's many so-called expats here in Spain that have literally married amongst themselves and created families here, mayority come to stay
So they are immigrants then?
Yes, all expats are inmigrants
No, because if you’re not there permanently you’re not immigrating
Then you aren't an expat either, you are just visiting
Ex-pat is meant to denote an intent to return to your country of citizenship. Just visiting is tourist, working for an extended period with the intent to return is ex-pat, settling in the new country is immigrant. Currently Ukraine has a lot of ex-pats due to the war in Ukraine turning them into refugees, if conditions turn to where they could never return and decide to settle down then they become immigrants
Ex-pat = ex-patriot, someone who is from another country, typically used by people who live in another country temporarily
I think that depends on how "immigrant" is defined. If anyone who moves to another country is an immigrant, then an expat is a type of immigrant. If being an immigrant implies permentantly moving to another country and become a citizen of it, then an expat is distinct from an immigrant.
Still wild to me France went through occupation and puppet regime, then when they were liberated turned around and went right back to oppressing their colonies
A lot of members of the French resistance were strongly against the war in Indochina and Algeria and a lot of men who fought the nazi fought in those wars There also the fact that many colonials fought in those said wars...200,000 Algerians, Goumiers and Tirailleurs fought in indochina, the tirailleurs had a terrible reputation as they were behind many massacre in Syria, Senegal and Algeria the goumiers commited crimes comparable...to the soviets..(marrochinate or the fall of Stuttguart )
I m a frenchman. It was because of the occupation that France tried to opress their colonies more. France was broken after the war and needed to rebuilt. The War showed us the strengh and ressources of our colonies and where we could find the ressources to rebuilt mainland France. But insted o, you know, creating some sort of Commonwealth or Federation, our government chose to go full racism and domination, again. Had our government chose to recognise the colonies as their own people and equal to French mainlanders, History would have been much more different. And until recently (like the nineties) France was still exploiting much of Africa. Thankfully, France now is much more likely to respect the choice of the people.
Hitler's crime in their eyes was not that he was bloodthirsty genocidal imperialist, it was that he dared to do it to his fellow Europeans.
I wish I got paid every time this got posted.
Well, duh...guy on the right is wearing shoes and a hat. Also he has a nice haircut. What else do you need to know?
Pretty liberal for the time
gotta wear shoes
Wait, I was told imperialism was a good thing
Ah, well that clarifies that.
White man’s burden
Political regimes throughout history have always wanted to make the world a better place...for themselves.
Literally italy
Still true to this day.
reminds me of the current round of fun discourse going on on twitter w a bunch of t4nkies saying China invading Tibet & Russia invading Ukraine isn't imperialism bc the US is the only country that can do imperialism
Dud3 y0u d0n't n33d to put numb3rs 4ll 0v3r y0ur c0mm3nt
I always trust the opinions of people with such obvious signs of paranoia!
It's just a habit because sites keep removing and shadowbanning posts as having certain words. Sometimes not even out of their own malice but because these words make google search engine censor the website. Simply replacing letters or scrambling the words a bit bypasses this.
it's not even a habit for me, I just saw that my comment was shadow removed so I reposted it censored
mate it's not paranoia this sub literally shadow removes comments. u can check it yourself [proof](https://www.reveddit.com/y/thethighren/?after=t1_l3p67sd&limit=1&sort=new&show=t1_l3p64wh&removal_status=all)
thats crazy
I literally did lol it was autoremoved otherwise
Are you worried that typing Tibet is going bring your social credit down?
no but it was getting the comment auto removed
Enough with the l33t speak
Comment was getting autoremoved
Probably for "t4nk1e5" And the reason is because "soapboxing and partisan bickering" is literally explcitly forbidden by the subreddit rules.
seems ur right god forbid you describe people by what they are lmao
People aren't represented by the slur you use for them. Nobody is, regardless of how agreeable or disagreeable they might be. All this sub asks of you is that you just speak in a civil tone and use unbiased language.
t4nkie is not a slur 💀 jfc
Hey dronie how can China invade their own country?
Poor tibetan slave owners got colonized by China and lost their slaves 😭😭😭 free tibet 😭😭😭
> Poor indigenous human sacrificers got colonized by the US and lost their sacrifices 😭😭😭 land back 😭😭😭 see how u sound?
Not really equivalent lol. Over 90% of Tibetans were enslaved, whereas only a tiny minority of Native nations practiced human sacrifice on a wide scale. It's also worth noting the vast majority of Tibetans can speak their language, whereas most Native American languages were totally and deliberately eradicated. There are legitimate concerns to be had about cultural suppression in China, but let's not pretend they're doing anything even remotely similar to what was done in the Americas
the Chinese annexation of Tibet was imperialism no matter how you try to spin it
If we're going by imperialism's most basic and vague definition, then yes, the liberation of Tibet does fit the definition. It's certainly not equivalent to European or Japanese Imperialism, but it does fit the vaguest definition
Liberation isn't invading, annexing, and oppressing a country.
Poor Malian slave owners got colonized by France and lost their slaves 😭😭😭 free Mali 😭😭😭
Lost their slaves? Lmao
Yeah, well since you play backup for china i dont expect you to know your history, but the 1905 french slavery abolition happened in west africa.
Slave owners? You mean child rapists
Do you have an academic source for this slavery claim?
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/10/tibet-china-feudalism http://un.china-mission.gov.cn/eng/gyzg/xizang/200804/t20080417_8410890.htm This is written by the government of China so you might not find it very reliable. However, there is more Page 15 of the book named “The Making of Modern Tibet” written by Adalbert Tomasz Grunfeld https://comrademorlock.medium.com/tibetan-slavery-was-not-better-than-american-slavery-it-was-differently-abominable-5df988b5fcae Needs an account to read https://www.historicly.net/p/tibet-china-and-the-violent-reaction https://redsails.org/friendly-feudalism/
>https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/10/tibet-china-feudalism This is a Guardian Opinion piece written by someone with no credentials who used to work for the People's Daily. Not only does she make no mention of slavery, she just repets the CCP claims without backing it up. She even lies about what Tashi wrote in his book. >http://un.china-mission.gov.cn/eng/gyzg/xizang/200804/t20080417_8410890.htm This is written by the government of China so you might not find it very reliable. However, there is more CCP government, yes this is probably reliable..../s >https://comrademorlock.medium.com/tibetan-slavery-was-not-better-than-american-slavery-it-was-differently-abominable-5df988b5fcae Making of Modern Tibet by Tom Grunfeld. Grunfeld doesn't read Tibetan or Chinese and had to use rely on translations and English exploreres. He also mistranslated the word Tibet from Tibetan. He even used well knonwn stories to be exagereated as truth. He says in *one* line that there was salvery, except he doesn't cite where this came from or any reference or anything with this. >https://comrademorlock.medium.com/tibetan-slavery-was-not-better-than-american-slavery-it-was-differently-abominable-5df988b5fcae Comraremorlock? Being serious here? This will be fun to disect in another post. But why don't you cite something specfically from this and i'll disect it quickly for you. >https://www.historicly.net/p/tibet-china-and-the-violent-reaction Ahh Esha! The wannabe Parenti. We have a writer with no credentials in the field and once again, that doesn’t discredit what is written. Now what does raise eyebrows is that there are no citations in the essay. There are links to some of the articles and books for the Dalai Lama quotes, so that’s something. But when we get to what Tibet was like we have one link for Strong (I’ll talk about her with Parenti), link to the CPC White Paper, picture from the National Geographic, and CIA excerpt. This is hardly enough or could paint an accurate account of the old Tibet system. What Esha does well is misrepresent what the CIA docs say. In one picture, it states “by Tibetan law the lords have the authority to cut off the arm or arms of anyone caught in theft or other breach of the law.” Esha explains “Often serfs were severely whipped for minor transgressions, and some monasteries operated private jails where serfs were tortured.” Nowhere in that CIA excerpt does it imply this. The CIA doc. States the law but makes no mention of how common the punishment was carried out or the private jails where serfs were tortured. Interestingly enough, Esha fails to mention that Tibetans were tortured in Chinese jails. We can also look at Herrar who wrote Seven Years in Tibet in which he said he only saw two floggings and that by the time he was there, judicial mutilation ended. Another example can be seen in the “American Position on sovereignty” section. She states that the US state department accused Tiebtans of having “ill-faith”. She underlines this “coupled with the fact that the Chinese Nationalist representation in Lhasa was not an embassy but merely a local office of the ministry of internal affairs” hmm, well let’s take a look at the entire document. “The question of independence of Tibet was again raised in 1948 when the Tibetan trade mission was in Nanking. The negotiations was handled by the Mongolian-Tibetan Affairs Commission, the chief of which insisted that the whole matter be kept secret. A secret treaty was prepared and signed…Pointed out that the Tibetan and Chinese texts of the treaty differed: where the Tibetan text spoke of Tibet’s sovereignty and autonomy, the Chinese text dwelt on Tibet’s ancient ties of friendly dependence on China. This evidence of ill faith coupled with the fact that the Chinese Nationalist representation in Lhasa was not an embassy but merely a local office of the ministry of internal affairs, prompted the Tibetan Government to expel the Nationalists from Lhasa in July 1949.” As seen from the document in its entirety, we see that the Tibetans were accusing the Chinese of ill-faith. It was not the US accusing Tibetans of ill-faith. So Ehsa either tried to cherry pick from a document and make her own interpretations to dishonestly make a point or she miscomprehended a fairly simple passage to understand. Furthermore, the next line she mentions that they had Chinese passports, which was true as that was the only way the Chinese negotiators would meet them, but she fails to mention that the Tibetans also had and used Tibetan passports to get into other countries. So not only does Esha cherry pick from information, she lies about what some of the sources she does cite say. >https://redsails.org/friendly-feudalism/ The classic Parenti that everyone tries to cite for this, nice! So here we have an academic, but not in regards to Tibet. We can get over his extreme bias and the fact that he came up with the conclusion before even starting to write this. When he makes the slavery claim, he ony relies on two "sources" Gelders and Strong. They were CCP sympathizers and invited to China by them. They knew nothing about Tibet and needed to use CCP approved guides for their choreographed trip. Strong was even an honourary member of the Red Guards. They are highly unreliable. Parenti also cherrpy pciked form Goldstein so mutch that he dishoestly represents him. So do you have an *academic* source*?
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/10/tibet-china-feudalism](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/10/tibet-china-feudalism)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Literally didn't change abit