Tibet is certainly a good opportunity to make the argument for China being imperialist. Here’s my take:
Tibet was independent until the early 1700s when its military failed to repel an invasion. At this point, Tibet was no longer independent but occupied.
But more importantly from China’s perspective, it was now a dangerously permeable border with and enemy. China’s decision under the Qing Dynasty was to liberate Tibet but to treat it as a protectorate as a matter of Chinese national security. During this time, Tibet was an autonomous region under the nation security aegis of China, though this afforded Chinese officials varying levels of influence over the internal affairs of the nation.
When the Qing Dynasty fell, the Tibetan military skirmished with Chinese forces, expelled them from Tibet, signed an agreement with China to remove them, and declared independence. And then promptly enslaved 95% of their people in a brutal theocratic feudal society. They were never recognized by the international community as a nation-state, but they did align themselves with the imperialist British.
Meanwhile back in China a movement to liberate peasants became the PLA and the CPC. Through the process of civil war, the PLA and CPC succeeded in securing the country against imperialists and imperialist collaborators.
This movement came under immediate threat from imperialists and the question of secure borders arose again. This time, Tibet was directly aligned with Britain, having signed treaties with them, while the British are actively occupying parts of China and repressing Chinese people and made no ambiguity about their desire to see China back under imperialist rule.
So the PLA invaded Tibet, freed the enslaved population, expelled the theocratic nobility, and restablished Tibet as an autonomous region, with its own Tibetan government, protection for its customs, religion, language, and relationships with the land.
Unlike other imperials colonies, including the entire Western hemisphere and even the island of Taiwan, the Tibetans govern themselves within a system similar to that under the Qing, where the country of China provides military protection and the Tibetan people are afforded significant autonomy as a Republic. In contrast with Taiwan and the entire Western hemisphere, the indigenous people of those lands have been subject to genocide, replacement. Their languages are dying their religions were outlawed their cultural practices or repressed and to this day none have recovered.
So is Tibet an imperial holding of China’s? I think that could be argued but it would appear to be a different type of imperialism than the other or prominent and widespread form that we generally know of as imperialism. Should we use the same word to describe two very different phenomena? That too can be debated.
the Tibetans govern themselves within a system similar to that under the Qing
The King dynasty, also known as the Qing Empire, a literal theocratic empire whose emperor had a mandate from heaven.
Btw, these excuses of being “just a protectorate”, “for their own good”, “to protect them” etc are very common excuses for imperialists to enforce their own will. Other common excuses are “historical reasons”, “ethnic reasons” or “national security”.
Conquest is conquest, subjugation is subjugation. If it’s ok for me, but not for thee, then you are a hypocrite.
Tibet is a Chinese imperial holding because they took away their right for self determination.
The Mongols literally invaded and occupied Tibet. It wasn’t merely a rhetorical excuse, it was a reality. When the Qing expelled the Mongols, they didn’t subjugate the Tibetans, they subjugated the Mongols. The Tibetans were clearly incapable of defending against a return of the Mongols, so the Qing garrisoned the region to fight the Mongols, not the Tibetans.
How do we know that the Qing did not subjugate the Tibetans. Because the Tibetans did not lose their language, their religion, their cultural practices, their economic way of life, or their ability to self-govern. Don’t project European subjugation where it does not exist. European subjugation meant child separation, genocide, mass displacement, destruction of ways of life, monoculture, outlawing language and religion on pain of torture and death, slavery, etc. That is subjugation. You will not find that in Tibet.
Until, that is, Tibet declares independence at the end of Qing Dynasty. That’s when 95% of the Tibetan population becomes subjugated by a brutal system of slavery, disenfranchisement, and totalitarian servitude. That’s subjugation. Modern China also has not subjugated Tibet, unless you mean by that the PLA subjugated the nobility of Tibet that enslaved and tortured their own people.
Tibet
Tibet is certainly a good opportunity to make the argument for China being imperialist. Here’s my take:
Tibet was independent until the early 1700s when its military failed to repel an invasion. At this point, Tibet was no longer independent but occupied.
But more importantly from China’s perspective, it was now a dangerously permeable border with and enemy. China’s decision under the Qing Dynasty was to liberate Tibet but to treat it as a protectorate as a matter of Chinese national security. During this time, Tibet was an autonomous region under the nation security aegis of China, though this afforded Chinese officials varying levels of influence over the internal affairs of the nation.
When the Qing Dynasty fell, the Tibetan military skirmished with Chinese forces, expelled them from Tibet, signed an agreement with China to remove them, and declared independence. And then promptly enslaved 95% of their people in a brutal theocratic feudal society. They were never recognized by the international community as a nation-state, but they did align themselves with the imperialist British.
Meanwhile back in China a movement to liberate peasants became the PLA and the CPC. Through the process of civil war, the PLA and CPC succeeded in securing the country against imperialists and imperialist collaborators.
This movement came under immediate threat from imperialists and the question of secure borders arose again. This time, Tibet was directly aligned with Britain, having signed treaties with them, while the British are actively occupying parts of China and repressing Chinese people and made no ambiguity about their desire to see China back under imperialist rule.
So the PLA invaded Tibet, freed the enslaved population, expelled the theocratic nobility, and restablished Tibet as an autonomous region, with its own Tibetan government, protection for its customs, religion, language, and relationships with the land.
Unlike other imperials colonies, including the entire Western hemisphere and even the island of Taiwan, the Tibetans govern themselves within a system similar to that under the Qing, where the country of China provides military protection and the Tibetan people are afforded significant autonomy as a Republic. In contrast with Taiwan and the entire Western hemisphere, the indigenous people of those lands have been subject to genocide, replacement. Their languages are dying their religions were outlawed their cultural practices or repressed and to this day none have recovered.
So is Tibet an imperial holding of China’s? I think that could be argued but it would appear to be a different type of imperialism than the other or prominent and widespread form that we generally know of as imperialism. Should we use the same word to describe two very different phenomena? That too can be debated.
The King dynasty, also known as the Qing Empire, a literal theocratic empire whose emperor had a mandate from heaven.
Btw, these excuses of being “just a protectorate”, “for their own good”, “to protect them” etc are very common excuses for imperialists to enforce their own will. Other common excuses are “historical reasons”, “ethnic reasons” or “national security”.
Conquest is conquest, subjugation is subjugation. If it’s ok for me, but not for thee, then you are a hypocrite.
Tibet is a Chinese imperial holding because they took away their right for self determination.
The Mongols literally invaded and occupied Tibet. It wasn’t merely a rhetorical excuse, it was a reality. When the Qing expelled the Mongols, they didn’t subjugate the Tibetans, they subjugated the Mongols. The Tibetans were clearly incapable of defending against a return of the Mongols, so the Qing garrisoned the region to fight the Mongols, not the Tibetans.
How do we know that the Qing did not subjugate the Tibetans. Because the Tibetans did not lose their language, their religion, their cultural practices, their economic way of life, or their ability to self-govern. Don’t project European subjugation where it does not exist. European subjugation meant child separation, genocide, mass displacement, destruction of ways of life, monoculture, outlawing language and religion on pain of torture and death, slavery, etc. That is subjugation. You will not find that in Tibet.
Until, that is, Tibet declares independence at the end of Qing Dynasty. That’s when 95% of the Tibetan population becomes subjugated by a brutal system of slavery, disenfranchisement, and totalitarian servitude. That’s subjugation. Modern China also has not subjugated Tibet, unless you mean by that the PLA subjugated the nobility of Tibet that enslaved and tortured their own people.