Post #3316806

2026-06-14 13:28 UTC

Are you using the formal or informal definition of imperialism here? Because I don’t see how it meets the formal definition based on my understanding of the underlying economic mechanisms. For example, if they were engaging in imperialism why would Tibetan’s own their own homes instead of the land being taken over and the average peasant being proletarianized/forced into urban centers to work?

Replies (1)

@shawn1122@sh.itjust.works 2026-06-14 16:38

By “formal,” you mean a strictly Leninist definition—predated on capital export and proletarianization. But reducing imperialism to a single 20th-century economic template ignores the broader, foundational definition: the forced imposition of sovereign control over a foreign polity. The claim that Tibet was “always part of China” relies on a distorted view of the Cho-Yon (priest-patron) relationship with the Mongol and Manchu (Qing) empires. Neither empire was ethnically Han Chinese, and Tibet maintained its own legal, currency, and administrative systems. When the Qing fell in 1912, Tibet declared de facto independence, existing as a sovereign state for four decades. In 1950, the PLA invaded. While the state retained nominal land ownership, the subsequent collectivization, destruction of monastic institutions, and systematic dilution of Tibetan demographics through Han migration are classic hallmarks of settler-colonial expansion—regardless of whether it fits a specific macroeconomic spreadsheet.

Open ##3317999