These are true beliefs I hold and if you give me the “MUH TIBET HAD SLAVERY” thing, good job you bought into propeganda.
I mean, so did almost literally everyone else to some degree, unless they went extinct as hunter-gatherers. If that’s your disqualifier, you need to go live with the penguins in Antarctica.
The argument isn’t that Tibet once had slavery at some point in it’s history, but that Tibet had slavery up until the PRC ended it. There are no states in the modern day that practice slavery or serfdom in a comparable way (you could argue things like “wage slavery,” but that’s still significantly different from chattel slavery or serfdom). Slave states do not have the right to exist, and any nation without slaves has the right to invade a slave state and free the slaves. That’s not an unreasonable standard, it’s a standard that exists today.
Tibet was still feudal at the time. Their liberation, arguably just forced modernization, involved losing regional, cultural, and socioeconomic self determination in an arrangement that very much resembles imperial or colonial exploitation and political suppression. Slavery of the entire polity to replace slavery of the poor, if you will.
I dunno. A lot of societies are getting away with severe bonded servitude on the premise it’s not as bad as the North-Atlantic slave trade.
Considering the US’ effort to keep slavery going with extra steps continuing to this day and getting worse, I’m eager to hold accountable every society that tries.
Point being, national sovereignty doesn’t outweigh wanton cruelty. It’s the same argument with the Confederacy, “States’ rights? States’ rights to what?” No state that employs that kind of system has the right to exist. The Union defeating the Confederacy and freeing the slaves, even if it wasn’t total liberation, was completely justified and made a marked improvement in countless people’s lives. Yes, there is still more to be done, but the world is a better place because slavery, as an institution, was ended by force.
any nation without slaves has the right to invade a slave state and free the slaves.
If you believe that’s objectively true then I suspect you need to ask yourself “why aren’t governments everywhere banding together to obliterate the actual slavery going on inside their borders?”
Those discord user account compromises and social media accounts asking for gift cards to avoid releasing your personal whatever aren’t legitimate businesses and the people performing those actions for them are not free to quit or even leave the buildimg they “work” in.
Okay, you could maybe argue that’s one-off tourist kidnapping by criminal parties at scale, but then we have blood diamonds. How is it they still exist?
Vegas hotels getting regular visits from cops as the drugs wear off early and the occasional girl escapes from the room she’s being held in, the fact that the superbowl is the world’s largest human trafficking conference, large portions of haiti under the current regime, slavery is EVERYWHERE and whoever is feeding you that line and placing the onus at a governmental policy level is trying to distract you from reality and hand-wave away anything that doesn’t line up with their own agenda.
The world banded rogether to eliminate CFC’s because of the ozone hole.
It’s clear we CAN all cooperate, so I posit you should be asking yourself: when reality doesn’t line up with the convenient point-proving “statements of fact” someone is pushing your direction, what does someone stand to gain from misrepresenting reality with quotable sound bytes?
(you could argue things like “wage slavery,” but that’s still significantly different from chattel slavery or serfdom)
Human trafficking is illegal everywhere. It still happens, but does so in the shadows. If a nation can just accuse another of not doing enough to combat human trafficking, that’s subjective by how much is “enough,” and the scope of it is hard to prove in an objective and indisputable way. Any nation could accuse any other nation and it would be a free pass whenever anyone wanted to go to war.
I’m talking about having an official stance of legalized chattel slavery or serfdom.
any nation without slaves has the right to invade a slave state and free the slaves.
This one doesn’t ring well. It is one thing if the oppressed people themselves asked for help, but otherwise its just an invasion. No nation has a ‘right’ to free slaves.
What population of slaves in history has not welcomed their liberators? What population of slaves in history has been permitted to petition someone to come free them?
I mean, so did almost literally everyone else to some degree, unless they went extinct as hunter-gatherers. If that’s your disqualifier, you need to go live with the penguins in Antarctica.
The argument isn’t that Tibet once had slavery at some point in it’s history, but that Tibet had slavery up until the PRC ended it. There are no states in the modern day that practice slavery or serfdom in a comparable way (you could argue things like “wage slavery,” but that’s still significantly different from chattel slavery or serfdom). Slave states do not have the right to exist, and any nation without slaves has the right to invade a slave state and free the slaves. That’s not an unreasonable standard, it’s a standard that exists today.
Tibet was still feudal at the time. Their liberation, arguably just forced modernization, involved losing regional, cultural, and socioeconomic self determination in an arrangement that very much resembles imperial or colonial exploitation and political suppression. Slavery of the entire polity to replace slavery of the poor, if you will.
Just another nation-state doing what statists do.
I dunno. A lot of societies are getting away with severe bonded servitude on the premise it’s not as bad as the North-Atlantic slave trade.
Considering the US’ effort to keep slavery going with extra steps continuing to this day and getting worse, I’m eager to hold accountable every society that tries.
Point being, national sovereignty doesn’t outweigh wanton cruelty. It’s the same argument with the Confederacy, “States’ rights? States’ rights to what?” No state that employs that kind of system has the right to exist. The Union defeating the Confederacy and freeing the slaves, even if it wasn’t total liberation, was completely justified and made a marked improvement in countless people’s lives. Yes, there is still more to be done, but the world is a better place because slavery, as an institution, was ended by force.
If you believe that’s objectively true then I suspect you need to ask yourself “why aren’t governments everywhere banding together to obliterate the actual slavery going on inside their borders?”
Those discord user account compromises and social media accounts asking for gift cards to avoid releasing your personal whatever aren’t legitimate businesses and the people performing those actions for them are not free to quit or even leave the buildimg they “work” in.
Okay, you could maybe argue that’s one-off tourist kidnapping by criminal parties at scale, but then we have blood diamonds. How is it they still exist?
Vegas hotels getting regular visits from cops as the drugs wear off early and the occasional girl escapes from the room she’s being held in, the fact that the superbowl is the world’s largest human trafficking conference, large portions of haiti under the current regime, slavery is EVERYWHERE and whoever is feeding you that line and placing the onus at a governmental policy level is trying to distract you from reality and hand-wave away anything that doesn’t line up with their own agenda.
The world banded rogether to eliminate CFC’s because of the ozone hole.
It’s clear we CAN all cooperate, so I posit you should be asking yourself: when reality doesn’t line up with the convenient point-proving “statements of fact” someone is pushing your direction, what does someone stand to gain from misrepresenting reality with quotable sound bytes?
Human trafficking is illegal everywhere. It still happens, but does so in the shadows. If a nation can just accuse another of not doing enough to combat human trafficking, that’s subjective by how much is “enough,” and the scope of it is hard to prove in an objective and indisputable way. Any nation could accuse any other nation and it would be a free pass whenever anyone wanted to go to war.
I’m talking about having an official stance of legalized chattel slavery or serfdom.
This one doesn’t ring well. It is one thing if the oppressed people themselves asked for help, but otherwise its just an invasion. No nation has a ‘right’ to free slaves.
The PRC had considerable help from Tibetan serfs. I know that was true. The communists didn’t just all come from China.
What population of slaves in history has not welcomed their liberators? What population of slaves in history has been permitted to petition someone to come free them?