I hear the same rhetoric from conservatives, unironically, about how colonizing the Haida ended their slaving economy. Liberation mythology resulting in totalizing subjugation and annexation.
More settler-state crap. Your talking points invoking another settler-state as example also track.
Those poor, defenseless Confederates, ruthlessly forced to abandon their culture by an oppressive settler-state.
Still doesn’t pass.
You want to make that argument, then you need to make the case of why it’s acceptable to liberate slaves in one case but not others. If you can set actual conditions, then we can have an actual discussion of whether those conditions were met or not in the case of Tibet. Otherwise, I don’t see how I can possibly abandon my position on Tibet without also abandoning my position on the Confederacy, which I obviously will never do.
I’m not falling for the bait, talk confederacy stories with other yanks.
False equivalencies to cover for settler state manifest destiny bullshit. I hear the same rhetorical techniques from colonial conservatives and zionists and expat white south africans.
False equivalencies to cover for settler state manifest destiny bullshit.
And your comparison to the Haida is a false equivalency to cover for pro-slavery lost cause bullshit.
Which of them is actually a false equivalency could only be determined by establishing the relevant conditions that make one equivalent and not the other. Which you refuse to do, because you don’t have a coherent position beyond vibes.
I hear the same rhetoric from conservatives, unironically, about how colonizing the Haida ended their slaving economy. Liberation mythology resulting in totalizing subjugation and annexation.
More settler-state crap. Your talking points invoking another settler-state as example also track.
Those poor, defenseless Confederates, ruthlessly forced to abandon their culture by an oppressive settler-state.
Still doesn’t pass.
You want to make that argument, then you need to make the case of why it’s acceptable to liberate slaves in one case but not others. If you can set actual conditions, then we can have an actual discussion of whether those conditions were met or not in the case of Tibet. Otherwise, I don’t see how I can possibly abandon my position on Tibet without also abandoning my position on the Confederacy, which I obviously will never do.
I’m not falling for the bait, talk confederacy stories with other yanks.
False equivalencies to cover for settler state manifest destiny bullshit. I hear the same rhetorical techniques from colonial conservatives and zionists and expat white south africans.
And your comparison to the Haida is a false equivalency to cover for pro-slavery lost cause bullshit.
Which of them is actually a false equivalency could only be determined by establishing the relevant conditions that make one equivalent and not the other. Which you refuse to do, because you don’t have a coherent position beyond vibes.