Tibetans were not displaced. They’re still there. What got displaced was a feudal theocratic dynasty. Of course they want their country back: they miss ruling over desperate, illiterate feudal serfs.

Many other nations draw important food and income from the area and China is kicking them out to starve.

Several countries have overlapping claims, but for some reason Westerners are only interested in China’s claims, because Western media has one specific narrative it wants to tell. Maybe Westerners should mind their own business and let countries on the other side of the world sort out their own disputes.

Taiwan claims to be an independent nation ready to resist China

And yet only a dozen UN member states recognize it as an independent state.

I’d love to know which Taiwanese say that.

Pretty much all of them? It’s even in the ROC’s constitution. Both the ROC and the PRC claim all of China, including the island of Formosa.

What’s your background here?

My background is anti-imperialism.

[–] folaht@lemmy.ml 16 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Several countries have overlapping claims, but for some reason Westerners are only interested in China’s claims, because Western media has one specific narrative it wants to tell. Maybe Westerners should mind their own business and let countries on the other side of the world sort out their own disputes.

You're forgetting to tell the commenter previously, these islands were previously occupied by France and Japan,
one colonizer kicked out of Asia and the other being the loser of world war II.

[+] goat@reddthat.com -12 points 6 days ago (3 children)

If you’re anti-imperialist, wouldn’t it make more sense for China and Taiwan to be recognised as two, separate independent nations?

Opposition to imperialism implies opposition to enforced absorption, regardless of who is doing it. If you’re truly anti-imperialist, you shouldn’t take a stance of either side absorbing the other.

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 17 points 6 days ago

There's a book called "Imperialism" that you should read in order to be on the same page as the other people using the rigorous definition instead of the common sense one as you are

[–] Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

The Taiwanese themselves do not unanimously want independence and there is a huge split of this position in taiwan, just like there is a split in America between Democrats and republicans.
"Enforced absorption", there is no class analysis in this concept whatsoever. Which class benefits from reunification, and which class benefits from separation? It is the American imperialists and Taiwanese monopoly capitalists who benenfit from separation.

[–] goat@reddthat.com -2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Can you not use US defaultism? To me, there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans, they're all the same creed of politicians.

[–] Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Ok, it's just an example.

[–] goat@reddthat.com -3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

It's alright, but US defaultism assumes liberalism, conservatism, and capitalism in its examples. It also gives the US greater power and dominance over language and theory.

[–] Oppopity@lemmy.ml 9 points 5 days ago

So any country that has a civil war is inherently imperialist?