But let’s not pretend that Tibet was liberated from a cruel economy and then given a path to self determination and control over immigration. If the remnants of all former empires laid claim to their former conquests the world would burn.
Do the former Confederate states have control over immigration, or is that handled at the federal level? Do those states have “a path to self-determination,” including a path towards secession, or towards reinstituting slavery? No, they are, quite correctly, bound by federal laws and follow the same rules as everyone else. Should we treat the Union reestablishing control over the Confederacy as, “an empire laying claim to its former conquests?” They had been a part of the Union for a much shorter time than Tibet had been part of China.
Most nation-states have slavery-by-another-name running inside their prison systems, including China… Slavers liberating slaves, pfft.
Yes, and the Union had prisons too. This doesn’t change the fact that ending the formal institution of slavery was a major, important step that materially improved the lives of the freed slaves. You’re dismissing all progress unless it instantly creates a perfect utopia overnight. This was a big one I heard, “The Northerners were hypocrites because their factories had harsh conditions.”
So far, I have yet to hear an argument that passes the, “Can this be used to justify the CSA” test, and as the CSA was unjustified those arguments must be wrong. You say that the systems were different, and yes, that’s true. The question is whether they were different in any relevant way. They were both cruel systems of involuntary servitude.
All of your arguments are just justifying cruel, inhumane, oppressive, authoritarian systems, and twisting words around to present it as “anti-authoritarian.” My upbringing has innoculated me against that sort of thing.
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.
Do the former Confederate states have control over immigration, or is that handled at the federal level? Do those states have “a path to self-determination,” including a path towards secession, or towards reinstituting slavery? No, they are, quite correctly, bound by federal laws and follow the same rules as everyone else. Should we treat the Union reestablishing control over the Confederacy as, “an empire laying claim to its former conquests?” They had been a part of the Union for a much shorter time than Tibet had been part of China.
Yes, and the Union had prisons too. This doesn’t change the fact that ending the formal institution of slavery was a major, important step that materially improved the lives of the freed slaves. You’re dismissing all progress unless it instantly creates a perfect utopia overnight. This was a big one I heard, “The Northerners were hypocrites because their factories had harsh conditions.”
So far, I have yet to hear an argument that passes the, “Can this be used to justify the CSA” test, and as the CSA was unjustified those arguments must be wrong. You say that the systems were different, and yes, that’s true. The question is whether they were different in any relevant way. They were both cruel systems of involuntary servitude.
All of your arguments are just justifying cruel, inhumane, oppressive, authoritarian systems, and twisting words around to present it as “anti-authoritarian.” My upbringing has innoculated me against that sort of thing.
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.