Tibet used to be a seperate contry. The Uygurs were a Turkic Khanate to themselves.
Bejing’s aim is to homogenise those regions instead of preserving their culture and integrate them further economically to China as a whole, which would have the benefit of improved economic outcomes to both “parties” and maintain arts, culture and liberties of the people there.
Nah, I’m not doing a whataboutism, I’m saying that your white ass doesn’t have a remote understanding on what “homogenisation” means. Go to a history museum in China, and in most exhibits they’ll have some remarks of the history in different places of modern China, and to the different ethnicities of the country, to the point that it would be categorised as PC-inclusivism in the west. And they don’t have a far right party fighting to destroy that :)
Tibet used to be a seperate contry. The Uygurs were a Turkic Khanate to themselves.
Bejing’s aim is to homogenise those regions instead of preserving their culture and integrate them further economically to China as a whole, which would have the benefit of improved economic outcomes to both “parties” and maintain arts, culture and liberties of the people there.
Tibet used to be a feudalist dictatorship where 80% of the population were essentially slaves legally bound to the land of landowners.
How many official languages are there in your country?
a million billion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Nah, I’m not doing a whataboutism, I’m saying that your white ass doesn’t have a remote understanding on what “homogenisation” means. Go to a history museum in China, and in most exhibits they’ll have some remarks of the history in different places of modern China, and to the different ethnicities of the country, to the point that it would be categorised as PC-inclusivism in the west. And they don’t have a far right party fighting to destroy that :)