The Free Tibet movement in the West has always had more to do with counterculture than the US government.

I suspect most Tibetans were rather worse off during the Cultural Revolution than in the quasi-feudal system that existed before. I'm not entirely convinced they're necessarily worse off today, but the Tibetan refugees risking their lives walking across the Himalayas into an exile where they get to "meet the Lama" couldn't really be any less focused on geopolitics...

I'm not aware of any parallel Cherokee diaspora.

I don't think the Uighurs' preferences for their own cultural practices is anything to do with them paying any attention to the US either.

Sure, I don't doubt that these people really want to secede, but undoubtably some rather large component of this is created by external support.

Throughout history nationalism, religion and ethnicity has always been used to destabilise countries, this is nothing new.

I don't put any extraordinary blame on the US for this, it's what most powerful nations are doing in their quest for even more power.

About the Cherokees: Don't know if it is due to their low numbers, or simply because the US is powerful enough to prevent this from happening. Maybe the Cherokees are happy as it is or the right people are payed off by the government.

In general this can be exploited best when a country is in severe economic trouble. For example Chechnya after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The US is not even remotely in a comparable state.

I think it's palpable nonsense to suggest that the US or other outside forces are behind all or indeed many of the world's regional minority groups desires to speak their own language, practice their own religion and run their own region in their own way.

What evidence do you have to back up your insinuation the US is backing the various Uighur factions? Frankly, it's pretty insulting to their culture to imagine they'd be freely and happily assimilating Han Chinese culture if it wasn't for the nefarious plotting of Uncle Sam.

>"China has pretty strong minority rights and the Uyghurs even have their own autonomous region." No, China is demographically trying to wipe out both the Tibetans and the Uighurs. The latter being one of the last conquests of Imperial China.

Listen, we may disagree but for a fruitful discussion I'd expect more than just a reply stating "NO".

About the other statement you made: I cannot tell if the Chinese intend to demographically wipe them out, there's no official statement or document stating this, at least I'm not aware of that.

But as far as I see the current argument boils down to: They allow the Han to settle in this area and the Han do. Please explain why it should be forbidden for the Han to settle in some area that is part of their country?

And why would this automatically be equal to an attempt to wipe some population out?

World Uyghur Congress which allegedly represents the "collective interests of the Uyghur peoples" is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy and it's president is living in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Uyghur_Congress

So please don't tell me there is no interest. If the US government was impartial then they would at least refrain from funding this group as it is not their business to interfere in internal conflicts of foreign countries without UN resolution.

> it's pretty insulting to their culture to imagine they'd be freely and happily assimilating Han Chinese culture

China has pretty strong minority rights and the Uyghurs even have their own autonomous region.

But aside from that: No one will happily assimilate. The strong will always crush the weak. Did the native Americans happily assimilate? I heard there were 100 million of them before the settlers came. Where have they gone?

Edit: Nowhere did I insinuate that they would happily assimilate. Aside from that, this is not only a thing that authoritarian regimes do.

In the EU it currently seems as if every politician is thinking about how to assimilate the Muslims. Trust me, no one is going to ask them if they want to assimilate.

They will be forced. And this in a full fledged democracy.

> No-one will happily assimilate

I think you made my point for me. The fact that one of the many exiled lobby groups chooses to take money from a US funded vehicle is essentially irrelevant to why some Uighurs want independence.

"nationalism, religion and ethnicity has always been used to destabilise countries" They were also used to create countries in the first place.

Remove nationalism, religious and ethnical union from a country and it starts to fall apart, just like Jugoslavia did.

I like your thought but Yugoslavia is (I think) a bad example for this. (I came from there)

There was no religious or ethnical union, of that I am 100% sure, and I'm also not convinced of nationalism there.

The unifying ideology was socialism/communism.

It is understandable why this did work so well in a country with no clear religious or ethnic majority because it tends to flat out deny any ethnic/cultural differences and restrict religions and places instead the socialist ideal in the center. (all are equal)

Once nationalism was on the rise it was the end of Yugoslavia. Now in place of being a socialist comrade everyone was either Serb, Croat, Bosnian and so on and demanded their own state.

Yugoslavia turned to be an unnatural union and was swept by tidal forces. It lacked glue and unifying ideology expired in the end.

This is a lesson why you need religious or ethnic union, or nationalism. Why else you are country X and not country Y or Z?

I think this is one aspect. The other one that was cause for the demise was the lack of sound economics, as strange as it sounds.

At least from my and my families perspective everything was great as long as the economy was doing fine.

Why should back then anyone care about ethnicity or religion as long as everything was provided for. The society was egalitarian since the socialist government tried hard to create unity by this ideology of making everyone equal.

If you think about it it's not that different than what is depicted the Star Trek society, just with waaaay less technology.

Once the economy went downhill, which is inevitable with that kind of economic ideology people lost their belief and hope in the socialist ideology and went looking for something else. (Nationalism, Religion)

But in the end we should not loose sight of the fact that nation states are also just an idea. So are supranational states that are the current trend (EU, EEU) and who knows what tomorrow's trend may be.

What did not work in a national state might in a supranational state or some other organization form because each one comes with its own type of unifying ideology.

Justifying a tyrannical government by virtue of the previous government having been a tyranny too doesn't persuade anyone.

For the US government, whatever it does is always about its interests, because that's what governments are about.

However, that's just the reason why being a small nation sucks, like any resident of a small country can tell you. Sometimes their plight even manages to gather some popular sympathy[, but as Dalai Lama can tell you, it doesn't help much anything]. The lucky ones are who happen to succeed at gaming at least two great powers against each other, instead of being surrounded by one large or its sphere of power, who will merrily invade you if it strikes their fancy.

> Justifying a tyrannical government by virtue of the previous government having been a tyranny too doesn't persuade anyone.

It doesn't persuade you. Those of us who've been watching various forms of autocracy spring up and get overthrown throughout history appreciate progress where we can get it.

The situation in Tibet has a historical precedent. Hebrews living under Roman rule in the kingdom of Judea. Both were theocratic countries whose populations were really, really invested in traditional rule. Both had constant foreign interference from bigger and more powerful states. One had their entire population massacred and their places of worship burned to the ground.

The Romans were pragmatic and tolerated the eccentricities of the Judeans for hundreds of years, happy to take tribute and let them live the way they want to live. But the Judeans wanted more, and declared independence from Rome.

It's tough as an imperial administrator to know where to draw the line. By historical standards, the CCP is remarkably patient with its wayward sons.

It persuades people that are told that Tibet should get the old Dalai Lama as dictator system back.

China is criticized as an oppressive regime in tibet by people that at the same time cater to a wannabe dictator.

>It persuades people that are told that Tibet should get the old Dalai Lama as dictator system back.

It'd be interesting to know who is telling people that, since it sounds like a straw man. Not even the Tibetan government in exile advocates that.

I agree with you except for this line:

> Justifying a tyrannical government by virtue of the previous government having been a tyranny too doesn't persuade anyone.

I do not care in the slightest about the Chinese government, so I'm not trying to convince anyone about their goodness.

No government will justify itself before anyone, not even their own citizens.

Sure, certain persons and parties might change democratically but the power structure and elite behind them will fight tooth and nails against anyone threatening them.