• 0 Posts
  • 43 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: October 5th, 2023

help-circle

  • Bringing up Tiananmen when there are documented instances (with actual evidence) of people getting run over by Israeli tanks and bulldozers in Gaza right now. Backed by the US government. With the US President actively spreading FUD about the scale and extent of atrocities. Nice.

    Xizang is literally the phonetic transliteration for the region of the TAR. You’re basically saying that we should keep the name Western colonialists gave a territory because Western brains would get hurt if the name changed.





  • Tibet is the romanized name for the region (based on Latin Tibetum). Tibetans call the Tibetan plateau “Bö” and Central Tibet “Ü-Tsang.”

    The original Tibetan Empire (circa 600-800 or something) stretched across the regions of Amdo (modern-day Qinghai), Ü-Tsang (modern-day Tibet Autonomous Region), and Khan (split between TAR and Sichuan). Xizang is a more or less direct transliteration of Ü-Tsang, the territory that makes up the vast majority of the modern-day TAR.

    Tibet refers to the entire plateau (also referred to as the Qinghai-Xizang plateau or the Himalayan Plateau) and Xizang refers to the territory made up by the TAR. Xizang has, for as long as I can remember, been the Chinese name for the TAR.

    This is manufactured outrage with a clickbait title… About what can be expected from Newsweek.

    Edit: for some additional context, China is usually pretty good about keeping local names. See: Ürümqi (Wulumuqi) from the name of Dzungar village there, Kashgar (Kashigaer/Kashi) which has had the same name for millennia and Harbin (Haerbin) from the name of the Manchu village there (among others). Understandably, because Hui and Uyghurs still live in Urumqi and Kashgar, Manchu still live in Harbin, and Tibetans still live in Xizang.











  • It’s a fundamentally different problem here: it’s new infrastructure, which in this day and age is barely profitable in terms of first-order effects (fees, fares, etc.) but is significantly profitable in terms of second- and third-order effects (economic growth, new businesses, yada yada).

    If you could build a new subway in New York, spend zero capital, but have to give up the fare revenue for that subway, why wouldn’t you?

    Also, the India/US alternative is to… Just outright give the Indian Adani group a majority stake in their port expansion. So much better. So much. Truly.