[thworp]

There is Tibet, which had declared independence in 1913 and then decisively split itself from China by expelling all Chinese in 1945. The PRC conquered them because they were part of the Chinese "motherland". You can argue that the communist were the lesser of two evils (I would agree), but you can't argue this wasn't an imperial conquest.

The situation in the rest of China is a lot more complex. Most of warlords joined the PRC (sometimes through negotiation, mostly through surrender) when it was clear that the ROC - the competing but less centralized imperial power - had lost. The program of Han settlement, Sinicization and ethnic repression that occured in multiple waves (most acute in Xinjiang, Tibet, Inner Mongolia and some areas of SW China) was an imperial project.

Externally, there is the Sino-Vietnamese war of 1979. While the reasons for the conflict were multi-faceted, one of them was that Vietnam had broken Cambodia out of the Chinese sphere by deposing the Khmer Rouge.

Recently China has been building bases and shaping countries' economies and political systems around the world. Arguably they have already made the Solomon Islands a protectorate and a few African countries are also moving in that direction.

[derelicta]

The sino-vietnamese was a ridiculous mistake for the socialist project, that I agree with. But this wasn't an imperial war.

When I mentioned modern China, I referred to the PRC, so after (most of its) national reunification.

I fail to see how anti-terrorist repression in Xinjiang is akin to any form of imperialism. Otherwise they wouldn't celebrate those cultures on TV and during huge national events. This applies to Mongolia too.

If the situation in China was similar to the genocide in Palestine, then those cultures and their people would be suppressed and not supported nor promoted.

[naabb]

Isn't it imperalistic to threaten Taiwan with invasion?

[thworp]

> The sino-vietnamese was a ridiculous mistake for the socialist project, that I agree with. But this wasn't an imperial war.

Fair enough, but then you can't claim that the US involvement in Korea was imperial.

> When I mentioned modern China, I referred to the PRC, so after (most of its) national reunification.

Why do you set this as a cut-off? Is an empire no longer imperial once it has conquered all its provinces? Besides that, what happened in Hong Kong? Was that not an Empire aligning its rebellious province by force?

> I fail to see how anti-terrorist repression in Xinjiang is akin to any form of imperialism.

I was mostly referring to the many purges between 1949 and 1976. While most of the millions killed in them were Han Chinese "class enemies", not pro-independence ethnic minorities, it was nonetheless part of the central committee solidifying total control of the country.

Since you mention it though, I'll just ask you: Are the various Uyghur councils and international NGOs just covering for terrorists? Did they fake all those official documents and the satellite pictures? How can you handwave what is happening in Xinjiang, yet be so concerned with Palestine? If you want to engage in some victim blaming, were the daily rocket attacks not terrorism?

[derelicta]

I think the last point is the easiest to address for me for now:

Yes, the allegations of genocide against the Uyghur were fabricated. Pure CIA fiction. After all, neither Muslim nations nor the UN are denouncing or investigating Chinese anti terrorist policies as genocidal, unlike a certain totalitarian dictatorship that likes to portray itself as the Hebrew state and who happens to livecam and brag about its demonic acts on TV.

[ashoeafoot]

it was.