Part 1

Lol, okay semantic dispute time I guess. What exactly is your definition of a “critical analysis of imperialism”.

Definitely not purely a semantic dispute. Have you read Lenin? Lenin's analysis of imperialism still stands as the dominant critical analysis of imperialism, though there has been some recent attempts to update it to adapt to the new form imperialism caused by unipolar hegemony under the name superimperialism or hyperimperialism.

“The Han Chinese population share has increased sharply in the TAR, encouraged by massive subsidies from the central government that exceeded 100 percent of the TAR GDP from 2010 onwards”

The context of that sentence in the report shows that in culturally Tibetan regions outside the Tibet Autonomous Region are showing opposite trends, meaning that "ethnic minorities" are becoming majorities. Clearly this is not a program of Han supremacy but of social integration. Autonomous regions are not meant to be insular, but integrated into one country with multiple systems. Compare this to actual colonialism, where colonists use rape, child separation, enslavement, cultural repression, starvation, land fractionalization, and other techniques to dilute and dismantle ethnic minorities. China is doing none of this. In the TAR, the Tibetan language is used to conduct nearly all business and all education, from grade school through university. That is not colonialism.

Yeah, spending more than 100% of the TARs entire gdp on subsidizing migration… not insidious at all.

It's only insidious if you presuppose the intent.

Lol, and how many of these ethnic minority leaders have ever been in charge of their region?

Well, considering that the top position of party secretary is the only referenced in your quotation, and considering the autonomous regions experience a significant amount of indigenous cultural practices on all dimensions, we must imagine that a Han Chinese party secretary can't possibly be anyone that has the requisite social history to be responsible for that flourishing. Given that, we come to the conclusion that, in fact, the indigenous members of the autonomous regions wield significant influence over their regions and that the party secretary does exactly what a party secretary that is correctly managing an autonomous region would do - ensuring alignment with the state's core strategic direction. That means ensuring the autonomous regions are not infiltrated by Western spoilers, elevating compradors to positions of influence or power, and ensuring party resources are allocated in ways that maintain good relations with the region. If this was not what was happening, then you would be seeing separatists and sympathizers all over the place. Instead what we see is separatists are almost exclusively associated with Western programs for destabilization and most of the population in the autonomous regions are aware of the need for protecting their region against these interests. When the US is training Tibetan terrorists and air lifting them into the region to conduct acts of violence and build terror networks, it's pretty important to maintain a counter-intelligence posture even in autonomous regions.

Again, this is just a semantic dispute surrounding the meaning of colonialism. Even if colonialism was invented by the west, you yourself admit it was imported and practiced by the Japanese. China is obviously not in a vacuum of influence and is perfectly able to modify western colonialism to suit their needs.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the West invented colonialism. I'm saying the colonialism you are talking about is explicitly a phenomenon of Western society. Japan adopting it doesn't stop it from being a Western social project, that would be race essentialism. China is actively working to undo the damage of colonialism qua the Western social phenomenon. It cannot do so by replicating it.

But more to the point, you assume that China would get the same benefit of colonialism that the West did and is therefore incentivized to engage in Western colonialism. This is where your belief about the world does not match the reality of the world. The reality is that Western colonialism is fatally flawed and those countries that engaged in it are being undone by it. China is aware of this and is actively working to bring about the conditions that ensure the contradictions of Western society move inexorably towards the resolution of those contradictions by the undoing of the colonial project. If China were to then begin its own colonial project, it would be doing so with the full knowledge that it would ultimately destroy China. This is what Western chauvinists can't seem to grasp. The anti-imperialist movement is fully aware of how unsustainable the North Atlantic project is. They have no desire to emulate it. Western chauvinists just think that imperialism worked really well and now all the anti-imperialists just want to become imperialists in their own right, because obviously your opponents are guilty of the same things you are guilty of, right? But that's just projection. Modern anti-imperialists movements are based on Marxism-Leninism and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and are fully aware of the absolute death trap that imperialism is. Their understanding of the world and how it works is that if they engage in imperialism, they will collapse, just like the West is collapsing. Don't project your bad behavior onto China.

Lol, okay… sure. You just spent a page defending imperialism, but sure.

You don't know what imperialism is. Your definition of imperialism is so anemic that it cannot distinguish between imperialism and anti-imperialism.

(Continued in Part 2)