74
but apparently china is oppressive (lemmy.ml)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/communism@lemmy.ml
70 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -15 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Cool surface cherry picking. Tibetans are one of the minority groups in China, as opposed to the entirety of indigenous peoples in the US which is the comparison being made. It also only highlights the language, disregarding the cultural and religious practices.

I do think it’s awesome to keep languages alive, but that’s not a whole culture.

In other news, indigenous peoples in the US have their own legal system that applies to their lands and which isn’t easily infringed on by the federal or state governments. That’s not true in China, so while they can speak their language they are still under other types of oppression.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 28 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    in china minorities get their own autonomous provinces (e.g. Xinjiang for Uyghurs, Tibet for Tibetans) which would be like if the US gave the Navajo nation a whole state with their own autonomy

    and their languages on currency

    (also you aint slick, imagine having no other points so you scroll through my page, find the other post and copy and paste your comment)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

    edit: to be clear, I have not said anything. op said "it would be like if this thing existed" and I pointed to that thing existing. any inference you draw from that is your own, and is ultimately a reflection of your thoughts about the argument presented by op. rejection of an argument for a point is not necessarily rejection of the point itself; it is possible to construct a flawed argument to support the point that 1+1=2

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    cool surface-level confidence. you might want to consider reading a single supreme court decision for the last few decades. congress has plenary power over tribes -- meaning that congress can abolish tribal courts, override tribal verdicts, or sell tribal land without consent whenever it feels like it.

    there's also lone wolf v. hitchcock; used last year in castro-huerta where the supreme court ruled that states can prosecute crimes by non-indigenous against indigenous on reservations -- overriding tribal jurisdiction. not to mention that the major crimes act of 1885 stripped tribes of prosecuting felonies like murder. there's also public law 280 imposed state jurisdiction on reservations in six states without a single tribal vote.

    so no, tribal legal systems aren't "not easily infringed on." they exist at congress's pleasure. the only difference between the us and china here is that the us has better pr.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent