Sorry but the man doesn’t miss.
Pre-1950s Tibet was a land of theocracy and feudalism. It was not a nation-state. When the communists liberated the serfs, they were welcomed with open arms by everyone on the plateau apart from the monastic elite. From then on, the multiethnic multicultural state of China would protect the language and culture of Tibet. The right of ethnic minorities to use and develop their own language and culture is written in the Chinese constitution and has been expanded at least 4 different times during the history of China 2002 being the latest I know of, 90% of Tibetans can speak Tibetan, hundreds of millions of dollars have been put into the upkeep of Tibetan cultural sites, such as almost 100 million into the Potala Palace alone, the 160 volume Tripitika was published by the Communists.
It can be a positive and still meet the definition of colonization no? Everyone in India learns their mother tongue before English
Nope. Colonization is not just forcing culture or language. The material basis of colonization is imperialism i.e. forcing an unequal exchange between the colonized and the colonizers. There is no unequal exchange between Tibet and China as they are the same country. Capital and labour flows freely in and out, with the majority of the Tibetan population living outside Tibet. The majority of the Tibetan population has a positive opinion of the Chinese government, the same can’t be said of any colony. And on top of that the Tibetans are free to practise their culture(except the feudalism part of course).
