|
In the '30s and '40s, Gandhi helped lead the state of India to independence from the British Empire. The overall protest strategy was one of nonviolent resistance tied together by a charismatic leader who was a religious figure (i.e. Gandhi himself). It was eventually pretty unambiguously successful - it accomplished its goal of freeing India from colonization by the Brits (though at the cost of fracturing India into two states along religious boundaries). In the '60s, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. led a Civil Rights Movement for black Americans in the USA. This movement had a similar strategy to the Indian Independence Movement - namely nonviolent resistance tied together by a charismatic leader who was a religious figure. And while many have raised doubts about exactly how successful this movement was - citing mountains of evidence that the USA is still horrifically oppressive to black people (ask anyone in The Great Race Space) - it's hard to deny that the movement did result in at least a modest amount of progress. The US got the Civil Rights Act, they don't have separate drinking fountains/segregated schools/etc anymore, and so on. In the '50s, the Tibetan people took arms against Chinese oppressors to try to win independence through violence. However, they were quashed repeatedly. This culminated in the Tibetan uprising of 1959. However, when the 14th Dalai Lama rose to a position of spiritual prominence among Tibetans over the following years, he began to advocate for a nonviolent approach to independence. This culminated in the '70s when a) the CIA stopped arming the rebels, and b) the Dalai Lama sent a taped message to the rebels urging them to give up their arms peacefully to the Nepalese army, which they did. Ever since then, the Tibetan Independence Movement has adopted roughly the same strategy as the two previously described movements - one of nonviolent resistance tied together by a charismatic leader who is a religious figure. However, despite going on for a lot longer than the other two movements did, the Tibetan Independence Movement hasn't seen nearly the same kind of success as them - or even really any measurable success at all. China still has full control over the territory, and the Tibetan people still have little in the way of autonomy or civil rights. So, my question is, why the difference? Why has the Tibetan Independence Movement been so, so much less successful than either the Indian Independence Movement or the US Civil Rights Movement, despite adopting approximately the same strategy and going on for a lot longer? I want to understand this in as painstaking, exhaustive detail as possible, because it has implications for political activism all over the world - if we can understand exactly in which contexts nonviolent protest will work, we can determine when it's appropriate to advocate for that strategy.
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
The Chinese government and the Chinese people wit large perceives national boundaries as sacred as a sort of secular religion and the Dalai Lama is tainted by charge of wanting an independent Tibet. Basically the political will to send in the troops to shoot however many Tibetans is there in the PRC both among the general public and the political elite, and also ethnic Han Chinese outnumber Tibetans by like what 50x? Keeping Tibet is part of core Chinese nationalism in a way keeping segregation wasn't a core part of American national identity outside of the southern states. There's also a lot of other factors like how in India the British depended a lot on local political elites to maintain control over the Raj whereas in Tibet there would be zero compuncture against making every member of the local government Han Chinese and flood the region with enough Han settlers to render Tibetans a minority in their own homeland (which is basically what is happening/happened in Xinjiang to the north). Typo fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Mar 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Nonviolence only works if there are actual negative political consequences resulting from refusing the demands of the protest movement, which is far from guaranteed. In a western democracy where a substantial share of the voter base perceives the issue to be "righteous" for lack of a better term, there usually is, but in China? Probably not. Some anarchist wrote a lot of words about it that may be worth checking out, at least to get some understanding of how a protester like that sees it. (For the record, I am not an anarchist myself and I disagree with the author on a fair number of points, but I think the text is worth a look anyway - there are definitely valid points in there as well.)
TheFluff fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Mar 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Oh yeah and I was talking to some Chinese college students in Beijing and I was like oh what about that whole Tienanmen thing (the topic came up cuz I'm non-China citizen so I was by law forbidden to stay in the same room as Chinese citizens in the hostel I was staying at cuz it was nearly Tienanmen sq) and half of them outright told me that the 1989 protesters was an American instigated plot to destroy China and reduce China back to colonialism and the ringleaders were American agents. When I asked them for proof they basically said that the protesters were "corrupted" by American thoughts and were stupid. And those were han chinese protesters who are the equivalent of white people in China and the Tibetan Independence and by connotation Tibetan activism in genera is more or less seen as a CIA front to destroy China so yeah non-violent protest gets you nowhere. Here's a hint for western protesters holding up FREE TIBET signs every time you do it and it shows up on TV it gives the Chinese gov additional political capital to shoot Tibetans with no public backlash whatsoever. Typo fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Mar 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
In India and the US you also had the potential for violent protest to make the demands of nonviolent groups become reasonable centrism by comparison, forcing a choice between the possibility of a gigantic armed conflict or giving in on certain demands. Tibetan protestors can't credibly do this for several reasons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
China is an authoritarian state with absolute control of the press and virtually all internal discourse and can present whatever narrative they want without significant opposition. Furthermore, other countries have stopped caring about Chinese crimes against humanity and Chinese imperialism because accommodating China became a thing after the Sino-Soviet split and was supercharged in the 90's.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Typo posted:The Chinese government and the Chinese people wit large perceives national boundaries as sacred as a sort of secular religion This is a fascinating statement which I've never heard in these exact words before but which intuitively makes a lot of sense to me... In a thread some tankie made awhile back about making a "devil's bargain" with fake socialist states like China, someone linked to an article (which I unfortunately can no longer find) written by the Chinese propaganda machine in which they tried to justify their South China Sea imperialism, and I got the impression of a righteous attitude on the part of the Chinese which fits very well with this whole "secular religion" idea. Do you have any links to where I can read up more on this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:In India and the US you also had the potential for violent protest to make the demands of nonviolent groups become reasonable centrism by comparison, forcing a choice between the possibility of a gigantic armed conflict or giving in on certain demands. Tibetan protestors can't credibly do this for several reasons. Other than the sheer numbers issue that Typo mentioned, what are these reasons?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Izzhov posted:This is a fascinating statement which I've never heard in these exact words before but which intuitively makes a lot of sense to me... In a thread some tankie made awhile back about making a "devil's bargain" with fake socialist states like China, someone linked to an article (which I unfortunately can no longer find) written by the Chinese propaganda machine in which they tried to justify their South China Sea imperialism, and I got the impression of a righteous attitude on the part of the Chinese which fits very well with this whole "secular religion" idea. Do you have any links to where I can read up more on this? I talk to a lot of Chinese people so this is just intuitive to me, I would need to actually find a source for you, the closest thing I can think of right now is this book by David Shambaugh which he examines Chinese scholarly sources which basically says that if china gives up any territory whatsoever it would be the same poo poo as when the USSR gave up the Baltic states. It's the tipping point for when the entire thing collapses as a result. It's also embedded into Chinese nationalism in the exact way territorial integrity is embedded into pretty much all 19th-20th century European nationaism, and without either Marx-Leninism, Christianity, nor traditional Chinese values a guide, 19th century European style nationalism is the most coherent ideology in China today. You'll find the same atitude w.r.t French thoughts towards Alscaes-Lorraine to Germany 1871-1914. In the Romance of Three Kingdoms the opening line is "Empire, long united, must divide, long divided, must unite", the Chinese people went through a lot since the 1840s and understands intuitively that society is 3 missed meals from collapsing. Basically Chinese people don't want something called 亂 (luan) which basically translates to chaos. It brings up memories of the era of the warlords and the japanese invasion and especially the cultural revolution. To the average Chinese if China loses territorial integrity it's a short step from that to China losing all its progress and going back to the 1930s and maybe having an era of western/Japanese colonialism again. Typo fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Mar 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Izzhov posted:In the '30s and '40s, Gandhi helped lead the state of India to independence from the British Empire. The overall protest strategy was one of nonviolent resistance tied together by a charismatic leader who was a religious figure (i.e. Gandhi himself). It was eventually pretty unambiguously successful - it accomplished its goal of freeing India from colonization by the Brits (though at the cost of fracturing India into two states along religious boundaries). The argument about the British leaving was basically settled in Britain by the thirties, settled in India by Cripps' mission in '42, and reinforced by the postwar Labour government a) being completely broke and b) being at least theoretically anticolonial.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Izzhov posted:This is a fascinating statement which I've never heard in these exact words before but which intuitively makes a lot of sense to me... In a thread some tankie made awhile back about making a "devil's bargain" with fake socialist states like China, someone linked to an article (which I unfortunately can no longer find) written by the Chinese propaganda machine in which they tried to justify their South China Sea imperialism, and I got the impression of a righteous attitude on the part of the Chinese which fits very well with this whole "secular religion" idea. Do you have any links to where I can read up more on this? This is dumb as gently caress. Every great power - Russia, France, Britain, America and yes China - has shitloads of blood thirsty citizens who will cheer any military chest beating by their national government. It's not for nothing that even the most unpopular government just about anywhere in the world will tend to get more popular right after they start a war. Citing this kind of bog-standard nationalism as evidence of some uniquely Chinese character trait or analogizing it to a "religion" just comes off as a none-too-subtle way of implying the Chinese are somehow different from other countries in this regard. I think you'll find that the pseudo-religious reverence for national boarders is called 'nationalism' and has been a common feature of geopolitics since for several centuries now, basically ever since 19th century states started investing heavily in national education systems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Izzhov posted:In the '30s and '40s, Gandhi helped lead the state of India to independence from the British Empire. The overall protest strategy was one of nonviolent resistance tied together by a charismatic leader who was a religious figure (i.e. Gandhi himself). It was eventually pretty unambiguously successful - it accomplished its goal of freeing India from colonization by the Brits (though at the cost of fracturing India into two states along religious boundaries).
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 21:41
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:In Britain/India, killing unarmed people in the streets was bad optics
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
The short answer is that history remembers Gandhi and Martin Luther King because it's we live in societies that prefer order over disorder, and peaceful protest (as opposed to violent protest) is closer to the former than the latter. It's also far easier to control and direct than the latter. We hold them up as paragons of peaceful change because society would rather not elevate violent revolution, despite, you know, that being behind a lot of things good and bad. For the public at large, non-violent protest works when the public at large has an ounce of decency. In the case of the civil rights movement, they saw protesters brutalized for wanting equal rights. But for politicians and other groups with a lot more political power, non-violent protest largely works because of the implied promise of violence in the event that it doesn't work. This is partly why Gandhi and MLK are remembered so fondly. Gandhi was not the only person advocating for Indian independence and isn't exactly the person most responsible for getting India its independence, but he is fondly remembered because he promoted non-violent protest. MLK is brought up a lot more than Malcolm X and other people for similar reasons, and hell, MLK wasn't exactly fondly regarded by people back in the day.  And something more recent.  And just look at today, people throw around MLK's name while they make it harder for black people to vote. Society in the US is still heavily biased against black people, in many cases explicitly because of the racism of people involved. Did non-violent protest really work? They succeeded in getting equal rights but society hasn't caught up to treating black people nearly as equally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
The short answer to this question would be that the British couldn't afford to maintain their empire in India and the Jim Crow south was a huge liability once the focus of the cold war moved from eastern Europe to Asia and Africa.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Izzhov posted:Other than the sheer numbers issue that Typo mentioned, what are these reasons? Tibetans are primarily located in Tibet, so their ability to bring violence home is limited. Indian independence activists could start fires, as it were, across the whole of what is now India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Black, Latinx, and Native American activists in the USA could credibly threaten just about every major urban center. Tibetans can mostly threaten places in Tibet, so their ability to make China ungovernable is extremely limited. Which is part of why the Dalai Lama ordered an end to armed resistance- it justified mass slaughter of Tibetans in retribution but without much ability to threaten China's governments in turn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Yeah, armed resistance can definitely have its place but unfortunately the Tibetans can't do much against an opponent with technological and numerical supremacy who has a perfect willingness to kill every man, woman, child, dog, and cat in the room without any actual consequences (outrage doesn't count). U.S. cops aren't house-by-house searching and sterilizing entire boroughs of life after the Dallas sniper attack. There's just no comparison between the two countries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Never mind, armed resistance may turn out to be fruitful for Tibetans after all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
Both the RoC and PRC claim Tibet as part of China. Regime change was only something the CIA pushed to troll the PRC. If the CCP ever collapses and the KMT retake the mainland watch as tibetian freedom fighters get reframed as "terrorists" overnight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Keep in mind that Indian independence was a really complicated affair and nonviolence was only a part of why it became independent. A widespread support for the defendants in the INA trials, for example, made the British very suspicious about their prospects of keeping a loyal Indian army and at that point the Indian Army was half the reason to keep the colony. Politics is a very tactical thing, and I think discussing political trends and approaches in broad strokes makes the discussions devoid of any real learning value.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
Generally if you want to make a change you'll need something worse to get the financiers to agree to what you want. Ghandi has INC with its threats of violence and MLK had the Black Panthers. Also it helps when youhave a relative free flow of info. Something that Tibet definitely doesn't have.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
Fascinating topic and I enjoy reading all the posts so far. I can't really contribute except to say I've heard that China just doesn't have a liberal or democratic tradition like us. Confucianism or something has molded the populace into a very collectivist, conformist mindset. This is not a criticism at all and it might be false for all I know, I just recall researching on Google once about why some countries are supposedly more inclined to authoritarianism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Fascinating topic and I enjoy reading all the posts so far. I can't really contribute except to say I've heard that China just doesn't have a liberal or democratic tradition like us. Confucianism or something has molded the populace into a very collectivist, conformist mindset. This is not a criticism at all and it might be false for all I know, I just recall researching on Google once about why some countries are supposedly more inclined to authoritarianism. It's bullshit, during the Ming there were times when there was a peasant uprising every 40 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:It's bullshit, during the Ming there were times when there was a peasant uprising every 40 minutes. Hm. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has heard "some countries/cultures just don't mesh with democracy/are inclined towards dictatorship." I'll always remember my high school textbook even said this about Russia. It was Conservative trash though I'm fairly certain but I always remember it because it was a frickin' school textbook. This is kind of its own discussion I suppose but I feel it can relate to the topic at hand. Could it be something in the culture and history of a nation and its people that would support or hinder nonviolent protests? Can an entire population be politically inclined?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:It's bullshit, during the Ming there were times when there was a peasant uprising every 40 minutes. Really nonviolence is effective when the people you're protesting do not want to be seen to murder nonviolent protesters. The CCP has never had a problem with that though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
That gloss of Indian history with a sanctified Gandhi smooths out a lot of the grittier details of history. One could consider the Independence movement nonviolent only through a tunnel vision focus on characters like Gandhi. It would ignore elements such as the RSS and the its radicals who actually ended up murdering Gandhi. That pressure on the British wasn't just nonviolent resistance but aggressive elements of Indian society threatening insurgence and collaboration with Axis powers during WWII. Peaceful characters like Gandhi only work when you have characters like Subhas Chandra Bose and other radicals to act as a foil. There were power dynamics at play that ultimately did not favor British control of India. The difference with Tibet is that there are no such power dynamics in effect which would make Chinese autonomy too costly. China doesn't care it it brutalizes Tibet and Tibetans because the human capital is not what matters to China, its the natural resources, dam able rivers and space.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Fascinating topic and I enjoy reading all the posts so far. I can't really contribute except to say I've heard that China just doesn't have a liberal or democratic tradition like us. Confucianism or something has molded the populace into a very collectivist, conformist mindset. This is not a criticism at all and it might be false for all I know, I just recall researching on Google once about why some countries are supposedly more inclined to authoritarianism. I'm glad LKY's philosophy is getting more play. And by "glad" I mean "deeply saddened".
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 06:30
|
|
|
The british were also thoroughly discredited as colonial administrators by the end of WWII. Many Indian nationalists were also on the take from Japan like Subhas Bose that did not endear any Indians to further British rule, not when the Japanese were going to grant India it's independence as a way of pot kettling the UK. let's pretend like Gandhi was not a peaceful protest type but a violent revolutionary- I guarantee you India would've been independent even sooner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
I think as well, that if you cite MLK you have to remember there was also Malcolm X (although, ironically, I don't think he himself actually participated in any violence like Watts, etc).
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
It's not just their borders. It's official Chinese policy that anyone of Chinese ancestry, anywhere in the world, is a citizen of China, whether they like it or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
Typo posted:Basically Chinese people don't want something called 亂 (luan) which basically translates to chaos. It brings up memories of the era of the warlords and the japanese invasion and especially the cultural revolution. To the average Chinese if China loses territorial integrity it's a short step from that to China losing all its progress and going back to the 1930s and maybe having an era of western/Japanese colonialism again. By "memories of the era" you men cultivated propaganda developed post Tiananmen Square.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Sometimes like three or four at once! It's probably accurate to say that the PRC is the least insane political situation China has ever had and is definitely an outlier historically. Peaceful except for the millions starved and murdered I guess. (No it's not accurate.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:The british were also thoroughly discredited as colonial administrators by the end of WWII. More importantly for how it happened, the argument about the British leaving was already kind of over by 1917 when Montagu was talking about gradual self-governance. Even if you think it was just a lie, that bottle was uncorked. And then by 1935 it was just majority opinion that, in fact, it was Bad to try to keep India. There were people against that like Churchill but it was so expensive and so obviously immoral that people weren't behind it in government, and it was seen as irrelevant by people at home. I think people are taught about this stuff in a way that seems very immediate when they learn it in History lessons, but a good equivalent of it today is like the Afghan war which may or may not even be occurring to most people and is no doubt very important to the people directly involved in it but just seems like a complete waste of time to the vast majority of us who don't think about it much but are taxed about it. quote:Many Indian nationalists were also on the take from Japan like Subhas Bose that did not endear any Indians to further British rule, not when the Japanese were going to grant India it's independence as a way of pot kettling the UK. quote:let's pretend like Gandhi was not a peaceful protest type but a violent revolutionary- I guarantee you India would've been independent even sooner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 10:39
|
|
|
Sun Wu Kampf posted:It's not just their borders. It's official Chinese policy that anyone of Chinese ancestry, anywhere in the world, is a citizen of China, whether they like it or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 10:51
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Hm. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has heard "some countries/cultures just don't mesh with democracy/are inclined towards dictatorship." I'll always remember my high school textbook even said this about Russia. It was Conservative trash though I'm fairly certain but I always remember it because it was a frickin' school textbook. But the more salient interpretation of that fact, is that the values of a society are molded by the forces acting on that society. An authoritarian government creates an authoritarian society, not the other way around. The fear of 'chaos' (and the counter-balancing goal of 'harmony') would stem from a turbulent political history, where meaningful political change has basically never happened, and therefore any social disruption is dangerous. Contrast that with the American history, which means that even idiots on facebook doing petty stupid bullshit talk about starting 'a revolution' because, historically, they have actually worked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 11:05
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The characterization of chinese culture as 'collectivist' is kinda orientalist, but there are measurable differences in attitudes that basically came down to whether or not the areas practiced wet-rice irrigated farming (which even in smalls scale requires a large investment in labor and therefore some kind of central control) or wheat rainfall farming (which doesn't). That makes sense. thank you. Still, bringing it back to the topic at hand, since these various authoritarian dynasties have molded the society for a really long time, does that have any effect on this discussion? On the indifference towards protesters or the government being brutal?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 11:18
|
|
|
Also what makes the situation in Tibet especially difficult for Tibetian resistance, is that the Chinese government is currently importing Han citizens into Tibet. The Tibetian population essentially becomes a non-factor in governing the region as soon as the Han outnumber Tibetians. Taking that into account, the better comparison for the situation in Tibet isn't with the civil rights movement or Indian independence, but the experience of native peoples in the United States/Canada/Australia. Whether they commit to either violent or non-violent resistance, they're basically hosed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 11:24
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The fear of 'chaos' (and the counter-balancing goal of 'harmony') would stem from a turbulent political history, where meaningful political change has basically never happened, and therefore any social disruption is dangerous. Contrast that with the American history, which means that even idiots on facebook doing petty stupid bullshit talk about starting 'a revolution' because, historically, they have actually worked. We tried to make things better, but they turned out as they always do. Again. For the six hundred and fifty eigth time. Maybe we should stop trying and just get with the
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 12:24
|
|
|
Because the threat of effective violence is the basis of nonviolence resistance. The question to be answered is: "Is it China's interest to allow an autonomous Tibet"? Tibet is the largest source of water in China, and as such plays huge geopolitical importance. There is no way China would give up such a precious resource, or let themselves have a potential enemy ("Oh hi newly minted nation of Tibet, can we put some military bases in your country?") have control over such a crucial resource. Similar to the Israel/Palestine conflict, China has to much to lose to give in to any concession, no matter what the Tibetans do. And no nation is willing to cause conflict over such a thing, and that's all there really is too it. The point is, the British/India relation is fundamentally different then China/Tibet. China CANNOT lose access to water, and has no enemies willing to fund some sort of Vietnam style insurrection in Tibet. Britain simply wanted resources and labor of India, and there was no geopolitical threat if they left. So they did. In fact, it probably would have cost them more to stay in and try to keep control versus the nationalizing force present in India. They probably had some sort of cost vs gain analysis, and made a decision based on that. I don't think there is a moral high ground that leads democracies to do good vs authoritarian states. We have tons of democratic governments across the world fighting separatist insurrections of various kinds... FARC, Basque Conflict, Palestine... and historically, IRA, Tamil Tigers and Kosovo. The successful rebellions either have enough power to overthrow the state, a stronger state intervening on their behalf or if yielding to the demands of the rebels is less harmful to the state than opposing them. Tibet has none of these.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
In both the cases of India and the US, a peaceful resolution was made possible by the long standing traditions of rule by law. The western philosophy of the right of the individual, as a fundamental part of both law and morality, has enabled movements such as King's or Gandhi's to reach resolutions vis-a-vis the central governments without resorting to violence. The Oriental Mind, however, knows not of such concepts, where the only respected authority is borne through violence. Their collectivist societies can thus only achieve changes due to outside military pressure (see: the Mongol Invasion, western influence in the 19th century). (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 17:19
|
|
