The propaganda department of China’s State Council, its central government, last
week released a white paper on “Governance of Xizang in the New Era.” Though the
term “Tibetan” is used to refer to the region’s people and geographical features
like the Tibetan Plateau, Xizang is used exclusively when referring to the
southwestern region’s official name. “The Chinese government was desperate
enough to propagate Xizang to create a Tibet of Chinese characteristics which is
unknown to the world,” Tenzin Lekshay, a spokesperson for the Central Tibetan
Administration, the Tibetan government-in-exile, said of Beijing’s report.
Lekshay said the Sino-Tibet conflict was long-running and that changing the name
would complicate rather than improve the situation.
The term “tankie” was originally used by dissident Marxist–Leninists to describe members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) who followed the party line of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). Specifically, it was used to distinguish party members who spoke out in defense of the Soviet use of tanks to crush the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring uprising.
By the widely recognized origin of the word (the Soviet Union rolling in tanks to suppress revolution in Hungary) and what it means (people in support of that use of force and tanks to suppress civilian revolution), supporters of Israel and the US are both “tankies.” Glad we agree, good talk!
what it means (people in support of that use of force and tanks to suppress civilian revolution)
This ^ is the incorrect part of your statement. That is not what it means now.
edit: Also
Tankie refers to those people who supported the Soviet use of tanks to quell the Hungarian revolution.
Emphasis added. If you meant “referred” in the past tense, that was a typo on your part. Otherwise, you are just trying to reclaim the term to an earlier meaning.
This is why people don’t cite Wikipedia.
Yes, that is the origin of the term, but it is not what it means now. Is that too complex for you?
Let me be a bit more clear:
Edit: maybe I wasn’t clear enough
Ah, I see your confusion.
This ^ is the incorrect part of your statement. That is not what it means now.
edit: Also
Emphasis added. If you meant “referred” in the past tense, that was a typo on your part. Otherwise, you are just trying to reclaim the term to an earlier meaning.