This is a great point. An additional aspect to this is developers - while living in China, I spoke with a number of officials who essentially admitted that a major aspect of "relocation" was driven by developers who purchased land from the local governments and then were lent money by the local government. When those buildings weren't filled, and with the pressure to pay back loans mounting, the developers and local officials would conspire to force people from outlying regions to relocate in the town developments. The developers would then receive central/local $$ for "helping" low income citizens "move up." And then the cycle would repeat. This leaves out other aspects - but it certainly plays a role.

What you are saying is definitely true in a general sense; a lot of local gov income comprises of shady land deals. However it is a bit different in 'far border' areas such as Tibet/Xinjiang. Land is not scarce, and development not so attractive. Also as some one grew up in China I would take a pinch of salt on what the 'officials' are admitting. There won't be anything meaningful if you haven't got a real tie with them. Besides after Xi became president, calling out corrupted officials is a such massive effort and that's why Xi (or more precisely the group he may represent) has so many enemies even in the party.

Point taken, and agreed.

My wife is from Sichuan which is bordering Tibet. It is a bit more complicated than that. Over the years the development has been fast but still far behind the majority of China. The polices to 'encourage' and harness the great overall economic growth were uniquely shaped and had an element of 'outdated' fashion (or USSR style if that's your opinion). And the flags and posters you saw is probably a chicken and egg problem: the gov sees misinformation (or propaganda from west depends on your view) and wants more territorial control (against the largely available chinese language free Tibet tabloids) and people who actually wants to use it as a way to get more support from the gov. It was nothing like that a decade ago, the social media amplification definitely accelerated that as well.

I agree, there is some nuance to the matter.

I am partially sympathetic to the idea that this can be a way for people to lead better lives - in the modern, economic sense - instead of subsistence nomading.

At the same time, China has, over the past several years, also demonstrated a trend of new behavior and a clear break away from a previous trend of liberalization that started with Deng. This push in Tibet should be seen in light of what is going on in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, the South China Sea, the East China Sea, Inner Mongolia, and at the Indian border.

I want to agree with you but I too am a bit out of touch (all the information is from friends). I don't like to defend the central gov but there is too much smoke and mirror to see through things. A lot of press reports genuine issues about China but also a mix of unverifiable information. I believe the local governance is actually improving. At central level it might be a very different story. However that said sometimes it is hard to judge. Did it really depart from Deng's approach? Was Deng's method deserving applause? My parents generation (the equivalent of boomers) suffered most throughout their youth and it is only getting better now. So for any long term impact, I'm not sure myself.

There is of course a variety of opinions across any demographic.

My impression is that, aside from people who've studied abroad, Chinese youth today are more conservative and nationalistic than their elders. They've been fed only on a diet of domestic media with external news censored and have grown up only seeing their standards of living rapidly improving with China taking a more central role on the world stage.

The older generations, who suffered through the Cultural Revolution and then saw it end, and those who grew up during Deng's period are more likely to be liberal and sympathetic to the West. Even Jiang Zemin spoke English and liked Western opera.

But I think if you ask people of about any demographic, they will tell you Xi has changed the trajectory that China was previously on. The end of 10-year term limits demonstrated an objective shift towards one-man rule instead of an oligarchy where power was more diffused between elite factions.

I agree with you. However Xi is only one person, there is much larger power structure behind him. And you are absolutely right, Jiang and Deng have much more experience with the west and 'modern' at their times. As for the younger generation I couldn't really blame them; the ones who are interested in the outside world already did so. I believe there are substantial proportions of youth who have a balanced world-view. But given the education structure and absolute large population base you won't see them represented. I couldn't give much credit for chinese students abroad, since large part of them are quite privileged and ignorant(depends on how they were brought up), the rest were the poorer, sponsored students, they would naturally be very nationalistic.

> Military recruitment posters were also plastered everywhere, as it is a form of employment in a region with relatively few alternatives.

China would love a propaganda coup involving Tibetans in their military like America's Navajo code talkers in WW2.

This is the information I was looking for, thank you.