The historical ones that is. The New York Times gives a short history of Sir Francis Younghusband’s expedition to open trade with Tibet, and the storming of Gyantse in 1904. The history comes from the usual source, but what is interesting in the article is how how the Chinese communist government uses this history to “re-educate” and integrate Tibet into Greater China:
These days, Gyantse resembles other towns in central Tibet. Its dusty roads are lined with shops and restaurants run by ethnic Han migrants, whom many Tibetans see as the most recent wave of invaders. But Chinese officials prefer to direct the world’s attention away from that and to the brutal events at Gyantse in 1904, which conveniently fit into their master narrative for Tibetan and Chinese history. The Chinese government insists Tibet is an “inalienable” part of China, and it has appropriated the 1904 invasion as another chapter in the long history of imperialist efforts to dismantle China — what the Communist education system calls the “100 years of humiliation.” In that Communist narrative of Gyantse, the Tibetans are a stand-in for the Chinese who were victimized by foreign powers during the Qing dynasty.
The “you should be grateful we invaded you to protect you from those invaders” line is typical form for the Chinese government, so none of this will be new to our readers. But if you are unfamiliar with the historical Younghusband and Curzon, I recommend reading the NYT article.