DPP or KMT: Different outcomes re: unification with PRC?

Topics related to Taiwan and Taiwan/China issues can be discussed here. Threads dealing with Taiwan's history belong in the Culture & History thread. Please do not post articles - use links instead. Quoted sources should be limited to one paragraph in length, or less. If you see a post that you feel is against the rules, please send a report to the moderators so we can look into it

Moderator: TheGingerMan

Forum rules
Threads dealing with Taiwan's history belong in the Culture & History thread. Please do not post articles - use links instead. Quoted sources should be limited to one paragraph in length, or less. If you see a post that you feel is against the rules, you can send a report to the moderators so we can look into it

Re: DPP or KMT: Different outcomes re: unification with PRC?

Postby Betelnut » 30 Jan 2012, 01:47

I am talking about the the ethnic groups in the so-called China region whatever it is. That is, the Mongols, Manchus, Tibetans, and others etc.

I am not talking about good natured Nazi Germans and other Westerners saving lives in the Nanjing Safety zone or something like that. Anyone with any kind of conscience would be sympathetic to things like the Nanjing Massacre.

Yes, China was the Qing dynasty at that time, but the bottom line is is that Hong Kong is part of Guangdong province which is populated with Han Chinese people. Just because the Manchus were controlling Han China at that time does not mean that that territory does not belong to Han Chinese people anymore. Since the Qing dynasty no longer exists, then territory formerly controlled by Han Chinese from the Ming dynasty reverts back to Han Chinese control.

If you were to ask your average Cantonese person if Hong Kong belongs to the Manchus just because the Qing were controlling China at that time, they wouldn't agree with it.

You are accusing Chinese people of distorting things, when in fact what you are saying kind of goes against common sense and is based on technicalities.

The Manchus came from up North to take Han China and then basically integrated into the Han Chinese population, so they were foreigners at first, but now Han Chinese and Manchu Chinese basically live together as one big group. That's not a whole lot different than Englishmen and Dutch living together in America and being 2 different groups perhaps at first but after a period of time, they would all just be Americans. Same thing with the Irish. After a period of time, they are just American.

By your definition of aggression, the Allies led by the United States, U.K., France, and other allied nations were aggressors against Nazi Germany that had occupied France and other parts of Europe. That means what Charles DeGaulle was doing was aggressive against Nazi Germany for trying to take back his own country.

The Nazis can sign whatever treaty to say they own France, and therefore France and other allied countries have no right to take it back if they have the upper hand one day?

So when we watch movies of the Normandy landings, we should be ashamed of the U.S. and other countries landing on the beaches because they are being aggressive against Nazi Germany?

It seems like a double standard. Because Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan are viewed as bad, it is honorable for Allied countries to take back territory from them, but if China threatens to take back its own territory by force which was taken from them by force before, its considered to be aggressive.

I don't really think so. Being aggressive is attacking another country for territory you never controlled but just want for yourself. Kind of like Texas and California in the Mexican War. Being aggressive would be going after London. Not Hong Kong.

LURKER wrote:
Betelnut wrote:However, in history books, you never see Western writers complaining about other ethnic groups controlling the Han.


Actually, you do. It's been a long time, but most Western observers in the 18th and 19th centuries sympathised with Chinese criticisms of the Ch'ing. Westerners also tended to sympathise with the Chinese during China's conflicts with Japan.

Betelnut wrote:If you control a territory with your military, you own it and unless someone forces you off or you leave yourself, it's yours.


I suppose you're right... but remember in future that this is as true when events unfold in others' favour as it is when they unfold in favour of China.

Betelnut wrote:why is it wrong for China to take back a little bit of a UK colony that was forcibly taken from them a century ago?


Strictly speaking, I would think that it was forcibly taken from the Manchus, not the Chinese. Chinese nationalists today can't seem to keep their story straight - were the Ch'ing foreigners themeslves, or were they Chinese? The Chinese often seem to say one or the other, depending on which answer is most useful rhetorically at the time.

Betelnut wrote:I know the 1980's was a different era and the PRC was not as willing to get nuked for what it wanted, but it is not a light thing to consider to talk about nuking Beijing and other important parts of China in response to the PLA taking Hong Kong by force. That sounds pretty belligerent to me.


Is it not belligerent to threaten a military assault on the sovereign territory of another nation? Regardless of whether the Treaty of Nanjing was "unequal" or not, had China started a war against Britain over Hong Kong, it would have been the aggressor, by definition.
Betelnut
Shoe-wielding Legislator (huīwǔ xiézi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
Shoe-wielding Legislator (huīwǔ xiézi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
 
Posts: 284
Joined: 20 Apr 2005, 09:11
10 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: DPP or KMT: Different outcomes re: unification with PRC?

Postby cctang » 30 Jan 2012, 06:14

LURKER wrote:Strictly speaking, I would think that it was forcibly taken from the Manchus, not the Chinese. Chinese nationalists today can't seem to keep their story straight - were the Ch'ing foreigners themeslves, or were they Chinese? The Chinese often seem to say one or the other, depending on which answer is most useful rhetorically at the time.

This is one of the most asinine arguments ever... although no offense intended to LURKER, since he didn't come up with it, he's just repeating something he's heard "elsewhere".

Yes, Sun Yat-sen in his earlier days called for expelling "the nomads". But so what? That version of his position didn't win him any traction in China. Whether he had a "Saul on the road to Damascus" type of conversion, or whether he was just being a pragmatic politician... bottom line is, by the time the Republic of China was established in 1912, he had changed his position on the definition of the Chinese nation to a multi-ethnic one, including the Mongol and Qing. Regardless of how *he* felt about the Manchus (earlier in his life), there's not much doubt how the rest of Chinese society perceived the Qing dynasty as very much a Chinese one.

I don't think enough Westerners are aware of how continuous the "Chinese nation" really has been, even after dynasty and dynasty. For those who haven't come across it, I'd refer you to the "24 histories":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-Four_Histories

This collection of history books represents a view of Chinese history as a continuous stream... not courtesy of 20th century Chinese nationalists, but as perceived by our ancestors hundreds of years ago. These history books have been collected and discussed as a continuous series since the end of the Han dynasty 1600 years ago. Emperors of a new dynasty would quickly order court historians to write a "history" of the previous dynasty, and add it to the collection. When the Manchus first rode into the central plains, even before they had defeated the remnants of the Ming in southern China, they already had official historians composing the "Ming histories". Why? Because they clearly saw this as a way of building their own legitimacy within "Chinese" (for the lack of a better word) society. They saw themselves as the successor dynasty to the Ming, not as foreign invaders establishing a new polity in the central plains. And the Republic of China, similarly, commissioned a history of the Qing shortly after the collapse of the Qing dynasty in the 1920s.
cctang
Mando-pop Singer (Guóyǔ liúxíng gēshǒu)
Mando-pop Singer (Guóyǔ liúxíng gēshǒu)
 
Posts: 2392
Joined: 02 Nov 2005, 14:03

6000

Re: DPP or KMT: Different outcomes re: unification with PRC?

Postby urodacus » 30 Jan 2012, 07:26

well there's a collective mindwank for you.


No, the RoC was formed from the state boundaries that existed in China at the time (1911), not at any arbitrary previous time. The PRC consequently has only got a claim on lands that RoC controlled in 1947, when the KMT ran away with their tails between their legs and set up shop on the (non-RoC) island of Taiwan.

Ergo, PRC has absolutely no legitimate claim over Taiwan, the Spratleys, the East China Sea, the Indian state of Assam, Burma, Kashmir, Tibet, Mongolia, etc etc.

You can't go around simly ignoring the rules tat the rest of the world lives by, not the exigencies imposed on you by the wilful whims of the Mistress of history.

Oh, wait: you're Chinese! How silly of me! Everything you do is an inernal matter and no-one else has the right to interfere or it's an affront to the dignity of the Chinese people and a slap in the face of Chonese sovereignty.

What a fucking joke. I'd call for you to just sit back and take a good hard look at yourself, but you've repeatedly shown the rest of the world that you have as much ability to do so as a blue faced two year old in a temper tantrum over in Aisle Three of the toystore.
The prizes are a bottle of f*!@#$% SCOTCH and a box of cheap f!@#$#$ CIGARS!
Forumosan avatar
urodacus
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 10950
Joined: 04 Nov 2004, 23:20
Location: banished by the Illudium Q-36 demodulator
169 Recommends(s)
216 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: DPP or KMT: Different outcomes re: unification with PRC?

Postby BigJohn » 30 Jan 2012, 09:54

urodacus wrote:Oh, wait: you're Chinese! How silly of me! Everything you do is an inernal matter and no-one else has the right to interfere or it's an affront to the dignity of the Chinese people and a slap in the face of Chonese sovereignty.

What a fucking joke. I'd call for you to just sit back and take a good hard look at yourself, but you've repeatedly shown the rest of the world that you have as much ability to do so as a blue faced two year old in a temper tantrum over in Aisle Three of the toystore.



MODERATOR'S NOTE: Guys, I know these issues are contentious ones, and people feel passionately about them. But please try to avoid making negative personal comments, and using ad hominem arguments.
Forumosan avatar
BigJohn
National Security Advisor (guójiā ānquán gùwèn)
National Security Advisor (guójiā ānquán gùwèn)
 
Posts: 4560
Joined: 25 Jun 2005, 01:45
Location: Lost in time, lost in space...and meaning
97 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: DPP or KMT: Different outcomes re: unification with PRC?

Postby bohica » 30 Jan 2012, 10:17

urodacus wrote:well there's a collective mindwank for you.


No, the RoC was formed from the state boundaries that existed in China at the time (1911), not at any arbitrary previous time. The PRC consequently has only got a claim on lands that RoC controlled in 1947, when the KMT ran away with their tails between their legs and set up shop on the (non-RoC) island of Taiwan.

Ergo, PRC has absolutely no legitimate claim over Taiwan, the Spratleys, the East China Sea, the Indian state of Assam, Burma, Kashmir, Tibet, Mongolia, etc etc.

You can't go around simly ignoring the rules tat the rest of the world lives by, not the exigencies imposed on you by the wilful whims of the Mistress of history.

Oh, wait: you're Chinese! How silly of me! Everything you do is an inernal matter and no-one else has the right to interfere or it's an affront to the dignity of the Chinese people and a slap in the face of Chonese sovereignty.

What a fucking joke. I'd call for you to just sit back and take a good hard look at yourself, but you've repeatedly shown the rest of the world that you have as much ability to do so as a blue faced two year old in a temper tantrum over in Aisle Three of the toystore.


You do know that the ROC had more land, much more in fact, than is on the PRC map, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ROC_Administrative_and_Claims.svg

Of course you don't. And you're talking about legitimate claim? Why don't you tell me how legitimate the claims are of the other claimants of the places you listed. Oh, wait, you're a sinophobe. China automatically doesn't have a claim, they all belong to the other country who's making the same claim, even if that place is being claimed by a dozen other countries like the Spratley, China automatically loses its claim to the other 11 or so countries. What a bunch of garbage.

You should take a look around the world and see how many active territorial disputes there are and see the kind of temper tantrum being thrown. Looking at the amount of consternation the Brits had with tiny Hong Kong, their head probably explode if China asked for it back in the '50s which is what should have happened.
bohica
Shoe-wielding Legislator (huīwǔ xiézi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
Shoe-wielding Legislator (huīwǔ xiézi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
 
Posts: 230
Joined: 01 Jun 2011, 17:10
13 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: DPP or KMT: Different outcomes re: unification with PRC?

Postby urodacus » 30 Jan 2012, 11:03

That's crap, China ceded Hong Kong in perpetuity by a valid treaty (and see, that's the point: China repeatedly ignores the validity of treaties it doesn't like, while jumping up and down over other people's need to respect treaties that it does like).

And I don't give a fig for the claims of the RoC either, seeing as the RoC is a legal fiction. Much like the Gondoliers, by Gilbert and Sullivan. A great operetta, you should look it up one day. very pertinent insight into the loony machinations of a late 19th century mindset, the kind that still plagues the PRC and the wannabes who now govern Taiwan.

Yes, the extent of territory claimed by the RoC is a joke (as amply reflected in Mayor Ma), and the areas claimed are larger than the areas currently claimed by the PRC, but China still claims many of those chunks of land. The border in Kashmir is still under dispute, the Paracels and Spratleys, and now with the emergence of a stronger blue water navy for China, the Senkakus and other islands in the East China Sea. It may be called the East China Sea in english, but that's not because they own it, but because it lies to the east of China.

Notice that I am giving China the dignity of calling it China, because there is only one China, and it lies on the mainland of Asia (and the islands of Hainan, Macau, and HK).

And as for attacking individual posters, I most pointedly am not. My posts are directed at the herd of nationalistic Chinese in general and the CCP and their lackeys in particular. Anyone who chooses to identify with them must of course be tarred with the same brush. Anyone who values the way of life that the West represents should be duly alarmed by China's attitudes and intentions, and not listen to the protestations of innocence or the batting of eyelids or crocodile tears, nor their hissy fits.
The prizes are a bottle of f*!@#$% SCOTCH and a box of cheap f!@#$#$ CIGARS!
Forumosan avatar
urodacus
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 10950
Joined: 04 Nov 2004, 23:20
Location: banished by the Illudium Q-36 demodulator
169 Recommends(s)
216 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: DPP or KMT: Different outcomes re: unification with PRC?

Postby bohica » 30 Jan 2012, 12:03

Talking about someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.

As I pointed out earlier China is not claiming most of the land it had lost. For those ex-Chinese land whose status was settled ipso facto, the PRC by and large accepted the fact and is NOT seeking their return(e.g. Mongolia, Russian Far East). But for those places whose status is undetermined, you better be damned sure China is going to be putting in its claim. This goes for Taiwan, Spratleys, East China Sea, Kashmir, and whatever place that are in dispute. It'd be stupid for China not to be claiming those areas when other countries are making the same claim. Of course people all go "bad, bad China" for making those claims when other countries are making the same claim to the same area. The hypocrisy is staggering.

And if you're going to keep pointing to some treaty for Hong Kong, then reasonably China should get back all the land from the Russian Far East and god knows how much other land that had been wrested away. Because those land were all signed away to China during the preceding dynasties when China was a strong country. But they all shouldn't count because China shouldn't get back any land just because it's China, right?

urodacus wrote:Notice that I am giving China the dignity of calling it China, because there is only one China, and it lies on the mainland of Asia (and the islands of Hainan, Macau, and HK).

Oh good. At least you're not saying Hong Kong should have been returned to the ROC on Taiwan or something. Good for you.
bohica
Shoe-wielding Legislator (huīwǔ xiézi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
Shoe-wielding Legislator (huīwǔ xiézi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
 
Posts: 230
Joined: 01 Jun 2011, 17:10
13 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: DPP or KMT: Different outcomes re: unification with PRC?

Postby urodacus » 30 Jan 2012, 13:11

bohica wrote:People all go "bad, bad China" for making those claims when other countries are making the same claim to the same claim area. The hypocrisy is staggering.


But in many cases all the other claimants have legitimate claims whereas China's is based on "we want, we want" and some vague historical claim from a dead dynasty, generally overlying a realisation that "oh mi god, that sea floor has a vast wealth of minerals that we knew nothing about in the past". etc. Even one single case of such would be hypocrisy, on China's side.



And if you're going to keep pointing to some treaty for Hong Kong, then reasonably China should get back all the land from the Russian Far East and god knows how much other land that had been wrested away. Because those land were all signed away to China during the preceding dynasties when China was a strong country. But they all shouldn't count because China shouldn't get back any land just because it's China, right?


No, not reasonably. China should honour all the treaties it signed, whatever dynasty they may have been signed under at the time. That's international law. The land was not wrested away, it was signed away. Has Germany asked for Alsace back? No. and nor should China ask for parts of Russia on the Heilongjiang border back either, or "outer Tibet" : what the fuck is that?

I do notice that China was satisfied after Tajikistan ceded 1,000 square km of disputed land last year, settling a dispute dating back to the 1870s. Let's see some more realpolitik from China like that, rather than the showboating they have been parading about with over the last 20 years.

It's not like they really need any more land, being the 3rd largest nation as it is. But yes, we all know it's about prestige and face.
The prizes are a bottle of f*!@#$% SCOTCH and a box of cheap f!@#$#$ CIGARS!
Forumosan avatar
urodacus
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 10950
Joined: 04 Nov 2004, 23:20
Location: banished by the Illudium Q-36 demodulator
169 Recommends(s)
216 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: DPP or KMT: Different outcomes re: unification with PRC?

Postby bohica » 30 Jan 2012, 14:34

urodacus wrote:But in many cases all the other claimants have legitimate claims whereas China's is based on "we want, we want" and some vague historical claim from a dead dynasty, generally overlying a realisation that "oh mi god, that sea floor has a vast wealth of minerals that we knew nothing about in the past". etc. Even one single case of such would be hypocrisy, on China's side.

Enlight me on why other country's claims are more legitimate. Go ahead and explain, frankly I don' think you can.


urodacus wrote:No, not reasonably. China should honour all the treaties it signed, whatever dynasty they may have been signed under at the time. That's international law. The land was not wrested away, it was signed away. Has Germany asked for Alsace back? No. and nor should China ask for parts of Russia on the Heilongjiang border back either, or "outer Tibet" : what the fuck is that?


Did you read what I wrote? Those land had earlier been signed away by other countries TO CHINA. China aquired those land when it was strong. What happened to those treaties? What happened to treaties like the Treaty of Nerchinsk where Russia gave a big piece of land to China? How in the world can other countries not honor those earlier treaties and instead took all the land back when China became weak?
bohica
Shoe-wielding Legislator (huīwǔ xiézi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
Shoe-wielding Legislator (huīwǔ xiézi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
 
Posts: 230
Joined: 01 Jun 2011, 17:10
13 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: DPP or KMT: Different outcomes re: unification with PRC?

Postby mike029 » 30 Jan 2012, 15:04

bohica wrote:As I pointed out earlier China is not claiming most of the land it had lost. For those ex-Chinese land whose status was settled ipso facto, the PRC by and large accepted the fact and is NOT seeking their return(e.g. Mongolia, Russian Far East).


I don't know about this. Having been in Mainland the last two weeks for CNY three different people have told me how the people of Mongolia want to be annexed by China because China's expertise in mining can help them have a bright developmental future. I have no clue where they got this idea from. It's really funny how Mainland Chinese people don't actually realize the rest of the world hates them...especially Mongolians. Bring on the 'the world hates Americans' comments. At least we stand in line, don't push our way into doorways that only one person can fit through at a time, and don't spit on the floor in KFC. Maybe the world hates "America" the country and the way it goes about doing things, but the world hates "China" and "Chinese people" more because they are the most dishonest and self-serving people in the world. Look at how many threads here talk about Chinese people (華人) are only concerned with themselves or their group, whatever that may be: family, friends, country. Fuck the rules as long as I can get ahead. To combat the next argument, "America does whatever it wants": well, when China is the dominant country in the world, respected by other countries, and actually helps to write the rules instead of complaining about the ones that it doesn't directly benefit from then it can do whatever it wants. Too bad 5000 years of Chinese history never once showed China in charge of anything. Let's not forget China's biggest political ally: North Korea! :bravo: It's not because the world hates socialism, look at half of Europe. It's because Chinese people bring it upon themselves and always play the victim. China could have had amazing growth, both economically and politically, much earlier through more partnership with Japan and Korea during their growth phases, but no, WE HATE JAPAN had to prevail. It's not because the world distrusts Asians, look at HK, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia. All of these places are growing with the support of the west without any kind of fear that the country will somehow fuck them over. China is very smart in that it started a system where we a more or less forced to use them for manufacturing, but it doesn't change the fact that the world doesn't trust them. I can't count how many people I've sat next to on planes telling me how many times a Chinese person has just flat out stolen their product ideas. A Japanese or Korean would NEVER do that.

Another example of "China doesn't follow rules it doesn't like" is IP infringement. One word: WTF. I saw an article a while back on TUAW.com about Chinese authors suing Apple because their books were available pirated on the iPhone. That is hysterical! A CHINESE PERSON SUING A WESTERN COMPANY FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. There is no defense for this. There is no way a country can or should support industries that steal property from other people and sell it for their own profit. They should be booted from WTO.

Another thing, last week it was a big news story here that America was going to attack Iran immediately, creating outrage here against imperialist America. That story does not exist. You know what really actually did happen that day? Chinese cops shot a bunch of Tibetans protesting and disallowed foreigners from visiting Tibet until mid-March. Does anyone know why China would tell such a lie?
1. Obviously to cover up that news with something more reactionary in favor of China.
2. The whole world is ganging up on China to ask them to stop buying oil from Iran.
3. Obama made a new super economic trade club that includes every single Asian country except China. China was allowed to go to the conference in Hawaii and just watch.

Let me get this straight: I'm not hater of Mainland China. I dislike Taiwan and Mainland China equally because of the asinine shit that both of them do, granted Taiwan does less, but they are so arrogant and 井底之蛙 that it makes me dislike them a lot. I spend ample amounts of time in both places, and each has its pros and cons. Mainland China has more cons...but that's why I have a VPN. Also, its so friggin cheap that I have enough money to get out frequently and clear my head in Korea or HK.

It's like last summer when they made a big friggin deal about an American navy ship stationed in South Korea and how it was aimed at Hebei. Although in reality it was just turning around. How do I know how severe this bullshit was? I got an Embassy alert.

This post was recommended by urodacus (30 Jan 2012, 19:47)
Rating: 5.88%
mike029
Newspaper Copyeditor (bàoshè biānjí)
Newspaper Copyeditor (bàoshè biānjí)
 
Posts: 442
Joined: 17 Mar 2011, 16:07
3 Recommends(s)
40 Recognized(s)

6000

PreviousNext




 
 
 x

Return to Taiwan Politics



Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: No Forumosans and 3 visitors

Regret for the things we did can be tempered by time; it is regret for the things we did not do that is inconsolable -- SYDNEY J HARRIS