4 ms·

> China's actions regarding Taiwan are nonetheless absurd because it was basically a colonial possession of the Qing Dynasty, having not been part of China befo

> China's actions regarding Taiwan are nonetheless absurd because it was basically a colonial possession of the Qing Dynasty, having not been part of China before the 17th century, so China has no serious "historic" right to claim it aside from nonbinding agreements Again, a viewpoint I entirely agree with but one for which you are making an awful argument. What became the US was not colonized before the 17th century, either. We can oppose China’s actions regarding Taiwan because a majority of the Taiwanese people don’t want to be a part of China, not because there is no “historic” claim. If the absurdity lies in the lack of history, then it would be absurd for us in the US to support Taiwanese independence yet not return all our land to the Native Americans. Characterizing China’s position as “absurd” is self-defeating. Also, you write that you’re responding to coldtea’s claim that China has taken no aggressive actions towards the US, but that is not at all what they wrote; rather, they wrote that it has “mostly been western nations doing things to China”.

scythe 9y ago
>If the absurdity lies in the lack of history Well of course it does, because China's claims to Taiwan are fundamentally historical. The US claim to the mainland US is not based on history but on de facto control, so history is not an injuction. But the PRC's propaganda line is "Taiwan is part of China" which is both presently and historically false. China captured Taiwan from the Dutch in 1662 and held it for two centuries before losing it to the Japanese. It is not quite as mad as Argentina's claim to the Falklands, but that's a low bar. With Macau or Gibraltar, a case can be made that they're owed back. With Taiwan it's dumb. >that is not at all what they wrote I responded to this: >For enemy it should have also actually done something I demonstrated "something".
- coldtea 9y ago
  >The US claim to the mainland US is not based on history but on de facto control, so history is not an injuction. Well, de facto control is no moral claim.
  - scythe 9y ago
    Yes, it is. Accepting de facto control is important to ensuring a lasting peace. There will always be another objection. De facto control justifies the status of Tibet, Hawai'i, Israel, Catalonia etc.

scythe 9y ago

>If the absurdity lies in the lack of history Well of course it does, because China's claims to Taiwan are fundamentally historical. The US claim to the mainland US is not based on history but on de facto control, so history is not an injuction. But the PRC's propaganda line is "Taiwan is part of China" which is both presently and historically false. China captured Taiwan from the Dutch in 1662 and held it for two centuries before losing it to the Japanese. It is not quite as mad as Argentina's claim to the Falklands, but that's a low bar. With Macau or Gibraltar, a case can be made that they're owed back. With Taiwan it's dumb. >that is not at all what they wrote I responded to this: >For enemy it should have also actually done something I demonstrated "something".

coldtea 9y ago
>The US claim to the mainland US is not based on history but on de facto control, so history is not an injuction. Well, de facto control is no moral claim.
- scythe 9y ago
  Yes, it is. Accepting de facto control is important to ensuring a lasting peace. There will always be another objection. De facto control justifies the status of Tibet, Hawai'i, Israel, Catalonia etc.