7 ms·
I want to clear up some terminology here. The revolution was between the Communist party and Nationalist party. The Nationalist party, the Kuomintang, has it's
by koube 8y ago
I want to clear up some terminology here.
The revolution was between the Communist party and Nationalist party. The Nationalist party, the Kuomintang, has it's roots in China, consider themselves Chinese, and consider themselves the true government of China as they were in the past. They only claim this officially. Of course people in reality know that they don't actually have any control of China and have zero chance of regaining it in the future. Typically they are descendants mainland Chinese. This is the blue party. In an extreme simplification, they can thought of as the republican party. Usually older people, more conservative, more friendly to China, and consider themselves more Chinese. (Extreme extreme oversimplification.)
There is also the Green party, which grew in opposition to the kuomintang. They were not as involved in the revolution and I think they care even less about sovereignty over China than the blue party, who as I mentioned, already care very little about it. The green party members are typically descendants of families that were in Taiwan before the revolution. In an extreme simplification, they can be thought of as the democratic party. Usually younger people, more liberal, less friendly to China, and consider themselves more Taiwanese. (Extreme extreme oversimplification.)
I don't have enough knowledge to elaborate past the very very basics but I thought I would clear up some of the differences, and point out that both parties care little about sovereignty over China. Also, the grandparent comment I think made a good distinction by specifying "taiwanese nationalist" and "chinese nationalist", removing ambiguity about what the "nation" in "nationalist" refers to. The capital-n Nationalist party does claim sovereignty over China, but only in an official capacity and they are indeed more pro-China.
- ykhorizon 8y agoIf someone needs more history background, you can check out this article https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34729538 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34729538
- eric-hu 8y agoI'm not an expert on the subject either, but I believe they Taiwanese government is in a stalemate with China over Taiwan's "Republic of China" title. Taiwan can't get it's own seat as a country in the UN because of the "China" in its title. On the other hand, any attempt to remove China from its title would provoke China. China would see it as a gesture towards independence and sovereignty. Some fear China would react with hostility in that case. Some anti-independence Taiwanese see it as the best way to keep the peace.
- garmaine 8y agoTaiwan had its own seat as a country in the UN. They were a founding member and had a permanent seat on the security council. The UN has just adopted the "one china" policy and recognized the PRC victory in the Chinese civil war as legitimate. The UN is wholly recognizing the PRC's claims here. In fact, Taiwan tried to (re-)join the UN in 2007 under the name of "Taiwan", dropping the "Republic of China" bit entirely. No dice. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...
- CogitoCogito 8y agoHonestly, what are you talking about? At which point has the UN accepted the PRC's claims to Taiwan or the PRC victory? There hasn't even been a peace treaty signed so how could that be possible anyway. Without knowing all the UN's history, I 100% totally don't believe that the UN has recognized the PRC's claims, simply since the US itself hasn't actually accepted those claims and the US is on the security counsel (thereby capable of blocking such a motion). Both the PRC and the ROC would have long ago been seated in the UN if there never were a position for "China" on the security counsel. That position allowed the ROC to block the PRC's seat in the UN when it represented "China" and it then allowed the PRC to block the ROC's seat later when it represented "China". The reason that the representation for "China" was switched to the PRC from the ROC was because that step was possible procedurally within the UN's rules even though the ROC was against it. In other words, due to a procedural quirk the ROC could keep the PRC from being seated as a separate country, but couldn't keep its own representation from being switched. After that point the PRC could play the same games. If there were no seat for "China" on the security counsel or if the rules were different or simply if the ROC would have allowed it at the time, both the ROC and the PRC would have seats in the UN. But none of this means that the UN accepts the PRC's claims to Taiwan. edit: The downvoting is a bit disturbing. I'm quite honestly curious if there is anything factually wrong with what I've written. My suspicion is that these facts do not match the false assumptions of some HN readers and that they'd rather hide it away instead of confronting it directly.
- 8y ago