5 ms·

I agree there should be more pieces explaining the background and history of the PRC and ROC, and how Chiang Kai-shek ended up in Taiwan, that it was the ROC ha

I agree there should be more pieces explaining the background and history of the PRC and ROC, and how Chiang Kai-shek ended up in Taiwan, that it was the ROC had the UN seat until the 1970s, or that both claimed to be the rightful government etc. But that should be linked to rather than fleshed out in every story, as it gets pretty involved. "China claims that Taiwan is part of its territory" is correct - as far as it goes, it just doesn't go nearly far enough. Yet I'd be inclined to want this for most media stories in all parts of the world. To talk of companies without mention of their darker history or former name, e.g. "BP" (British Petroleum, formerly British-Persian Oil), "Academi" (Xe, before that Blackwater). At some point no one will remember Emerdata succeeded Cambridge Analytica, etc, etc. There is a lot of nuance (and inconvenient history) lost all over. So where does, or should, it stop?

mytailorisrich 7y ago
> China claims that Taiwan is part of its territory" is correct - as far as it goes, it just doesn't go nearly far enough It's correct for a certain definition of the terms. Taiwan officially also agrees that it is part of China, after all. It gives the impression that China wants to invade a foreign land whereas it is essentially a domestic dispute, the Chinese civil war.
- gurkendoktor 7y ago
  > Taiwan officially also agrees that it is part of China, after all. Which is worth as much as a forced confession, because there is a credible threat of invasion if the Taiwan/ROC government would officially change its name or claimed territory. And I'm sure many countries have come into de-facto existence through civil wars, so that can't be the only criteria.
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    You illustrate my point perfectly. They do not agree that they are part of the People's Republic of China, but as the Republic of China they are indeed part of 'China'. Nothing forced there.
    - gurkendoktor 7y ago
      If the threat of an invasion is not "forced", then what is?
      - yourbandsucks 7y ago
        They don't call themselves part of China under threat. Their official position is that they're the rightful government of all of China. Abandoning 'Taiwan is part of China' would mean abandoning that claim. It looks quaint now, yes, but that's the official position. And it wasn't quaint when they were holding China's security council seat. The fact that both countries have reasons to say 'Taiwan is part of China' while each claiming to be the rightful government of China is the most basic fact of the relationship. It's embedded in the names of the countries, even. ROC and PRC. I'd submit that anyone with strong feelings on the matter should really already know this.
        gurkendoktor 7y ago
        Yes, that was the situation under authoritarian one-party rule, and there are no doubt still a few people in the ROC who dream of retaking the mainland under the KMT banner. Since then, China has added an explicit military threat under the Anti-Secession Law[1], and the ROC government has evolved into a two-party democracy. The official position has not changed, but the context has. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Secession_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Secession_Law
        yourbandsucks 7y ago
        But we agree that that's the background and Taiwan hasn't reached consensus to change the official policy, right? OP is getting dogpiled for pointing out the grade school history overview of the topic. As for whether the threat of invasion is the deciding factor on the official ROC policy.. I think it's better explained by the fact that everything is going fine with two Chinas. They trade a ton, everyone's happy. Why mess with that just because the diplomatic positions don't make logical sense?
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  > it is essentially a domestic dispute, the Chinese civil war Well surely it was as the civil war is 70 years over, since the fall of Hainan. There would be many decades of martial law before the democratic reforms. So it wasn't about what Taiwanese citizens then wanted. Who is definitively right? I have no doubt it will remain a sticking point in relations between Taiwan and PRC for decades to come. It seems unlikely that Taiwan and CCP will reach amicable agreement.
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    There has not been military action in a long time but it is obviously not over. If it was over we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's like Germany and Vietnam before, Korea today. I would also note that Taiwan had a KMT President no later than 2015 and he was very much "anti-independence". In fact when asked about it he very aptly answered that the Republic of China was indepedent since its founding in 1912.
tomxor 7y ago
> There is a lot of nuance (and inconvenient history) lost all over. So where does, or should, it stop? When it's relevant? Notice how it feels more applicable to contextualize this issue with it's history. Sometimes it's relevant sometimes it's not, it depends on how directly connected the present is to the past in the particular aspect being discussed.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Sure, but there's loads of times relevant, and little known, background is not mentioned at all. The rebrand, rename or nuance of former dispute or civil war is quite often the reason the modern event is an issue in the first place. Having become something of a history buff over the years, I quite often know at least some of the background behind a story, or what came before. I find it disappointing to just get events reported, without effort to give that necessary context. It can reveal the "why".

mytailorisrich 7y ago

> China claims that Taiwan is part of its territory" is correct - as far as it goes, it just doesn't go nearly far enough It's correct for a certain definition of the terms. Taiwan officially also agrees that it is part of China, after all. It gives the impression that China wants to invade a foreign land whereas it is essentially a domestic dispute, the Chinese civil war.

gurkendoktor 7y ago
> Taiwan officially also agrees that it is part of China, after all. Which is worth as much as a forced confession, because there is a credible threat of invasion if the Taiwan/ROC government would officially change its name or claimed territory. And I'm sure many countries have come into de-facto existence through civil wars, so that can't be the only criteria.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  You illustrate my point perfectly. They do not agree that they are part of the People's Republic of China, but as the Republic of China they are indeed part of 'China'. Nothing forced there.
  - gurkendoktor 7y ago
    If the threat of an invasion is not "forced", then what is?
    - yourbandsucks 7y ago
      They don't call themselves part of China under threat. Their official position is that they're the rightful government of all of China. Abandoning 'Taiwan is part of China' would mean abandoning that claim. It looks quaint now, yes, but that's the official position. And it wasn't quaint when they were holding China's security council seat. The fact that both countries have reasons to say 'Taiwan is part of China' while each claiming to be the rightful government of China is the most basic fact of the relationship. It's embedded in the names of the countries, even. ROC and PRC. I'd submit that anyone with strong feelings on the matter should really already know this.
      - gurkendoktor 7y ago
        Yes, that was the situation under authoritarian one-party rule, and there are no doubt still a few people in the ROC who dream of retaking the mainland under the KMT banner. Since then, China has added an explicit military threat under the Anti-Secession Law[1], and the ROC government has evolved into a two-party democracy. The official position has not changed, but the context has. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Secession_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Secession_Law
        yourbandsucks 7y ago
        But we agree that that's the background and Taiwan hasn't reached consensus to change the official policy, right? OP is getting dogpiled for pointing out the grade school history overview of the topic. As for whether the threat of invasion is the deciding factor on the official ROC policy.. I think it's better explained by the fact that everything is going fine with two Chinas. They trade a ton, everyone's happy. Why mess with that just because the diplomatic positions don't make logical sense?
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
> it is essentially a domestic dispute, the Chinese civil war Well surely it was as the civil war is 70 years over, since the fall of Hainan. There would be many decades of martial law before the democratic reforms. So it wasn't about what Taiwanese citizens then wanted. Who is definitively right? I have no doubt it will remain a sticking point in relations between Taiwan and PRC for decades to come. It seems unlikely that Taiwan and CCP will reach amicable agreement.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  There has not been military action in a long time but it is obviously not over. If it was over we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's like Germany and Vietnam before, Korea today. I would also note that Taiwan had a KMT President no later than 2015 and he was very much "anti-independence". In fact when asked about it he very aptly answered that the Republic of China was indepedent since its founding in 1912.

tomxor 7y ago

> There is a lot of nuance (and inconvenient history) lost all over. So where does, or should, it stop? When it's relevant? Notice how it feels more applicable to contextualize this issue with it's history. Sometimes it's relevant sometimes it's not, it depends on how directly connected the present is to the past in the particular aspect being discussed.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Sure, but there's loads of times relevant, and little known, background is not mentioned at all. The rebrand, rename or nuance of former dispute or civil war is quite often the reason the modern event is an issue in the first place. Having become something of a history buff over the years, I quite often know at least some of the background behind a story, or what came before. I find it disappointing to just get events reported, without effort to give that necessary context. It can reveal the "why".