4 ms·

From my second hand laymen sources, there are in fact pro China advocates in Tiawan. Also surprisingly enough, there was a sizable loyalist group in the Americ

From my second hand laymen sources, there are in fact pro China advocates in Tiawan. Also surprisingly enough, there was a sizable loyalist group in the American 13 colonies who supported continued British colonialism.

neolog 6y ago
Wonder if they're from Taiwan, or were deployed there by Chinese government.
tialaramex 6y ago
One obvious reason to support the British is that the British don't have slavery. Sure enough, those slaves who fought for the British and were evacuated with British troops became free men. Fighting for the colonists genuinely could mean you won, and then they said that's great, now back to the fields 'cos you won freedom for us not for you. Your great grandchildren might see freedom (after the Civil War) but you would not.
- slowmovintarget 6y ago
  I'm not sure what history books you are reading, but Britain did, in fact, have slavery, and traded in slaves during the American Revolution. Trade of slaves was not outlawed in Britain until 1807 and ownership of slaves was not outlawed in Britain until 1833.
  - tialaramex 6y ago
    History books about things that happened rather than, say, squinting hard to rationalise unhappy truths? Britain didn't have slavery†. The 1833 act abolishes slavery in the Colonies, not in Britain itself. The existence of slavery in the colonies is why there were slaves in America to seek freedom by fighting for the British there. So like I said, the British freed those on their side, while the colonists unsurprisingly did not do likewise. This is a recorded motivation for the thing we're talking about, fighting for the British in the revolutionary war. †Britain didn't have chattel slavery, which is what we're talking about here, but it did have serfdom - which today we would consider a type of slavery - until the late middle ages or so when it ceased to make economic sense.
    - whoooooo123 6y ago
      Another fun fact (I'm full of them today): while chattel slavery has never existed at a meaningful level in Britain, the specific act of holding someone in slavery wasn't technically made illegal here until 2009: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroners_and_Justice_Act_2009 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroners_and_Justice_Act_200...
    - Cyder 6y ago
      So Britain didn't exist until 1833? It wouldn't have been in the US if Britain didn't bring it.
      - tialaramex 6y ago
        No? Britain didn't have slavery, it didn't have it before that 1833 Act, and it still didn't have it afterward. The Act's title begins: "An Act for the Abolition of Slavery throughout the British Colonies" because it's about abolishing slavery in the colonies. By this time of course Americans - who still want slavery - have successfully rebelled and are independent and so this law does not affect the millions of slaves in the United States of America. The Colonies weren't Britain. Their people weren't (on the whole) British citizens, if you knew a bit more history that year might stand out more. 1833 is just after Great Reform, the country has become more small-D democratic, expanding the franchise (the right to vote) to more men and eliminating "Rotten boroughs" which were often in practice controlled by rich people, including slaveowner colonists abroad.
        meiraleal 6y ago
        When Foxxconn uses slave labor to produce iphones, are they Apple's iPhones?
kelnos 6y ago
Sure, you're not going to find everyone having the same opinion on something, but it's hard to compare Crimea, which has a sizeable pro-Russia population, possibly even a majority, with Taiwan, with only some smaller fringe groups wanting to reunify with China on Beijing's terms. And that's also a point to consider: there are some people in Taiwan who want to reunify, but not anywhere near under the terms Beijing would impose. You could call those people "pro unification", but they're very very different from people who would accept Chinese rule as it is now.

neolog 6y ago

Wonder if they're from Taiwan, or were deployed there by Chinese government.

tialaramex 6y ago

One obvious reason to support the British is that the British don't have slavery. Sure enough, those slaves who fought for the British and were evacuated with British troops became free men. Fighting for the colonists genuinely could mean you won, and then they said that's great, now back to the fields 'cos you won freedom for us not for you. Your great grandchildren might see freedom (after the Civil War) but you would not.

slowmovintarget 6y ago
I'm not sure what history books you are reading, but Britain did, in fact, have slavery, and traded in slaves during the American Revolution. Trade of slaves was not outlawed in Britain until 1807 and ownership of slaves was not outlawed in Britain until 1833.
- tialaramex 6y ago
  History books about things that happened rather than, say, squinting hard to rationalise unhappy truths? Britain didn't have slavery†. The 1833 act abolishes slavery in the Colonies, not in Britain itself. The existence of slavery in the colonies is why there were slaves in America to seek freedom by fighting for the British there. So like I said, the British freed those on their side, while the colonists unsurprisingly did not do likewise. This is a recorded motivation for the thing we're talking about, fighting for the British in the revolutionary war. †Britain didn't have chattel slavery, which is what we're talking about here, but it did have serfdom - which today we would consider a type of slavery - until the late middle ages or so when it ceased to make economic sense.
  - whoooooo123 6y ago
    Another fun fact (I'm full of them today): while chattel slavery has never existed at a meaningful level in Britain, the specific act of holding someone in slavery wasn't technically made illegal here until 2009: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroners_and_Justice_Act_2009 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroners_and_Justice_Act_200...
  - Cyder 6y ago
    So Britain didn't exist until 1833? It wouldn't have been in the US if Britain didn't bring it.
    - tialaramex 6y ago
      No? Britain didn't have slavery, it didn't have it before that 1833 Act, and it still didn't have it afterward. The Act's title begins: "An Act for the Abolition of Slavery throughout the British Colonies" because it's about abolishing slavery in the colonies. By this time of course Americans - who still want slavery - have successfully rebelled and are independent and so this law does not affect the millions of slaves in the United States of America. The Colonies weren't Britain. Their people weren't (on the whole) British citizens, if you knew a bit more history that year might stand out more. 1833 is just after Great Reform, the country has become more small-D democratic, expanding the franchise (the right to vote) to more men and eliminating "Rotten boroughs" which were often in practice controlled by rich people, including slaveowner colonists abroad.
      - meiraleal 6y ago
        When Foxxconn uses slave labor to produce iphones, are they Apple's iPhones?

kelnos 6y ago

Sure, you're not going to find everyone having the same opinion on something, but it's hard to compare Crimea, which has a sizeable pro-Russia population, possibly even a majority, with Taiwan, with only some smaller fringe groups wanting to reunify with China on Beijing's terms. And that's also a point to consider: there are some people in Taiwan who want to reunify, but not anywhere near under the terms Beijing would impose. You could call those people "pro unification", but they're very very different from people who would accept Chinese rule as it is now.