5 ms·

I really don’t understand this logic. Or rather, it’s easy to turn it around. Russia’s claim is basically, “this is ethnically Russian population speaking Rus

by tomp 5y ago

I really don’t understand this logic. Or rather, it’s easy to turn it around. Russia’s claim is basically, “this is ethnically Russian population speaking Russian”. That’s exactly the same claim that China could make about Taiwan.

littlestymaar 5y ago
> Russia’s claim is basically, “this is ethnically Russian population speaking Russian”. That’s exactly the same claim that China could make about Taiwan. And yet it's not China's claim over Taiwan (and the “speaking Russian” part is kind of difficult to transfer to China and Taiwan).
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > (and the “speaking Russian” part is kind of difficult to transfer to China and Taiwan). Isn't the main language in Taiwan the same as in south-east mainland China? (What used to be called Cantonese, but maybe it goes by another name nowadays?)
  - TwoFerMaggie 5y ago
    There are at least two major languages (or dialects, depending on how you define it) in south-east mainland China. Cantonese and Hokkien. Cantonese is mainly spoken in Guangdong (historically known as Canton), and Hokkien mainly Fujian. They are two very different languages. There are a lot of people in Taiwan speaking Hokkien. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantonese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantonese [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokkien https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokkien
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > Cantonese is mainly spoken in Guangdong (historically known as Canton) Yeah, I thought I'd got that right: The region has been renamed (or, arguably, just had the spelling revised to be more in line with the native pronunciation?). So why isn't the language now called Guangdongese? This modern PC-induced language revisionism can get pretty darn confusing in its inconsistency. > There are a lot of people in Taiwan speaking Hokkien. Which still seems to imply that even more people, i.e. a majority, speak Cantonese, right? I just meant that, since language is often a (sometimes minor, sometimes major) part of how "ethnicity" is defined, China could use an analogous "They even speak the same language!" argument. Not that I'm saying it's a valid argument -- just not logically impossible, as I think was argued or at least implied in some comment(s) above.
  - littlestymaar 5y ago
    In addition to what TwoFerMaggie said in the sibling comment, my point was that China isn't and as never been defined as being a group of people speaking the same language (because, well, they don't!)
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> That’s exactly the same claim that China could make about Taiwan It’s also the same claim Western non-Han China could make about itself, or India could make about Tibet.
- TwoFerMaggie 5y ago
  Problem is autocrats don't care about consistency at all, nor do they have to maintain an public image of consistency (maybe not just autocrats, perhaps modern politicians in general). This "if I apply the same logic to this other thing you did" simply doesn't work other than as a gotcha title for the media in opposition. Stories/opinions will be drown out by misinformation and propaganda. It's even easier especially for autocrats, because if you ask them "isn't that the same claim Western non-Han China could make about itself?", they can just pretend not hearing the question and let the ministry of truth do the work.
dirtyid 5y ago
>That’s exactly the same claim that China could make about Taiwan. Logic is for PRC, UKR is sovereign, TW is not. RU invading UKR is international war. PRC invading TW is domestic civil war. RU is violating UKR sovereignty, whereas US intervening on PRC civil war with TW would be foreign power violating Chinese sovereignty. PRC would be UKR sorting out domestic issues whereas US would be RU, an outside aggressor. Note PRC has not endorsed RU annexation of Ukraine including Crimea. Doesn't mean PRC doesn't support RU security concerns, but PRC would like it addressed via diplomacy without normalizing violating sovereignty of countries recognized at UN, which again TW is not. PRC and RU are not aligned on invasion, but it doesn't mean PRC will loudly oppose RU if it's against PRC interest.

by tomp 5y ago

littlestymaar 5y ago

> Russia’s claim is basically, “this is ethnically Russian population speaking Russian”. That’s exactly the same claim that China could make about Taiwan. And yet it's not China's claim over Taiwan (and the “speaking Russian” part is kind of difficult to transfer to China and Taiwan).

CRConrad 5y ago
> (and the “speaking Russian” part is kind of difficult to transfer to China and Taiwan). Isn't the main language in Taiwan the same as in south-east mainland China? (What used to be called Cantonese, but maybe it goes by another name nowadays?)
- TwoFerMaggie 5y ago
  There are at least two major languages (or dialects, depending on how you define it) in south-east mainland China. Cantonese and Hokkien. Cantonese is mainly spoken in Guangdong (historically known as Canton), and Hokkien mainly Fujian. They are two very different languages. There are a lot of people in Taiwan speaking Hokkien. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantonese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantonese [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokkien https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokkien
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > Cantonese is mainly spoken in Guangdong (historically known as Canton) Yeah, I thought I'd got that right: The region has been renamed (or, arguably, just had the spelling revised to be more in line with the native pronunciation?). So why isn't the language now called Guangdongese? This modern PC-induced language revisionism can get pretty darn confusing in its inconsistency. > There are a lot of people in Taiwan speaking Hokkien. Which still seems to imply that even more people, i.e. a majority, speak Cantonese, right? I just meant that, since language is often a (sometimes minor, sometimes major) part of how "ethnicity" is defined, China could use an analogous "They even speak the same language!" argument. Not that I'm saying it's a valid argument -- just not logically impossible, as I think was argued or at least implied in some comment(s) above.
- littlestymaar 5y ago
  In addition to what TwoFerMaggie said in the sibling comment, my point was that China isn't and as never been defined as being a group of people speaking the same language (because, well, they don't!)

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> That’s exactly the same claim that China could make about Taiwan It’s also the same claim Western non-Han China could make about itself, or India could make about Tibet.

TwoFerMaggie 5y ago
Problem is autocrats don't care about consistency at all, nor do they have to maintain an public image of consistency (maybe not just autocrats, perhaps modern politicians in general). This "if I apply the same logic to this other thing you did" simply doesn't work other than as a gotcha title for the media in opposition. Stories/opinions will be drown out by misinformation and propaganda. It's even easier especially for autocrats, because if you ask them "isn't that the same claim Western non-Han China could make about itself?", they can just pretend not hearing the question and let the ministry of truth do the work.

dirtyid 5y ago

>That’s exactly the same claim that China could make about Taiwan. Logic is for PRC, UKR is sovereign, TW is not. RU invading UKR is international war. PRC invading TW is domestic civil war. RU is violating UKR sovereignty, whereas US intervening on PRC civil war with TW would be foreign power violating Chinese sovereignty. PRC would be UKR sorting out domestic issues whereas US would be RU, an outside aggressor. Note PRC has not endorsed RU annexation of Ukraine including Crimea. Doesn't mean PRC doesn't support RU security concerns, but PRC would like it addressed via diplomacy without normalizing violating sovereignty of countries recognized at UN, which again TW is not. PRC and RU are not aligned on invasion, but it doesn't mean PRC will loudly oppose RU if it's against PRC interest.