3 ms·

Your Wikipedia link doesn’t dispute anything I said. Taiwan was not under control or rule for the majority of the Qing dynasty. People were not allowed to fre

Your Wikipedia link doesn’t dispute anything I said. Taiwan was not under control or rule for the majority of the Qing dynasty. People were not allowed to freely travel to the island until 1875. It was called a province for ~10 years. The Qing dynasty rule of Taiwan was shorter than Japanese rule on Taiwan. By saying that it belonged to the Qing dynasty, we are saying that Russias occupation of regions of Ukraine is legal and legit. They are there so therefore they must own it. Despite the people not wanting to be ruled by Russia.

ssnistfajen 4y ago
>Taiwan was not under control or rule for the majority of the Qing dynasty. Clearly you did not comprehend the linked article. Surely a regime that appointed bureaucrats to be stationed locally in their administrative areas for nearly 200 years means it was Terra Nullius all along! By your logic British rule in India didn't begin until 1858 when the British has been colonizing India for 100 years prior. Good job being a disingenuous revisionist. >People were not allowed to freely travel to the island until 1875. It was called a province for ~10 years. The very fact that the Qing dynasty had effective immigration controls over a land they supposedly did not "control" or "rule" is a testament to them actually exercising control over a land they managed to govern. The Qing Dynasty did not exercise immigration controls over the Chinese diaspora in Southeast Asia, because they did control those lands. That is not the case with Taiwan. The existence of immigration control is proof of governance. The PRC had strict internal immigration controls for the first 30 years of its existence, modelled after the Soviet Union. Would you say either of these countries did not effectively "control" or "rule" the very territories that formed them? >By saying that it belonged to the Qing dynasty, we are saying that Russias occupation of regions of Ukraine is legal and legit. Your nonsensical comparison to Ukraine just further reaffirms that. Nobody said a word about Ukraine until you tried to shoehorn it with gross disregard of the history of Ukraine. >They are there so therefore they must own it. The Qing Dynasty ceased to exist 100+ years ago and they have very little to do with the ROC or the PRC of today despite the ROC technically having legally suceeded the Qing Dynasty. So whether the Qing Dynasty "owned" Taiwan has nothing to do with cross-strait politics of today. Would you deny Tsarist Russia "owned" what is modern day Ukraine? And are you aware whether Tsarist Russia "owned" what is modern day Ukraine has absolutely nothing to do with Vladimir Putin's personal claims? I'm talking about the rampant historical revisionism seen run amok in every English language discussion about Taiwan that is ultimately infantilizing the real issues faced by Taiwan, not whether the PRC "must own it" (hint: the PRC has never "owned it" and never deserves to "own it").
- philliphaydon 4y ago
  > Clearly you did not comprehend the linked article. Surely a regime that appointed bureaucrats to be stationed locally in their administrative areas for nearly 200 years means it was Terra Nullius all along! So if an Island belongs to no one, but is inhabited by people, and someone decides to sail to the Island and take orders from their home country. What you're saying is that it now belongs to their home country? And that means the entire island was adminstered and accounted for? > Your nonsensical comparison to Ukraine just further reaffirms that. Nobody said a word about Ukraine until you tried to shoehorn it with gross disregard of the history of Ukraine. Doesn't matter if I mention Ukraine or not. You're trying to argue that sending some people in and then saying "this belongs to me because I'm here" is a valid enough claim. If you make that claim you're supporting the CCP and you're supporting Russia. That simple. ---- (back later - no time to reply to the rest)
  - ssnistfajen 4y ago
    >sending some people in and then saying "this belongs to me because I'm here" is a valid enough claim Yes that is how much of colonization in the early modern period worked. I don't make up the rules. That's simply what happened. >If you make that claim you're supporting the CCP and you're supporting Russia. Oh since when is the CCP controlled by the Qing imperial family? Do you seriously type that out without putting it through some basic logical reasoning? If that's your conclusion then we are done here because you clearly do not have the ability to read or comprehend basic historical facts but instead choose what is the geopol equivalent of sh*t flinging, because you had decided to that historical revisionism with name calling is somehow an adequate replacement of your entire personality. I should've known better before clicking into this comment section as HN always have the most downright unhinged awful takes on non-tech geopol topics because it's clear some of you have never opened a single history book. Goodbye.
- mannerheim 4y ago
  > The very fact that the Qing dynasty had effective immigration controls over a land they supposedly did not "control" or "rule" I mean, they didn't. It was illegal for Han to immigrate there, but it happened anyway.
hnfong 4y ago
Your original claim: Taiwan has never been under control of the Qing dynasty. Backtrack: Taiwan was not under control or rule for the majority of the Qing dynasty. Backtrack: The Qing dynasty rule of Taiwan was shorter than ... Your latter statements are probably wrong too, but I'm too lazy to disprove you. You're welcome to come clean if you wish.
- philliphaydon 4y ago
  Taiwan has /never/ been under control of the Qing Dynasty. That's true. It wasn't until 1885 when it became a provience that they attempted to rule over Taiwan. But they didn't. Remember for over 200 years they did nothing with Taiwan. Right at the very end, they tried, but failed, they didn't rule or control Taiwan. Japan did tho. So if you take Qing Dynasty point of view, their rule over Taiwan was shorter than Japan's rule over Taiwan. That doesn't mean that Taiwan was ruled by the Qing Dynasty.

ssnistfajen 4y ago

>Taiwan was not under control or rule for the majority of the Qing dynasty. Clearly you did not comprehend the linked article. Surely a regime that appointed bureaucrats to be stationed locally in their administrative areas for nearly 200 years means it was Terra Nullius all along! By your logic British rule in India didn't begin until 1858 when the British has been colonizing India for 100 years prior. Good job being a disingenuous revisionist. >People were not allowed to freely travel to the island until 1875. It was called a province for ~10 years. The very fact that the Qing dynasty had effective immigration controls over a land they supposedly did not "control" or "rule" is a testament to them actually exercising control over a land they managed to govern. The Qing Dynasty did not exercise immigration controls over the Chinese diaspora in Southeast Asia, because they did control those lands. That is not the case with Taiwan. The existence of immigration control is proof of governance. The PRC had strict internal immigration controls for the first 30 years of its existence, modelled after the Soviet Union. Would you say either of these countries did not effectively "control" or "rule" the very territories that formed them? >By saying that it belonged to the Qing dynasty, we are saying that Russias occupation of regions of Ukraine is legal and legit. Your nonsensical comparison to Ukraine just further reaffirms that. Nobody said a word about Ukraine until you tried to shoehorn it with gross disregard of the history of Ukraine. >They are there so therefore they must own it. The Qing Dynasty ceased to exist 100+ years ago and they have very little to do with the ROC or the PRC of today despite the ROC technically having legally suceeded the Qing Dynasty. So whether the Qing Dynasty "owned" Taiwan has nothing to do with cross-strait politics of today. Would you deny Tsarist Russia "owned" what is modern day Ukraine? And are you aware whether Tsarist Russia "owned" what is modern day Ukraine has absolutely nothing to do with Vladimir Putin's personal claims? I'm talking about the rampant historical revisionism seen run amok in every English language discussion about Taiwan that is ultimately infantilizing the real issues faced by Taiwan, not whether the PRC "must own it" (hint: the PRC has never "owned it" and never deserves to "own it").

philliphaydon 4y ago
> Clearly you did not comprehend the linked article. Surely a regime that appointed bureaucrats to be stationed locally in their administrative areas for nearly 200 years means it was Terra Nullius all along! So if an Island belongs to no one, but is inhabited by people, and someone decides to sail to the Island and take orders from their home country. What you're saying is that it now belongs to their home country? And that means the entire island was adminstered and accounted for? > Your nonsensical comparison to Ukraine just further reaffirms that. Nobody said a word about Ukraine until you tried to shoehorn it with gross disregard of the history of Ukraine. Doesn't matter if I mention Ukraine or not. You're trying to argue that sending some people in and then saying "this belongs to me because I'm here" is a valid enough claim. If you make that claim you're supporting the CCP and you're supporting Russia. That simple. ---- (back later - no time to reply to the rest)
- ssnistfajen 4y ago
  >sending some people in and then saying "this belongs to me because I'm here" is a valid enough claim Yes that is how much of colonization in the early modern period worked. I don't make up the rules. That's simply what happened. >If you make that claim you're supporting the CCP and you're supporting Russia. Oh since when is the CCP controlled by the Qing imperial family? Do you seriously type that out without putting it through some basic logical reasoning? If that's your conclusion then we are done here because you clearly do not have the ability to read or comprehend basic historical facts but instead choose what is the geopol equivalent of sh*t flinging, because you had decided to that historical revisionism with name calling is somehow an adequate replacement of your entire personality. I should've known better before clicking into this comment section as HN always have the most downright unhinged awful takes on non-tech geopol topics because it's clear some of you have never opened a single history book. Goodbye.
mannerheim 4y ago
> The very fact that the Qing dynasty had effective immigration controls over a land they supposedly did not "control" or "rule" I mean, they didn't. It was illegal for Han to immigrate there, but it happened anyway.

hnfong 4y ago

Your original claim: Taiwan has never been under control of the Qing dynasty. Backtrack: Taiwan was not under control or rule for the majority of the Qing dynasty. Backtrack: The Qing dynasty rule of Taiwan was shorter than ... Your latter statements are probably wrong too, but I'm too lazy to disprove you. You're welcome to come clean if you wish.

philliphaydon 4y ago
Taiwan has /never/ been under control of the Qing Dynasty. That's true. It wasn't until 1885 when it became a provience that they attempted to rule over Taiwan. But they didn't. Remember for over 200 years they did nothing with Taiwan. Right at the very end, they tried, but failed, they didn't rule or control Taiwan. Japan did tho. So if you take Qing Dynasty point of view, their rule over Taiwan was shorter than Japan's rule over Taiwan. That doesn't mean that Taiwan was ruled by the Qing Dynasty.