4 ms·

I have to think that especially the China/Taiwan issue has quite a bit of historical baggage, because it can be read as the slow-motion failure to finish the pr

by hakfoo 4y ago

I have to think that especially the China/Taiwan issue has quite a bit of historical baggage, because it can be read as the slow-motion failure to finish the prosecution of a very "internal" political process. Can we imagine such a scenario applied to a Western nation? Imagine if the US Civil War ended up with a "stub Confederacy"-- a few counties in Virginia still answering to Jefferson Davis. Or if one German state decided to carry on as the DDR after 1990. Now reinforce this by having major world powers declare an effectively limitless economic and military backstop to preserve this remnant-- pretty explicitly as a counter to the "victorious" nation's increasing power and importance. It would be a festering political issue for decades if not longer, no matter how many political and economic favours were splashed to "make up" for it.

CogitoCogito 4y ago
Taiwan was only "unified" (if you can call the China of that era "unified") with the mainland for about 4 years since 1895 and even that ended close to 75 years ago. > it can be read as the slow-motion failure to finish the prosecution of a very "internal" political process. This is just propaganda to lay support for irredentism. The Chinese civil war ended long ago and this process is certainly not "internal" by any means. That is just made up to make the PRC's current push to annex the ROC more palatable. It's easier to sell it that way than explaining to the mainland populace the truth that its simply an unnecessary war of conquest.
- hakfoo 4y ago
  > Taiwan was only "unified" (if you can call the China of that era "unified") with the mainland for about 4 years since 1895 and even that ended close to 75 years ago. I will admit to having only a highly cursory knowledge of the history, but I was under the impression the PRC/ROC split was directly connected to the ascendance of the Communists; they drove the Nationalists to the sea but were unable to achieve a complete surrender because their enemies remained holed up in Taiwan. How can you say "an independent Taiwan must be preserved" without making it sound to both the Chinese state and people like "You can never finish the job your grandparents started?" or worse yet "you sold out our national pride and honour for shiny economic baubles?"
  - CogitoCogito 4y ago
    >> Taiwan was only "unified" (if you can call the China of that era "unified") with the mainland for about 4 years since 1895 and even that ended close to 75 years ago. > I will admit to having only a highly cursory knowledge of the history, but I was under the impression the PRC/ROC split was directly connected to the ascendance of the Communists; they drove the Nationalists to the sea but were unable to achieve a complete surrender because their enemies remained holed up in Taiwan. > How can you say "an independent Taiwan must be preserved" without making it sound to both the Chinese state and people like "You can never finish the job your grandparents started?" or worse yet "you sold out our national pride and honour for shiny economic baubles?" My post was pretty short and (I'd claim) quite clear. When did I say "an independent Taiwan must be preserved"?

by hakfoo 4y ago

CogitoCogito 4y ago

Taiwan was only "unified" (if you can call the China of that era "unified") with the mainland for about 4 years since 1895 and even that ended close to 75 years ago. > it can be read as the slow-motion failure to finish the prosecution of a very "internal" political process. This is just propaganda to lay support for irredentism. The Chinese civil war ended long ago and this process is certainly not "internal" by any means. That is just made up to make the PRC's current push to annex the ROC more palatable. It's easier to sell it that way than explaining to the mainland populace the truth that its simply an unnecessary war of conquest.

hakfoo 4y ago
> Taiwan was only "unified" (if you can call the China of that era "unified") with the mainland for about 4 years since 1895 and even that ended close to 75 years ago. I will admit to having only a highly cursory knowledge of the history, but I was under the impression the PRC/ROC split was directly connected to the ascendance of the Communists; they drove the Nationalists to the sea but were unable to achieve a complete surrender because their enemies remained holed up in Taiwan. How can you say "an independent Taiwan must be preserved" without making it sound to both the Chinese state and people like "You can never finish the job your grandparents started?" or worse yet "you sold out our national pride and honour for shiny economic baubles?"
- CogitoCogito 4y ago
  >> Taiwan was only "unified" (if you can call the China of that era "unified") with the mainland for about 4 years since 1895 and even that ended close to 75 years ago. > I will admit to having only a highly cursory knowledge of the history, but I was under the impression the PRC/ROC split was directly connected to the ascendance of the Communists; they drove the Nationalists to the sea but were unable to achieve a complete surrender because their enemies remained holed up in Taiwan. > How can you say "an independent Taiwan must be preserved" without making it sound to both the Chinese state and people like "You can never finish the job your grandparents started?" or worse yet "you sold out our national pride and honour for shiny economic baubles?" My post was pretty short and (I'd claim) quite clear. When did I say "an independent Taiwan must be preserved"?