4 ms·

> China has factually split Define "China." 中國? 中華人民共和國? 中華民國? 大清? 大明? 大元? The English term is far overloaded, kinda like the word "dumpling." Having this conv

by komali2 10mo ago

> China has factually split Define "China." 中國? 中華人民共和國? 中華民國? 大清? 大明? 大元? The English term is far overloaded, kinda like the word "dumpling." Having this conversation in English is really hard for that reason. The key word is 中國, typically translated literally as "middle country," though if you put it in google translate it'll just say "China." Really though, the word means "empire." Empire of what? China? No, just, The Empire. E.g. 一個中國原則 "one China principle," all things that we could call 中國 ruled by the same government. That's the issue I have. The CPC claims a mandate of heaven for a "Chinese" meta-dynasty, claiming to have domain over everything any government in the region has ever touched (even the Mongols!). I reject this, a mandate to rule should be earned basically every day, and self determination matters far more than maintaining a dynasty of a culture. Like many empires, the PRC is even creating an ethnostatic justification, calling everyone Han 漢族人 or Hua 華人 and claiming a mandate to rule everyone that could feasibly be called that, using race science to expand their domain. Like "white," under scrutiny, these terms are meaningless. We could translate either, in the context of their usage by the CPC, as "people the CPC thinks it should be allowed to govern." That includes people in Xinjiang, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, America, hell even Okinawa lately. That kind of ethnostatic imperialist expansionism should be roundly rejected by anybody that values self determination. And, that's why "reunify" isn't the correct word, because there is no country on earth called "China" and there never has been, there's just a government ruling a territory that wants some more territory. The PRC isn't some magical inheritor of every racial, cultural, linguistic, and historical aspect of that region. "China" has not split with the fleeing of the KMT to Taiwan in the 50s, nor was "China" overthrown when the Taiwanese deposed the KMT military dictatorship in the 90s, or when the Qing dynasty was overthrown by the KMT.

mytailorisrich 10mo ago
You obviously understand what I wrote by "China split" because it is uncontroversial and rather obvious as a historical fact. You are trying too hard and doing so does you a disservice because it makes you write nonsense that any sources can disprove. So... why? Why do people get so attached to a narrative? Is it like religion, cult? Need to believe in sonething? Past history is what it is. It does not mean that the people of Taiwan have to be forced into re-joining the mainland but let's keep the facts otherwise we are really leaving in 1984. If you want to say that the people of Taiwan have a moral right to remain independent if they wish to then just say so.
- jacquesm 10mo ago
  You're unbelievable. Have you considered the possibility that you are just wrong? Your 'uncontroversial and rather obvious historical fact' is neither uncontroversial nor is it obvious. That's why we have a 32 page article on the subject on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan And it is one of the most heavily brigaded pages there. With edit wars going back as long as the page exists. As well as articles like this: https://www.justsecurity.org/87486/deterrence-lawfare-to-save-taiwan/ https://www.justsecurity.org/87486/deterrence-lawfare-to-sav... There is only one country where your 'historical fact' is seen as true, and it isn't Taiwan. And that is why China is threatening to invade, and why you yourself use Taiwan without further qualification right after 'South Korea': https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46478045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46478045 The 'one China' term itself is overloaded, depending on who you ask (Chinese, Taiwanese) you get different answers. Taiwan is an independent country, if not de jure then de facto. That China is a much larger and much more dangerous country is the only reason everybody tiptoes around this.
  - mytailorisrich 10mo ago
    What is actually unbelievable is that you keep arguing against me by quoting sources that only say exactly what I have been writing all along. So I don't really understand what is this about and perhaps you don't, either... This is bizarre at this point. Perhaps you wrongly assume that by "China split" I meant "the PRC split" although it is abundantly clear that I didn't.
    - jacquesm 10mo ago
      Those source do not say what you have been writing all along. Those sources make it plain that this is a controversial and complicated subject that you wish to flatten into a much simpler worldview. But that worldview is at odds with the facts, both the facts on the ground and the view of the parties involved. You can continue to stick to your worldview, or you can admit that maybe the matter is more complex than you thought it was. The point is that there are multiple viewpoints on this and yours is not necessarily the only one and given that you claim not to have a horse in the race it is strange that you would end up carrying water for one of the parties. Agreeing to disagree is a thing too, you're perfectly entitled to your own take on this no matter how wrong I think it is. But you are not entitled to your own facts and if you really believe this to be an uncontroversial thing then I don't think I can help you with that.

by komali2 10mo ago

mytailorisrich 10mo ago

You obviously understand what I wrote by "China split" because it is uncontroversial and rather obvious as a historical fact. You are trying too hard and doing so does you a disservice because it makes you write nonsense that any sources can disprove. So... why? Why do people get so attached to a narrative? Is it like religion, cult? Need to believe in sonething? Past history is what it is. It does not mean that the people of Taiwan have to be forced into re-joining the mainland but let's keep the facts otherwise we are really leaving in 1984. If you want to say that the people of Taiwan have a moral right to remain independent if they wish to then just say so.

jacquesm 10mo ago
You're unbelievable. Have you considered the possibility that you are just wrong? Your 'uncontroversial and rather obvious historical fact' is neither uncontroversial nor is it obvious. That's why we have a 32 page article on the subject on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan And it is one of the most heavily brigaded pages there. With edit wars going back as long as the page exists. As well as articles like this: https://www.justsecurity.org/87486/deterrence-lawfare-to-save-taiwan/ https://www.justsecurity.org/87486/deterrence-lawfare-to-sav... There is only one country where your 'historical fact' is seen as true, and it isn't Taiwan. And that is why China is threatening to invade, and why you yourself use Taiwan without further qualification right after 'South Korea': https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46478045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46478045 The 'one China' term itself is overloaded, depending on who you ask (Chinese, Taiwanese) you get different answers. Taiwan is an independent country, if not de jure then de facto. That China is a much larger and much more dangerous country is the only reason everybody tiptoes around this.
- mytailorisrich 10mo ago
  What is actually unbelievable is that you keep arguing against me by quoting sources that only say exactly what I have been writing all along. So I don't really understand what is this about and perhaps you don't, either... This is bizarre at this point. Perhaps you wrongly assume that by "China split" I meant "the PRC split" although it is abundantly clear that I didn't.
  - jacquesm 10mo ago
    Those source do not say what you have been writing all along. Those sources make it plain that this is a controversial and complicated subject that you wish to flatten into a much simpler worldview. But that worldview is at odds with the facts, both the facts on the ground and the view of the parties involved. You can continue to stick to your worldview, or you can admit that maybe the matter is more complex than you thought it was. The point is that there are multiple viewpoints on this and yours is not necessarily the only one and given that you claim not to have a horse in the race it is strange that you would end up carrying water for one of the parties. Agreeing to disagree is a thing too, you're perfectly entitled to your own take on this no matter how wrong I think it is. But you are not entitled to your own facts and if you really believe this to be an uncontroversial thing then I don't think I can help you with that.