undefined | Better HN

0 pointskomali25mo ago0 comments

> You obviously understand what I wrote by "China split" because it is uncontroversial and rather obvious as a historical fact.

I also know, generally, what people mean when they say "goblin," but that doesn't mean goblins are real, and it's also true that two people might be thinking of very different things when a goblin is mentioned. Such is the same for the word "China."

> any sources can disprove.

Well then, should be pretty easy for you to disprove me with some sources then!

> So... why? Why do people get so attached to a narrative? Is it like religion, cult? Need to believe in sonething?

Please explain to us how you aren't also attached to a narrative. Are you a omnipotent entity, immune to human narratives, and the one true knower of Universal Truth? I think it's unintentional, but you come off that way, and that's why you're getting such a strong response here.

> Past history is what it is.

This sentence is genuinely meaningless.

The problem is, you've made some unsubstantiated claims (you can't even define "China"), presumed to be right, and then acted aghast when a bunch of people said "hm no, that's not quite right, here's why," and then you doubled down without providing any further substance to your argument other than just repeating in different ways, "I'm right and you're all wrong."

What's the point of talking with someone like that? I'm happy to have the conversation but I don't see the purpose when people behave like that.

0 comments

4 comments · 1 top-level

mytailorisrich5mo ago· 3 in thread

Ad hominem attacks and character assassiination are the tactics of the CPC, not of democratic Taiwan...

I agree that "China" may mean several things but in the context of this discussion and previous comments it is rather clearer.

You can have a look at the Wikipedia link about the political status of Taiwan that @jacquesm posted. You can also have a look at related article about the history of China or Taiwan.

Quick summary (to mostly repeat myself as you point out but it does seem hard to get you guys to even read the links you provide yourselves, or don't want to accept them) is that China asserted control over Taiwan since the 17th century (as a reaction to European imperialism) with Taiwan acquiring province status towards the end of the 19th century. It was then ceded by China to Japan after the First Sino-Japanase war, and "reunited" in 1945. Following the Chinese civil war the communists took over the mainland and the government kept, and retreated to, Taiwan, which led to a split with de facto two states and official policies to "reunite".

That's all there in the links mentioned. So, again, I don't understand the drama.

I never denied that Taiwan was de facto a state independent of the mainland, or that the majority of the people of Taiwan do not want to be absorbed by the PRC, or even that a portion of the people of Taiwan would like no affiliation with "China" and be simply the Republic of Taiwan. And, yes, Taiwan was never controled by the PRC (like East Germany was never controled by West Germany prior to German "reunification", and there is still no country called "Germany" or "Korea"...). But that said I do have a problem with rewriting history and fallacious arguments to further a political aim.

jacquesm5mo ago

You are arguing with someone from Taiwan, are you presuming to educate them on their own country?

mytailorisrich5mo ago

Someone who lives in Taiwan. Anyway, that's obviously a fallacious argument (argument from authority?) and I note that you keep avoiding engaging with the point and historical evidence and references provided (included by you!) so I don't even know what you agree or disagree with and why at this point.

1 more reply

komali2OP5mo ago

> China asserted control over Taiwan since the 17th

This is a great example of why your usage of this word is an expression of your agreement with the idea of an ethnostatist meta-dynasty that a government like the CPC can claim a mandate to rule, rather than a universal fact.

It seems you don't believe Khagan-emperor Kublai was Chinese, since you pin the first "Chinese" assertion of control in the 1600s, even though the Yuan dynasty claimed Penghu.

You also give away your political agenda a bit when you accurately refer to Western actions on the island as "imperialism" but simply refer to Chinese empire activity as "asserted control," rather than what it clearly was, which is also imperialism. In fact it's especially interesting you did this considering that the entire reason the dutch colonists were expelled from the island was because of a battle between two entities that wanted to be called "China": the Qing dynasty, and Zheng Chenggong's remnant Ming dynasty. So here's another question: Manchus, Chinese, or no? Qing dynasty, Chinese, or no? Both yes? Well then both the Kingdom of Tungning and the Qing dynastic territories were China, despite being engaged in a deeply ethnostatist battle defined clearly on Han vs Manchu racial identity. And now the Manchus are 華人 just like everyone else, which demonstrates my point that the words "China" and 中國 are just a political propaganda tool to claim a mandate to rule an empire. The same fight has been fought before, except this time Taiwanese people have no desire to claim the mantle of The Empire.

You believe you're stating facts when actually you're just stating support of the CPC's claim to dynastic inheritance. Thus it's not "never clearer" what's meant by "China" in a time when all people who could be labeled "Chinese" (including PRC citizens) are reckoning with what that identity means in regards to governance and nationality.

> Ad hominem attacks and character assassiination are the tactics of the CPC, not of democratic Taiwan...

You clearly have never watched even 5 minutes of Taiwanese tv or politics lol.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse