Letters to the editor (an open thread)

Lots of news today:

* A Supreme Court nomination that promise to split the Republican Party into warring factions (what a post! It makes me sick to link to that site, but it shows how Harriet Miers is tearing the party apart)

* An unusually detailed and dark view of Internet censorship across the Straits

* Sleazemeister Tom Delay gets indicted — again

* Groundbreaking Chinese bulletin board service gets busted

And that’s just after a quick glance. Discuss at will.

The Discussion: 97 Comments

The liberal Yannan forum has been shut down … “ÑàÄÏÍø½øÐÐÈ«Õ¾ÇåÀíÕû¶Ù … ×£´ó¼Ò¹úÇìÓä¿ì£¡”

October 4, 2005 @ 4:29 am | Comment

There’s a military shop across the road from me from where I bought a Hertfordshire Constable’s helmet for 800RMB (for cycling in) and a Soviet Navy Admiral Parade Visor Cap
which is offered online for $399.95 but I picked up for a cool 350 RMB. This place even sells Hitlerjugend badges!

October 4, 2005 @ 6:29 am | Comment

Taiwan’s Independence Quislings protest that Google listed it as a Chinese province. In fact, when they just respect their own constitution, it is clearly stated that Taiwan is a Chinese province, a province of the Republic of China, or China for short. Of course with Independence activists, any reason and legal arguments are useless, as they always keep repeating their same old mantra. Fact is that a significant part of the Taiwan population believes Taiwan is a province of their country and that almost all mainland Chinese agree that it’s a province too. Google should not yield to small extremists groups, such as the TSU.

October 4, 2005 @ 7:57 am | Comment

I wrote a nasty email to google about it.
Sorry ZHJ, but a state that makes its own laws, has its own currency, its own military, own parliament, and is answerable to no one else but its own people is NOT a province of anyone.

October 4, 2005 @ 8:43 am | Comment

ZHJ:
“any reason and legal arguments are useless, as they always keep repeating their same old mantra.”

You were talking about the Taiwanese? Shame, since the words seem to apply much more readily to the mainland Chinese when we’re talking about this issue!

October 4, 2005 @ 8:59 am | Comment

Davesgonechina … you asked in the previous open thread what I studied … my dissertation was on Sima Qian, and Han Dynasty foreign relations, if that means anything to you?

October 4, 2005 @ 9:02 am | Comment

Keir, Taiwan is a province of China. “Taiwan” as a country, does not exist. In either the PRC or ROC, Taiwan is part of China as a province.

October 4, 2005 @ 9:40 am | Comment

Also I have written an e-mail to ask Google not to yield to Independence Quislings. Why should Google comply with Taipei, not Beijing? Why should Google accept the views of minority Indpendence Quislings, and not that of the majority anti-Independence Chinese?

October 4, 2005 @ 9:42 am | Comment

Who are the Quislings? I’m under the understanding it’s google and yahoo being bought like whores by this regime.
ZHJ: Again, how can a mere province have all the freedom and power that Taiwan does? You seem to be under the typically Chinese view that by simply calling something a province makes it a province.

October 4, 2005 @ 9:56 am | Comment

That Taiwan is currently not administrated by the PRC, is something I won’t argue. So that explains why Taiwan doing things independently of Beijing. However, that Taiwan is not Chinese, that I will argue. That Taiwan is not a Chinese province, that I will also argue. My point is that the Chinese people’s claim on Taiwan as a province deserves more attention. The ROC cannot be washed away that easily. Neither can the PRC’s claim on Taiwan be waved away that easily.

October 4, 2005 @ 10:21 am | Comment

I understand your point. It should not be independent. It should be a province. The fact is that right now it is not. As of 1949 it ceased being a province. The Chinese will have to slaughter quite a few Taiwanese before it does. In the meantime, google is putting forth an incorrect and misleading fact.
Now I support Tibetan freedom. However if google made a map differentiating Tibet from the rest of China, it would be wrong. Wanting something and having something are two separate things.

October 4, 2005 @ 10:44 am | Comment

The fundamental question is: should taiwan eventually strive to be an independent state, or should it eventually strive to reunite with China?

Currently in Taiwan, the pan-Blue coalition believes Taiwan should eventually strive for reunification with China, but not without protecting Taiwan’s interests first. The pan-Green coalition believes that Taiwan should eventually strive for independence, regardless of cost.

This is the fundamental issue of Taiwan today.

This idea of “Taiwan indepedence” has only been getting momentum in the last 15 – 20 years. Originally, when the Nationalist Party moved to Taiwan, they claimed that they are the sole representative government of Mainland, and vow to take back the Mainland someday. Both Jiang Kaishek and his son all repudiated Taiwan independece (Up until the 70’s, mentioning Taiwanese Indepdence is a crime punishable by death in Taiwan).

Just wanted to dispel this notion that “Taiwan Independence” is somehow a deep-rooted movement.

October 4, 2005 @ 10:47 am | Comment

Actually, you are both dead wrong. Taiwan is not a province of “China” because there is no such country as “China” just as there is no such country as “America.” (I correct people who call the USA that quite often.) Taiwan is caught in conflicting claims between two countries. One is the “People’s Republic of China.” The other is the “Republic of China.” The problem with the “one China” myth is that there actually ARE TWO separate countries that have the name “China” in their name…one of whom refuses the right of the other to exist. And whether you like it or not ZHJ, several countries do recognize the “Republic of China”, and several others, such as the US, France, Japan, the UK and more, all have official consular offices here whether they are called “Embassies” or not.

The point of all of this is that Google was not exactly correct in stating that Taiwan is a province of China. To be perfectly correct, they would have to say that Taiwan is a province disputed between two countries, the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China. There is nothing wrong with such reasoning. For example, Berlin was once spit between two countries, the “German Democratic Republic” and the “Federal Republic of Germany.”

So don’t be so simple minded. If it floats your boat to say that “Taiwan is a part of China, blah, blah, blah” go ahead. And if you want to say the TSU was wrong in their claim, go ahead. But, Google HAS made a mistake. They just have not made the mistake the TSU accused them of.

October 4, 2005 @ 10:56 am | Comment

Wouldn’t it be easier if they just wrote “Taiwan”? That would allow Google to stay out of the debate all together. They needn’t write Taiwan Nation or ROC but rather call it Taiwan. Both sides agree the island is Taiwan. If people aren’t sure what Taiwan is they can zoom out and see that its nearest neighbor is China.

October 4, 2005 @ 11:27 am | Comment

I’d like to point out that there are states, and then there are nations. Most of the time, they are one and the same – the nation-state.

I interpret what ZHJ says as follows: the PRC is a state. The ROC is a state. But the Chinese are a nation. A nation simply a group of people with a common identity, most often based on ancestry and ethnicity – but occasionally based on the Red Sox. In that sense, yeah, the PRC and ROC belong to the same nation. However, if you use that definition, talking about provinces, territory or governments is inappropriate. That’s confusing the definition of nation as shorthand for nation-state with the definition of nation as a common identity among people.

So I think it’s perfectly fine to say Taiwan is Chinese. But to say province… that doesn’t follow from the definition of nation I give above. If you demonstrated that Taiwan’s government functioned the way any kind of province would, then you’d have something. In comparison to provinces, administrative regions and tributary states in Chinese history, I don’t really see anything that was run the way Taiwan is run now that was considered part of any Chinese state. Neither do I see a similiar case in world history. But my history has gaps – ZHJ, how would you argue that Taiwan is a province? In what way is it administratively part of the same nation-state as the PRC?

FSN9 – I know who Sima Qian was. They took his nuts. One day I have to go over the Han dynasty stuff, especially since that’s when the PRC claims XJ became an inseparable part of China.

October 4, 2005 @ 11:44 am | Comment

Also, where is this listed in Google? If you use their regional directory (which I don’t) China and Taiwan are two separate regional categories for Asia. So is Hong Kong. Couldn’t that be interpreted as listing it as a separate country? Their world language directory puts Taiwanese seperate from Chinese Simplified and Traditional. Pardon my ignorance, but isn’t Taiwanese basically just Traditional?

October 4, 2005 @ 11:52 am | Comment

Keir:

“As of 1949 it ceased being a province.”

Absolutely not. It’s still a province. There is still a provincial government, next to the ROC regime. Now, some want to say change that, by “rectifying” the name and getting rid of anything Chinese and ROC, but this won’t work, as the majority opposes that. I think you should study the administrative structure of the Republic of China. Perhaps you are eagerly to support any kind of “independence” and the breakup of China. You want to “balkanize” China. Are you Irish? Then I hope Northern-Ireland will forever stay part of the UK. Ir your British, I hope Scotland gets independent. If you’re French, then I hope Corsica gets independent. Etc etc…

“Wanting something and having something are two separate things.”

You are right about that. That’s why we talk about “reunification”.

On the Taiwan Issue:

“Up until the 70’s, mentioning Taiwanese Indepdence is a crime punishable by death in Taiwan”

I don’t think that’s a bad idea. 😉

davesgonechina:

“But my history has gaps – ZHJ, how would you argue that Taiwan is a province? In what way is it administratively part of the same nation-state as the PRC?”

I argue Taiwan is part of China, because PRC claims it and the ROC administers it. There is a reason why both have “China” in their name. “China” exists and Taiwan is part of “China”.

October 4, 2005 @ 12:35 pm | Comment

ZHJ, I’m not following you here. First you say:

There is still a provincial government, next to the ROC regime.

Then you say:

I argue Taiwan is part of China, because PRC claims it and the ROC administers it.

Which is it? There’s a provincial government outside the ROC, or the ROC administers the province?

Your second quote I also don’t understand. I mean I just plain don’t understand. The logic appears to be:

Premise 1: The PRC claims Taiwan as a part of China. (Yes, absolutely true, I’m with you so far)
Premise 2: The ROC administers Taiwan. (Yes, yes, I fully agree).
Conclusion: Therefore, Taiwan is a part of China.

WTF? What did I miss here? By the same reasoning, I could say:

Premise 1: I claim Canada.
Premise 2: Canada is administered by the Canadian government.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Canadian government is under my control.

Well, I’ll just call Ottawa now.

October 4, 2005 @ 1:07 pm | Comment

“taiwan, province of china” is the returned result when you enter in “taiwan” in google maps: maps.google.com

also, regarding the yannan forum … the bbs.chinadaily.com.cn is currently inaccessible. any attempt to access that domain returns a “this document contains no data” message. i don’t think it’s just site maintenance.

October 4, 2005 @ 5:04 pm | Comment

Actually in the 1990s, the ROC provincial government (under the KMT, no less) passed legislation to downgrade the role of Taiwan’s provincial government. It was (and is) considered a administrative burden given Taiwan’s small size.

October 4, 2005 @ 7:05 pm | Comment

Thomas and davesgonechina:
Thanks for holding the fort while I went to bed!

October 4, 2005 @ 7:18 pm | Comment

DavesgoneChina, why do you spend so much time trying to bring China down? I don’t think it’s possible anyone will succeed, if this was right after 1989, then you may have a shot.

October 4, 2005 @ 7:40 pm | Comment

Why do they spend so much time lying, IEDE?

October 4, 2005 @ 7:48 pm | Comment

In fact, when they just respect their own constitution, it is clearly stated that Taiwan is a Chinese province, a province of the Republic of China, or China for short.

I hate to be pedantic, but the ROC constitution does *not* state that Taiwan is a province. Tibet? Yep. Xinjiang? Yep. Mongolia? Yep. But Taiwan? No. They forgot to update the boundaries when they moved in … which was a bit careless.

That said, I do like the name “Taiwan’s Independence Quislings” – do you think we can convince the TSU to change their name to this?

(Oh, OK. I lied. I *do* like to be pedantic)

October 4, 2005 @ 8:22 pm | Comment

I’ll be sure and check out that post davesgonechina. From the history of XJ that I researched for an earlier post, for roughly about 2/3 of the last 2,000 years Western China was under the control of Central Aisan tribes and/or ind3pendent.

It wasn’t a formal part of China proper until 1884.

October 4, 2005 @ 8:54 pm | Comment

This is more than that. This is one of many attempts I’ve decided to start documenting where the Chinese media takes something that is clearly from the Central Asian or Islamic world and try to cram that square peg into the round holed language of Chinese “unity of nationalities”. It’s breathtaking in its gall and its ridiculousness. What really bothers me is that we’re talking about a history already obscured by limited materials, and further obscuring it by flat out lying about what the existing materials really say.

And I just did another article looking at two examples of IHT and Washington Post articles reproduced in China Daily. What got cut and what didn’t might surprise you.

October 4, 2005 @ 9:20 pm | Comment

Oh IEDED, you are SO not Chinese!

October 5, 2005 @ 12:55 am | Comment

Dave do you have any comment on the suicide of the mayor of Korla just before the anniversay?

October 5, 2005 @ 2:09 am | Comment

From what I’ve heard from disparate sources, he did really shoot himself and he was involved in a corruption scandal a few months back. As far as I can tell, it wasn’t something unique to Xinjiang (or China for that matter).

October 5, 2005 @ 2:14 am | Comment

I don’t think it’s worth responding to people who are here with nothing more on their minds than trying to wind us up.

ZHJ – you’re really starting to get on my nerves. Sure you’re not a paid quisling of the mainland government? If you’re not, you’re doing a damn good imitation of one.

October 5, 2005 @ 2:29 am | Comment

That said, I do like the name “Taiwan’s Independence Quislings” – do you think we can convince the TSU to change their name to this?

LOL. That makes an acronym that would really TIQ people off…

October 5, 2005 @ 2:59 am | Comment

The above comment by handle “On the Taiwan Issue” is the very same IEDED, according to IP address…and they never lie.

Somehow, I get the feeling that IEDED won’t be bothering us for much longer. Good news then.

October 5, 2005 @ 3:05 am | Comment

ZHJ: “There is a reason why both have China in their name.”

Aha.

1. The Chinese penchant for Medieval style nominalism never ceases to amaze me. “If we give something a name then it must be real.” When the hell are they going to catch up with William of Occam?

2. ZHJ, does that include all “Chinatowns?” Trying to think of a good Chinatown for you to take over. Ah, how about the one in Philly, at 13th and Arch?

It’s right next to a filthy Greyhound bus station. You’re welcome to take that too.

2.

October 5, 2005 @ 3:05 am | Comment

Michael Turton:

*Groan*.

Hey, this is supposed to be a quality blog. Do your best mate.

October 5, 2005 @ 3:06 am | Comment

Let’s take a look at this Google fuss for a second. At last count about 170 nations have a “one China” policy, including the United States, the UK and Australia. The United Nations only recognises the PRC. So Google are simply toeing the same line that most of our Governments are following. What’s more important, holding Google maps to a higher standard or our Governments?

So can anyone actually what Google has done wrong? While we’re at it, how has Google handled other tricky situations such as the Golan Heights and West Bank in Israel?

Unfortunately in this world sometimes decisions need to be made that will not please everyone (or even anyone). It’s not always about evil corporations. If you were Google’s management, with a responsability to shareholders, what would you do?

Exactly.

October 5, 2005 @ 4:44 am | Comment

Simon:
They label Taiwan a PROVINCE. That;s where it went wrong. The UK, US and Australia do not accept its status as such. If it did, why is the 7th fleet in the straights, and why does the US sell Taiwan arms against Beijing’s wishes?
As for this cant about shareholders meriting more attention than the lives of those under the sword of Damocles that Beijing suspends, well, I won’t comment.

October 5, 2005 @ 7:09 am | Comment

I love these Taiwan debates. It’s allways the same. One side will say that those evil westerners are eager to destroy the holy unity of China (the old idea of the holy Tianxia) and by that China itselve, (like they tried to do it in the CR, but were stopt by the heroic red guards).
The other side will at one point start to call there opposites agents of the warmongering PRC government.

At the end everybody is happy to have proven his point to the other side allthough they did not convince them, but maybe the next time.
And it goes on and on and on ….

Somebody with a sense of humor once asked the qusetion here, why the mainlanders don’t join the ROC if they are so eager to get reunited. I like this idea. But please no one country two systems policy.

October 5, 2005 @ 7:10 am | Comment

By the way ZHJ, your idea of democracy is a little simlple. It reads rule by the poeple, not ruel by the majority. The idea is not that the majority has absolute power over the minority and can dictate them everything.

October 5, 2005 @ 7:20 am | Comment

New York has “new” in its name. Therefore New Zealand, New York, New England (both the American and Australian ones), New South Wales, New Hebrides, New Plymouth, New … you name it … well, isn’t it obvious. There’s a REASON they all have the same word in their name, don’t you know.

October 5, 2005 @ 7:30 am | Comment

Wow. Simon thinks Taiwan is justifiably labelled one of the PRC’s provinces. Like Hebei and Yunnan. Wow. Extraordinary. Amazing.

If you were Google’s management, with a responsability to shareholders, what would you do?
Exactly.

Here’s what I would do. Instead of calling it

Taiwan, a province of China

I would simply say

Taiwan

Period.

October 5, 2005 @ 7:35 am | Comment

Richard … a little linguistic oddity. It took me years to realise why Americans say “period” at the end of a statement like that. I think I was 20 years old before I realised that (in my language) Americans mean “full stop” when they use the word.

October 5, 2005 @ 7:37 am | Comment

No, FSN, the Brits mean “Period,” but erroneously say “Full stop.” Savages.

October 5, 2005 @ 7:41 am | Comment

Hey, it’s not my fault if Yanks caint speak English proper as she is. 😉

October 5, 2005 @ 7:45 am | Comment

Richard – watch it mate! You claim we’re savages again and we’ll start calling America “USA, British Province” (which it is, but we’re normally too polite to say) 🙂

October 5, 2005 @ 8:19 am | Comment

David, don’t go mixing with those from the colonies, it’s beneath us.

Sssshhhh, please don’t get Ivan started on the Brits…….anything but that.

October 5, 2005 @ 8:24 am | Comment

Hah, talk about an inferiority complex! Long gone are the days of Rule Brittania. Get used to it: we live in an American world, and all other nations exist at our pleasure and must follow our customs. “Period” it is; no “full stops” in the Age of America.

(Just kidding.)

October 5, 2005 @ 8:24 am | Comment

Well, until recently Taiwan claimed suzerainity over (Outer) Mongolia – there was even a Mongolian governor!

So, presumably in those days Google should have said

Mongolia, a province of Taiwan, which is a province of China.

🙂

October 5, 2005 @ 10:26 am | Comment

Though really China is just a breakaway state from the glorious Mongolian empire. After all, they conquered more thoroughly and ruled more tightly than the Chinese ever managed to with Tibet or Taiwan. Down with the breakaway seperatists of the Ming!

I am therefore going to write to Google to demand that the label for Mongolia be –

‘Mongolia, a province of Taiwan, which is a province of China, which is a province of Mongolia.’

October 5, 2005 @ 10:29 am | Comment

Good point, James

October 5, 2005 @ 11:35 am | Comment

‘Mongolia, a province of Taiwan, which is a province of China, which is a province of Mongolia.’
Posted by: James at October 5, 2005 10:29 AM

Right, and if we look at this map here we see that Poland, Iraq, Iran, Georgia, All of the Central Asian ‘Stans, half of Pakistan, Ukraine, Belarus, Korea and no doubt a few other places are provinces of Mongolia, which is a province of Taiwan, which is a province of China.

Is everyone clear now?

October 5, 2005 @ 11:48 am | Comment

Oh yeah, and Turkey was on that map, so we can infer that all territory of the Ottoman empire are provinces of China.

October 5, 2005 @ 11:52 am | Comment

I mean the chances are that Google originally put “Taiwan”, then someone on a Chinese blog noticed it and started a “let’s boycott google” thing and it received huge applause, and google noticed it and is forced to change it due to popular pressure.

Same things happened to a lot of other companies. For example, the accounting firm “Deloitte” had “Taiwan” under its “countries” listing in their global webiste, some professor in Beijing Universiy discovered it and started a public crusade against Deloitte, and this movement received momentum from the online community, and eventually Deloitte had to change it.

October 5, 2005 @ 12:43 pm | Comment

Hey, IEDE, one piece of advice:

citations.

Here is the Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Asia map. Taiwan lights up separately. It is also listed separately in the country list below.

So either you read something that was bulls**t, or you yourself are full of s**t.

If you want anyone to believe anything you say here, try backing it up with something next time.

October 5, 2005 @ 12:51 pm | Comment

That link mistakenly went to only the map graphic (which does light up Taiwan and China separately).

Here is the worldwide site page that the graphic appears on.

October 5, 2005 @ 12:53 pm | Comment

Oh, wait. I get it.

You meant the Chinese language website. Danwei had an article on it.

Professor Xie of Fudan Uni also wanted 100,000 yuan for “spiritual damage”. How patriotic.

But they only changed the page built for the Mainland. The one in English, which I’m guessing gets far and away the most traffic, has it light up like a country.

LOL… so if anyone from the rest of the world visits, you’d think Taiwan was a separate country. If you’re a mainlander, though, you get your delusions reinforced. LOL, that’s pathetic.

LOL

October 5, 2005 @ 1:03 pm | Comment

“The British also worship their Queens”?!?! Yes dearie, but only until they get to a certain age and then the magic on stage is just gone…

October 5, 2005 @ 4:49 pm | Comment

f we do not accept certain cultures, and arbitraily claim that only this culture or that culture is good, and the rest are bad, and must be eliminated, then clearly you are being very narrow-minded and petty.

How liberal, Hot Blooded! I’m glad to see you are open minded enough to suggest that one culture, let’s say the Chinese Communist Party, should accept other cultures, like, say, oh, I don’t know, Taiwanese independents, FLG, Uyghur separatists, Tibetan extremists and even Japanese revisionists.

You’re a very open minded young man and I applaud your use of Deng Xiaoping theory to advocate dissent to create a harmonious society.

October 5, 2005 @ 4:55 pm | Comment

Fee Fi Fo Fum, Google thumbs its nose at Taiwan.

A recent but apparently short lived spat between the treacherous quislings and Google has ended with a whimper

October 5, 2005 @ 5:00 pm | Comment

Hey everybody, let’s all follow the example of Comrade Hot Blooded and accept all cultures! Everyone go visit your nearest Tibetan exile! Have you embraced a member of Falun Dafa today? Go hug a Japanese nationalist!

I heard Hu Jintao is having a menage a trois with the Dalai Lama and Li Hongzhi next Saturday as an effort to “embrace other cultures”.

October 5, 2005 @ 5:00 pm | Comment

Hot Blooded Youth: The American
culture also has private punishments; for example, after 9/11, there are
cases where Arab immigrants in America were beaten to death by white
citizens.

You’d better document this for us,I know there’s been a lot of racial hatred agains Muslims since 911, but I believe either you are lying or are misinformed about this. One thing I hate is the casual dropping of “facts” that are BS.

October 5, 2005 @ 5:46 pm | Comment

You realize, Hot Blooded, that your argument boils down to this:

1) Different cultures have different traditions
2) These traditions include traditions of intolerance against those who do not follow the traditions
3) All cultures have these intolerant traditions
4) There is some principle called the Principle of Mutual Tolerance

Conclusion: Therefore we should be tolerant towards other cultures intolerance.

Hot Blooded, that is not a rationally valid argument. That is mindless dribble.

What happens, Hot Blooded, when two cultures are not two separate countries, but rather have to live together in the same place?

October 5, 2005 @ 6:04 pm | Comment

Richard, I believe that Hot Blooded is referring to a Sikh who was killed in an apparent hate crime just after 9/11 by someone who mistook his turban to mean he was a moslem. A single tragic instance, and prosecuted as a crime. Hot Blooded is espousing cultural relativity, which used to be the rage on all U.S. campuses, until the future anthropologists discovered female circumcision, which is when the “everything’s relative except for” cultural relativity theory made its debut. Apparently, despite his command of the language, Hot Blooded cannot differentiate between a mandatory cult, a la the “Dear Leader”, enforced by the coercive powers of the State (which Hot Blooded gently mentions) and voluntary hero/ royalty/ whatever worship that can be found in more democratic countries. But then, perhaps he has lain awake too many nights attempting the render the Bible into Chinese, a la a certain famous hot blooded young Chinese rebel of the 19th century.

October 5, 2005 @ 7:32 pm | Comment

Filthy Stinking No.9:

“ZHJ – you’re really starting to get on my nerves.”

Don’t you think that feeling is mutual here? The support here for Taiwan independence is just appaling. Well, at least you know know why Taiwan is a province of China in my view. You can’t take that away, never…there are many more people walking around in the world like me, so you better get used to it…and some visitors think they are so smart and funny, whilst they are not.

October 5, 2005 @ 8:59 pm | Comment

My point stands, but I let ESWN repeat it more clearly:

http://www.zonaeuropa.com/200510brief.htm#017

October 5, 2005 @ 9:24 pm | Comment

Ah yes, very good point. The map on the site of the CIA. It is a fact that the UN calls Taiwan a “Province of China”. Many countries accept that Taiwan is a province of China, and at best, they treat Taiwan as a “special province”, which it is. LOL! 🙂

October 5, 2005 @ 9:29 pm | Comment

Interesting to see Simon take up eswn’s viewpoint on the subject of Taiwan. Interesting.

October 5, 2005 @ 9:32 pm | Comment

I read ESWN’s fine post, and no where does it say Taiwan is a province of China. It points to the Shanghai communique, which is not definitive or unequivocal, to say the very least. I’m willing to listen to conversation about how Taiwan may or may not be a part of China. What I objected to in the Google entry was the reference to Taiwan as “a province of China” It didn’t need to say that, and that should not be a standard description of what Taiwan is.

October 5, 2005 @ 9:58 pm | Comment

davesgonechina, for heaven’s sake!

When you see overly-long comments (often cut-n-pasted from elsewhere) ostensibly penned by Chinese who write in a decidedly un-Chinese style, signed by stilted or absurd-sounding names, please … recognize who you are dealing with.

You are dealing with someone who, by his own admission, is not here for serious discussion, but to cause agitation for his own bored amusement. You are wasting your time responding to this person.

October 5, 2005 @ 11:11 pm | Comment

Slim, you’re right. I just took great pleasure in deleting our old pal….again.

October 5, 2005 @ 11:22 pm | Comment

I know, but I like breaking it down to find the logical flaws. It helps me think more clearly about *how* he’s full of it. Even though he’s a troll, I’ve encountered people who truly believe that stuff, haven’t you? I think it’s worthwhile to deconstruct it to get a better idea of how you might deal with a true believer. Our troll does mimic them pretty well.

October 6, 2005 @ 12:39 am | Comment

ZHJ, just because you say it doesn’t make it true.

The facts remain that the Taiwanese government is democractically elected and not determined by the government in Beijing – unlike any other Chinese province. Taiwan has its own military – unlike any other Chinese province. That military has made preparations to fight an invasion from the Mainland – unlike any other province. It conducts its own foreign policy. It runs, in fact, every aspect of its government independent of Beijing. As far as being administratively a province of the PRC, or the PRC and ROC being administratively one country is patently false.

I, and several others, have tried to point out both seriously and through humor that while you may consider Taiwan and China inseparable due to ethnicity, culture, history and the fact that both of them call themselves “Chinese”, with contrasting definitions, one does not function as a political province of the other. Taiwan can be a province of China in your view as much as you want, but that means that it will only exist in your mind. One day, you and others with the same idea might make it come true, hopefully peacefully. But today, right now, it’s still only your dream.

I’ll grant you that the PRC and ROC are parts (plural!) of a cultural “China”, a historical “China”, even an ethnic “China”, though I’m always uncomfortable with the total equivalence between race and nation predominant in Chinese thought. But I will not grant you that the ROC is a functioning province because it’s simply not reality.

I’m sorry, but it’s ridiculous the way some people in China carry on about these things. The example our troll IEDE gave before about the professor at Fudan University is a perfect example of how absolutely stupid some of the nationalist drivel surrounding Taiwan is. From Danwei:

The pull down menu on the Deloitte website that caused Professor Xie’s trauma has been amended so that its title reads ‘Countries / Territories’ (¹ú¼Ò£¯µØÇø).

That’s it! Meanwhile, the root website, the one in English, continues to show Taiwan as a completely different entity from the PRC! You know why? Because Professor Xie is living in his own little delusional world that says Taiwan currently functions as a territory, while the rest of the world ignores his rants and tirade and continues to regard Taiwan as having an independently functioning government BECAUSE IT DOES.

And I don’t, for the record, even support Taiwan independence. I don’t have a position on it other than believing that the PRC could use a healthy dose of free civil society. Taiwan unification might just be the trick to do that, I don’t know. And I think as far as repairing the self-esteem issues caused by China urinating all over its own traditional culture the past century, Taiwan has just what the mainland needs – a knowledge of self built on the great art and scholarship of the past, not built on petty xenophobia and Orwellian sloganeering. So unify away, but you’re not going to accomplish it any quicker by pretending it already happened!

October 6, 2005 @ 12:46 am | Comment

Sorry ZHJ, but a state that makes its own laws, has its own currency, its own military, own parliament, and is answerable to no one else but its own people is NOT a province of anyone.

Posted by Keir at October 4, 2005 08:43 AM

————

your argument is very weak, keir.

the former west germany, once made its own laws, had its own currency, its own military, own parliament, and was answerable to no one else but its own people, was a part of “Deutschland”.

today, many european countries that make their own laws, have their own currencies, their own military, own parliaments, and are answerable to no one else but their own people, are also a member of EU.

taiwan, although has developed some degrees of autonomy, doesn’t change the fact that people in taiwan speak chinese, have chinese blood, chinese traditions, value systems and share the same chinese history with mainland people.

although it’s emotionally hard for many westerners to accept that taiwan is part of a chinese nation, it is a fact and you can never change it

October 6, 2005 @ 12:57 am | Comment

Who are the Quislings? I’m under the understanding it’s google and yahoo being bought like whores by this regime.
ZHJ: Again, how can a mere province have all the freedom and power that Taiwan does? You seem to be under the typically Chinese view that by simply calling something a province makes it a province.

Posted by Keir at October 4, 2005 09:56 AM

————

may i ask you why mainland chinese insist that taiwan is part of a chinese nation, not vietnam or the philipines or korea?

October 6, 2005 @ 1:01 am | Comment

Who are the Quislings? I’m under the understanding it’s google and yahoo being bought like whores by this regime.
ZHJ: Again, how can a mere province have all the freedom and power that Taiwan does? You seem to be under the typically Chinese view that by simply calling something a province makes it a province.

Posted by Keir at October 4, 2005 09:56 AM

————

may i ask you why mainland chinese insist that taiwan, but not vietnam or the philipines or koreais, part of a chinese nation, ?

October 6, 2005 @ 1:02 am | Comment

I understand your point. It should not be independent. It should be a province. The fact is that right now it is not. As of 1949 it ceased being a province. The Chinese will have to slaughter quite a few Taiwanese before it does. In the meantime, google is putting forth an incorrect and misleading fact.
Now I support Tibetan freedom. However if google made a map differentiating Tibet from the rest of China, it would be wrong. Wanting something and having something are two separate things.

Posted by Keir at October 4, 2005 10:44 AM

————

i agree with keir in this point that reality should be separated from political wills. but i see the naming a challenging task almost no one could accomplish. actually “taiwan” is totally inaccurate and not enough in describing the history and current situations of taiwan, and “a province” doesn’t fit the reality either, we might have “taiwan (a part of chinese nation)” or “chinese taiwan” (and “chinese mainland”)

October 6, 2005 @ 1:11 am | Comment

Weak arguments , Bingfeng. When W. Germany had its own currency and army and constitution, it WAS separate from E. Germany. They joined by mutual consensus. They wanted to. Not so in the China-Taiwan scenario. Most Taiwanese dread the idea.

Many countries speak the same language and share the same culture of other countries. That doesn’t mean they should merge into one country. Only if they want to, on all sides. If it has to be achieved by brute force, I am dead-set opposed. And Taiwan’s not going to be “reunited” with China by any means other than brute force as long as the CCP is in charge.

October 6, 2005 @ 1:24 am | Comment

So I think it’s perfectly fine to say Taiwan is Chinese. But to say province… that doesn’t follow from the definition of nation I give above.

————-

in fact the stance of PRC government today is most close to the above, in comparision of those of ROC or pro-separasion westerners

the “anti-secession law” says that “there is only one country called China, both mainland and taiwan belong to China”

those who are insane are taiwanese secessionists, in order to pursue their political goals of independence, they refused to admit that taiwan is chinese. i see this is more bullshitting than PRCs claim that taiwan is part of “PRC”

October 6, 2005 @ 1:25 am | Comment

Bingfeng … if you’re going to attack someone else’s arguments as “weak” you better make sure that you’ve got something pretty solid to support your own point of view. Your European examples are just so silly that they reinforce the very arguments you’re trying to oppose.

As for ZHJ – the reason I find you annoying is not that you believe Taiwan should be reunified with China. It’s the fact that you’re just so damned one-eyed. I used to find your accusations against supporters of Taiwan independence quite amusing … because they were so one-eyed. I’d really chuckle to see someone accuse others of the very faults he/she is demonstrating him/herself. In the end, much the same as MAJ, you’re just getting boring. Try opening both eyes. Then you’ll be able to argue for your case much more effectively, because you’ll actually understand the arguments you’re tyring to oppose. As it is, you seem to believe that if you shout loudly enough, and keep insisting that you’re right, then you’ll convince someone. After all, if you say it very strongly, and you feel it very strongly, then it must be true. Do let me know if it ever works for you … it’ll be the first recorded case in history of this method being successful.

October 6, 2005 @ 1:27 am | Comment

At the risk of being called a Taiwan Quisling–I haven’t heard that word in a long time–

Maybe we ought to write a letter to James Soong, who had been Provincial Governor of Taiwan (with a nice fat budget to spread around and promote support I might add) and ask his opinion. Helost his job when it was decided that the job was outmoded, a duplication of effort and definitely not needed.

Maybe that’s why he went to China; he wanted to get his job back–but then he did talk about democracy albeit lightly; not the best choice of words

October 6, 2005 @ 1:30 am | Comment

Weak arguments , Bingfeng. When W. Germany had its own currency and army and constitution, it WAS separate from E. Germany. They joined by mutual consensus. They wanted to. Not so in the China-Taiwan scenario. Most Taiwanese dread the idea.

——————-

weak argument, richard. the names tell everything:

W. “GERMANY”, E. “GERMANY”

October 6, 2005 @ 1:31 am | Comment

Many countries speak the same language and share the same culture of other countries. That doesn’t mean they should merge into one country. Only if they want to, on all sides. If it has to be achieved by brute force, I am dead-set opposed. And Taiwan’s not going to be “reunited” with China by any means other than brute force as long as the CCP is in charge.

Posted by richard at October 6, 2005 01:24 AM

————

i don’t support the use of force too. we come back to the point where we have both agreed before – taiwan is chinese, but is a separated political entity from that of the mainland, and if both sides want to be reunified, then it’s OK for them to become one political entity.

October 6, 2005 @ 1:41 am | Comment

They both said Germany, but they were certainly separate countries for nearly half a century – the guards were trained to shoot to death anyone trying to cross from the east to the west. If the USSR hadn’t collapsed, they’d be separate to this day. The West German would have been utterly insane, merging with East Germany to be ruled by an oppressive, brutal Communist dictatorship and the infamous Stassi police. Taiwan would be similarly insane to merge with present-day China.

October 6, 2005 @ 1:41 am | Comment

Thanks Jerome – good one!

October 6, 2005 @ 1:42 am | Comment

ZHJ, I’m not following you here. First you say:

There is still a provincial government, next to the ROC regime.
Then you say:

I argue Taiwan is part of China, because PRC claims it and the ROC administers it.
Which is it? There’s a provincial government outside the ROC, or the ROC administers the province?

————————-

until very lately, there is a “taiwan province” under the “republic of china central government”, and there are other “provincial governments” like “hunan”, “zhejiang”, etc in taiwan. as a matter of fact, the so-called “central government” overlaps with teh “taiwan provincial government”, so taiwan removed the “taiwan provincial government” in late 1980s (not sure the exact timing)

October 6, 2005 @ 1:46 am | Comment

They both said Germany, but they were certainly separate countries for nearly half a century – the guards were trained to shoot to death anyone trying to cross from the east to the west. If the USSR hadn’t collapsed, they’d be separate to this day. The West German would have been utterly insane, merging with East Germany to be ruled by an oppressive, brutal Communist dictatorship and the infamous Stassi police. Taiwan would be similarly insane to merge with present-day China.

Posted by richard at October 6, 2005 01:41 AM

————

i think most people will agree that it’s more insane for taiwan to declare independence than to reunite with mainland china, if reunification is such a bad idea for some of you.

richard, tell me what will happen to taiwan if taiwan reunified with mainland china.

October 6, 2005 @ 1:53 am | Comment

Bingfeng … they both had “Germany” in the name, and this proves something. Have you ever heard of a place called New England? In fact, there’s one in Australia, and one in USA. Clearly, since they contain the word “England”, they are part of the same country as England. Yes indeed. Come on really! Previous posts by you indicate that you’re a person of intelligence … but now you’re just being disappointing.

October 6, 2005 @ 1:58 am | Comment

To answer your question bingfeng, just look at Hong Kong. A gradual erosion of rights the Beijing gov’t swore to uphold and respect for 50 years. Would the taiwanese allow themselves to be ruled as a colony, with a CCP-approved governor?
Having said that, I must say how impressed I am about Beijing’s level of respect for the former colony’s autonomy. They never had to make such assurances in the first place.

October 6, 2005 @ 1:58 am | Comment

I’ll be sure and check out that post davesgonechina. From the history of XJ that I researched for an earlier post, for roughly about 2/3 of the last 2,000 years Western China was under the control of Central Aisan tribes and/or ind3pendent.

It wasn’t a formal part of China proper until 1884.

Posted by Martyn at October 4, 2005 08:54 PM

———–

same to most part of USA, the asian part of russia, ….

October 6, 2005 @ 1:59 am | Comment

Bingfeng:
You are right that West-Germany defined itslf as one part of Germany. The goal of reunification was even one paragraph in the basic law of West-Germany, the de facto constitution of West-Germany (it was called basic law and not constitution, to indicate it’s preliminary status).

But there are two big differences to the Chinese case. First, both Germanies joint the UN as sovereign states in 1973. Once again, as sovereign states!
Second, West-Germany never threatend East-Germany with force to reunite. Neither did East-Germany.

Your comparison does not work in this case, not to mention that EU comparision.
Sorry to be that nosey.

October 6, 2005 @ 2:31 am | Comment

huabingfeng: In answer to your question “why mainland chinese insist that taiwan is part of a chinese nation, not vietnam or the philipines or korea”, I suggest you consider:
It already claims the whole of the South China Sea- thus it does insist on what Philipinnes and Vietnam consider their own territory. In fact, it invaded Vietnam in ’79, remember? Doesn’t As to Korea, it does claim disputed islands. Its border is with the North, seen as a puppet state. It claims in its history books aspects of Korea’s identity. If it takes Taiwan, what next? Could it be likened to another’s “last territorial demand” back in ’39?

As for you Bingfeng, I teach the aspect of German history you question me about. I have no idea what your point was, but I feel Richard dismantled it admirably.

October 6, 2005 @ 2:57 am | Comment

To add to Shulan’s comment- in 1949 Germany officially split. The same time China became PRC, East Germany became OFFICIALLY GDR. Before that year Germany (as my atlas of the time shows) was still united albeit into four different zones, just as Austria was.

October 6, 2005 @ 2:59 am | Comment

Why is everyone talking East and West Germany and not North and South Korea? Both Koreas initially refused to recognize the other’s existance on any level because they both wanted to be seen as the sole legitimate government of the nation. For North Korea especially, its claim to rule was based largely on its nationalist roots (as opposed to the imperialist puppet in the south, or so they saw it) yet somehow both North and South Korea have a seat in the UN today. They are both recognized as countries even though many countries choose not to put embassies in Pyongyang. It isn’t that far away for the two Chinas to look for an example.

October 6, 2005 @ 3:15 am | Comment

New York. “York” = “Jorvik”, a Viking name. QED, Manhattan is a Viking Province.

October 6, 2005 @ 4:48 am | Comment

What about the “Old” York, Ivan?

🙂

October 6, 2005 @ 4:57 am | Comment

“Old” York is just a corruption of the Roman Name Eboracum.

Down with all anti-Roman Quislings in Yorkshire!

October 6, 2005 @ 5:57 am | Comment

I know this thread is smoking, but it’s time for a new one. Let’s continue up above.

October 6, 2005 @ 7:52 am | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.