Open Thread II

The last thread spun a bit out of control. Maybe we can talk about something less stroke-inducing than Darfur, like Chinese propaganda. It’s a great article.

______________

Richard Burger is the author of Behind the Red Door: Sex in China, an exploration of China's sexual revolution and its clash with traditional Chinese values.

The Discussion: 163 Comments

This is an Olympic torch, far from a controversial issue (although Beijing’s retardation has massively problematized this). It is not as if it is a survey on so-called “unification”- which obviously only occur after democratization in China (the taiwanese already ended one dictatorship, what’s the need for embracing another?) Furthermore, 33% approval is far from resounding (if so, I think Bob Dole could have been president). If 33% is something for CCT(V) to get excited about, I seriously recommend that he get outside more often.
Don’t try to mask the problems; the reason that this torch will never appear in Taiwan is the result of the Chinese government’s imperialist position on Taiwan. If the Chinese government treated taiwanese as “human beings,” they might get a better reception. It’s funny that China calls the US imperialist, when the last surviving imperialist in the world is in fact China (East Turkestan, Tibet, Macao, Hong Kong, Sudan, and now… Taiwan?)

March 1, 2008 @ 4:02 pm | Comment

“the taiwanese already ended one dictatorship”

I think you mean “the dictators ended their own dictatorship”.

“East Turkestan, Tibet”

China has been in East Turkestan longer than the Uighurs (830 C.E~). The Uighurs and Tocharians/Yuezhi are unrelated. Tibet is China’s suzerain and colony, kinda like the entire continental U.S, Canada, Siberia.. why the hell do I even bother? You know you’re stretching the limits of your argument.

Sudan is not Chinese imperialism any more than Israel is American imperialism. If you really support Taiwan and the Taiwanese people you would not offer up such stupid arguments.

March 2, 2008 @ 12:04 am | Comment

sorry, Tibet was under Chinese suzerainty*, was a vassal and now is a colony.

March 2, 2008 @ 12:05 am | Comment

Most of China was under Mongol suzerainty once, so I think China is really a part of Mongolia. We should all support the One-Mongolia-policy.

March 2, 2008 @ 9:34 am | Comment

“Not only are you a dumbass, but a filthy lying whore subhuman. Get cancer and die.

Posted by: ferins at December 23, 2007 03:54 AM”

Two simple questions:

1. Why hasn’t Ferin been banned yet, while so many other people have?

2. Why hasn’t the comment above been deleted yet? Not vile enough?

March 2, 2008 @ 9:57 am | Comment

mor, I’ve deleted and edited many, many comments by Ferin. The main answer is, I don’t have time. I have left a lot of nanhe’s angry comments up as well. If you ever see stuff like that put up by ferin, please alert me and I will remove it. Like nanhe, I haven’t banned ferin (yet) because he can often contribute some very smart comments. When he writes shit and I see it, I delete it. Thanks for telling me, I will delete.

March 2, 2008 @ 11:23 am | Comment

Last thing about that, mor: Please note the date of ferin’s comment. I was on a flight from Taipei to America on Dec. 23. I would really be able to patrol all the comments all the time. With my job, I have had to refrain from reading any comments for as long as five days in a row as I’ve lived out of hotel rooms. This is Sunday and it’s a free weekend so I can watch carefully. It’s a luxury that’s going to become rare and rarer over the next 5 months.

March 2, 2008 @ 4:22 pm | Comment

I appreciate all that, Richard, but as you said: “If you ever see stuff like that put up by ferin, please alert me and I will remove it.” I will just go on pointing out that sort of stuff to you and the other administrators. I want everybody here to know what kind of guy ferin really is. He might be smart and able to write thoughtful and interesting comments, but at the end of the day he’s just another abusive, racist, America-bashing troll. And he’s obviously never had to take care of people who really have cancer.

March 3, 2008 @ 5:39 am | Comment

“We should all support the One-Mongolia-policy.”

I don’t have a problem with that. (There *are* more Mongols in China today than the Republic of Mongolia, after all.) As far as I’m concerned, modern China’s heritage traces back to that of the Mongol Yuan.

China, Mongolia… all foreign terminology for our country anyways. Maybe we’ll just call ourselves the Republic of the Center. Does this satisfy you? It works for me.

March 5, 2008 @ 1:59 am | Comment

I guess Richard isn’t taking requests, but I’d like a thread discussing this as well.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/04/content_7716775.htm

“We are ready to have exchange, dialogue, consultation and negotiation with any political parties in Taiwan, as long as they recognize that both sides of the Taiwan Straits belong to one China,” Hu stated.

The negotiation will be conducted on an equal footing with completely open topics — there is nothing we can’t talk about,” he added.

Nothing particularly news-worthy here in these statements, but just a re-emphasis of Chinese policy that many involved in the TI issue prefer to ignore.

– “One China” does not refer to the People’s Republic of China. Taiwan does not belong to the mainland. Both mainland/Taiwan belong to “one China”.

– Equal status for negotiations. Not central government and provincial government.

March 5, 2008 @ 2:02 am | Comment

I’d like to talk about the Taiwan article too. So is it really just a matter of semantics here? As long as everyone recognises a greater theoretical ‘China’, the CCP is okay with there being two equal and politically independent nations within it? The old line always was, ‘There is only one China, and the PRC is the only legitimate government of that one China.’ Is the CCP willing to give up the PRC’s territorial claim to Taiwan and surrounding islands if the current ROC government is willing to give up their claim to the rest of what was Qing Dynasty China? Can they both have a seat in the UN as PR of China and R of China, respectively? This seems a little too good to be true.

March 5, 2008 @ 3:54 am | Comment

Lime,

What you described is way too good to be true.

Beijing is (probably) now willing to consider many political formulas, as long as it stays true to the hope that there’s only one China.

My theory is that a federation or commonwealth of two different Chinese states might be possible. This “Federated China” could then potentially take a spot at various international forums. (I’m not sure I see Beijing sharing UN Security Council though; Taiwan has a population of 23 million, mainland China is approximately 60 times larger.)

March 5, 2008 @ 6:24 am | Comment

Just recognising the existence of the ROC state (if that’s what Hu’s doing) is still miles ahead of anything that the CCP has offered before. ‘Chinese Taipei’ gets to represent itself in most international forums anyways, and I doubt anyone would seriously consider the possibilitity of the ROC recovering a security council seat. I’m sure they’d settle for a normal general assembly seat.

I have to admit to being a little cynical about this. There’s going to have be some recognition of Beijing’s dominance in the relationship, and some constraint of the ROC’s ability to represent itself internationally.

And if they were going for equality, anything other than a token acknowledgement of a Chinese Commonwealth would be incredibly difficult, considering how far the political and legal cultures have diverged.

March 5, 2008 @ 6:44 am | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.