China's Greatest Fear: Dead and Buried Like the Soviet Union (Closed)

I was thinking about this part:

solarz said:

...

What he's ignoring is that China itself is a amalgamation of various cultures that have unified and fragmented repeatedly over the centuries. ...

Click to expand...

and the closest which occurs to me would be Italy ("= China") / Sardinia ("=Tibet") if you know what I mean (in brief,

• after the Risorgimento, Sardinians should forget about their Kingdom (LOL I have to be specific, I mean
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  to be 'their Kingdom', not
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  )
• I was told by Italians in Apulia they wouldn't understand Sardinian Dialect (one of 26 (major) dialects spoken in Italy; sorry if this info is incorrect: io parlo Italiano poco poco and I checked
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  so I'm guessing (OK bluffing) it would be tough (not possible?) to understand a conversation in Tibetan for somebody from, say, Shanghai)

but I haven't been to Sardinia and can't say how big support would a seriously meant independence movement get (to distinguish it from what soccer fans would say after Cagliari - Roma game

Isn't it interesting that we can hypothesize a benevolent Imperial Japan, and no one in the English speaking world would bat an eyelid, while if one were to do the same and wonder what a Nazi Germany could have achieved "if only" they could be less brutal and tried to be a more "contributing" coloniser to Europe, well I don't know, maybe like the English towards the Indians, or maybe even the Americans towards the American Indians, one would immediately be labelled a "Nazi sympathiser", of white-washing history, pure blasphemy.

Both regimes are definitely beyond redemption, but they are not treated with anywhere near the same amount of vehemence, unless it was brutalities against the western Allies.

Jura said:

I was thinking about this part:

and the closest which occurs to me would be Italy ("= China") / Sardinia ("=Tibet") if you know what I mean (in brief,

• after the Risorgimento, Sardinians should forget about their Kingdom (LOL I have to be specific, I mean
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  to be 'their Kingdom', not
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  )
• I was told by Italians in Apulia they wouldn't understand Sardinian Dialect (one of 26 (major) dialects spoken in Italy; sorry if this info is incorrect: io parlo Italiano poco poco and I checked
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  so I'm guessing (OK bluffing) it would be tough (not possible?) to understand a conversation in Tibetan for somebody from, say, Shanghai)

but I haven't been to Sardinia and can't say how big support would a seriously meant independence movement get (to distinguish it from what soccer fans would say after Cagliari - Roma game

Click to expand...

In the end, there is no right to "self-determination". A state is a social contract where the people give up a portion of their freedom in exchange for security, and a vital part of that security depends on the territories the state holds. A group that wants to break away from the state threatens the security of everyone in that state, therefore it is absurd to claim that the separatist group can make that decision unilaterally.

Culture and history are both malleable. While they can strengthen a sovereignty claim, they are, by their very nature, always debatable.

Tibet is a unalienable part of the People's Republic of China not because of history or culture, but because it is of vital strategic importance. To allow it to break away would threaten the security of everyone in the Chinese nation. The Chinese people is all too keenly aware of what happens when the state becomes incapable of providing security for its people.

solarz said:

By your logic, Beijing is conquered land. It used to belong to the kingdom of Yan before being conquered by the kingdom of Qin. Later on, it was a part of the Khitan empire, then a part of the Jurchen empire, then the Mongols, before being conquered by the Ming. Then it was conquered by the Qing, followed by the ROC, followed by the Japanese, and finally by the PLA.

So what is that supposed to show?

Click to expand...

Sure, China is also conquered land. But I'm guessing that you have absolutely no problem with Han rebels overthrowing the Yuan or the Qing, or any hypothetical foreign invader, whether they were benign or malevolent. I assume that you do NOT think of China as an inseparable and unambiguous part of Mongolia. I assume that you do NOT think of Manchuria as an inseparable and unambiguous part of Japan. But yet you hypocritically think of Tibet as an inseparable and unambiguous part of China. Yet you hypocritically think that Tibet cannot and should not remove itself from Chinese rule. That's what that is "supposed to show". Your hypocrisy and double standards. Is this still unclear?

solarz said:

Tibet is a unalienable part of the People's Republic of China not because of history or culture, but because it is of vital strategic importance. To allow it to break away would threaten the security of everyone in the Chinese nation. The Chinese people is all too keenly aware of what happens when the state becomes incapable of providing security for its people.

Click to expand...

I see, so if I have to keep you in chains for my personal security, then it is right and just that you are in chains. Got it. ROFLMAO

Iron Man said:

Sure, China is also conquered land. But I'm guessing that you have absolutely no problem with Han rebels overthrowing the Yuan or the Qing, or any hypothetical foreign invader, whether they were benign or malevolent. I assume that you do NOT think of China as an inseparable and unambiguous part of Mongolia. I assume that you do NOT think of Manchuria as an inseparable and unambiguous part of Japan. But yet you hypocritically think of Tibet as an inseparable and unambiguous part of China. Yet you hypocritically think that Tibet cannot and should not remove itself from Chinese rule. That's what that is "supposed to show". Your hypocrisy and double standards. Is this still unclear?

Click to expand...

You failed to understand the point spectacularly.

China is NOT conquered land because the Jurchens, Khitan, Mongols, and Tibetans are ALL Chinese.

You insist on artificially defining China as specifically excluding Tibet, when nothing can be further from the truth. The logic that you use to exclude Tibet from China can be applied to any of the other aforementioned groups, whose self-identification as Chinese is uncontroversial.

solarz said:

You failed to understand the point spectacularly.

China is NOT conquered land because the Jurchens, Khitan, Mongols, and Tibetans are ALL Chinese.

You insist on artificially defining China as specifically excluding Tibet, when nothing can be further from the truth. The logic that you use to exclude Tibet from China can be applied to any of the other aforementioned groups, whose self-identification as Chinese is uncontroversial.

Click to expand...

And what about Japan? You conveniently failed to mention Japan, which conquered the entirety of Manchuria and significant parts of Eastern China, about as much territory as the Jurchens ever did. Sure, the Inner Mongolians are an ethnicity of China, but the Mongolians in Mongolia certainly are not Chinese and some of them would kill you just for calling them Chinese. These people are not Chinese just because you grandiosely waved a magic wand and called them Chinese. They certainly were not considered "Chinese" when they conquered China, and were not considered "Chinese" when they ruled China, and were not considered "Chinese" when they were expelled from China. You speak from the hindsight of history and have falsely redacted a Chinese identity into these people who in some cases never became Chinese and in other cases became Chinese only centuries later. You failed to understand history spectacularly.

Iron Man said:

Sure, China is also conquered land. But I'm guessing that you have absolutely no problem with Han rebels overthrowing the Yuan or the Qing, or any hypothetical foreign invader, whether they were benign or malevolent. I assume that you do NOT think of China as an inseparable and unambiguous part of Mongolia. I assume that you do NOT think of Manchuria as an inseparable and unambiguous part of Japan. But yet you hypocritically think of Tibet as an inseparable and unambiguous part of China. Yet you hypocritically think that Tibet cannot and should not remove itself from Chinese rule. That's what that is "supposed to show". Your hypocrisy and double standards. Is this still unclear?

Click to expand...

No, there is no problem with Han rebels overthrowing Yuan and Qing. NEITHER was and is there a problem with Mongol or Manchu rebels overthrowing Song or Ming. What is your point?

The morden day PRC and Mongolian republic was two parts of Yuan Empire and Qing Empire. Mordern day Chinese does not have problem with that either. What is your point?

What is your defination of China? PRC? Qing, Ming and Yuan dynasty? At those times, there is no such defination of China. The legal and practical name that Qing government and its subjects used was "大清国", translated to English was "Great Qing State". The students from Qing in Japan was called and self-called as "清国留学生"/"foreign student of Qing". Mind you the name 清国 is Chinese (language) and Japanese and Korean in the same meaning and form, that is what the only words that were used in this part of the world.

So please don't use a mordern/western messed-up English concept to argue. This is once again an evidence that you based all your thoughts about the past on concepts that did not exist or meant different.

A suggestion to anyone who still want to or think that you can argue with Iron Man.

I suggest that you use the specific historical term for the relevant state/entity. Do not use China or Chinese because its defination is ambiguet and fluid. You will fall into the trap of Iron Man as he can easily shift the poles (what is China, Han/Tibetan/Manchu/Mongol???). If you want to use one word to refer to all historical Chinese dynasties or polities, use 中国 instead of China. Because 中国 was used by various Chinese dynasties including Yuan and Qing for self-reference. We should shift the burden of clarification of terms and concepts to Iron Man.

My principle is that, if I play the game, I play by my terms, not others.

taxiya said:

No, there is no problem with Han rebels overthrowing Yuan and Qing. NEITHER was and is there a problem with Mongol or Manchu rebels overthrowing Song or Ming. What is your point?

The morden day PRC and Mongolian republic was two parts of Yuan Empire and Qing Empire. Mordern day Chinese does not have problem with that either. What is your point?

Click to expand...

Then you should also have no problem if Tibetan rebels "overthrow" China, either peaceably or violently.

taxiya said:

What is your defination of China? PRC? Qing, Ming and Yuan dynasty? At those times, there is no such defination of China. The legal and practical name that Qing government and its subjects used was "大清国", translated to English was "Great Qing State". The students from Qing in Japan was called and self-called as "清国留学生"/"foreign student of Qing". Mind you the name 清国 is Chinese (language) and Japanese and Korean in the same meaning and form, that is what the only words that were used in this part of the world.

So please don't use a mordern/western messed-up English concept to argue. This is once again an evidence that you based all your thoughts about the past on concepts that did not exist or meant different.

Click to expand...

China is currently the area encompassed by the PRC. Is it something else? It used to be the area encompassed by the Qing. Before that it was the area encompassed by the Ming, etc. etc. Is this concept too "Western" for you? LOLOLOLOL

I don't know if this:

Iron Man said:

... the Mongolians in Mongolia ... some of them would kill you just for calling them Chinese. ...

Click to expand...

is true, but I found out, at various levels in Austria, for example during a small talk with a VIP and during beer and liquor drinking with young people, it's offensive for Austrians to be called 'Germans' (despite or because?! two World Wars fought together and other stuff)

EDIT
just to be sure, I add both Germans and Austrians speak the same language which is the German