Reading through this long chain of replies has been fascinating, and I find myself agreeing with Iron Man in certain broad ways, especially what I perceive to be his view of the modern nation state and the less the peaceful ways in which they have been created through historical ethnic bloodshed. And I do find his views to be quite logical, and they are views which can be consistently applied to all nations, few of which today would come out unscathed and clean.
But the question Iron Man has chosen to deliver this view -- through the vehicle of a hypothetical Tibet, Xinjiang secession referendum -- has naturally caused a roundly indignant response. At the end of the day, despite all the talk of history and what not, I think it comes down to what solarz described in #89, which is that the very suggestion of it is one which challenges the quite hot topic of Chinese sovereignty and territorial boundaries.
There is a reason why I do not go to US military forums and go about airing their dirty laundry of the ethnic subjugation and other atrocities involved in the founding history of the US either, trying to use similar principles of objective reasoning, because that's just going to incite a heap of indignant responses.
Then, add on the additional fact that there have been (and still are) recent real world movements which directly challenges Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity along similar lines to your argument, means there is further additional anger. I have a feeling if Tibet and Xinjiang were as integrated into China today as Hawaii or the former Confederate states were to the US today, then people would be far more relaxed to your suggestion.
In principle, I absolutely believe you (Iron Man) were not logically at fault to ask what you did in the way you did. And I won't say what you've asked is flamebait (well, apart from the forum rules but let's ignore that for the moment), because your position is logically consistent and most of the time it was well defended, but you definitely chose a confrontational vehicle for putting out your worldview.
But here, your rhetoric was seen less as a thesis about the nature of nation state formation and the ethnic conflict involved in that process, and more as the specific character assassination of China's sovereignty and/or China's specific culpable guilt.
Now, maybe you could say "tough luck" and everyone should just suck it up and only look at your arguments logically and try to reach a conclusion and keep their own cultural and social affiliations out of this matter. But people are people, and the way you kept the lens only on China instead of choosing a more conciliatory approach meant people do not have any interest in agreeing to your argument. For instance, a more agreeable and less specific way of conveying your argument could be broadening it to talk about the nature of all human nation states and the bloodshed involved in all of those states and saying that China is merely one similar example among many.
Furthermore, calling people ultranationalists, writing "LOLOLOL" and talking about a benevolent Imperial Japan aren't exactly good ways of having a civil discussion either. You make good arguments, but then you sprinkle them with quips that seem better suited to /pol/ or /b/ rather than on SDF. This isn't to say I agree with the tone of all the responses you received (there is one member in particular whose responses to you I think were needlessly off topic and aggrandized the situation), but the way you phrase some of your posts and the way you pepper them with those offhand quips is quite distinct to your pattern of posting, and again, doesn't earn you anything.
Overall, from the Chinese perspective, I agree with and sympathize with the arguments that taxiya, solarz, superdog and others have made.
But at the same time, from the broader, human perspective where national and cultural affiliation is not a factor, I agree with what I think is Iron Man's overall argument or at least his world view.... even if I can't find myself agreeing with the confrontational way Iron Man has expressed his argument.
But the question Iron Man has chosen to deliver this view -- through the vehicle of a hypothetical Tibet, Xinjiang secession referendum -- has naturally caused a roundly indignant response. At the end of the day, despite all the talk of history and what not, I think it comes down to what solarz described in #89, which is that the very suggestion of it is one which challenges the quite hot topic of Chinese sovereignty and territorial boundaries.
There is a reason why I do not go to US military forums and go about airing their dirty laundry of the ethnic subjugation and other atrocities involved in the founding history of the US either, trying to use similar principles of objective reasoning, because that's just going to incite a heap of indignant responses.
Then, add on the additional fact that there have been (and still are) recent real world movements which directly challenges Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity along similar lines to your argument, means there is further additional anger. I have a feeling if Tibet and Xinjiang were as integrated into China today as Hawaii or the former Confederate states were to the US today, then people would be far more relaxed to your suggestion.
In principle, I absolutely believe you (Iron Man) were not logically at fault to ask what you did in the way you did. And I won't say what you've asked is flamebait (well, apart from the forum rules but let's ignore that for the moment), because your position is logically consistent and most of the time it was well defended, but you definitely chose a confrontational vehicle for putting out your worldview.
But here, your rhetoric was seen less as a thesis about the nature of nation state formation and the ethnic conflict involved in that process, and more as the specific character assassination of China's sovereignty and/or China's specific culpable guilt.
Now, maybe you could say "tough luck" and everyone should just suck it up and only look at your arguments logically and try to reach a conclusion and keep their own cultural and social affiliations out of this matter. But people are people, and the way you kept the lens only on China instead of choosing a more conciliatory approach meant people do not have any interest in agreeing to your argument. For instance, a more agreeable and less specific way of conveying your argument could be broadening it to talk about the nature of all human nation states and the bloodshed involved in all of those states and saying that China is merely one similar example among many.
Furthermore, calling people ultranationalists, writing "LOLOLOL" and talking about a benevolent Imperial Japan aren't exactly good ways of having a civil discussion either. You make good arguments, but then you sprinkle them with quips that seem better suited to /pol/ or /b/ rather than on SDF. This isn't to say I agree with the tone of all the responses you received (there is one member in particular whose responses to you I think were needlessly off topic and aggrandized the situation), but the way you phrase some of your posts and the way you pepper them with those offhand quips is quite distinct to your pattern of posting, and again, doesn't earn you anything.
Overall, from the Chinese perspective, I agree with and sympathize with the arguments that taxiya, solarz, superdog and others have made.
But at the same time, from the broader, human perspective where national and cultural affiliation is not a factor, I agree with what I think is Iron Man's overall argument or at least his world view.... even if I can't find myself agreeing with the confrontational way Iron Man has expressed his argument.
