Kurt
Junior Member
That claim about Koxinga is counterfactual if you look at later reports about what is actually going on on this island.
Take a look why the Japanese occupied this very island. The non-Chinese natives in the 19th century beheaded Japanese fishermen according to their ancient tradition. The resulting naval expedition to the island resulted in rather one sided combat between Japanese forces and tribal villages. The upside of this was that the fierce warrior tribes were well received on the path of becoming Japanese, resulting in the quite successful japanization there.
So the Koxinga sinicization claim is part of a partly constructed myth to claim this island. I don't doubt that there has been bloodshed and that ever since there have been some Chinese on the island and the emperor officially claimed hegemony. But that rather interested none of the great majority of inhabitants who just continued their way of live and beheaded all who interferred unfavourably in their tribal village live and customs.
Concerning the treaty between China and Japan, you should perhaps read my posts twice before you slam an answer. I totally agree that the Chinese in fact did claim souvereignity on this island. The problem is that they didn't have much actual control of the island, nor of its inhabitants.
That's nothing unusual in China, many of todays minority inhabited regions were hardly ever under firm imperial control and law inforcement was often by ethnic cleansing for Han Chinese settlers. Just ask the Thai and Vietnamese why they left their homelands in today's southern China and moved south.
The question boils down whether you accept such dealings of an unaccepted authority over the heads of a countries inhabitants or you don't. From a legal perspective it's problematic to do so, that doesn't mean it hasn't been done.
Now back to modern realism, you seem to be cherry-picking in my reading and then garble a sense together. Please read again, I'm not opposed to a Chinese unification, but I consider the legal argument for a reunification quite questionable. This reunification argument is however central to achieve the unification means through a legitimized violence and serves as a casus belli. The problem with this and many other justifications of wars is that truth is the first casualty.
Take a look why the Japanese occupied this very island. The non-Chinese natives in the 19th century beheaded Japanese fishermen according to their ancient tradition. The resulting naval expedition to the island resulted in rather one sided combat between Japanese forces and tribal villages. The upside of this was that the fierce warrior tribes were well received on the path of becoming Japanese, resulting in the quite successful japanization there.
So the Koxinga sinicization claim is part of a partly constructed myth to claim this island. I don't doubt that there has been bloodshed and that ever since there have been some Chinese on the island and the emperor officially claimed hegemony. But that rather interested none of the great majority of inhabitants who just continued their way of live and beheaded all who interferred unfavourably in their tribal village live and customs.
Concerning the treaty between China and Japan, you should perhaps read my posts twice before you slam an answer. I totally agree that the Chinese in fact did claim souvereignity on this island. The problem is that they didn't have much actual control of the island, nor of its inhabitants.
That's nothing unusual in China, many of todays minority inhabited regions were hardly ever under firm imperial control and law inforcement was often by ethnic cleansing for Han Chinese settlers. Just ask the Thai and Vietnamese why they left their homelands in today's southern China and moved south.
The question boils down whether you accept such dealings of an unaccepted authority over the heads of a countries inhabitants or you don't. From a legal perspective it's problematic to do so, that doesn't mean it hasn't been done.
Now back to modern realism, you seem to be cherry-picking in my reading and then garble a sense together. Please read again, I'm not opposed to a Chinese unification, but I consider the legal argument for a reunification quite questionable. This reunification argument is however central to achieve the unification means through a legitimized violence and serves as a casus belli. The problem with this and many other justifications of wars is that truth is the first casualty.
Last edited:
