Japan China dispute over islands.

supersugar · 3 Jun 2005

You are to naive. Just look could California and Quebec be independent when US and Canada are democracy.

bossel · 3 Jun 2005

supersugar said:
You are to naive. Just look could California and Quebec be independent when US and Canada are democracy.

If people there want to be independent, they should be able to vote for it. At least, that's how I understand democracy.

Wang · 3 Jun 2005

supersugar said:
You are to naive. Just look could California and Quebec be independent when US and Canada are democracy.

Democratic nation-state is based on the will of the people who live in there. It does not have to do with their bloods.

Tonysoong · 3 Jun 2005

Wang said:
When the People's Republic of China becomes a democracy then Taiwanese, Tibetans, Mongols, Uygurs etc can all more easily vote if they want to become a independent nation. All those people have their right to self-determination.

Do you mean China will split into tens of or even a hundred countries by then? Interesting, but crazy, Wang.

Tonysoong · 4 Jun 2005

bossel said:
If people there want to be independent, they should be able to vote for it. At least, that's how I understand democracy.

That's beyond doubt. Debating on this well-established law makes no sense, which i believe Wang knows better than me, But Wang seems to be hoping for something else. To him, people in Shanghai not only have the right to vote for their independence, but they also will indeed someday vote for that..

supersugar · 4 Jun 2005

bossel said:
If people there want to be independent, they should be able to vote for it. At least, that's how I understand democracy.

US constitution ordain that no state could decide itself quit United States. According to your comment US isn't a democracy.

Wang · 4 Jun 2005

Tonysoong said:
Do you mean China will split into tens of or even a hundred countries by then? Interesting, but crazy, Wang.

I never said that. A couple of independent countries is likely but not hundreds.

bossel · 4 Jun 2005

supersugar said:
According to your comment US isn't a democracy.

To be a bit nit-picky: According to my opinion the US wouldn't be really democratic, yeah. But as I understand it, the US constitution does not forbid secession :

"Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the union of the states being permanent. This was not an oversight by any means. Indeed, when New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia ratified the Constitution, they specifically stated that they reserved the right to resume the governmental powers granted to the United States. Their claim to the right of secession was understood and agreed to by the other ratifiers, including George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention and was also a delegate from Virginia. In his book Life of Webster Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, "It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw." A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, states, "The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State.""

Another question is theory & practice, as can be seen by the US civil war.

Yet another question is how the current US government would react, if eg. California decided to secede. I could very well imagine the Bushites going to war over it.

& yet another question is, whether there actually is a probability for a US state deciding to secede. I don't see that (except perhaps the Free State Project).

BTW, my argument is not so much about constitution or legal affairs, but how a country actually reacts, if part of that country democratically decides to secede. There is not much probability in most Western countries that they would so idiotic as to go to war over it.

Tonysoong · 4 Jun 2005

Wang said:
I never said that. A couple of independent countries is likely but not hundreds.

Hundreds could be better since "a couple of " is better than one

Tonysoong · 4 Jun 2005

bossel said:
If people there want to be independent, they should be able to vote for it. At least, that's how I understand democracy.

It's optimistic of you to foresee democracy in China and even beyond that.

supersugar · 5 Jun 2005

Yes, the US constitution does not forbid secession, but when be agreed by people all over the US. So if it could pass a countrywide vote then taiwan could be independent. people do have right to own freedom, but when breach the masses' freedom, it's dishonor. In the northern vs southern civil war you will find how US react.

Wang · 5 Jun 2005

Taiwan never belonged to the People's Republic of China for a moment.

bossel · 5 Jun 2005

supersugar said:
Yes, the US constitution does not forbid secession, but when be agreed by people all over the US.

Where does it say so?

So if it could pass a countrywide vote then taiwan could be independent.

Yep, countrywide in Taiwan.

Tonysoong · 5 Jun 2005

Wang said:
Taiwan never belonged to the People's Republic of China for a moment.

Agree, but PRC doesn't equate China. It's natural that you dislike PRC, so do I --- mainly because of CCP dictatorship. In this regard I'd rather we restored ROC. Taiwan has been doing fine under reign of ROC, right?

Tonysoong · 5 Jun 2005

bossel said:
Yep, countrywide in Taiwan.

Funny people like you just prefer to believe what they choose to believe, totally ignoring the factual situation.

Wang · 6 Jun 2005

Misconception no. 3: THE FUTURE OF TAIWAN SHOULD BE DECIDED BY THE CHINESE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE TAIWAN STRAIT. Reality: The large majority of the people on the island (85 percent) do not consider themselves Chinese but Taiwanese. They have their own language, culture and history, and are as distinct from the Chinese as the Americans are distinct from the British. During discussions at the San Francisco Peace Treaty conference of 1952, delegates determined that the future status of Taiwan should be decided in accord with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. The Charter of the UN states that one of the purposes of the UN is "to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples..."

http://www.fapa.org/generalinfo/Misconceptions_about_Taiwan.htm

Tonysoong said:
Agree, but PRC doesn't equate China. It's natural that you dislike PRC, so do I --- mainly because of CCP dictatorship. In this regard I'd rather we restored ROC. Taiwan has been doing fine under reign of ROC, right?

I think China would be in a better condition now if it was ruled by the ROC with a democratic system. Unfortunately that hasn't happened.

Tonysoong · 6 Jun 2005

Wang said:
Misconception no. 3: THE FUTURE OF TAIWAN SHOULD BE DECIDED BY THE CHINESE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE TAIWAN STRAIT. Reality: The large majority of the people on the island (85 percent) do not consider themselves Chinese but Taiwanese. They have their own language, culture and history, and are as distinct from the Chinese as the Americans are distinct from the British. During discussions at the San Francisco Peace Treaty conference of 1952, delegates determined that the future status of Taiwan should be decided in accord with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. The Charter of the UN states that one of the purposes of the UN is "to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples..."

http://www.fapa.org/generalinfo/Misconceptions_about_Taiwan.htm

.

Interesting, I have a Nigerian friend who teaches conversation English at a university in Zhe-jiang Province, He told me about a student there who insisted on being regarded as a Taiwanese instead of as a Chinese when this friend of mine asked her of her nationality. Ok, perhaps your perversity can make me give it some more thought.

bossel · 6 Jun 2005

Tonysoong said:
Funny people like you just prefer to believe what they choose to believe, totally ignoring the factual situation.

Ignoring the factual situation. Funny, I just see those PRC nationalists as such. Taiwan is factually independent.

Tonysoong said:
perhaps your perversity can make me give it some more thought.

Watch your words!

Tonysoong · 6 Jun 2005

bossel said:
Ignoring the factual situation. Funny, I just see those PRC nationalists as such. Taiwan is factually independent.

Watch your words!

You ever heard of the two Germanies, Bossel or the two Koreas? Who are / were nationalists, Eastern Germans or Western Germans, in terms of their intention to reunify?

bossel · 6 Jun 2005

Tonysoong said:
You ever heard of the two Germanies, Bossel or the two Koreas? Who are / were nationalists, Eastern Germans or Western Germans, in terms of their intention to reunify?

Neither nor. There were nationalists on both sides in various shades.
- nationalist Easterners, who wanted to keep the GDR
- nationalist Westerners, who wanted to keep the FRG
- German nationalists, who wanted a unified Germany

You can split this up even further, along political lines. A not too un-similar ideological situation as in the PRC & Taiwan, I think. Only the statistical relationships are very different.

Tonysoong · 6 Jun 2005

You mean there were once western German nationalism versus eastern German nationalism? Two nationalism-s within one nation? Wrong, Bossel, the two Germanies were just two ideologically different countries, rather than two nations. The same applies to PRC and Taiwan, the latter of which is a factual independent country beyond CCP recognition, yet still Chinese (Taiwanese, too, of course). Just like we say Eastern Germany was German and that North Korea is Korean

Wang · 7 Jun 2005

The comparison of East and West Germany, North and South Korea can't be applied on Taiwan and the PRC. First of all Taiwanese culture is different from the cultures in the PRC. Taiwan's culture is a mixture of traditional Chinese with significant Asian influences like Japanese and Western influences including American, Dutch and Spanish.
Secondly the large majority of people in Taiwan consider themselves Taiwanese.
Thridly East and West Germany both agreed to reunite in 1990 but China is threatening Taiwan with missiles and war.

bossel · 7 Jun 2005

Tonysoong said:
You mean there were once western German nationalism versus eastern German nationalism? Two nationalism-s within one nation? Wrong, Bossel, the two Germanies were just two ideologically different countries, rather than two nations. The same applies to PRC and Taiwan, the latter of which is a factual independent country beyond CCP recognition, yet still Chinese (Taiwanese, too, of course). Just like we say Eastern Germany was German and that North Korea is Korean

Can't really follow your line of argument here. Ideologically different countries cannot be different nations?

OK, since you like to look at definitions (IIRC), let's look at the CALD:

nationalist:
- a person who wants political independence for their country

nation:
nation
noun
1 [C] a country, especially when thought of as a large group of people living in one area with their own government, language, traditions, etc [...]

2 ~~a large group of people of the same race who share the same language, traditions and history, but who might not all live in one area~~

Germans are more complex a case than you seem to think. Ethnically Germans (well, ethnically German...,you could even say that there are several German ethnicities) are members of a number of different nations (Germany, Austria, Italy, etc.). Eg. although Austrians are ethnically German, nowadays they mostly have a certain national Austrian pride & most do not want to be part of Germany.
In the GDR & FRG of the time of re-unification you had a large number of people opposed to unity. Even now there is a large minority of people in Germany who would like to have the separation back (for varying reasons).

PR China consists of a large number of ethnicities, all part of one nation. Taiwanese may for a large part be ethnically Han-Chinese (don't remember the statistics at the moment), but that does not mean that they necessarily belong to the PRC. Even if all Taiwanese were ethnically Han, that would not mean that they need to be part of a greater China.

Tonysoong · 8 Jun 2005

Wang said:
First of all Taiwanese culture is different from the cultures in the PRC. Taiwan's culture is a mixture of traditional Chinese with significant Asian influences like Japanese and Western influences including American, Dutch and Spanish.

Are you in fact telling me that a local culture is different from the Chinese culture as a whole because of its colonial heritage? Shanghai also has its unique culture as compared with the Chinese culture as a whole, Wang.

Of course i don't need to bother convincing you of your Chinese descent though i feel it strange that one should be so perversely seeking to render the word Taiwanese into an ethnic term. Well, in China, we have Cantonese too. Maybe China is too big.

Tonysoong · 8 Jun 2005

Wang said:
Thridly East and West Germany both agreed to reunite in 1990 but China is threatening Taiwan with missiles and war.

really don't see how there being war threatening or not changes the nature of the issue under our present debate.

Japan China dispute over islands.

後輩

後輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

後輩

先輩

後輩

先輩

先輩

後輩

先輩

後輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

後輩

先輩

後輩

先輩

先輩

後輩

先輩

先輩

Similar threads