That word gave me cancer.[/quote]
Lol, “share by most of my brothers and sister of the glorious Chinese nation and diaspora across various nations and regions.”
Hmm, maybe I need to rethink my opposition to the Zhonghua minzhu concept even if only for rhetorical purposes. . .
Blue commentator Joe Hung on the TCG. Do they really have an army?
“A tale of two countries in Taiwan: ROC, TCG”
chinapost.com.tw/commentary/ … A-tale.htm
I happened on one of their rallies a while back…no sign of Hartzell, but I couldn’t help but wonder how much of it is thanks to his crusade for pretty much, well, this.
Those are some mighty fine photos.
Guy
In related news, a TV channel presented a piece about a supporter of Taiwan as part of the Japanese Impire. He’s got his humble scooter shop decorated with, you guessed, that flag. The stripped one. Has issued his own ID as “Japanese Empire subject”. Oh, boy, now that is fun waiting to happen.
That is supposedly the official status of the island though, If you go strictly by international treaties signed post WW2.
So one either go by international laws and treaties, or go one completely political realist on the subject and say the fact that the KMT’s subsequent military occupation the island legitimizes it’s rule, regardless of the fact that Taiwan as an ex-Japanese Pacific island colony/territory was only supposed to be a trustee territory for whichever administrating country. Of course, if we endorse that kind of political realism, we might as well not cry foul when Sadam took over Kuwait, or not bother sanctioning Russian with the annexation of Crimea.
Except I neither see Japan nor the United States exercising any governing power over this island. They do not even claim Taiwan when they would have many chances to do so. Hence this is all delusional drivel propagated by a tiny minority of noisy lowlifes who congregate behind a court-proven pathological tax evader.
Show me an international treaty that specifically gave Taiwan’s sovereignty to the KMt or China. Just because Taiwan had, and still has no official political sovereignty, doesn’t mean it’s open to another colonial power.
By the way, if the TCG are human garbage for name calling, aren’t you one yourself for calling people “noisy lowlifes”?
Show me an international treaty that specifically gave Taiwan’s sovereignty to the KMt or China. Just because Taiwan had, and still has no official political sovereignty, doesn’t mean it’s open to another colonial power.
By the way, if the TCG are human garbage for name calling, aren’t you one yourself for calling people “noisy lowlifes”?[/quote]
Show me an international treaty that gave American sovereignty to the US government. Or one that gave Australian sovereignty to the British sovereign. There are no treaties and likewise Taiwan’s sovereignty is not a legal question but a political question. The only country of influence reserving ambiguity over the PRC’s claims is the United States. And I do not see the US laying any claim on this island, but rather use it as a pawn.
I call the TCG human garbage for their “agents” (not just ordinary members, but people listed on their website as exercising some sort of office) harassing elderly people on the street and in buses. This is not just about name calling. And I rather not see my NHI premiums go towards the healthcare of these tax evaders. They hate the ROC - fine, but then please stop using public infrastructure.
[quote=“hsinhai78”]
Wow, we are talking about a period with established international law, and the way you defend your position is by going back to the 17th century?
In the US’ case, there were a long series of treaties. From the treaty of 1632 and the treaty of 1640 signed between British settlers and the Native Americans all the way to the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868. In many of the early treaties with the British, the tribes involved agreed to each became tributaries to the King of England. All those treaties of course doesn’t justify Britain and the US’ treatment of Native Americans, but for a while, Native Americans actually had a pretty decent relations with the British, especially because the British were curbing expansions into Native American territories. At least in both the British and the US’ cases, they both recognized there’s some rights that native inhabitants deserved and it was reflected by the fact there were treaties and the content of many of the treaties recognizing their traditional territories.
The British declared Terra nullius when they got to Australia, but it’s a bit silly for the KMT to decalre Terra nullius on Taiwan in 1945, and that’s exactly why they didn’t and had to make up elaborate lies to justify declaring Taiwan a province, taxation and military drafts.
I guess everyone goes for complete political realism when it suits them. That’s why liberty and freedom is fought, not given.
By the way, the Americans even signed a treaty with Taiwan’s Paiwan Aboriginals, in the aftermath of the Rover incident. Le Gendre negotiated with Chief Tauketok to guarantee future shipwrecked sailors raising red flags wouldn’t be killed.
[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“hsinhai78”]
Wow, we are talking about a period with established international law, and the way you defend your position is by going back to the 17th century?
In the US’ case, there were a long series of treaties. From the treaty of 1632 and the treaty of 1640 signed between British settlers and the Native Americans all the way to the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868. In many of the early treaties with the British, the tribes involved agreed to each became tributaries to the King of England. All those treaties of course doesn’t justify Britain and the US’ treatment of Native Americans, but for a while, Native Americans actually had a pretty decent relations with the British, especially because the British were curbing expansions into Native American territories. At least in both the British and the US’ cases, they both recognized there’s some rights that native inhabitants deserved and it was reflected by the fact there were treaties and the content of many of the treaties recognizing their traditional territories.
The British declared Terra nullius when they got to Australia, but it’s a bit silly for the KMT to decalre Terra nullius on Taiwan in 1945, and that’s exactly why they didn’t and had to make up elaborate lies to justify declaring Taiwan a province, taxation and military drafts.
I guess everyone goes for complete political realism when it suits them. That’s why liberty and freedom is fought, not given.
By the way, the Americans even signed a treaty with Taiwan’s Paiwan Aboriginals, in the aftermath of the Rover incident. Le Gendre negotiated with Chief Tauketok to guarantee future shipwrecked sailors raising red flags wouldn’t be killed.[/quote]
And Germany and Japan are still on the UN enemy states list. Shocking.
Nobody outside of TCG and similar delusional groups pays any attention to these arguments. Non-lawyers wank each other in an echo-chamber, that’s all there is to it. The mainstream legal opinion in the United States is that the Taiwan question is a political issue.
[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“hsinhai78”]
Wow, we are talking about a period with established international law, and the way you defend your position is by going back to the 17th century?
[/quote]
Actually, no. What you are calling “established international law” was put into place after WWII, after the ROC gained sovereignty over Taiwan. If what you are saying applies to Taiwan, it should also retroactively have to be applied to all States. At the very least, the US would have to return Alaska and Hawaii.
So many levels of irony here. The mainstream Taiwanese view (and I subscribe to it) is probably that irrespective of whatever legal arguments and pieces of paper one can point to, the reality is that the ROC (not Japan, not the US and not the TCG) rules Taiwan. One can point to treaties and international law, but the ROC has the bullets, the boots, the bureaucrats and (for the last 20 years) the ballots.
The irony is that this is essentially the same “problem” that the ROC has with respect to China and the PRC. No treaty, no international law, or clever consensus or communique can change the fact that the PRC rules China. They got the boots, the bullets and bureaucrats; maybe not the ballots but they also got the Bomb.
Feels silly to criticize the TCG without living up to our own hypocrisy.
[quote=“Dirt”][quote=“hansioux”][quote=“hsinhai78”]
Wow, we are talking about a period with established international law, and the way you defend your position is by going back to the 17th century?
[/quote]
Actually, no. What you are calling “established international law” was put into place after WWII, after the ROC gained sovereignty over Taiwan. If what you are saying applies to Taiwan, it should also retroactively have to be applied to all States. At the very least, the US would have to return Alaska and Hawaii.[/quote]
Actually, no. It was established concurrently, and the fact that it was being established was the only reason why the USMG delegated the administration of Taiwan and Northern Vietnam to the KMT in the first place.
In fact the UN charter was signed in San Francisco on 26 June 1945. That was before Japan’s surrender, and the US navy didn’t ferry KMT troops over to Taiwan until that October.
So stop making crap up.
OK, this is getting off-topic.
@hansioux: You do not seriously imply though, that the self-styled “taiwan civil government” has any legitimacy. Even if I were to follow your argument that the United States should be administrating Taiwan - how come the United States do not recognise documents issued by that group and even US courts have tossed out their cases?
There are long threads from back when Hartzell was pushing this scheme, it might be helpful to go through those instead.
[quote=“hsinhai78”]OK, this is getting off-topic.
@hansioux: You do not seriously imply though, that the self-styled “taiwan civil government” has any legitimacy. Even if I were to follow your argument that the United States should be administrating Taiwan - how come the United States do not recognise documents issued by that group and even US courts have tossed out their cases?[/quote]
I don’t like it’s exclusive policies, so I’m not a supporter of that particular movement. It’s position on Taiwan’s status is however an alternative path towards independence, and I think all paths need to be explored. If they find a way to not exclude self-identified Taiwanese who have lived here since 1949, then it’s cause worth trying. However, as long as they are implying some kind of forced migration when they succeed, then the organization is not worthy of my support, or anyone’s for that matter.
By the way, KMT’s Miaoli ethnic Hakka legislator, Chen Mingchao, was proposing the so called “Hate crime” law, when he made fun of the name of the Councilor of the Council of Indigenous Peoples, Icyang Parod. Icyang’s name is phonetically transliterated as 夷將‧拔路兒 (Yijiang Baruer). The chosen Hanji has the literal meaning of “General of the Eastern Nomad, The Road Eliminator”, but of course the meaning of phonetic transliterations aren’t supposed to be taken literally.
Legislator Chen however said Icyang’s name implies ritual killing. When Icyang replied that it didn’t, Chen continued to say Icyang’s name is why he looks like he’s prepared to kill. You could see the dismay on Icyang’s face.
Video at the bottom of the news feed.
news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/br … ws/1736012
[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“hsinhai78”]OK, this is getting off-topic.
@hansioux: You do not seriously imply though, that the self-styled “taiwan civil government” has any legitimacy. Even if I were to follow your argument that the United States should be administrating Taiwan - how come the United States do not recognise documents issued by that group and even US courts have tossed out their cases?[/quote]
I don’t like it’s exclusive policies, so I’m not a supporter of that particular movement. It’s position on Taiwan’s status is however an alternative path towards independence, and I think all paths need to be explored. If they find a way to not exclude self-identified Taiwanese who have lived here since 1949, then it’s cause worth trying. However, as long as they are implying some kind of forced migration when they succeed, then the organization is not worthy of my support, or anyone’s for that matter.[/quote]
1.) If Japanese sovereignty under American administration is worth exploring, then 1 Country 2 Systems is equally worth exploring.
2.) And more importantly, why should self-identification as Taiwanese be a precondition? If you lament the KMT’s cultural policies, then why force another generation into a collective identity? If I live here and identify as Chinese, does that make me a bad person that should be tossed into the Taiwan Strait?
[quote=“hsinhai78”]
1.) If Japanese sovereignty under American administration is worth exploring, then 1 Country 2 Systems is equally worth exploring.[/quote]
Japanese and Americans will allow an independence referendum, and should only be a means towards an end situation. Judging by Hong Kong, 1 Country 2 Systems is a sham.
[quote=“hsinhai78”]
2.) And more importantly, why should self-identification as Taiwanese be a precondition? If you lament the KMT’s cultural policies, then why force another generation into a collective identity? If I live here and identify as Chinese, does that make me a bad person that should be tossed into the Taiwan Strait?[/quote]
No, but why would you want to get a Taiwanese citizenship if you don’t want to be Taiwanese in the first place. Even when you get naturalized in other countries, they ask about whether or not you identify with said country.