My ex girlfriend was third generation mainlander. She said her parents were both born in Taiwan but would hit the roof if they ever heard herself describe herself as Taiwanese. But she does. Voted for Chen (probably a bit disillusioned by now).
Whoops! Misinterpreted mainlander as Wai-shen-ren. Still, it would be interesting to know what proportion of Wai-shen-ren are pro independence.
I think in general the people of China want Taiwan because they think its an easy grab. A potential taker. Because this thread seems to show that in general, Pro-Taiwan Independence Chinese people are rare.
People tend to like the idea that their country can expand, even at the expense of others. Boost that with the fact that China’s schooling maintains this. So my theory is that its kinda fun for them. Why not have something extra? Not too many Americans were against the Spanish American war. Not too many Americans were against 1812. Nor Hawaii. So the whole veil of pretense, despite that this action could be wrong, is encouraged by the fact that many other people around them are doing it too.
When Chen was re-elected in 2004 a bunch of people where protesting in Flushing, with the whole “No Truth, No President” bit. But then, across the street, one of a trio of Caucasian grannies thought out loud, “What are they protesting about?” with geniune curiosity on their faces.
A woman with a heavy Beijing accent comes over and says “They’re Chinese” with a smile on her face" and the grannies say “oh okay…” and move on. They probably figured it had something to do with China.
Many years ago I was drinking tea at Ten Ren Tea, and three tourists were being guided by a Chinese woman. She talks about different places in China and how long the flights are in between, but then one of the men says that he went on a flight to China a few years back and it was terrible, how nothing was in English, none of the magazines were in English, the plane was old and tiny, and how no one was really able to help him. Then he said that he wasn’t sure if it was China Air or Air China. The woman thought for a second and said, “I’m sure its China Air”…
Of course I wanted to interrupt and say, “Since when does China Air fly into China?”.
So its obvious to me now, its just a game. Why not take it when its there, open for the taking?
You don’t see Chinese people pissed off that Jiang Zemin gave a bunch of land to Russia, the land was useless. However Taiwan? Which has a sprawling economy and all these goodies? Yum!
Most WSR are the target of TI bile. The TI mantra of “Taiwanese vs. Chinese” is actually an extension of “Taiwanese vs. WSR.”
Based on that position alone TI will also be unsavory to people of WSR descent on Taiwan.
As for “Taiwan is Independent of China,” most WSR already agree with that position under whatever re-wording is at the time. However, one also need to be aware many WSR family members died for the ROC, so extreme TI position of “ROC is dead” or “ROT to replace ROC” doesn’t really with a majority of WSR.
[quote=“ac_dropout”]Most WSR are the target of TI bile. The TI mantra of “Taiwanese vs. Chinese” is actually an extension of “Taiwanese vs. WSR.”
Based on that position alone TI will also be unsavory to people of WSR descent on Taiwan.
As for “Taiwan is Independent of China,” most WSR already agree with that position under whatever re-wording is at the time. However, one also need to be aware many WSR family members died for the ROC, so extreme TI position of “ROC is dead” or “ROT to replace ROC” doesn’t really with a majority of WSR.[/quote]
That’s practically :spam: by now.
I’m sorry, please spend time reading other people’s posts instead of repeating the same stuff over and over and over again all over the internet.
And your post is totally off topic. We are talking about Chinese mainlanders who are TI, NOT WSR!!!
ShrimpCrackers,
My goodness man. You really need to get out of New York/New Jersey, one of these days. It’ll be such an enlightening moment for you.
Is Taiwan an “easier grab” than, say, Myanmar? North Korea? Mongolia? Uzbekistan? Afghanistan? Heck, even an invasion of Vietnam at least wouldn’t involve facing down the United States military.
Or, are all those nations not economically attractive? Well, neither was Taiwan for most of the past 5 decades. And, for that matter, what do you make of Hong Kong’s history? Do you have an insightful anecdote involving some HKer you met on the subway, that helps explain what made Hong Kong a touch enough “grab”, that the PLA didn’t march into Hong Kong 50 years ago?
[quote=“cctang”]ShrimpCrackers,
My goodness man. You really need to get out of New York/New Jersey, one of these days. It’ll be such an enlightening moment for you.
Is Taiwan an “easier grab” than, say, Myanmar? North Korea? Mongolia? Uzbekistan? Afghanistan? Heck, even an invasion of Vietnam at least wouldn’t involve facing down the United States military.
Or, are all those nations not economically attractive? Well, neither was Taiwan for most of the past 5 decades.
[/quote]
Interesting response up until you wrote this:
Maybe it has something to do with the prospect of facing a highly trained, first world British army that would have gotten US support immediately. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the PLA would have faced the Brits with a poorly equipped infantry that had just gotten its ass handed to it on a plate just so it could achieve stalemate on the Korean peninsula. The PLA would have had anything but an easy time with Hong Kong.
Didn’t need the US back in 1979 if you recall. How far back did the PLA “march” after that skirmish? Total failure on all but a marginal diplomatic front - no the Soviets were not willing to back Vietnam.
HG
Ever meet a pro-TI Mainlander? I’ve met a lot of Mainlanders (which I’ll take as Taiwan-based WSR for the time being) that are ardent supporters of Taiwan’s current autonomy (the status quo - part and parcel of the 70-80% of people here that want this), but never a pro-TI Mainlander. Only a very small handful out there, though some of them quite radical. Linda Arrigo’s most recent husband, a first-generation WSR, was a member of the Taiwan Revolutionary Army - they sacked the New Party headquarters a few years back. Nice to have a bit of color about the place.
As a friend from down south said to me a while ago - ‘If you’re born green, you might turn blue later in life due to, say, job pressures or marriage, but the reverse is rarely true. The blues hang together like glue, and the WSR are the core of the group.’ Boarders on racism of course, but if I have to choose between this little insight and some BS about ‘5,000 years of continuous culture,’ I’ll take the former any day.
Shrimp,
I’m not replying to your post, but the post above yours that I felt needed some clarification of why WSR don’t usually support TI.
As guangtou states:
This can be interpreted that to be “green” one has to be born Taiwanese. Even if you are a WSR that spoke Minnan on the mainland and immigrated to Taiwan with the KMT, you will not be accepted as Taiwanese once your family background if revealed.
Where the Blues have biases along racial category of Chinese. But Chinese includes the group Taiwanese, the converse is not so true, Taiwanese doesn’t include most Chinese.
Even in the Ma vs. Wang race for the chairman position of the KMT. There were whisper campaigns that Wang would not win because he was a BSR.
The WSR vs. BSR issue is not as bad as say 30 years ago, but it is an intergral part of politics on Taiwan. To dismiss this factor in any aspect of Taiwan life is naive.
As cctang adept states:
So a “pro-TI suppoting mainlander” means that the individual PRC citizen proactively supports USA presence and influence in the region.
There are many PRC citizens that are unsatisfied with the CCP, however, that is a far cry from supporting a foriegn government influence in what PRC citizens mostly precieve as an internal “Chinese” matter.
Even taking a poll among recent PRC immigrants from NY and NJ, I’m sure you’ll find a significant number of people that find the “American Dream” to be a total lie as well. And these people lived under both government system in recent times.
So if these people find USA domestic policy to be bias against them, what makes you think they would support USA foriegn policy in Asia.
But anything possible when you have a set large enough. Heck, I’m a pan-Blue supporter from Ilan. And the set of “people from Ilan” is much smaller than 1.3 billion.
[quote=“Jive Turkey”]
Maybe it has something to do with the prospect of facing a highly trained, first world British army that would have gotten US support immediately. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the PLA would have faced the Brits with a poorly equipped infantry that had just gotten its ass handed to it on a plate just so it could achieve stalemate on the Korean peninsula. The PLA would have had anything but an easy time with Hong Kong.[/quote]
Regardless of what you believe who had who’s ass handed to them in the Korean peninsula (if we’re only looking at body counts, then I guess the US actually did win the Vietnam war), the take-away from the encounter is that PLA was never shy about facing down an international coalition.
I’m not sure how to process the point of your message. Are you really arguing that an invasion of Hong Kong would’ve been as difficult a military target for invasion as Taiwan? From what I recall of British analysis back in the '80s, it was believed that the PLA could take over Hong Kong just by damming the fresh the water supply. All of the known military challenges involved with an invasion of Taiwan (including the blue-water fleet presence of the United States) doesn’t reference at all in the case of Hong Kong.
Didn’t need the US back in 1979 if you recall. How far back did the PLA “march” after that skirmish? Total failure on all but a marginal diplomatic front - no the Soviets were not willing to back Vietnam.
[/quote]
The PLA marched about 80km through the northern foothills, captured Lang Son, and came within 100km of Hanoi within 29 days. The PLA had wideopen rail/road access to all of the northern provinces, including Hanoi at that point in time.
What were China’s objectives in the 1979 war? If you believe it to “grab” Vietnam’s northern provinces or destroy the Vietnamese miitary, then surely China was denied. If you believe it to be precisely on the “diplomatic front”, then I guess China wasn’t denied after all.
If you have any comment on the “ease” of a “grab” of Taiwan, apropos the flow of this specific thread, then perhaps you should make the point and move on.
No, the “take-away” from the Korean War was that the PLA wasn’t shy about facing down an international coalition one time. One time was disasterous enough for them to never risk it again. Their “take-away” from the conflict was that they could never again send so many to their deaths for so little results.
Well which is it, 50 or 20 years ago? Make up your mind.
Tell that to the families of the thousands burried at the border. Those poor bastards were “denied” a whole lot then, just as they are “denied” any sort of recognition now. Hmm, I wonder why that is? Could it be that Beijing is still embarrassed as hell about the beating that the PLA took? Is that why no mainlanders under about 35 years of age seem to know that the PRC and Vietnam fought a war in 1979? If a PLA invasion of Taiwan were defeated, would that be erased from history as well?
And the few that do almost invariably never knew China started it.
It was a shocking defeat for China, CCTang.
CCTang, you have to consinder what this led to. The Chinese military itself was forced to stop military grandstanding and seek to completely overhaul the PLA. Those efforts are only now being realised.
HG
Actually the PRC succeeded in Vietnam conflict to prove the Soviet would not do “whatever it take” to protect Vietnam against PRC aggression.
Anyways fast forward 30 years into the future both Vietnam and Russia have signed agreement settling boarder issues with PRC.
So what wrong with ROC? Why is ROC unable to foster an environment to at least reduce tension between the Straits, let alone sign an agreement with PRC to settle any territorial disputes.
I think you could call that a Pyrrhic victory, ac.
I don’t know, but when a neighbour flies a few missiles across your backyard the family tends to get upset. When you suffer an earthquake tragedy and your neighbour claims they are the legitimate source of any international aid, the wife starts thiking about moving.
When mobs organised by the government start trashing foreign-owned shops and spewing nationalistic crap over events that occurred 60 years ago, then deny any onvolvement, you have to wonder if these people can be trusted to keep their word, no?
In you own words: [quote]protect Vietnam against PRC aggression[/quote]
Is that what you call fostering good relations? A climate of mutual trust . . . ?
By the way ac_dropout, is your tag anything to do with aircons dropping out of high rises during earthquakes? I know it’s a personal concern.
In any case ac_dropout, bully for you for continuing to defend the indefensible. You are a salute to the pale blue cause. Please keep banging away old egg, I’m sure the list of converts from your periodic missives are almost ready to kick down the green door. I mean that’s the preffered style, right?
HG
Huang Guang Chen,
There is no need to kick down any green doors. The Greens have kicked it down themselves and their supporters are all coming over to the blue side as we type.
Given reports coming out of Taiwan’s media, PRC leadership are probably laughing themselves silly by now. The reports of the MRT scandal and the non-sale of DDP media assests are enough to make anyone question Taiwan’s current leadership, let alone the leaderships ability to take a nation to war.
Military intervention will not be necessary to stop TI. It will just implode on itself due to lack of true leadership in the TI camp
So, I guess that’s that then, HGC? You really don’t have a point to make on the issue of HK’s relative security from PLA invasion vis a vis Taiwan’s security from PLA invasion?
You really should consider picking up a few history books more substantial than what you could find on Google at a moment’s notice. The PLA didn’t exactly back down from confronting the international super-powers after Korea. (Not that the British even deserves to be mentioned as a military power in that regard… the greatest military triumph for the British in the 20th century, after all, was their ability to take a beating in London.)
You might want to look into the history of mainland’s attempts to attack Kinmen/Matsu after the Korean armistice. Or, for that matter, the mainland’s invasion of former British India in 1962. Or, the border clashes with the Soviet Union throughout the '60s-'80s. Or (again), the border clash with Vietnam in '79.
Don’t want to threaten your stiff upper lip or what not… but really, if China was willing to put as many as 200,000 PLA 100km into Vietnam, despite a Soviet threat to join the war with its 50+ Soviet divisions parked in the Soviet Far East across the border from China… do you actually think the PLA was “afraid” to march 30-50km to Hong Kong island against a few regiments of British troops, if that’s what Beijing wanted?
The loss of 20,000 men automatically implies a pyrrhic victory? Honestly, you should re-examine the definition of the term.
Umm, I’m not following you.
Nope, still not with you.
Still not really with you but I get the feeling you may think I’m English. Let me clarify. Death to the Queen of England and please remove that vile rag from the corner of my nation’s flag. Clearer?
Umm, but they didn’t did they . . so what. Actually look back, I made no comment on HK but since you’ve pushed the issue I’ll restate my view that China was severely stung by it’s folly in Korea. The suicidal human wave attacks launched on heavily defended US and UN positions gutted the army of much of the experienced veterans from the protracted war with Japan and the KMT.
After Korea the army was a spent force in need of serious introspection. That process was further hampered by the folly of invading Vietnam, which left the PLA utterly humiliated in the eyes of its would be foes, including Taiwan. Is it any wonder nobody in China talks about it?
Oh I know how far they “marched in”, but you seem to have forgotten how far they had to “march” back.
I suggest my dear CCTang that you look up the term. I’m very clear of its meaning and used it deliberately. May I suggest you also attempt to remove your Party blinkers and sniff the breeze? No point furthering this folly to people educated outside China, and especially those of us who have studied Chinese history and travelled and lived there. Put simply, it’s boring.
ac:
Agree with you.
Caution buster. There is a hint in your tone here that borders on suggesting a military attempt by China to take Taiwan is somehow justified. No right thinking person would seriously wish for such an occurance. To do so on a Taiwan related forum is plain stupid.
HG
Caution buster. There is a hint in your tone here that borders on suggesting a military attempt by China to take Taiwan is somehow justified. No right thinking person would seriously wish for such an occurance. To do so on a Taiwan related forum is plain stupid.
HG[/quote]
Hmm… Sounds like AC is at it again. This little gem from an earlier thread still rings in my ears:
A sad irony about most Sino-nats that I come into contact with is that I actually agree with a lot of what they have to say (the historial grievances are real, I don’t deny this). And I suspect there are a lot of other people out there that feel the same way. Maybe this is the reason why so many Sino-nats feel the necessity to up the volume. No good shouting at someone when they’re sympathetic; hell, I’d better say something really offensive…