It sounds like Rocky is suggesting a complete boycott of trade with (mainland) China.
Now refresh my memory: who was that other person in the news lately suggesting the same thing? 
Uhhh, no, it doesn’t, it doesn’t sound anything like that.
Unless you’re asserting that everyone in the PRC is stupid.
Which sounds a lot more Trumpesian than anything I said.
.
And I’m @Rocket, not @rocky_raccoon
And we should follow suit because they have been taught that way?
Sorry but their retarded education is not my responsibility. Things are bad enough here as they are. If they can’t handle it, it’s their problem.
???
Jumbo shrimp?
Friendly to you, passive aggressive to others. Rocket prefers straight-up aggressive.
Yeah, no stripes off my tail, but my cousin @rocky_raccoon has kicked guys’ asses for a lot less. He’s from town, you know.
I do think it’s kind of cute that you chose a pic from I, meself I always preferred the more seasoned Rocky from III.
Roughly agree, but if you have lived or done business in China you don’t achieve anything with that approach.
They have grown up with a view of history and been taught that foreign powers raped China in the Qing and carved up the country. Taiwan is the last fragment that that needs to be recovered or whatever.
I don’t agree with that, but from experience being confrontational in regards to politics is the single worst way to get things done or change minds in China. They haven’t grown up in an environment that values critical thinking. You slowly broach the subject in a roundabout way and get them to possibly consider another way of seeing their entrenched beliefs. Same as dealing with a cult member
Also, it shows a level of social ineptness to turn a business conversation into political one. I expect that from China, but doesn’t mean I have to follow suit.
People from and living in a native English speaking country have no use for the word mainland when referring to China. They’d just say China.
This is a case of people trying to translate things in China and decide to keep political propaganda embedded in the original text intact.
DaLu from the characters of 大 big, and 陸 land, means just that, a big landmass. It is usually used in just two contexts. First, referring to a continent, i.e. 美洲大陸 the Americas, 大陸棚 continental shelf, and 盤古大陸 the Pangaea.
Second, referring to tectonic plates, i.e. 大陸漂移 tectonic shift.
The first usage of the two Hanjis of 大陸 is from the oldest surviving Chinese dictionary, Erya (爾雅) from the 3rd century BC.
魯有大野，晉有大陸，秦有楊陓，宋有孟諸，楚有雲夢，吳越之間有具區，齊有海隅，燕有昭余祁，鄭有圃田，周有焦護。
Here 大陸 actually referred to a giant lake located in present day Hebe, as the rest of the names listed were all names of giant lakes. Dalu might have been just a phonetic transliteration for what later became 鉅鹿.
Since the lake’s disappearance, those two characters aren’t found in documents until the Europeans arrived. The two character probably didn’t take on new meanings as continents or tectonic plates until the 18th century.
The KMT probably were the first ones to try to duck tape the meaning of mainland onto Dalu after CKS fled to Taiwan. CCP’s appropriation of that term likely is less than 20 years.
Really? The SAR plan is older than that. What did they say before?
by SAR you mean Hong Kong? In the treaties with Britain, the Chinese delegates referred to China as the Qing empire.
For referring to PRC in Hong Kong and Macao, Neidi is used instead of Dalu. PRC censor sent out a memo to all Chinese media regulation how these terms are used. Neidi is strictly for referencing China in Hong Kong and Macao, and Dalu strictly for referring to China in Taiwan.
34、「台灣」與「祖國大陸（或大陸）」為對應概念，「香港、澳門」與「內地」為對應概念，不得弄混。
From that it’s clear Neidi is the correct term for mainland, and Neidi has been in use in that capacity since the Han dynasty. That is why even the Japanese use that term for mainland, and Taiwan was asked to use that term during the Japanese colonial period.
Why the KMT felt they needed to distort the meaning of Dalu to refer to China is a mystery to mr. The CCP is aware that KMT supporters in Taiwan would feel uncomfortable if they forced Taiwan to use Neidi like Hong Kong and Macao, so they adopted the term just for Taiwan.
I mean the plan to turn Taiwan into an SAR dates back to the days when they were negotiating over HK.
But they’ve been claiming Taiwan for longer than that, so what terminology did they use before they came up with “台湾与祖国大陆”?
See? I knew we were all really 大陸人! 
I think just 祖國. Prior to the end of WW2, the idea of retaking Taiwan wasn’t an widespread one. SYS, and Mao both wrote that Taiwan and Korea should gain independence.
I know at least by March 1947, Mao still publicly maintained that Taiwan should become independent. CCP position was only changed after CKS ran to Taiwan, and they wanted an excuse to purge CKS’ regime, even if it no longer had a foothold in China.
Well there isn’t much to be done other than ignore in China, but according to what I’ve seen and heard they do that abroad as well, which is incredibly annoying.
Link to source would be helpful.
Well, I’ll give what I have; it’s just some recycling. I don’t know if it’s what’s being sought. The text immediately below is presumably a translation of Mao Zedong’s words, spoken when he was interviewed by Edgar Snow in July of 1936:
–In Edgar Snow, Red Star Over China https://goo.gl/KHNhUj
Lagniappe:
Chairman Mao: It’s better for it to be in your hands. And if you were to send it back to me now, I would not want it, because it’s not wantable. There are a huge bunch of counter-revolutionaries there. A hundred years hence we will want it (gesturing with his hand), and we are going to fight for it.
Secretary Kissinger: Not a hundred years.
Chairman Mao: (Gesturing with his hand, counting) It is hard to say. Five years, ten, twenty, a hundred years. It’s hard to say. (Points toward the ceiling) And when I go to heaven to see God, I’ll tell him it’s better to have Taiwan under the care of the United States now.
–From a conversation between Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Chairman Mao Zedong, among others, October 21, 1975, in Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume XVIII, China, 1973–1976, Document 124
These are interesting quotations, but what I’m curious about is the official terminology (since that’s what we were arguing about) from 1949 to the early 80’s.