[quote=“cmdjing”]So after all the obfuscation by the Taidu separatists, the fact remains that Taiwan was part of Qing China. Obviouslly the PRC claim that Taiwan has been part of China for yadda yadda yadda years is inaccurate, but seriously, who didn’t know this already?
Maowang and Feiren and other sympathetic Taidu “intellectuals” (I will refrain from denouncing you as the stinking ninth class ) only real purpose is psychological warfare. The whole exercise is a two fold step, the first is to simply refute the glaringly inaccurate PRC propaganda which a 5 year old could do, the next step is to launch a counter-offensive. This is more subtle yet even then obvious to those used to political games. Under the guise of “impartial” scholarship, a concerted effort is made to show the limits of Chinese sovereignty (which I readily admit are real) but at the same time blur the difference between central state authority and Chinese cultural penetration of the island. All of this is a concerted attempt to dilute the historical Chinese influence on Taiwan in order to better foster the revisionary(Nothing wrong with historical revisionism at all, history is not static but dynamic as more scholarship from new sources would lead to a more nuanced perspective. However in this case, the revisionism is self-serving and politicized in the extreme) separatist history.
I notice that while everyone is ready and willing to challenge the quack propaganda issued from a passive Xinhua, no one has anything to say in response to the very active MasaoTakashi’s claim that Taiwan has never been part of China. Bias by omission anyone? (edit: Whoops I forgot to mention littlebuddha who has called him out, my point still stands in regards to Feiren and Maowang)[/quote]
I actually agree with most of your post (heaven forbid).
I originally read the thread in a hurry, and didn’t say anything about Masaowhatsit’s post because I couldn’t understand what he was trying to say. Seems he was simply trying to say that the Qing only ruled Taiwan for 10 years. Yes, obviously rubbish.
Anyway, about revisionist history. Good revisionist history sets out to challenge assumptions. Of course it can go far, but I think in the case of China/Taiwan history, there’s some pretty big assumptions that need to be challenged. I would never go so far as to say that the impact of Han culture on Taiwan was minimal, but the assumption that Taiwan is ‘Chinese’ is a biggie. I am also very interested in challenging the construction of ‘China’ itself. Why do we always think of historical China differently than Europe?