Isn’t the alternative Western policy absolutely identical? Do communities in the United States have the right to self-determine? How could Abraham Lincoln force those in the Confederate States of America to be citizens of the USA… if they do not define themselves as such?
How can the French and Spanish force the Basques into French/Spanish, if they do not define themselves as such? How can the English force the Irish into being British subjects, if they do not define themselves as such?
Yep, that’s exactly what you get.
I’m proud of Chinese culture for its long history of unity. It has served us well. Our greatest successes have come during periods of unity. Our greatest suffering have come during periods of weak apathy and mutual disinterest.
I understand the cultural reinterpretation you’d like to force upon us… but I reject it out of hand. Thanks for asking.
who is forcing upon who?
The PRC is forcing upon the ROC for their “Great Chinese Nation” BS, sorry, not on the other sence…
[quote=“mr_boogie”]In what aspect? How can you even say that EU will be what China is now? Care to explain?
[/quote]
So the EU is not trying to unify, my mistake.
I think you are confused here the PRC and ROC agree on the “Great Chinese Nation,” they are just confused on who is adminstrating this nation.
It is only the TI supporters that reject the “Chinese Nation” while being entirely Chinese themselves.
Well there are the Qing and Yuan dynasty that sort of illustrate how the imperialist adopted the Chinese culture after conquering China.
It is like an evil virus that spread whether you are the subject or ruler of the country. Best close ones eyes for the next century. I see a global Sinification on the horizon.
[/quote]
So the EU is not trying to unify, my mistake.
.[/quote]
Errr…one small detail…the EU is by choice. In fact, some countries have rejected it without getting bombed.
Isn’t the alternative Western policy absolutely identical? Do communities in the United States have the right to self-determine? How could Abraham Lincoln force those in the Confederate States of America to be citizens of the USA… if they do not define themselves as such?
How can the French and Spanish force the Basques into French/Spanish, if they do not define themselves as such? How can the English force the Irish into being British subjects, if they do not define themselves as such?[/quote]
The Civil War was not about the North asserting that all American’s are caucasian and shared the same cultural identity as the South and therefore the US should be one nation (after a 50yr separation). It was a political and economic war over Federal vs. State power. It would be more like Beijing outlawed contract labor in GuangZhou and GuangZhou secceded to retain its factories.
Last I heard there was an Irish Republic separate from England - of course they had to fight to get it. You also have N. Ireland where a certain part of the population have elected to remain a part of the UK, though one could argue about how many and under what means…maybe this is what Jin Men could be?
As for the Basque, if they were able to garner enough policial support for independence and then were threatened with force by the gov. - that would be a different matter. The fact is that they get very little support from the electorate, mostly due to ETA violence ironically.
Possibly a better example woud be Puerto Rico & Quebec. Both have decided through referendum to keep the status quoe.
I’m not an advocate of TI. But I am an advocate of Taiwan being able to make a choice. It seems that even that prospect is all too frightening to many. What is it they fear? That the poor Taiwanese have been mislead and badly educated and are unabel to decide on their own? That the Taiwanese won’t buy into ‘abstract’ ideas?
I think everybody here in Taiwan (local and foreign alike) enjoys Chinese culture for one reason or another. However, why can’t people love and respect Chinese culture but still identify with the place that they live as their home and decide its and their own future - whatever that may be?? You are trying to force your collective definition of “us” on anybody that is ethnically Chinese. Does that include Chinese in Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, the EU and the US? You should realize that not all ethnic Chinese care to be included in your definition - everybody has their own idea about what being Chinese means…
Sometimes I put myself in Chen’s shoes, and come up with ideas like:
The author clearly is unaware of what Chen has done for rural Taiwan. You know, the kind of people who don’t write opinion columns to the Japan Times. I think people in the Chen administration knew what Wall Street had to offer and said: “Thanks, but we’ll pass.”
Then there was 921. Then the SARS epidemic and all that involved with creating a control room for the DOH, shutting down hospitals and reworking parts of the health care system. Taiwan was asked by the US government to cooperate on terrorism and had to create plans for that. Not to mention reworking the LY so that it’s members were cut in half to further the democratic process and undoubtedly cut back on fist fights in the chamber. Making such changes means eliminating high-paying high-profile jobs. People fighting for jobs like that can be MEAN!
Chen’s administration did not do all of that, but had to provide leadership, guidance and move resources in every crisis: that’s what the Office of the President does.
I have long been of the opinion that many of the Chen administration’s policies ran their course before the end of Chen’s second and his administration’s blind-sightedness for how delicate urban systems are and how decisions made on finance can actually have a domino effect leading to serious crises in the lower classes. Bodies start turning up in rivers from unhappy marriages and tired drivers unable to make ends meet take extra hours and crash busses.
That Chen went so far as to try to de-Sinicize Taiwan is evidence his loacalization went too far. He was not really so pro-Taiwanese that he thought Taiwanese were a different race, but I don’t think anyone who voted for him the first time around knew he was going to try to de-Sinicize Taiwan, equating the Chinese ethnicity with everything that went wrong during the Qing Dynasty that helped lead to China’s falling behind the rest of the world… [To be sure, Europe’s competing states and religions were the reason behind inventions like warships and advanced cannons. China’s empire had other problems, but not the kind that would prepare it for the Europeans’ inventiveness and sheer dominating will].
But if Chen really was so far off the mark, how did he get so many votes? And why was the KMT unable to sway the voters in 2003 in favor of Lien Chan? Had Chen’s people done too good a job stifling them that democracy itself suffered?
[quote=“ac_dropout”]the PRC and ROC agree on the “Great Chinese Nation,” they are just confused on who is adminstrating this nation.
It is only the TI supporters that reject the “Chinese Nation” while being entirely Chinese themselves.[/quote]
Just where are you getting your data from - a TVBS opinion poll?? That directly contradicts what I see on an everyday basis in Taiwan. Don’t ever generalize “ROC” to mean “everybody in Taiwan”. You must be way out of touch with the average person outside of Taipei City. Anyway, there’s no confusion on administration - the KMT knows that it is the only legitimate government of China. It just has to administer remotely cause they know they got it much better in Taiwan than the Mainland. Why else would they stay?
Don’t accuse TI supporters of being hypocrites because just because they are ethnically Chinese but don’t support the abstract and racial concept of the “Chinese Nation”. TI supporters are no more hypocritical than deep blue who prefer to stay in Taiwan and enjoy all the benefits of a free society whilst working to subjugate that society to another.
You’re exactly right - nice analogy with Beijing/GuangZhou.
I often cite Puerto Rico as an example for Taiwan to learn from. They voted not to become a state - they wanted to keep their culture and identity distinct. And the US respected their choice. People are going to have to realize there are other very workable solutions other than absolute independence or absolute unification.
I’ve alway said since I’ve been here that I don’t care what the Taiwanese choose - as long as they are free to make that choice without fear or coersion. Unfortunately, what I see is cooperation between Beijing (if you declare independence we are obligated by law to ‘unliberate’ you by force) and the KMT (we don’t need to defend ourselves from China - we can make a peace deal) to eliminate or at very least make people afraid of certain choices.
The PRC accepts free choice, as long as the choice is PRC.
The PRC accepts Taiwanese, as long as they say they are Chinese.
The PRC game is to make sure that there is only one route for Taiwan, which is Unification. That is why they shut all the international doors to Taiwan. Even this week they made it very clear in the APEC, that the ROC government is persona non grata everywhere.
[quote=“Elegua”]
Errr…one small detail…the EU is by choice. In fact, some countries have rejected it without getting bombed.[/quote]
That’s is the question. Because aren’t there some Countries begin rejected from the EU because the member States wish to have to option to bomb them in the Future…i.e. Russia, Israel and Turkey.
So the question is who has more prerogatives in making their choices. Non Christian, Non-White majority States or Established EU members.
Which is really the question on Taiwan, should ROC respect the minority opinions of TI and Unification anymore? Or act as a pure democracy and respect the wishes of the Status Quo majority.
Because when you put this idealism of “choice” into practice, it is barely operational in a republic that protects minority opinions. Aboriginals want to establish a State within Taiwan, Jinmen wants to move at a different pace than Taiwan island on the 3 links, TI wants de jure independence, Unification camp wants to be at least where Jinmen is with the mainland for all of ROC.
You mean you believe the FBI and CIA did the right thing to PR Independence leaders? That’s great, the KMT has been wishing to re-introduce White Terror on Taiwan.
I think you need to really educate yourself on the Machiavellian practices the USA uses to keep these outer territories in line with the Union. Because if that is the case, where you support every action the USA used to keep PR, then the PRC has every right to suspend the civil rights of ROC citizens in their claimed territory, which includes Taiwan island. After 50 years, Taiwan could have a referendum that would probably look like PR as well.
Let’s put one of the new emoticon’s into use… :snore: You dodged half the issue…
Do you truly believe that is the reason? Could it possibly have to do with petty matters like ensureing the legal and economic frameworks are harmonized? Is there also not a very public debate going on about what the limits of the EU should be, economically, culturally, and with regards to human rights and policy?
Well, yes. A proper fedal system will implement the majorities desire while protecting the interest of the minority. But at the end of the day, minority interests will have to bow to the majority, (having gained some kind of concession in return). But that is not the question I was asking was it really - China fear a plebicite because the answer would not be in their favor.
Just like you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a packed theatre despite free speech, people who revert to means outside the normal political processes cannot be tolerated. But, what are we talking about here? How the US has a spotlessly clean record (which it does not)? Or the fact that today, PR could hold another plebicite and go independent, or become a state (may cause issues with the flag as there is no way to arrange 51 stars) as they see fit without a test missles being fired? Even this, Taiwan cannot acheive without a declaration of war. Your implication is that Taiwan is already ‘brainwashed’ and you cannot trust the majority in Taiwan to make the ‘correct’ choice for themselves, whatever that may be.
BTW: Get past your HS civics class, ok? Most of us know what the Standard Fruit Company is. It appears clear that in certain sections of those classes like Federalism vs Democracy, you were asleep or playing video games.
ac, you surprise me with your new found intelligence about the EU.
There is a problem with all new possible members of integration (not only human, but also economical). In fact, countries who wish to be part of the EU have to undergo an immense change so that they can be levelled up. Israel itself has to come clear with it’s own politics before bidding to join the EU - and that is still far from being possible. Don’t forget, that a bid to the EU would mean to end once and for all the Lebanese and the Palestinian problem, and they are still there.
[quote=“mr_boogie”]ac, you surprise me with your new found intelligence about the EU.
[/quote]
…and US foreign policy… what’s gotten into you ac? Who’s stolen your password and is posting for you? Oh, that’s right. I’ve tagged you for taking the buckshot approach. Looks like you hit the bullseye with a couple pellets … yep… (stare at target) 'der she be! :threadjacked: