Jenna Cody :
Is Taiwan a real China?
No, and with the exception of a few intervening decades - here’s the part that’ll surprise you - it never has been.
This’ll blow your mind too: that it never has been doesn’t matter.
So let’s start with what doesn’t actually matter.
Until the 1600s, Taiwan was indigenous. Indigenous Taiwanese are not Chinese, they’re Austronesian. Then it was a Dutch colony (note: I do not say “it was Dutch”, I say it was a Dutch colony). Then it was taken over by Ming loyalists at the end of the Ming dynasty (the Ming loyalists were breakaways, not a part of the new Qing court. Any overlap in Ming rule and Ming loyalist conquest of Taiwan was so brief as to be inconsequential).
Only then, in the late 1600s, was it taken over by the Chinese (Qing). But here’s the thing, it was more like a colony of the Qing, treated as - to use Emma Teng’s wording in Taiwan’s Imagined Geography - a barrier or barricade keeping the ‘real’ Qing China safe. In fact, the Qing didn’t even want Taiwan at first, the emperor called it “a ball of mud beyond the pale of civilization”. Prior to that, and to a great extent at that time, there was no concept on the part of China that Taiwan was Chinese, even though Chinese immigrants began moving to Taiwan under Dutch colonial rule (mostly encouraged by the Dutch, to work as laborers). When the Spanish landed in the north of Taiwan, it was the Dutch, not the Chinese, who kicked them out.
Under Qing colonial rule - and yes, I am choosing my words carefully - China only controlled the Western half of Taiwan. They didn’t even have maps for the eastern half. That’s how uninterested in it they were. I can’t say that the Qing controlled “Taiwan”, they only had power over part of it.
Note that the Qing were Manchu, which at the time of their conquest had not been a part of China: China itself essentially became a Manchu imperial holding, and Taiwan did as well, once they were convinced it was not a “ball of mud” but actually worth taking. Taiwan was not treated the same way as the rest of “Qing China”, and was not administered as a province until (I believe) 1887. So that’s around 200 years of Taiwan being a colony of the Qing.
What happened in the late 19th century to change China’s mind? Japan. A Japanese ship was shipwrecked in eastern Taiwan in the 1870s, and the crew was killed by hostile indigenous people in what is known as the Mudan Incident. A Japanese emissary mission went to China to inquire about what could be done, only to be told that China had no control there and if they went to eastern Taiwan, they did so at their own peril. China had not intended to imply that Taiwan wasn’t theirs, but they did. Japan - and other foreign powers, as France also attempted an invasion - were showing an interest in Taiwan, so China decided to cement its claim, started mapping the entire island, and made it a province.
So, I suppose for a decade or so Taiwan was a part of China. A China that no longer exists.
It remained a province until 1895, when it was ceded to Japan after the (first) Sino-Japanese War. Before that could happen, Taiwan declared itself a Republic, although it was essentially a Qing puppet state (though the history here is interesting - correspondence at the time indicates that the leaders of this ‘Republic of Taiwan’ considered themselves Chinese, and the tiger flag hints at this as well. However, the constitution was a very republican document, not something you’d expect to see in Qing-era China.) That lasted for less than a year, when the Japanese took it by force.
This is important for two reasons - the first is that some interpretations of IR theory state that when a colonial holding is released, it should revert to the state it was in before it was taken as a colony. In this case, that would actually be The Republic of Taiwan, not Qing-era China. Secondly, it puts to rest all notions that there was no Taiwan autonomy movement prior to 1947.
In any case, it would be impossible to revert to its previous state, as the government that controlled it - the Qing empire - no longer exists. The current government of China - the PRC - has never controlled it.
After the Japanese colonial era, there is a whole web of treaties and agreements that do not satisfactorily settle the status of Taiwan. None of them actually do so - those which explicitly state that Taiwan is to be given to the Republic of China (such as the Cairo declaration) are non-binding. Those that are binding do not settle the status of Taiwan (neither the treaty of San Francisco nor the Treaty of Taipei definitively say that Taiwan is a part of China, or even which China it is - the Treaty of Taipei sets out what nationality the Taiwanese are to be considered, but that doesn’t determine territorial claims). Treaty-wise, the status of Taiwan is “undetermined”.
Under more modern interpretations, what a state needs to be a state is…lessee…a contiguous territory, a government, a military, a currency…maybe I’m forgetting something, but Taiwan has all of it. For all intents and purposes it is independent already.
In fact, in the time when all of these agreements were made, the Allied powers weren’t as sure as you might have learned about what to do with Taiwan. They weren’t a big fan of Chiang Kai-shek, didn’t want it to go Communist, and discussed an Allied trusteeship (which would have led to independence) or backing local autonomy movements (which did exist). That it became what it did - “the ROC” but not China - was an accident (as Hsiao-ting Lin lays out in Accidental State).
In fact, the KMT knew this, and at the time the foreign minister (George Yeh) stated something to the effect that they were aware they were ‘squatters’ in Taiwan.
Since then, it’s true that the ROC claims to be the rightful government of Taiwan, however, that hardly matters when considering the future of Taiwan simply because they have no choice. To divest themselves of all such claims (and, presumably, change their name) would be considered by the PRC to be a declaration of formal independence. So that they have not done so is not a sign that they wish to retain the claim, merely that they wish to avoid a war.
It’s also true that most Taiwanese are ethnically “Han” (alongside indigenous and Hakka, although Hakka are, according to many, technically Han…but I don’t think that’s relevant here). But biology is not destiny: what ethnicity someone is shouldn’t determine what government they must be ruled by.
Through all of this, the Taiwanese have evolved their own culture, identity and sense of history. They are diverse in a way unique to Taiwan, having been a part of Austronesian and later Hoklo trade routes through Southeast Asia for millenia. Now, one in five (I’ve heard one in four, actually) Taiwanese children has a foreign parent. The Taiwanese language (which is not Mandarin - that’s a KMT transplant language forced on Taiwanese) is gaining popularity as people discover their history. Visiting Taiwan and China, it is clear where the cultural differences are, not least in terms of civic engagement. This morning, a group of legislators were removed after a weekend-long pro-labor hunger strike in front of the presidential palace. They were not arrested and will not be. Right now, a group of pro-labor protesters is lying down on the tracks at Taipei Main Station to protest the new labor law amendments.
This would never be allowed in China, but Taiwanese take it as a fiercely-guarded basic right.
*
Now, as I said, none of this matters.
What matters is self-determination. If you believe in democracy, you believe that every state (and Taiwan does fit the definition of a state) that wants to be democratic - that already is democratic and wishes to remain that way - has the right to self-determination. In fact, every nation does. You cannot be pro-democracy and also believe that it is acceptable to deprive people of this right, especially if they already have it.
Taiwan is already a democracy. That means it has the right to determine its own future. Period.
Even under the ROC, Taiwan was not allowed to determine its future. The KMT just arrived from China and claimed it. The Taiwanese were never asked if they consented. What do we call it when a foreign government arrives in land they had not previously governed and declares itself the legitimate governing power of that land without the consent of the local people? We call that colonialism.
Under this definition, the ROC can also be said to be a colonial power in Taiwan. They forced Mandarin - previously not a language native to Taiwan - onto the people, taught Chinese history, geography and culture, and insisted that the Taiwanese learn they were Chinese - not Taiwanese (and certainly not Japanese). This was forced on them. It was not chosen. Some, for awhile, swallowed it. Many didn’t. The independence movement only grew, and truly blossomed after democratization - something the Taiwanese fought for and won, not something handed to them by the KMT.
So what matters is what the Taiwanese want, not what the ROC is forced to claim. I cannot stress this enough - if you do not believe Taiwan has the right to this, you do not believe in democracy.
And poll after poll shows it: Taiwanese identify more as Taiwanese than Chinese (those who identify as both primarily identify as Taiwanese, just as I identify as American and Armenian, but primarily as American. Armenian is merely my ethnicity). They overwhelmingly support not unifying with China. The vast majority who support the status quo support one that leads to eventual de jure independence, not unification. The status quo is not - and cannot be - an endgame (if only because China has declared so, but also because it is untenable). Less than 10% want unification. Only a small number (a very small minority) would countenance unification in the future…even if China were to democratize.
The issue isn’t the incompatibility of the systems - it’s that the Taiwanese fundamentally do not see themselves as Chinese.
A change in China’s system won’t change that. It’s not an ethnic nationalism - there is no ethnic argument for Taiwan (or any nation - didn’t we learn in the 20th century what ethnicity-based nation-building leads to? Nothing good). It’s not a jingoistic or xenophobic nationalism - Taiwanese know that to be dangerous. It’s a nationalism based on shared identity, culture, history and civics. The healthiest kind of nationalism there is. Taiwan exists because the Taiwanese identify with it. Period.
There are debates about how long the status quo should go on, and what we should risk to insist on formal recognition. However, the question of whether or not to be Taiwan, not China…
…well, that’s already settled.
The Taiwanese have spoken and they are not Chinese.
Whatever y’all think about that doesn’t matter. That’s what they want, and if you believe in self-determination you will respect it.
If you don’t, good luck with your authoritarian nonsense, but Taiwan wants nothing to do with it.
同時也有2部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過83萬的網紅serpentza,也在其Youtube影片中提到,China owes its most famous beer to the Germans! Tsingtao as the beer is known comes from Qingdao (same pronunciation, the spelling is different due to...
「chinese colonialism」的推薦目錄:
- 關於chinese colonialism 在 Mordeth13 Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於chinese colonialism 在 黃之鋒 Joshua Wong Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於chinese colonialism 在 CommonWealth Magazine Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於chinese colonialism 在 serpentza Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於chinese colonialism 在 Fuong's Here Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於chinese colonialism 在 How Europe Colonized Parts Of China - YouTube 的評價
chinese colonialism 在 黃之鋒 Joshua Wong Facebook 的最讚貼文
【外國月亮不是特別圓】
投入國際連結工作好一段時間,有時覺得大家也會期望「外國月亮總是特別圓」,但其實西方國家政治人物支持香港,從來不是理所當然,當中亦會涉及不少商業利益考慮和國際壓力,以及部份左傾政客仍會不知何故地,對中國共產政權抱有良好幻想,這種情況在歐洲較為明顯。
德國左翼黨的國會議員,竟在國會發言表示「理應支持我們在北京的共產朋友」固然讓人大跌眼鏡,尤其是中共從根本地就是循從威權主義和國家資本主義的極右政黨。
有時對於國際政客不理解香港,也是有點無奈,但我們香港作為國際大都會,對於世界各國的抗爭運動,又何嘗不是缺乏足夠理解,只盼在抗爭持續的情況下,香港人能夠繼續努力,讓世界理解我們,與香港同行。
早前睇一份德國國會內嘅辦論,有位Die Linke嘅議員話要支持中共,因為大家都是左翼共產主義支持者,不用分得那麼細。我見內容有所偏頗就寫左篇文。中文翻譯見下文。
Recently, a MP from Die Linke made some remarks about HK, and say they should support CCP as they are friend of Coummunism. I find the claims rather inaccurate hence I wrote this article to provide some rebuttals. Please scroll down for the English translation.
Article in German: https://www.google.com/…/Hongkong-Krise-Pekings-Regierung-b…
近日德國國會內, 一位Die Linke的國會議員Stefan Liebich對香港的事作出評價,這些評價實在令人難以茍同。
Liebich指「Die Linke理應支持我們在北京的共產朋友」。但中國共產黨除了名字內有「共產」兩個字外,其實際行動與共產理念差天共地,實在不是Liebich想像中共產主義的好朋友。
中國共產黨是一個極權,除了擴張政治與經濟勢力外,中國共產黨什麼都不會理會。不論是無產階級的死活,或者是工人階級,對於中國共產黨來說只是擴張實力的工具,隨時可以為了經濟或政治利益犧牲或捨棄。 中國共產黨實質上是由一群搜刮民脂民膏致富而滿肚腸肥的黨員領導。中國共產黨甚至對自己的人民進行全天候的監控,打壓、拘捕異見人士。
由此可見,中國共產黨本質上是一個極右政黨,而非Liebich以為的左翼。 北京政府不是以共產理念管治中華人民共和國,反而是以物質主義操縱國民。中國背後並沒有一套穩固的價值觀支撐,唯有金錢才是中國人和中國政府信仰的理念。中國的任何行動,從來都不是由價值推動,而總是由金錢和利益推動。
中國共產黨只是一個「掛羊頭賣狗肉」的「共產」黨,它相當擅長扮演共產主義的支持者,與Liebeich想像中「馬克思主義的的同路人」相差甚遠。我們應該要小心分辨真正的共產主義者與打著共產主義旗號行惡的政權之間的分別。
Leibich亦在發言時提到八國聯軍與相關歷史,指「香港被英國以軍事手段從中國手中搶去。撇除對於中國的批評,我們樂見不公義的殖民主義完結」。但現實上,清朝是被當時被視為外族的滿洲人統治。當時的「中國」與今天我們認知的中華人民共和國並不是同一個國家。所以,Leibich所指的「香港被英國不公義的殖民」,其實嚴格來說是鴉片戰爭後,香港的管治權從滿洲人手中交到英國人手中。
清朝末期發生申亥革命,中華民國成立。及後因國共內戰,中華民國政府輾轉於1949年12月撤退至臺灣。如果按照Leibich的邏輯,香港主權理應是移交予中華民國政府,而非中華人民共和國。
另外,香港人本來擁有聯合國1960年在《給予殖民地國家和人民獨立宣言》中賦予非自治領土人民自決前途的權利。但因為中國強烈反對港澳被定義為殖民地,而應為「被英國和葡萄牙當局佔領的中國領土的一部分」。中國代表單方面宣稱港澳的地位,都屬中國主權範圍內,甚至指:「聯合國並沒有權討論這些問題。」最後才令香港再名單中被除名,失去前途自決的權利。
而觀乎而今情況,即使香港主權移交予中國後,不公義不但沒有消失,反而更加明顯與嚴重。Leibeich在發言時指「撇除對於中國的批評,我們樂見不公義的殖民主義完結」,我很希望,他不是指他將無視數以百萬計的少數民族關押在在教育營當中、六四屠城死去的學生、香港早前被實彈近距離射中的兩位男孩、被24小時監控的中國人、捨生取義爭取人權的香港人,而去支持中國共產黨只因其聲稱自己是「共產主義者」。
人權自由是人類文明近百年來的基石,中國共產黨的行為,與絕大部分我們珍視的政治價值並不相容。在任何情況下,我們都不可能支持一個獨裁的殺人政權。
Recently, in the German Bundestag, Stefan Liebich made a few remarks regarding Hong Kong. Mr. Liebeich says his party Der Linke should support their communist friends in Beijing. “Logisch, dass Der Linke Liebich seinen Kommunistenfreunden in Peking wieder den Rücken stärkt.(It is logical that Die Linke Liebich should again support his communist friends in Beijing.)” In my point of view, the Chinese Communist Party is just a party named itself as the “Communist”, what it does in China or in the world is in no way communistic.
PRC is a dictatorship that only takes the expansion of its economic and political power into regard, workers or its people are at its disposal whenever it sees fit. The “Communist” party cares neither about the people, nor the grassroots, it only cares about the economic benefit it gains from its business activities inside and outside PRC. The party leaders are all sitting in their offices with their pockets full of what they gain from exploiting the Chinese workers.
They carry mass surveillance 24/7 throughout China, arrests and detain descendants. Frankly speaking, the CCP is rather right than left.
The Peking Government is not running Communism, but materialism. The only thing the Chinese and the Chinese government worship is the dollar sign, nothing else. They do not take any values or ideology into account. The people are not motivated by values or beliefs, but by the economic benefits they see.
The CCP is not a communist party as Mr. Leibich conceived it is. The CCP is very good at creating the illusion that it represents the Marxist ideas. We should be very careful in examining the differences between those who claim to be communists and those who are communists.
Mr. Leibich also made reference to the history of the Eight-Nation Alliance in the late Qing Dynasty, saying that“ Auch Hongkong ist durch die britische Armee militärisch China abgepresst worden.(Hong Kong has been militarily squeezed out of China by the British army.)” and “Bei aller notwendigen Kritik an der chinesischen KP sagen ich: Es ist gut, dass dieses koloniale Unrecht zu Ende ist. (Despite all the necessary criticism of the Chinese Communist Party, I say: It is good that this colonial injustice has come to an end.)”
It is worth clarifying that during that time of History, China was ruled by the Manchus, who were considered as foreigners at the time. China at the time was not the Republic of China we know today. Therefore, Hong Kong was not military squeezed out of PRC but was being colonized by the British in substitution of the Manchus at that time.
Historically speaking, the successor of the Qing Dynasty is the Republic of China, which later was relocated to Taiwan due to the Civil War between 1927 and 1949. And Mr. Leibich’s claim that it is good that colonial injustice has come to an end is inaccurate, too. In this case, Hong Kong, ought to be returned to Taiwan (the Republic of China) but not China (People’s Republic of China), to end the colonial injustice.
What is more, Hong Kongers were supposed to be able to exercise our right to self-determination and really being able to be free from colonialism. Yet Hong Kong was actually removed from the U.N. list of Non-Self-Governing Territories upon PRC’s request.
And clearly, under PRC’s rule, injustice is more than just apparent in Hong Kong currently. Mr. Leibich’s remarks of “despite all the necessary criticism of the Chinese Communist Party”, I truly hope that he is not suggesting that one would neglect the millions of ethnic minorities being detained in re-education camps, those who died in the JuneForth Masaccare, the two young Hong Kong boys who were shot by live rounds, the Chinese who were placed under surveillance 24/7 and all my fellow Hong Konger who are fighting for fundamental rights with their lives, but support the CCP’s action because it claims to be a communist party.
I see of no reason, why anyone should support a dictatorship that would brutally murder its own people. CCP is totally going against what most political ideologies in the world stand for, and I do believe we can all agree on the fundamental rights of all members of the human family that ought to be respected as that is the foundations of human civilization.
chinese colonialism 在 CommonWealth Magazine Facebook 的精選貼文
Anson Chan, the first ethnic Chinese chief secretary of Hong Kong in 1993, has personally witnessed the changes to Hong Kong under British colonialism, the 1997 handover, and now Chinese rule. What does she think about the #HongKongProtests and Beijing’s growing influence?
chinese colonialism 在 serpentza Youtube 的最讚貼文
China owes its most famous beer to the Germans! Tsingtao as the beer is known comes from Qingdao (same pronunciation, the spelling is different due to two different methods of writing Chinese in the English Alphabet is the beginning of my great adventure conquering the North of China, I'd like to introduce you to it and let you all know what this journey is all about, join me as my big adventure gets underway!
Although it was to be a rather short stay for the German occupiers (they would be defeated by Japanese forces after only fifteen years) they would within this short period of time leave a sizable footprint. They built a railroad, made improvements to the harbor and even opened a shipyard (Steinmetz 438). They would also continue to establish their Christian presence through the construction of churches, and were able to construct a brewery, whose first batch of beer was finished in 1904. The brewery has continued to produce beer ever since, and has brought the city national and international recognition.
⚫ Watch Conquering Southern China (my documentary) and see China like no one outside of China has ever seen it before: https://vimeo.com/ondemand/conqueringsouthernchina
⚫ Support me on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/serpentza
Join me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/winstoninchina
Twitter: @serpentza
Instagram: serpent_za
My other channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/advchina
Music used: Virtual Vice
Artist's bandcamp: https://virtual-vice.bandcamp.com/releases
chinese colonialism 在 Fuong's Here Youtube 的最讚貼文
If Vietnam has a seat of learning, this is it. There are two entities here: Van Mieu, a temple built in 1070 to worship Chinese philosopher Confucius; and Quoc Tu Giam, literally "Temple of the King Who Distinguished Literature," an elite institute established in 1076 to teach the doctrines of Confucius and his disciples. It existed for more than 700 years as a center for Confucian learning. Moreover, it is a powerful symbol for the Vietnamese, having been established after the country emerged from a period of Chinese colonialism that lasted from 179 B.C. to A.D. 938. It is a testament to the strong cultural heritage of the Mandarins. As such, it stands for independence and a solidifying of national culture and values.
What exists today is a series of four courtyards that served as an entrance to the university. Architecturally, it is a fine example of classic Chinese with Vietnamese influences. Still present are 82 stone stelae -- stone diplomas really -- erected between 1484 and 1780, bearing the names and birthplaces of 1,306 doctor laureates who managed to pass the university's rigorous examinations. Beyond the final building, known as the sanctuary, the real university began. Damaged in the French war, it is currently being restored.
chinese colonialism 在 How Europe Colonized Parts Of China - YouTube 的美食出口停車場
In this video I talk about the way in which Europe controlled some of the ports, cities, and areas in China. ... <看更多>