[coldtea]

Only the British and Americans weren't the same people (from a nationality perspective). Americans were merely British subjects -- from a hodge-podge of nationalities.

A split into two countries South / North post Civil War would be a better example.

[ardy42]

> Only the British and Americans weren't the same people (from a nationality perspective). Americans were merely British subjects -- from a hodge-podge of nationalities.

That seems like a distinction without a difference for this topic.

[coldtea]

It's only an inconsequential difference for people from not homogenous countries like the US. Peoples with cultural and historical ties with people in nearby nations do consider them extremely important.

[ardy42]

I find it somewhat hard to believe that the United States' ethnic homogeneity (or lack thereof) has anything to do with the legitimacy of its independence from Britain (as reckoned in 1776 or anytime since).

It really seems like you're trying delegitimize the idea of Taiwanese independence by being extremely selective with the criteria you consider, to the point of introducing irrelevant ones to deter analogies that are favorable to it.

Yes, Taiwan is ethnically and culturally Chinese, but it's also a de-facto independent nation that's a prosperous democracy. If they want to subsume themselves into the PRC's Communist dictatorship, the decision should be up to the Taiwanese and the Taiwanese alone. If they chose independence, that choice is entirely legitimate, despite any ethic or cultural ties that may exist.

Similarly, if it's so important to the PRC that mainland China be politically united with Taiwan, they're also perfectly free to dissolve their government and place the mainland under the jurisdiction of the ROC.