[underthebus]

> The PRC has never governed Taiwan yet essentially no governments call their imperialism what it is and tacitly accept their “unification” language.

Taiwan is internationally recognised as being part of China. What happened is that the Chinese government of the time fled there during the civil war.

The communists founded the PRC and the ROC government kept control of Taiwan.

Since then the question has been who to recognise as legitimate government. And this has changed over time.

What you're saying is like saying that South Korea never governed the North (or vice versa) or that East Germany never governed West Germany (or vice versa). While obviously factually true this does not diminish the fact that they are part of Korea or Germany as a whole. 'reunification' is the correct term, it's nothing to do with colonisation (what imperialism relates to).

[ericd]

Pretty sure those other countries were/are internationally recognized as being separate countries.

[taobility]

can you give a list?

[CogitoCogito]

> can you give a list?

It’s not totally clear to me what you’re referring to, but East and West Germany and North and South Korea were (are in the Korean case) separate countries by any sane meaning.

[CogitoCogito]

Look you’re just repeating the same nonsense they are. I don’t even blame you. You’ve heard it so often so that it must be true. The PRC has never governed Taiwan. The ROC hasn’t governed the mainland for close to 70 years. They have separate militaries, currencies, and separate international relations. Hell they even trade with each other. They are two separate countries regardless of what either sides political claims.

Regardless you’re basically proving my point. People can argue anything if they want to. And when money’s involved people will argue whatever you want.

[dang]

This comment breaks the site guidelines by name-calling and crossing into personal attack. Would you please review them and stick to the rules when posting here?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Note that they include: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

[underthebus]

> Look you’re just repeating the same nonsense they are.

I am describing the historical reality.

I think the point of HN is to be able to do that without receiving insults in return.

> They are two separate countries regardless of what either sides political claims.

They are of course are de facto separate states. This does not change a thing to my previous comment.

'China' is made of the mainland and Taiwan, like 'Germany' was made of East and West Germany.

Really, the mistake of the PRC is to have prevented the use of the official name of what Taiwan is as a state: The Republic of China. That would have nipped all those "Taiwan v. China" narratives in the bud.

[CogitoCogito]

> I am describing the historical reality.

No you’re really not. The PRC and the ROC are two separate countries with (extremely large border disputes). Everything else is just propaganda. There is a landed region vaguely referred to as “China” made up of land that one time or another contained the mainland as well as Taiwan. That region is not a “country” today and is definitely not represented by either the PRC or the ROC regardless of what the acronyms stand for.

> I think the point of HN is to be able to do that without receiving insults in return.

I didn’t insult you. I called your argument nonsense. I mean that literally and it is true. You are parroting old propaganda that there is “one China” which was first put forward by the ROC when it was a member of the UN and trying to assert its claims to the mainland. That propaganda continued to be used by the PRC attempting to make similar claims. But it can’t hide the fact that they are two countries and that propaganda simply makes no sense. Hence the “nonsense” of your argument.

> Really, the mistake of the PRC is to have prevented the use of the official name of what Taiwan is as a state: The Republic of China. That would have nipped all those "Taiwan v. China" narratives in the bud.

I have no idea what this refers to. The ROC refers to itself the “Republic of China”. It considers itself a state.

The real mistake of the PRC is the one it continues to make: not accepting reality and stopping it’s interference in the ROC’s international relations (including its blocking of admittance is the ROC to the UN). It was a farce when the ROC kept the PRC out of the UN and it’s a farce now.

[underthebus]

Historical reality cannot be dismissed as 'nonsense'.

> I have no idea what this refers to.

You are arguing on a topic you obviously know very little about and that you don't understand, judging by your nebulous comments. And you're doing it in a very dismissive and rather rude way.

I would suggest you take a step back.

[CogitoCogito]

> Historical reality cannot be dismissed as 'nonsense'.

You clearly didn't read my posts. Your "historical reality" is simply a delusion.

> You are arguing on a topic you obviously know very little about and that you don't understand, judging by your nebulous comments. And you're doing it in a very dismissive and rather rude way.

As I demonstrated in my comments, I in fact know quite a bit about this topic. As far as I can tell from this thread, I know more about it than you do. So if you'd like to elucidate me about your post, feel free. If not that's alright. But you shouldn't take your inability to explain yourself as some kind of a badge of honor.