[komali2]

> reunite

This is the incorrect word to use since the PRC has never held territory here. If the PLA sets foot on Taiwan, that's an imperialist invasion, nothing less, unless the people of Taiwan have democratically chosen to abdicate their government for CPC rule, in which case the word should be "unify" or "merge."

[mytailorisrich]

Reunite is not incorrect in the broader sense.

We use the term "reunification" for Germany but the Federal Republic never "held territory" in the Democratic Republic. However, of course both states were the result of a split of "Germany". This is the same with the ROC and PRC so bringing both sides together, whatever the mean, is a reunification in that sense.

The narrative of rejecting the term can be said to be broadly propaganda but plays on a peculiarity that both sides don't recognise each others.

[jacquesm]

> However, of course both states were the result of a split of "Germany".

> This is the same with the ROC and PRC

It really isn't.

Note that West Germany did not have to invade East Germany to re-unify and that East Germany was on a per-capita basis much poorer than West Germany.

Unlike Taiwan, which is doing more than twice as good. So this would be more in line with Russia invading Ukraine. And that's precisely the rhetoric they are using: 'unification'.

[mytailorisrich]

This is all totally inacurrate and beside the point.

China has factually split, like Germany before. Whether any "reunification" happens peacefully or not is irrelevant to the use of term and so is which side is the richer.

Russia and Ukraine is obviously not the same at all, and "unification" is obviously not the same as "reunification".

[komali2]

> China has factually split

Define "China." 中國? 中華人民共和國? 中華民國? 大清? 大明? 大元? The English term is far overloaded, kinda like the word "dumpling." Having this conversation in English is really hard for that reason.

The key word is 中國, typically translated literally as "middle country," though if you put it in google translate it'll just say "China." Really though, the word means "empire." Empire of what? China? No, just, The Empire. E.g. 一個中國原則 "one China principle," all things that we could call 中國 ruled by the same government.

That's the issue I have. The CPC claims a mandate of heaven for a "Chinese" meta-dynasty, claiming to have domain over everything any government in the region has ever touched (even the Mongols!). I reject this, a mandate to rule should be earned basically every day, and self determination matters far more than maintaining a dynasty of a culture.

Like many empires, the PRC is even creating an ethnostatic justification, calling everyone Han 漢族人 or Hua 華人 and claiming a mandate to rule everyone that could feasibly be called that, using race science to expand their domain. Like "white," under scrutiny, these terms are meaningless. We could translate either, in the context of their usage by the CPC, as "people the CPC thinks it should be allowed to govern." That includes people in Xinjiang, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, America, hell even Okinawa lately.

That kind of ethnostatic imperialist expansionism should be roundly rejected by anybody that values self determination. And, that's why "reunify" isn't the correct word, because there is no country on earth called "China" and there never has been, there's just a government ruling a territory that wants some more territory. The PRC isn't some magical inheritor of every racial, cultural, linguistic, and historical aspect of that region. "China" has not split with the fleeing of the KMT to Taiwan in the 50s, nor was "China" overthrown when the Taiwanese deposed the KMT military dictatorship in the 90s, or when the Qing dynasty was overthrown by the KMT.

[mytailorisrich]

You obviously understand what I wrote by "China split" because it is uncontroversial and rather obvious as a historical fact.

You are trying too hard and doing so does you a disservice because it makes you write nonsense that any sources can disprove.

So... why? Why do people get so attached to a narrative? Is it like religion, cult? Need to believe in sonething?

Past history is what it is. It does not mean that the people of Taiwan have to be forced into re-joining the mainland but let's keep the facts otherwise we are really leaving in 1984. If you want to say that the people of Taiwan have a moral right to remain independent if they wish to then just say so.

[jacquesm]

You're unbelievable.

Have you considered the possibility that you are just wrong? Your 'uncontroversial and rather obvious historical fact' is neither uncontroversial nor is it obvious.

That's why we have a 32 page article on the subject on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan

And it is one of the most heavily brigaded pages there. With edit wars going back as long as the page exists.

As well as articles like this:

https://www.justsecurity.org/87486/deterrence-lawfare-to-sav...

There is only one country where your 'historical fact' is seen as true, and it isn't Taiwan. And that is why China is threatening to invade, and why you yourself use Taiwan without further qualification right after 'South Korea':

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46478045

The 'one China' term itself is overloaded, depending on who you ask (Chinese, Taiwanese) you get different answers.

Taiwan is an independent country, if not de jure then de facto. That China is a much larger and much more dangerous country is the only reason everybody tiptoes around this.

[komali2]

> You obviously understand what I wrote by "China split" because it is uncontroversial and rather obvious as a historical fact.

I also know, generally, what people mean when they say "goblin," but that doesn't mean goblins are real, and it's also true that two people might be thinking of very different things when a goblin is mentioned. Such is the same for the word "China."

> any sources can disprove.

Well then, should be pretty easy for you to disprove me with some sources then!

> So... why? Why do people get so attached to a narrative? Is it like religion, cult? Need to believe in sonething?

Please explain to us how you aren't also attached to a narrative. Are you a omnipotent entity, immune to human narratives, and the one true knower of Universal Truth? I think it's unintentional, but you come off that way, and that's why you're getting such a strong response here.

> Past history is what it is.

This sentence is genuinely meaningless.

The problem is, you've made some unsubstantiated claims (you can't even define "China"), presumed to be right, and then acted aghast when a bunch of people said "hm no, that's not quite right, here's why," and then you doubled down without providing any further substance to your argument other than just repeating in different ways, "I'm right and you're all wrong."

What's the point of talking with someone like that? I'm happy to have the conversation but I don't see the purpose when people behave like that.

[jacquesm]

> China has factually split

I think it is time for you to nail your colors to the mast.

[mytailorisrich]

Not cool to start nasty attacks for stating, and repeating, history... you don't have to like history but it is what it is.

[jacquesm]

So, no transparency then?