Silenced in China

[tinybear]

History is just what it is: history. Let's see what the people in Taiwan want now. They can change the name if they wish. Who cares what Chiang Kai Shek wants? He's dead.

[Matt W]

History is far more than that - it affects culture, attitudes, and people have respect for it. It also teaches us a hell of a lot. Dismissing it casually is a potentially fatal mistake.

[castille]

Well, if you say history is history, then Mao Zhedong is also dead.

I'm not against a referendum. People are people, you can't deny that. But I would like to see a referendum watched over by China. Why? Well, ask yourself this: when was the last time you actually trusted a poll? Polls are easy to manipulate.

(Example: "Was Bush wrong to bring democracy to Iraq, or do you support Saddam's brutal dictatorship?")


However, one question remains. Say 51% of Taiwan supports independence, and 49% supports reunification. How will you appease those 49%?

[tinybear]

I'm not saying we should ignore the lessons of history. I'm saying we shouldn't use history as a justification for forcing the Taiwanese people to re-unify with China. I hate this argument: "Taiwan is historically part of China. Therefore it should continue to be part of China for eternity. Whether its people like it or not is irrelevant. In fact, don't even ask them (or else)". That's the argument Communist China ia adopting at the moment.

[castille]

That's funny, I've never heard all 1.3 billion people of Communist China say that. Where is your source?


By the way, you DO realise politics is all about brute force, right? The US does it, France does it, Japan does it, the two Koreas do it, everyone does it.

China learnt a very painful lesson from the West in 1850: kick their ass before they kick your ass.

[allen]

Quote by: tinybear History is just what it is: history. Let's see what the people in Taiwan want now. They can change the name if they wish. Who cares what Chiang Kai Shek wants? He's dead.

History is what you can not change.

What the people in Taiwan want? That is clearly stated in their constitution: a big China united under ROC, including the current mainland China and taiwan (and possibly mongolia). Yes Chiang Kai Shek is dead, but the constitution is not.

[tinybear]

Well, let's have a referendum to determine whether the Taiwanese people wish to amend that constitution, shall we? The constitution is a dead letter document which can be amended. The people are alive and have the right to change the constitution if they so desire.

[tinybear]

Quote by: castille That's funny, I've never heard all 1.3 billion people of Communist China say that. Where is your source? By the way, you DO realise politics is all about brute force, right? The US does it, France does it, Japan does it, the two Koreas do it, everyone does it. China learnt a very painful lesson from the West in 1850: kick their ass before they kick your ass.

The Chinese Govt. uses that argument almost everyday. In China, it doesn't matter what the people say. The CCP govt. rules. That is all that matters. Or don't you already know?

And oooh, brute force! I notice this is invariably used by someone at the losing end of an argument. If everything fails, let's use brute force. YEAH!

[allen]

actually, I think if president Chen concedes he is chinese, president Hu can sit and talk with him. The united China in future does not have to be P.R.China, it can be R.O.China, or a new name. The communists have said "as long as you accepts Taiwan is part of China, anything else can be negotiable".

[tinybear]

How about ending CCP one-party rule then?

[allen]

Quote by: tinybear Well, let's have a referendum to determine whether the Taiwanese people wish to amend that constitution, shall we? The constitution is a dead letter document which can be amended. The people are alive and have the right to change the constitution if they so desire.

why not? go ahead. Before it is changed, it is not dead yet.
Actually I think what Taiwanese don't like is not a united China, but communism.

[castille]

Brute force isn't my argument. Its reality.

Look at the world now. Look at the US - you guys have invaded nearly half the world to impose your will. Look at Europe, 400 years of imperialism and conquest. Look at African, killing each other. Look at Asia, with dictatorships and democracies about to become dictatorships.

Do you seriously think this will change suddenly? If China became kind and tolerant and disbanded the army, in about 2.4 seconds US marines would be storming the shores of Shanghai and reinacting the Nanjing genocide.

China was tolerant and passive once. Then in 1850, England declared war (so they could sell us illegal drugs), and British/French troops stormed the shores of China, burning and plundering. If there's one lesson you learn in life, that is force is the true universal language.

No I don't like it, and I would have been happy if China had been left alone in 1850. I don't believe war is the right way to resolve international issues. But that's the way the world works. Become passive and peaceful, and you sink. Fight, and you grow strong.


By the way, I still haven't got a reply from you about this issue:

If China becomes a democracy instantly, there's no doubt that chaos would reign. Look at Russia - they took 3-4 years to become a democracy and they're screwed. Do you really think countries can just suddenly change government without consequences?

[allen]

Quote by: tinybear How about ending CCP one-party rule then?

not a problem. All taiwan need to do is just wait, with patience. Mainland china is changing, and a unification with Taiwan will certainly speed this process.
Actually all communist has been trying to do in the last 50 years was inviting KMT back.

[allen]

Quote by: castille If China becomes a democracy instantly, there's no doubt that chaos would reign. Look at Russia - they took 3-4 years to become a democracy and they're screwed. Do you really think countries can just suddenly change government without consequences?

Yes this is absolutely right. what Chinese want, is a strong, rish China before a democratic China. Democracy wont work in a poor country.

[castille]

As my neighbours said, "Why would I want to vote for anyone when I don't have food on my table?"

[tinybear]

Because you want to vote for someone who will you give you the chance to put some food on your table? (unlike the corrupt bastards who are now in charge of your country)?

[allen]

Quote by: tinybear Because you want to vote for someone who will you give you the chance to put some food on your table? (unlike the corrupt bastards who are now in charge of your country)?

wrong again.
In a poor country, in most cases, money are consumed by the election itself, and none of the candidates can give you a chance to put some food on table. Then you have to choose one from two: to have some food on the table, or have the right to vote.

China was the first democratic country in Asia, during the Republic period (1911-1949). People decided to support Communist and drove capitalist to Taiwan in 1940s, showing that democracy did not work. Right now corruption exists, but is still less expensive than polling 1.2 billion people.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: allen Right now corruption exists, but is still less expensive than polling 1.2 billion people.

You seem so confident to make this statement. Can you cite any evidence to support the assertion?

[tinybear]

Quote by: allen wrong again. In a poor country, in most cases, money are consumed by the election itself, and none of the candidates can give you a chance to put some food on table. Then you have to choose one from two: to have some food on the table, or have the right to vote. China was the first democratic country in Asia, during the Republic period (1911-1949). People decided to support Communist and drove capitalist to Taiwan in 1940s, showing that democracy did not work. Right now corruption exists, but is still less expensive than polling 1.2 billion people.

Read a bit more about the history of China (1911-1949) before you conclude there was democracy during this period.

[Comrade]

Democracy could work fine in China. The Chinese just voted against it. :)
Communism has its upside, I suppose. Gives people hope, usually food, an apartment as well. When you have neither, it is a lot easier to go with a commie than with someone who wants you to work hard for yourself.
And all of the people alive in China are the ones who weren't killed, so a few [size=1]million[/size] killed ain't so bad, is it?