[was: RE: [PEN-L] Jim Craven on Taiwan] I wrote: >>To me, I see no reason to change national boundaries (e.g., merging China and Taiwan) unless there are really good reasons.<<
Thomas Lepeardo writes:>The thing is that almost all Chinese living on the mainland (and almost half in Taiwan?) don't see China/Taiwan as separate national boundaries. They believe in the "One China" principle and they see one country. (Of course the people in Taiwan believing in the 'One China' principle also believe the provisional situation must remain that way until circumstances in China change.)< To historical materialists, what is most important is not people's perceptions, self-perceptions, and ideals (China & Taiwan as unified) as much as the _de facto_ military, economic, and social situation, which is that C and T are distinct. The only ways that they could be unified _in practice_ is through C conquering T, T conquering C, a democratically-decided unification, or some (unlikely) combination of these three. It should be clear that I favor the third alternative. >> Preferably, whether these reasons are good or not is a decision to be made >> by the people of the two countries involved, in a democratic way.<< >Again, only IF you accept the "two countries" assumption. Otherwise, you have >the "one country, indivisible..." principle that every American schoolchild >also recites. This is a view that goes deeper than just the PRC vs. ROC issue. >The sacredness of national unity goes to the heart of modern Chinese >nationalism and the anti-colonial struggle. That is why the KMT's successors >on Taiwan have been so slow to jettison it.< right. But I think the empirical reality of the two countries (T and C) having two states which are clearly distinct tells us that "One China" is an ideal and a goal, not a reality in practice. >>Obviously, these are important indicia, but it's up to the people involved >>(the Mainlanders, the Taiwanese) to decide how distinct they are, in a >>democratic way.<< >But even under democratic principles, secessionism is often rejected once a >national state is formed. [Of course whether the national state can enforce >recognition of the national unity principle or not becomes a matter of cruel >'real-politik'.]< This point seems relevant only once a unified nation-state has been created. >>One thing that should be noted is that Taiwan has a "Formosan" (non-Han) >>population that the PRC lacks.<< >Not exactly true. 98% of the people of Taiwan are ethnic Han Chinese. The >remaining 2% are indigenous people of about 11 groups from Austronesian/South >Chinese origin. About 2/3rds of the population originated in Fujian Province >(the province where the bulk of today's Chinese immigrants to the US come >from); another group, called the Hakka, came from Guangdong; and about 15% are >called "mainlanders" who came in 1949 from all over China. In practical terms >this shared ethnic background really makes the situation different than Tibet >or Chinese central Asia.< Then I stand -- or rather, sit -- corrected. >>The history since 1950 or so has been different, so that language, culture, >>traditions, etc. have not been parallel or converging.<< >It is a bit of a cliche, but in Chinese culture and their sense of identity >1950 is not far back.< Then I'm hoping that eventually can get it together to unify in a democratic way. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine
