I've seen this conversation play out multiple times, many Taiwan supporters will 100% agree with this map and say that all of that land is rightfully theirs. They are incredibly brainwormed.
I still haven't fully understood why exactly having owned something in the past makes it yours and why this only applies to the ROC.
Westerners really dont know that they are talking about when it comes to this
The pro-independence faction in Taiwan has no pretensions of "taking back the mainland" they want to completely decouple from China including whatever land claims the ROC has
Thats why Chinese media criticised the DPP government's decision to remove statues of Chiang Kai Shek from public places in Taiwan
The pro-independence taiwanese want to remove whatever connection they have the mainland including Chiang
What :posadas: failed to consider is that you won't get nuclear war unless you have at least two capitalist superpowers
what is the Hexbear position on the territory in dispute between India/Pakistan and China
They had a war over it. It's just that it happened at the same time as the Cuban Missile Crisis, so it has been forgotten by the Western mind.
India and China certainly haven't, though. Good thing they're separated by the Himalayas. Those mountains are like a gigantic wall that keeps the two giants from invading each other. It is just impossible to do any kind of military logistics with the world's highest mountains in the way.
Good thing they’re separated by the Himalayas. Those mountains are like a gigantic wall that keeps the two giants from invading each other. It is just impossible to do any kind of military logistics with the world’s highest mountains in the way.
What side of the Himalayas is Aksai Chin on? Because that's who should own it.
Are you saying that because it would be practically difficult to maintain control of territory on the other side of the Himalayas?
More broadly, what's the leftist position on what gives a group a legitimate claim to territory?
I'd say stability is a big piece. If the ROC moved into some of these territories there would be war and even if they won there would be people left over within those territories who would be willing to fight to change it back. If the change of territory doesn't lead to more war, or even reduces the chance of future war then I'd be more ok with it.
The people who live there, their conditions and what the competing countries have been proven to provide. Like, there could be a situation where it might piss off nationalists but a change in ownership could improve quality of life for the people there. Obviously the popular opinion bit is important to. Consent to governance is important.
I think that's a good place to start, but what about colonized/invaded/displaced groups?
the consent of those who are left
See by that logic, the most brutally colonized places like the Americas and Australia have legitimate claims to the lands they occupy and don't have to give concessions to the natives. I know you're not trying to say that, but it's the conclusion of that argument.
Fun fact: Northern Ireland was purposely gerrymandered in such a way to have a Protestant British majority without being a tiny unviable microstate. The North is also referred to as the 6 counties, but there are 9 counties in the province of Ulster: 6 in Northern Ireland, 3 in the Republic. The borders were drawn by the British so that in the event of, say, a referendum on the reunification of Ireland, the British colonisers would outnumber the native Irish
Xinjiang and Tibet have been under Chinese governorship on and off since the Tang and Yuan dynastic periods. Tibet would have a greater claim to being an actual country, since when it still existed in the more modern epoch, when the concept of Nation-states were materialized out of the old epoch of feudalist kingdoms, as a slave-holding feudalist theocratic kingdom.
Both of these regions have broad, quite literally thousands of years of, histories that can't simply be reduced to strawmen so you can draw parallels to American history - and in extent British history as well as the other colonial powers that operated in the region at the time - so you can make a :reddit-logo: brained "Gotcha" here-abouts.
Xinjiang and Tibet are both countries that were conquered by the CPC.
Idk anything about the history of xinjiang but in the case of tibet: good. the people who live there are and were far better off in china than under the theocracy which came before
Yeah, after the plane taking its leaders to Beijing mysteriously crashed, killing them all. The replacement leaders got the message loud and clear.
So when a colonized country becomes unable to govern for a 40 year period a territory that was part of their nation for 400 years due to the colonial intervention and destabilization of their state they should just accept it as a break away country.
That's the case with Tibet and it's "sovereignty" from China in the first half of the 20th century . And to be clear even then almost no country on earth recognized Tibet as a sovereign country and as NOT part of China. And that's not to mention Tibet being a horrible slave theorcracy
You are talking nonsense and implicitly support the balkanization of China by colonial intervention. Literally investigate the relevant history before pretending to have informed takes
