To me, I see no reason to change national boundaries (e.g., merging China and Taiwan) unless there are really good reasons. 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. This kind of decision can't be made by foreign intellectuals living off in some other country.
Charles refers to >distinct language, history, territory, culture, traditions, [etc., as] indicia of indigenous sovereignty and independence< 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. One thing that should be noted is that Taiwan has a "Formosan" (non-Han) population that the PRC lacks. The history since 1950 or so has been different, so that language, culture, traditions, etc. have not been parallel or converging. It's true that > This imperialist, oppressor nation [the U.S.] already played a main role in creating "Taiwan" as a nation separate from the larger Chinese nation, not because Taiwan had been a historically derived separate nation, but because the U.S. was trying to stop the development of communism in the world .< This is true, but seems irrelevant in a period when the PRC isn't communist except in the sense that an organization that calls itself a "Communist Party" controls the state. (Further, in a lot of ways, the PRC is an ally of the US, despite obvious differences on many issues. It's more distant than France, but may be closer to the US than Russia is.) And the CPC's rule isn't that different from the way that the KMT used to control the Taiwanese state. (Originally, BTW, the KMT was set up along "Leninist" lines, following advice from the USSR, though its goals were clearly different from those of the CPC.) Jim Devine, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/ > -----Original Message----- > From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Charles Brown > Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 7:18 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [PEN-L] Jim Craven on Taiwan > > What who are you advising on a position to take ? > > The indigenous folks Jim Craven was advising ? > > If so , seems best advice is stay out of it, as Jim said. "Taiwan" > is not > really claiming to have derived from some separate kinbased, hunting > and > gathering/horticultural society than "China" as the reason that it > would be > a separate nation, with distinct language, history, territory, > culture, > traditions, and the other indicia of indigenous sovereignty and > independence. > > If you are advising the U.S., advise the U.S. to stay out of it. > This > imperialist, oppressor nation already played a main role in > creating > "Taiwan" as a nation separate from the larger Chinese nation, not > because > Taiwan had been a historically derived separate nation, but because > the U.S. > was trying to stop the development of communism in the world . > > Has there ever been a pretty state ? I know. Switzerland. > > Charles > > ^^^^^^^ > > All those KMT people are dead. > > What is in place now in Taiwan is a bourgeois democracy. > It is less clear what is in place in China proper, but > whatever it is, it isn't pretty. In that light, > non-support for PRC sabre-rattling in re: > Taiwan, and Taiwanese self-determination seems > the right position to me. > > We met with some Taiwan union people a few years > back. They were not looking forward to merging > with the PRC labor market. > > Taiwan as "indigenous" or not seems to me a distraction > from the fundamental issue, as far as Taiwan v. China > goes. > > mbs
