關於 american war of independence ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

Jenna Cody :

Is Taiwan a real China?
No, and with the exception of a few intervening decades - here’s the part that’ll surprise you - it never has been.

This’ll blow your mind too: that it never has been doesn’t matter.

So let’s start with what doesn’t actually matter.

Until the 1600s, Taiwan was indigenous. Indigenous Taiwanese are not Chinese, they’re Austronesian. Then it was a Dutch colony (note: I do not say “it was Dutch”, I say it was a Dutch colony). Then it was taken over by Ming loyalists at the end of the Ming dynasty (the Ming loyalists were breakaways, not a part of the new Qing court. Any overlap in Ming rule and Ming loyalist conquest of Taiwan was so brief as to be inconsequential).

Only then, in the late 1600s, was it taken over by the Chinese (Qing). But here’s the thing, it was more like a colony of the Qing, treated as - to use Emma Teng’s wording in Taiwan’s Imagined Geography - a barrier or barricade keeping the ‘real’ Qing China safe. In fact, the Qing didn’t even want Taiwan at first, the emperor called it “a ball of mud beyond the pale of civilization”. Prior to that, and to a great extent at that time, there was no concept on the part of China that Taiwan was Chinese, even though Chinese immigrants began moving to Taiwan under Dutch colonial rule (mostly encouraged by the Dutch, to work as laborers). When the Spanish landed in the north of Taiwan, it was the Dutch, not the Chinese, who kicked them out.

Under Qing colonial rule - and yes, I am choosing my words carefully - China only controlled the Western half of Taiwan. They didn’t even have maps for the eastern half. That’s how uninterested in it they were. I can’t say that the Qing controlled “Taiwan”, they only had power over part of it.

Note that the Qing were Manchu, which at the time of their conquest had not been a part of China: China itself essentially became a Manchu imperial holding, and Taiwan did as well, once they were convinced it was not a “ball of mud” but actually worth taking. Taiwan was not treated the same way as the rest of “Qing China”, and was not administered as a province until (I believe) 1887. So that’s around 200 years of Taiwan being a colony of the Qing.

What happened in the late 19th century to change China’s mind? Japan. A Japanese ship was shipwrecked in eastern Taiwan in the 1870s, and the crew was killed by hostile indigenous people in what is known as the Mudan Incident. A Japanese emissary mission went to China to inquire about what could be done, only to be told that China had no control there and if they went to eastern Taiwan, they did so at their own peril. China had not intended to imply that Taiwan wasn’t theirs, but they did. Japan - and other foreign powers, as France also attempted an invasion - were showing an interest in Taiwan, so China decided to cement its claim, started mapping the entire island, and made it a province.

So, I suppose for a decade or so Taiwan was a part of China. A China that no longer exists.

It remained a province until 1895, when it was ceded to Japan after the (first) Sino-Japanese War. Before that could happen, Taiwan declared itself a Republic, although it was essentially a Qing puppet state (though the history here is interesting - correspondence at the time indicates that the leaders of this ‘Republic of Taiwan’ considered themselves Chinese, and the tiger flag hints at this as well. However, the constitution was a very republican document, not something you’d expect to see in Qing-era China.) That lasted for less than a year, when the Japanese took it by force.

This is important for two reasons - the first is that some interpretations of IR theory state that when a colonial holding is released, it should revert to the state it was in before it was taken as a colony. In this case, that would actually be The Republic of Taiwan, not Qing-era China. Secondly, it puts to rest all notions that there was no Taiwan autonomy movement prior to 1947.

In any case, it would be impossible to revert to its previous state, as the government that controlled it - the Qing empire - no longer exists. The current government of China - the PRC - has never controlled it.

After the Japanese colonial era, there is a whole web of treaties and agreements that do not satisfactorily settle the status of Taiwan. None of them actually do so - those which explicitly state that Taiwan is to be given to the Republic of China (such as the Cairo declaration) are non-binding. Those that are binding do not settle the status of Taiwan (neither the treaty of San Francisco nor the Treaty of Taipei definitively say that Taiwan is a part of China, or even which China it is - the Treaty of Taipei sets out what nationality the Taiwanese are to be considered, but that doesn’t determine territorial claims). Treaty-wise, the status of Taiwan is “undetermined”.

Under more modern interpretations, what a state needs to be a state is…lessee…a contiguous territory, a government, a military, a currency…maybe I’m forgetting something, but Taiwan has all of it. For all intents and purposes it is independent already.

In fact, in the time when all of these agreements were made, the Allied powers weren’t as sure as you might have learned about what to do with Taiwan. They weren’t a big fan of Chiang Kai-shek, didn’t want it to go Communist, and discussed an Allied trusteeship (which would have led to independence) or backing local autonomy movements (which did exist). That it became what it did - “the ROC” but not China - was an accident (as Hsiao-ting Lin lays out in Accidental State).

In fact, the KMT knew this, and at the time the foreign minister (George Yeh) stated something to the effect that they were aware they were ‘squatters’ in Taiwan.

Since then, it’s true that the ROC claims to be the rightful government of Taiwan, however, that hardly matters when considering the future of Taiwan simply because they have no choice. To divest themselves of all such claims (and, presumably, change their name) would be considered by the PRC to be a declaration of formal independence. So that they have not done so is not a sign that they wish to retain the claim, merely that they wish to avoid a war.

It’s also true that most Taiwanese are ethnically “Han” (alongside indigenous and Hakka, although Hakka are, according to many, technically Han…but I don’t think that’s relevant here). But biology is not destiny: what ethnicity someone is shouldn’t determine what government they must be ruled by.

Through all of this, the Taiwanese have evolved their own culture, identity and sense of history. They are diverse in a way unique to Taiwan, having been a part of Austronesian and later Hoklo trade routes through Southeast Asia for millenia. Now, one in five (I’ve heard one in four, actually) Taiwanese children has a foreign parent. The Taiwanese language (which is not Mandarin - that’s a KMT transplant language forced on Taiwanese) is gaining popularity as people discover their history. Visiting Taiwan and China, it is clear where the cultural differences are, not least in terms of civic engagement. This morning, a group of legislators were removed after a weekend-long pro-labor hunger strike in front of the presidential palace. They were not arrested and will not be. Right now, a group of pro-labor protesters is lying down on the tracks at Taipei Main Station to protest the new labor law amendments.

This would never be allowed in China, but Taiwanese take it as a fiercely-guarded basic right.

*

Now, as I said, none of this matters.

What matters is self-determination. If you believe in democracy, you believe that every state (and Taiwan does fit the definition of a state) that wants to be democratic - that already is democratic and wishes to remain that way - has the right to self-determination. In fact, every nation does. You cannot be pro-democracy and also believe that it is acceptable to deprive people of this right, especially if they already have it.

Taiwan is already a democracy. That means it has the right to determine its own future. Period.

Even under the ROC, Taiwan was not allowed to determine its future. The KMT just arrived from China and claimed it. The Taiwanese were never asked if they consented. What do we call it when a foreign government arrives in land they had not previously governed and declares itself the legitimate governing power of that land without the consent of the local people? We call that colonialism.

Under this definition, the ROC can also be said to be a colonial power in Taiwan. They forced Mandarin - previously not a language native to Taiwan - onto the people, taught Chinese history, geography and culture, and insisted that the Taiwanese learn they were Chinese - not Taiwanese (and certainly not Japanese). This was forced on them. It was not chosen. Some, for awhile, swallowed it. Many didn’t. The independence movement only grew, and truly blossomed after democratization - something the Taiwanese fought for and won, not something handed to them by the KMT.

So what matters is what the Taiwanese want, not what the ROC is forced to claim. I cannot stress this enough - if you do not believe Taiwan has the right to this, you do not believe in democracy.

And poll after poll shows it: Taiwanese identify more as Taiwanese than Chinese (those who identify as both primarily identify as Taiwanese, just as I identify as American and Armenian, but primarily as American. Armenian is merely my ethnicity). They overwhelmingly support not unifying with China. The vast majority who support the status quo support one that leads to eventual de jure independence, not unification. The status quo is not - and cannot be - an endgame (if only because China has declared so, but also because it is untenable). Less than 10% want unification. Only a small number (a very small minority) would countenance unification in the future…even if China were to democratize.

The issue isn’t the incompatibility of the systems - it’s that the Taiwanese fundamentally do not see themselves as Chinese.

A change in China’s system won’t change that. It’s not an ethnic nationalism - there is no ethnic argument for Taiwan (or any nation - didn’t we learn in the 20th century what ethnicity-based nation-building leads to? Nothing good). It’s not a jingoistic or xenophobic nationalism - Taiwanese know that to be dangerous. It’s a nationalism based on shared identity, culture, history and civics. The healthiest kind of nationalism there is. Taiwan exists because the Taiwanese identify with it. Period.

There are debates about how long the status quo should go on, and what we should risk to insist on formal recognition. However, the question of whether or not to be Taiwan, not China…

…well, that’s already settled.

The Taiwanese have spoken and they are not Chinese.

Whatever y’all think about that doesn’t matter. That’s what they want, and if you believe in self-determination you will respect it.

If you don’t, good luck with your authoritarian nonsense, but Taiwan wants nothing to do with it.

Is a U.S.-China hot war imminent?｜Lee Yee

In July, Pompeo claimed the American policy towards China is harsher than the one towards the Soviet Union in the Cold War era. The approach has been shifted from “listening to its words and watching its deeds” to “ignoring its words and only watching its deeds”. Recent developments show that the U.S. is striding closer and closer to a complete de-linkage with China. The recall of the ambassador from China was just a prelude. What followed was the U.S. official interpretation that “one China policy” is not equivalent to “one China principle”, plus the emphasis that “the U.S. holds no specific standpoint towards the sovereignty of Taiwan”. Furthermore, during the visit of Krach, U.S. Under Secretary of State, Tsai Ing-wen stated that “Taiwan has the determination to take the critical step”. Adding fuel to this, Hsiao Bi Khim, Taiwan’s delegate at the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the U.S., introduced herself as the “Taiwan Ambassador to the U.S.” on Twitter. In view of all these, is the U.S. going to establish diplomatic relation with Taiwan? Will it turn out to be the “October surprise” before the U.S. presidential election? In response, China dispatched fighter jets to violate the airspace of Taiwan, and as “Global Times” put it, “this was not a gesture of warning, but an actual combat exercise of attacking Taiwan”. In return, Taiwan authority urged China “not to underestimate its armed forces' resolve in safeguarding Taiwan”. As tension keeps building up across the Strait, will the U.S. intervene and finally trigger a U.S.-China hot war?

For the last few months, while analyzing the situation, quite a few observers have drawn upon the “Thucydides trap” originated from an ancient Greek historian. According to this theory, when an emerging power threatens to displace an existing great power as an international hegemony, there will be an unavoidable tendency towards war.

To be frank, these observers may have well overestimated the strength of China. Thanks to its huge population, China has become the second largest economic entity in the world. But we are now living in an era that national strength is rather defined by technological advancement. In reality, China is militarily inferior to Russia and technologically lagging far behind major western countries. To put it simply, China is yet to be capable of challenging the American dominance.

Back in the 1980s, in the heyday of its economic development, Japan has significantly outperformed the U.S. in the capital market, and some American scholars have come to the “Japan No.1” conclusion. Despite this, there was never a sign of military confrontation between U.S. and Japan. A decade later, the formation of the European Union posed new challenge to the American supremacy. But again, the two did not come anywhere close to a war. So why has the emergence of China, which in fact lacks the capabilities to overwhelm the U.S., aroused much anticipation of war?

Rudolph Rummel, an American professor of political studies, have made a thorough analysis on the correlation between wars and democracy in human history. After humans surviving a thousand years of darkness, it was not until the independence of the U.S. in 1776 that unveiled a democratic institution with public elections, separation of powers, multi-party system as well as freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly. After more than a hundred years, in 1900 there were only 13 democratic countries in the world. And after another decade, in 2015 the rose to 130, and dictatorial states without meaningful elections have become the minority.

According to Rummel’s statistics, there were 371 wars between 1816 and 2005. Among them, 205 were fought between two dictatorial countries and 166 between democratic and dictatorial ones. Interestingly, there had not been a single war between democratic countries. The conclusion is all too obvious: if there were only democratic states on earth, wars would not happen.

And here lies the fundamental reason why the “Thucydides Trap” has been more valid in the old days when dictatorial systems prevailed, but has failed to apply in contemporary cases between two democratic countries. And it also explains why the competitions between the U.S. and Japan or the EU have not led to any war, while the challenge from China will probably end up differently.

In a democratic system, to wage a war requires a consensus among the government, legislature, media and public opinion. It is rather a matter of the people’s collective will than the ruler’s subjective decision. Whereas within a dictatorial structure, no approval from the legislature is needed, media and public opinion are never respected and judicial challenge simply does not exist. A dictator or oligarch can just go to war at will.

From a dictator’s point of view, whether to enter a war or not is not subject to external circumstance, but the domestic status of his ruling. When a dictator’s position gets shaken by severe economic downturn and widespread public discontent, he will try to divert domestic dissatisfaction by means of foreign maneuvers. The dictator tends to single out those “non-conforming groups”, as so identified by the “little pink” Chinese patriots, and tries bullying them, as what the CCP is doing in India, Hong Kong and Inner Mongolia. The objective is to distract attention with extreme nationalism. More often than not, stirring up external instability has become a tactic to secure domestic stability of the dictator’s rule.

Perhaps a shrewd dictator will weigh up the strength of his counterpart before taking action. Nevertheless, the intrinsically defective system may hinder the dictator from understanding the reality and accessing different views. And personal intellectual and intelligent inadequacies may also breed unrealistic self-inflating belief. The resulted stupidity can make a tragedy more imminent than everyone may expect.

Harrowing account of the foreign journalist in China...

"The Chinese Communist Party rejects what it sees as Western values: no democracy, free speech or rule of law. Under Xi Jinping, China has taken a turn to even greater tyranny, locking up dissidents, lawyers, artists. Xi has jailed his rivals, clamped down on protest. The Party controls the narrative, it controls the media and has sent the message that there is a diminishing place for the pesky prying eyes of foreign reporters...Journalists are an enemy of the state in Xi Jinping's China. I experienced this first hand in a decade of reporting China for the American news network CNN.

During that time I was detained by Chinese authorities on several occasions, at other times I and my TV crew were physically attacked, punched, kicked and had our equipment smashed by plain clothes secret police.

My family was under constant surveillance, if we had a meal outside our home with friends, police would take photographs. My phone was tapped and our house was bugged. When I was away on assignment the police would come to my home, question and intimidate my children.

People I had organised to meet or interview for stories would be warned off if they went ahead and some of them were arrested and held sometimes for several months with no contact with their families.

Stories that CNN broadcast were monitored and regularly censored. TV screens would go black while the story was being aired.

China is obviously not the West. The freedoms we take for granted do not exist there. Yet for decades there has been a blind faith in the belief that the Communist Party would collapse or at least have to reform.

So the logic went: as Chinese grew richer they would demand greater freedom. The opposite has happened...a richer China means a more powerful Communist Party.

Xi Jinping is determined to complete what he calls 'the rejuvenation of China', his 'China Dream' is a nation returned to the apex of global power...His vision is a nation in harmony, but that means locking up a million ethnic Uighur Muslims in what human rights groups have called re-education camps, 'brainwashed' to pledge allegiance to the Party.
Xi has cracked down on protest in Hong Kong and threatened Taiwan not to pursue independence but work toward reunification with the China mainland. If this is harmony, it is harmony by force.

For decades China pursued a policy of 'hide and bide': hide your intentions and bide your time. No longer. Xi Jinping wants to finish the work of his predecessors and strengthen the hold of the Party.

After taking power, he told the Party leadership in 2013, to prepare for a long period of conflict against what he called ‘forces at home and abroad' trying to overthrow the Party. The world is at a tipping point. The tensions with China are accelerating."

美國：一部電影，惡搞了獨立建國的一段黑歷史，
慶祝美國國慶，華盛頓變身成大隻佬美國隊長？
集結不同時代傳奇人物通通化身超級英雄，
一起來看看是要如何來推翻大英帝國的腐敗統治…

我的FB粉絲專頁：
https://www.facebook.com/cinema.vievoyage
W追影劇_洛基第1季第4集_重雷心得
https://youtu.be/FVjZPF5c65g
W電影隨便聊_自殺突擊隊：集結_預告分析第2彈
https://youtu.be/MAtHeON4K_k

🔥支付寶打賞：13581883245
🔥王炳忠今日頭條：搜索「王炳忠台灣」
🔥王炳忠臉書粉專：https://www.facebook.com/bingzhong.wang
♦♦♦
“Are you helping or harming us?” This is my serious question to you American politicians, including those in the Trump administration and in the Congress. As the spokesperson for the New Party, one of Taiwan’s political parties, and also a young man who has lived in Taiwan for more than 32 years since my birth, I should tell you that the answer decides our future without doubt. In other words, the very fact I must confirm is whether you support Taiwan independence instead of the One-China policy or just deploy Taiwan as your pawn to bargain with Beijing. To be honest, as you always take it for granted to sacrifice others for your benefits, it is quite important for us to make sure in advance.

As we all know, the US Congress usually tends to challenge China’s sovereignty over Taiwan because of the impact of the military-industrial complex and the lobbies hired by the Taiwan government. The Taiwan Travel Act and the TAIPEI Act are the late instances. However, without the administration’s implementation, these are only lip service. Thus, the administration’s attitude is crucial indeed. So, let’s see the Department of State. As Secretary Pompeo stated last March, the US is now using every tool in its tool kit to prevent China from isolating Taiwan through diplomatic channels. This year, after shifting blames for its neglect of the pandemic prevention by attacking China and the WHO, the Department of State recently expressed support for Taiwan’s participation in the WHA. The above really triggered my curiosity: The establishment of the US-Taiwan formal diplomatic relations is just the most useful tool, isn’t it? Why does the US not use that? Besides, since Taiwan should become a formal member of the UN before entering the WHO, why does the US not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state or the ROC government in Taiwan as the only legal government of China instead of the PRC?

The answer to my question seems that your real intention is not to support Taiwan’s real independence but only to trouble Beijing. Just as Pompeo said at a congressional hearing, the Trump administration’s way of viewing the US-Taiwan relations can consider the threat of China’s rise more than the predecessors, which reveals that Taiwan is only a chess piece for Washington to play with Beijing. Furthermore, since the US has no will to have Taiwan as a formal ally, Taiwan is just a pawn you can sacrifice anytime. Consequently, Taiwan must suffer the worsening of cross-strait relations at our own cost while the US just plays Taiwan to bargain with Beijing for your own interests. The outcome is so predictable that Taiwan should go through a depression for its large economic dependence on mainland China which you are unable and unwilling to make up. Besides, we should even consider the most serious situation that a war occurs in the Taiwan Strait. The scenario of Taiwan military is holding on alone within two to three weeks in order to wait for the US military aid. Nevertheless, as the former AIT chairman Richard Bush said, the implied commitment of the US to come to Taiwan’s defense has never be absolute. In other words, we should risk engaging a war with Beijing resulted from your dangerous game, sacrificing our lives for your lies.

As I already told you earlier, the real threat to the US is not China’s rise but the loss of your self-confidence. Moreover, you have weakened the stability across the Taiwan Strait by inciting Taiwan to deny the 1992 consensus and intervening in Taiwan’s campaign last year, which destroys the status quo and your interests indeed. Certainly, as what Secretary Pompeo has told us, “We lied, we cheated, we stole,” how can we bet our future on the US “glory” of lying, cheating, and stealing? In fact, as you once betrayed us in 1978 even though the ROC government in Taiwan and your government was formal alliance then, it is much easier for you today to abandon us when the deal has been done.

In conclusion, as your government declared plainly in the U.S.-PRC Joint Communique (1972), the US had its interests in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. Accordingly, since you are not willing to recognize either Taiwan as an independent state or the ROC as the legal government of China, we have no choice but to deal with the question of reunification with Beijing by the Chinese ourselves. Helping instead of harming us, you could stop intervening in the Taiwan question, otherwise it will only strengthen the risk across the Taiwan Strait and put us in jeopardy. Thank you if you release your hands.

Happy Independence Day. Today, we Americans celebrate becoming independent from England over 200 years ago. Really, though, it's just another excuse for Americans to pig out and take a day off from work.

My name is themblan, and I am a boy-gamer. Today, I jumped back into Turf War, the bread-and-butter of the Splatoon-series.

If you are American, I hope you enjoy the holiday, and whatever nationality you are, I hope you enjoy the video and life.

You can check out my other Splatoon 2 vids with this convenient playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDOrSWB5YEl8IW1G43wwj0QvUDo35IoV3

----------------------------

Thank you for watching, and have a great day.

----------------------------

Splatoon 2 was developed by Nintendo EPD and published by Nintendo on July 21st, 2017. It is the sequel to the godlike Splatoon for Wii U.

----------------------------

The song in my intro and outro was done by Hyper Potions, and it is called Time Trials. You can check out the full song here: https://youtu.be/mnfNWe-HHsI.

----------------------------

My Socials:

Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/themblan1
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/themblan1