關於 more or less the same formal ，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.

The Worlds50Best New announcement. No previous Winners of any No.1 can be voted again. I admire that gesture but (Even I am surprised I have been to most of them myself). But the major point is, it is changing the rules because people always vote for the same places even if one haven’t been there, but have Voting Powers anyway. Mirazur Menton will get 2019 No.1 this year if u ask me. Just totally predictable. The system is flawed from every level up... they don’t even recruit the proper voters & it’s a buddies game, claps claps. (I know my comment is arguable & some Chefs will feel from either side of the debate or Michelin inconsistency. But to me this is becoming just an arbitrary but manipulating game).

Just look at The Fat Duck vs Dinner by Heston Blumental for example. Former is accurate cooking with years of planning for Formal sometimes Molecular British dining, the latter is more for rediscovering former British rustic Cookings. But their positions have swapped majorly in positions with little explanations, also currently banned from reaching No.1 again & where does the maths even work out? French 3* Fine Dining is still amazing and hardly represented anymore on the World50Best list. El Celler de Can Roca is highly rated, but Roca Moo in Barcelona is almost equally as good but no one even talks about it as a sister shop. (I have been to both too and have many examples to tell). If they wanted to be fair, may be they should start with finding more independent professional Chefs as Voters. Or at least increase the amount of voters so that it reflects more of society.

Currently it almost feels like it’s an Insider circles game, probably less incredulous than the HK politicals game (or Credible). It’s a rather snobs game almost with a pretentious crowd of landing a table I am starting to feel these days... ^_^ @theworlds50best

NOTES ON CHARLOTTESVILLE:
OR, WHY WHITE PEOPLE DO NOT EXIST AS A PEOPLE

I've heard some several buddies, people I know well and care about (most of them not in comment boxes or in public) asking about the moral equivalency between the neo Nazis, white nationalists, and other white ethnostate type supporters and groups like Black Lives Matter, Antifa (short for Antifascists), and other direct action groups.

I'd like to speak to that comparison a bit and then turn to a more important part of it that I worry about. Before I get to that, I should first say that I've said enough about Trump. Honestly, the guy confuses me. He swings from a nihilistic idiot to a idiotic nihilist. His inconsistencies pile so high that you either get lost in them or you use them wholesale to try and make your point. He wins in the time and toll it takes. He also, I think, has found a very particular niche worldview for his newfound politics and is willing to, at the end of the day, embrace ANYONE willing to give him what he wants the most: affection. Never, at least to my memory, have we had a more emotionally needy president. But that's neither here nor there at the moment.

If you look at most social protests and revolutionary movements you will find a basic set of factions that don't change. They tend to spread between non violent oppositions and even less violent moderates, both winged by some type of pragmatists who are not in principle opposed to violence. Different sides will use the radicals of different parts of this division to throw away the entire argument of one side or another, and this is not an even equivalent exchange in the history of US racial tension. But I want to stay away, mostly, from broad historical claims here.

The point I am driving at is evident when we realize that the Civil Rights activists who practiced non violent acts of resistance were often lumped in with Black Panthers, or others not opposed to violence, although the two groups were ideologically fairly different. But I am not willing to say that they were so different as to not be judged as being on roughly the same side of the discussion. After all, the Civil Rights movement was not just the movement for the passage of legislation nor did it belong to the non violence of MLK Jr entirely. This is not historical. If you don't see that the US institution of slavery was a grave moral evil and that the Jim Crow laws that succeeded it were demonic in their formal and informal application, and that, as a result, those determined to end these things were in principle on the side of justice, then you really have no moral compass. Say what you will of the vast differences between MLK Jr and Malcolm X, but it is hard to argue that their social protest was off key in the tonic.

The more popular -- but equally as appropriate -- comparison these days is to Nazi Germany. (Of course, a great deal of the sentiment of the Civil Rights movement was a direct result of the effects that US wars had for those within its ranks who were not white, but that might be slightly off the mark in this case.) There is a bright and clear moral line between the Nazi ideology and its perverse Final Solution and those who sought to oppose it. This line, by the way, finds its way directly into the symbolism and rhetoric of the neo Nazi's at Charlottesville. Not only were there swastikas, there were Nazi crosses and other niche paraphernalia. There were the salutes, yes, but there were other salutations and insider ways of speaking going on. There were also the tiki torches, the modern Pepe Wal-Mart replacement for the burning torch rallies and burning crosses of the KKK. The grand knight of that sick group was standing by. They brought their own military-grade armed militia to protect those who came in homemade riot gear. This was not the making of a peaceful protest or free speech of the sort that we see the Westboro Baptists practice (not that they are emblems of public virtue, far, far from it!).

As I said earlier, if you find yourself unable to distinguish between Nazism in its original form and neo Nazis, white nationalists, and others like them and those who through what ever means they find useful (which one can disagree with in practice while still endorsing in principle) oppose them, then you are morally corrupt. If you can't quite figure out how the math works in this moral calculus, you are morally mindless and incompetent.

Of course, within any opposition to these (supposedly) easy immoral targets one can find many arguments and even passionate disavowals. But there are real moments when these lines are simply drawn and one must take a side. I have in the past even used the language of "alt left" in an entirely different usage, but I regret it deeply, now, seeing its life-cycle. I will not exchange my allergies to the ideological types of identity politics I have long opposed nor will my more specific critique of the critics settle. All that fuss gets set aside in these events. If I have to choose whether to stand next to a neo Nazi or Antifa, I'll choose the latter on pain of eternal damnation. To those who say you don't have to choose, that risk is one I am not willing to make. I would rather be a black panther than a lynch mob, as much as my truer sympathies lie somewhere else. Despite all my oppositions to modern warfare, I would pick up arms against the Nazis long before I'd "peacefully" cheer on their side. I think most people feel this way.

But something remains and this is what I worry about and even dread most: we are not fighting Nazis or lynch mobs. Most people would never go to march in Charlottesville. And even when you talk to many of the white nationalists they will say something along the lines of "I'm not racist." To them, their present politics is no longer that of the slaver or the KKK. They don't wear hoods and they don't want to own people as property anymore, it seems. They hate the Jewish people for reasons I am still not able to process in my mind, but their argument is more separatist than colonial -- so they claim.

They seem to think that the USA was founded by *their* ethnic ancestors, who hailed from Europe, gathered together in this ancient race called "White" that has recently, especially after the activism surrounding police brutality against African Americans, fallen into a disrepute that is sending the world into a globalist terror to come, in the biggest of the big governments.

Now, these conspiracy theories do not need to be true or believed to find where they hit a live nerve in a lot of people. Some people do ask why white people cannot have rallies for themselves without longing for ethic purity. Some people do think that white folks today are being washed away through interracial marriage, but many more who don't mind interracial romance still worry that white people are on the losing end of public sentiment. Lots of people who try to counter this tend to make it worse by appealing to gotcha replies about privilege or other things. I tend to find that too complex.

I recently commented to one of my friends that I don't think of myself as having very many "white" friends. Some of you might balk since many extremely intimate people in my life are, supposedly, white. And of course if we use one way of thinking about what "white" is, that is true. On the same logic, I would be, in certain real scenarios, white as well. But what I meant when I wrote to my friend was that I see my friends of European descent as from where they are. Those who don't know where they are from share with me a genealogical confusion that I can also understand.

Maybe this weirdness is partly because, on the vulgar ethnic analysis I am used to, I am neither white nor Black. And, of course, as many Africans who are neither black nor American will remind you, things become quite complex depending on what rules we are using to count the deck.

My point is this, and if you read nothing else, please read this: There is no such thing as "white people" in history. Most folks who use the expression were not allowed to use it only a few decades ago. The white supremacy of the KKK of old hated Blacks, yes, but also Mexicans, and Catholics, and Jews (of course), and atheists, and more. Depending on how you see it, whiteness was either more or less ecumenical, but just as ideologically religious.

Let me say it again: There will never be a "white ethnostate" based on European culture because the history of Europe is covered in ethnic feuds and wars. If you've never heard of a guy named Napoleon, check him out. I'm being serious. If you think of yourself as being "white" in some serious ancestral way, you're not. You are wearing a name tag your family was GIVEN at some point but never had by its own right. There are no white people in this familial sense. (Settle down critical race theorists, I am well aware of the whiteness that is real, too, but this ain't it.) There is no such thing as a white European culture or of a white heritage in that sense at all.

Again and again: The most scandalously false part of the neo Nazi mentality is as old as its previous, original half baked idea in Hitler's weak mind. The concept of a master race doesn't work for mastery of people nor does it work for figuring out who you really are. We come from places with names and languages and peoples and legacies that are concrete. Some of us lost a lot of memory at the hands of another, and others lost through the same hands. Today we tend to think that the ancestors of slaves, or indigenous peoples, or mixed-up mestizos are the ones who lack a strong identity and the rest have theirs in bold font. Not true. From your family to your soul, you don't really know who you are if you are using ideological pet words to hang the hat of your self.

I'm not a real Mexican and I'm not a real American -- and I'm no Canadian, either. My father was an orphan, so I've taken his bloodless name as my own, a Portuguese word by etymology. I of course will pass as a white guy at a Black family reunion, just as I passed as an indigenous guy today on the pier (until I produced a fishing license instead of a status card), just as I passed as an Iranian at a birthday party last week, and so on. But the real facts of who I am don't work in the abstract.

This is why if you want to find a better substitute for whiteness find a Greek Festival or an Irish Pub or a German Beer Garden or a French Restaurant. This is food and drink, and it is a set of multicultural cliches, but enjoy an Italian family dinner and tell me there is nothing about who someone is at stake there. The point is that the real identity we can and do celebrate is everywhere and it is not necessarily riddled with guilt, even if sometimes it could use some (or far less). None of it calls itself "white." None. If you are using "white" as your only name tag, then I am sorry to say that you've been fooling yourself. You don't have a people by that name. There is no such thing. Your great-great-great grandmother would mostly likely not answer to "white."

Personal history quickly becomes social, national, and regional histories and we find ourselves, again, at Charlottesville. All I can say for now about it, to my dear and beloved friends who I suspect think that they are "white," is this: We cannot have white rallies because there is no such thing as a "white" people. Black Lives Matter is not a movement for everyone who is of one dark color in the world -- it is about the US experience for those living within the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow over the past three years (some Black activist groups are critical of this aspect of BLM, by the way). If you want a "white" identity, then look to the folk expressions of it that we have and should treasure like music, food, and regional folk ways of being. Poetry, dance, dialect, accent, story. These are not safe or sanitary places -- I tend to think this story of a "white people" got made up there, too -- but they also don't pretend like people are any more or less related than they really are.

Donald Trump is a German-American man, not a white man. His whiteness is an entirely different issue that I am disinterested in getting into right now. If you wonder why white people are seen as bad sometimes, it is largely because of this false assumption: that white people exist as a people when they so manifestly do not.