speaking of taiwan.
most of your argument is about before qing dynasty china didn't actually control it, which i agreed, but when it comes to qing dynasty, you says Kangxi Emperor didn’t think Taiwan was a part of China.
although that is he said taiwan wasn't important, but still he did it with military and all the cost. i find there is nothing between this and he think taiwan is not part of china, especially all the control of taiwan after this.
especially qing also have dzungar problem, and other wars which is reasonable he did want divers his army.
For me the current taiwan problem has three kind of view,
first is the view of native people and colony, which is the the han chinese colony taiwan which belong to local people.
the second is taiwan as a part of qing and later become part of roc, part of civil war which lead to current situation.
The last is regardless of all history or political, they want independent.
i didn't find a clear view of you but rather mix some to prove a pre decide point that taiwan is not a part of china.
i mean all that story about taiwan before qing and when china really control taiwan the only thing is kangxi dont think so.
>speaking of taiwan. most of your argument is about before qing dynasty china didn't actually control it, which i agreed, but when it comes to qing dynasty, you says Kangxi Emperor didn’t think Taiwan was a part of China. although that is he said taiwan wasn't important, but still he did it with military and all the cost. i find there is nothing between this and he think taiwan is not part of china, especially all the control of taiwan after this.
Here is what the Kangxi Emperor said:
>"Taiwan is no bigger than a ball of mud. We gain nothing by possessing it, and it would be no loss if we did not acquire it."
Source: Veritable Records of the Kangxi Emperor, November 27, 1683
Kangxi is clearly saying that Taiwan was not a part of China. He is debating whether to incorporate it into China or to just let it go. Sure, Emperor Kangxi fought a war to take the island, but he also recognizes that it was not originally part of China, as did every other early Qing writer writing on Taiwan.
>especially qing also have dzungar problem, and other wars which is reasonable he did want divers his army.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. I know who the Dzungars are, but your English is just very unclear here. Could you rephrase this?
>For me the current taiwan problem has three kind of view, first is the view of native people and colony, which is the the han chinese colony taiwan which belong to local people. the second is taiwan as a part of qing and later become part of roc, part of civil war which lead to current situation. The last is regardless of all history or political, they want independent.
Again, I can't understand what you are saying here, could you rephrase it?
>i didn't find a clear view of you but rather mix some to prove a pre decide point that taiwan is not a part of china.
As I said in my post, this is just the introduction to the Taiwan section, so there is much that the book says about Taiwan afterwards.
East Asian Languages and Literature Departments are generally multidisciplinary. We have linguists, historians and literature scholars all in one department. My dissertation was a history of Chinese and Taiwanese museums, so I am very familiar with the discipline of history. I felt very qualified to write a history.
Furthermore, as this is not a book written for academics, I did not feel like I needed to address the more arcane debates that I would have to if I was writing for an academic audience.
My qualifications are that I have a PhD in Chinese (technically my PhD is in East Asian Languages and Literatures) and I was able to engage with much of the Chinese-language source material. Finally, I have a podcast, the Chinese Literature Podcast; in talking with Americans about China and its literature for the last decade, I feel like I have my finger on the pulse of what Americans need to know about China.
How did China come up with the money to improve all their cities? Are they gravely in debt now and how long can they hold on? Does democracy have any chance in China's near future? Thank you.
>How did China come up with the money to improve all their cities?
There are two answers to this question.
China's economic miracle really deserves to be called a miracle. From 1979 to really the point when Xi took power or a bit before, China's economy had been growing at a phenomenal clip. The CCP deserves credit for this. They both had great policies that grew the economy, such as investing in urban infrastructure, and, as the economy was growing, the government was able to take in lots of cash from a growing tax base, which was reinvested in cities.
But that is not the whole story. China, like many communist countries, screwed over lots of money from poor farmers, taking lots of grain tax from them and giving them little in return. That extra grain was sent to feed city workers. China did this, as did the USSR and North Korea. It is common in communism (though it did not happen under Cambodia's communist disaster).
Why did they do this? Marxism emphasizes the urban worker in its ideology. But also, I think that they wanted to show off fancy cities in order to convince outsiders, who usually don't visit the farms, that communism was working.
>Are they gravely in debt now and how long can they hold on?
Yes, they are deeply in debt, but I have no ability to predict how long they will be able to hold on. Maybe forever. This is not the greatest problem that the CCP has overcome. It is a strong institution and is filled with really, really smart people. Don't count them out.
>Does democracy have any chance in China's near future?
Yes, I think it has a chance in the near future. I can't predict whether it will succeed, but it definitely has a chance.
Taiwan and South Korea both had fast growing economies under dictatorships from the 1950's to the 1980's. Both these dictatorships resisted democratization, saying that it was not a part of their tradition. Then, at around the same time in the late 1980's, both started the process of democratizing. Taiwan is now one of the best democracies in Asia, with freedom for gay folks and a strong voting tradition.
South Korea is also a strong democracy with an insanely cool creative industry attracting the attention from all over the world. Under the South Korean dictatorship, most movies that the country made were shitty and boring, as was its music. Now, K Pop and Korean cinema are conquering the world.
The CCP will say we have 5000 years of undemocratic history. But so did Taiwan. So did Korea. Who cares? China can change, Chinese folks are very smart. This is not a country stuck in the past. It is more a question of context, whether the right conditions for that change are there.
if you assert that Taiwan is not part of China, do you call for the Republic of China to relinquish control of the island back to the indigenous inhabitants, and for the 95% of the island’s population that are ethnically Chinese to return to the mainland? if not, why do you support one group of foreign Chinese colonisers claim to sovereignty over the island, but reject another’s?
>if you assert that Taiwan is not part of China, do you call for the Republic of China to relinquish control of the island back to the indigenous inhabitants, and for the 95% of the island’s population that are ethnically Chinese to return to the mainland? if not, why do you support one group of foreign Chinese colonisers claim to sovereignty over the island, but reject another’s?
I never said that Taiwan was not a part of China. Never. That is not my goal. People keep attacking me like I am an activist, but I am a historian who tons of folks are, frightened by how the historical facts don't support their own activist goals, attack me rather than the facts I present.
I will say that Taiwan has never been a part of the PRC. I will also say I think that the Taiwanese people have the right to democratically decide what they want their future relationship to China and the PRC to be. But I really don't care if Cheng Li-wun becomes president and the Taiwanese voter says they want to join the PRC.
Indigenous folks ought to be respected and included in Taiwanese democracy, but they are a part of Taiwan's broader democracy now.
Do you actually have any peer reviewed papers or books you've written?
I'm having a hard time getting through your OP. As someone who grew up in Taiwan, this book reads like alternative historical fiction to further spread Western propaganda.
Especially your parts about how the US made TSMC but then had Intel take everything recently, and is forcing them to move 40% production to the US.
There's so much anger in Taiwan about TSMC being given to the US, but you white washed it so hard while saying you "speak" for Taiwanese people for what westerners want and need to hear that I can't believe and seriously doubt anything else you've said at all.
Which preconceived conclusions and motivations did you go in to writing this book with? The title is kind of sensationalist and makes it seem propagandistically motivated.
MTL english there, since it looks i cant post my mother tangue in most although it might be better about chinese history, but my english not so good for this.
“Unlike most China books, written by eggheads for eggheads, my book is written for you, normal readers who don’t know much about China but are curious to learn more about the second largest economy and one of the world’s superpowers. ” Although you might brush this off with accusations of "brainwashing," I still want to ask what advantages your work has over asking local Chinese people directly? After all, many Chinese people speak English and frequent various overseas websites, although this may seem counterintuitive. Or is it that these ordinary Western readers simply enjoy reading negative news about China, even if there are other interesting things happening in China, such as literary history—you should know about Popular works in each dynasty, since you study it.
Regarding the question of Taiwan's sovereignty, I personally believe that the "late occupation" is not a strong reason to refute mainland China's claim to sovereignty over Taiwan, especially since there was no universally accepted international law at the time. Clearly, the Qing Dynasty had already established a prefecture there, and unless explicitly stated in a treaty as cession, it was undeniably Qing territory. Or rather, Taiwan truly became a matter of debate in 1949 that the conflict between CCP&KM;; at least the Cairo Declaration explicitly identified Taiwan as "territory Japan stole from the Chinese" and demanded its return from Japan.
I can tell you definitively that Ryukyu was an "independent sovereign entity" located in present-day Okinawa Prefecture, Japan, which was clearly known in Chinese historical records from the late Yuan and early Ming dynasties (the era of Song Lian). This does not include Taiwan, which was referred to as "Dongfan." While there was indeed frequent confusion in early Yuan dynasty works, I still don't understand why you brought up Ryukyu, because the Chinese already knew that the two were not the same thing.
>Although you might brush this off with accusations of "brainwashing," I still want to ask what advantages your work has over asking local Chinese people directly?
I welcome all respectful questions like yours and certainly do not consider your question brainwashing. It is a legitimate question.
I would welcome anyone, whether Chinese, American or Uzbeki to write books similar to mine. The more, the better.
That said, I don't know of any book on the history of China written in a way to target a general readership. It has nothing to do with whether or not they are Chinese or not. It has to do with another problem. Most people with sufficient knowledge to write this kind of book are, as I said, "eggheads." They are stuck in their ivory towers, and they can't write a decent sentence that does not scare people. For the average American or Westerner, China is a tough topic for them to pick up a book about just because they know so little about it. What I did was make China fun and unscary as a topic.
>2. Regarding the question of Taiwan's sovereignty, I personally believe that the "late occupation" is not a strong reason to refute mainland China's claim to sovereignty over Taiwan, especially since there was no universally accepted international law at the time. Clearly, the Qing Dynasty had already established a prefecture there, and unless explicitly stated in a treaty as cession, it was undeniably Qing territory. Or rather, Taiwan truly became a matter of debate in 1949 that the conflict between CCP&KM;; at least the Cairo Declaration explicitly identified Taiwan as "territory Japan stole from the Chinese" and demanded its return from Japan.
Maybe, but in nearly every statement that the CCP puts out arguing it ought to take Taiwan and renunify it with China, the CCP makes this argument that it has owned Taiwan since ancient times. If this argument about ancient Taiwan's status is not important, why does the CCP bring this up at nearly every point they are discussing Taiwanese sovereignty.
Yes, the Qing owned Taiwan. But the Japanese did not steal it. The Qing gave it away after having lost a war.
Yes, the Cairo Declaration did declare "Formosa" as territory that Japan had stolen from China. But the Cairo Declaration did not give it back to China. It gave it back to the Republic of China, who still control the island today.
One can make the argument that the thing about ancient Taiwan's status does not matter, but why does the CCP make such a big deal about that. And if ancient Taiwan does not matter because it is ancient history, why does Qing China's control of Taiwan, which to lots of modern folks feels like ancient history matter? If Taiwan has not been part of China since 1895, except for that brief four year period from 1945-1949, why should that change just because of ancient history.
>3. I can tell you definitively that Ryukyu was an "independent sovereign entity" located in present-day Okinawa Prefecture, Japan, which was clearly known in Chinese historical records from the late Yuan and early Ming dynasties (the era of Song Lian). This does not include Taiwan, which was referred to as "Dongfan." While there was indeed frequent confusion in early Yuan dynasty works, I still don't understand why you brought up Ryukyu, because the Chinese already knew that the two were not the same thing.
Sorry, I think you are wrong here. The PRC Ministry of Foreign Affairs has a White Paper on its website saying that, in ancient Chinese texts, Taiwan was referred to as both Liuqiu/Ryukyu/琉球 and as Yizhou/夷洲. When the Yuan and Song texts refer to places as Liuqiu/Ryukyu/琉球, it is never clear if they are referring to Taiwan, to the Ryukyus, to Luzon or to somewhere else. For a long time, Chinese folks were just really confused about what islands were out there beyond the ocean. Some Ming (1368-1644) maps of China and the oceans beyond show no islands at all out there, others show an island named "Liuqiu/Ryukyu/琉球" and another island, about the same size, named "Japan/日本." These Chinese folks back in the day did not know the geography of the Western Pacific very well.
It’s an odd look to describe Taiwan as being legitimate territory of Japan as the result of the Qing losing a war, most histories these days doesn’t tend to look so kindly on the actions of Imperial Japan in China.
Vis a vis the Cairo declaration giving Taiwan back to the ROC, at the time, and for that matter for decades after this time, the international community considered the ROC to be the rightful government of mainland China. It strikes me as frankly bad faith framing to suggest that the intention was not to return Taiwan to “China” broadly.
Also I don’t think it’s correct to say Taiwan has not been part of “China” since 1895 excepting 1945-1949. The ROC very explicitly considered Taiwan to be part of China at least up to the 90s. The UN considered the ROC to be the rightful government of China in exile until 1971, so we can say the UN considered Taiwan explicitly to be part of China at least until 1971. You could say rightly that Taiwan has not been part of the PRC, but to say Taiwan has not been part of China since 1949 seems to excessively stretch the truth.
>It’s an odd look to describe Taiwan as being legitimate territory of Japan as the result of the Qing losing a war, most histories these days doesn’t tend to look so kindly on the actions of Imperial Japan in China.
I disagree. Sure, the Qing lost a war to Japan, and some might question how "legitimate" those gains are, but Japan invaded the Ryukyus in a very illegal war, pushing the Ryukyu king off his throne in Okinawa, but few whether the Ryukyus are legitimate Japanese territory. America took territory from Mexico in a war that Congressman Abe Lincoln famously called immoral. But when Lincoln was President, did he seek to give that territory back to Mexico? Or was he cool with that territory leaving the Union and joining the Confederacy. Nah.
And China itself has won much of its territory in wars. Xinjiang was conquered in a 1758 war that ended with what one scholar called "the 17th Century genocide par excellence." I don't think the fact that the Qing took Xinjiang in a war two and a half centuries before has much to say about China's control of the region today. Even violent conquests often set fact on the ground, facts that, in modern times, don't bear debating.
>Vis a vis the Cairo declaration giving Taiwan back to the ROC, at the time, and for that matter for decades after this time, the international community considered the ROC to be the rightful government of mainland China. It strikes me as frankly bad faith framing to suggest that the intention was not to return Taiwan to “China” broadly.
Is it highly technical to point out that the Cairo Declaration (which was not really legally binding) gave Taiwan to the Republic of China? Sure, but international law is a highly technical subject matter.
I am not making the case that Taiwan should or should not joint the PRC. The broader point I make in the book is that Taiwan has functioned as an independent entity with close links to both China and the US at various times and that it ought to be able to determine its own future.
>Also I don’t think it’s correct to say Taiwan has not been part of “China” since 1895 excepting 1945-1949. The ROC very explicitly considered Taiwan to be part of China at least up to the 90s. The UN considered the ROC to be the rightful government of China in exile until 1971, so we can say the UN considered Taiwan explicitly to be part of China at least until 1971. You could say rightly that Taiwan has not been part of the PRC, but to say Taiwan has not been part of China since 1949 seems to excessively stretch the truth.
Sure, the ROC government considered Taiwan to be a part of China. But it wasn't. Until the 1990's, Taiwan and China had essentially no contact between each other. People from Taiwan could not go to China, mail could not pass between the two, planes were not allowed to fly between the two. Taiwan was not a part of China, they weren't part of the circulation of goods, people and ideas that make a country a country.
Regarding the original text of the white paper (2022), I believe you also made some errors. When does the white paper refer to "at the time called 'Liuqiu'"? It refers to the Sui Dynasty (581-618). Afterwards, "after the Song and Yuan dynasties, successive central governments of China began to establish administrative jurisdiction over Penghu and Taiwan," in other words, it doesn't discuss this in detail, explicitly starting from 1624 when the Dutch occupied Taiwan. This is different from the "Ryukyu" commonly referred to in Chinese contexts, because unless specifically noted, Ryukyu generally refers to the "Ryukyu Kingdom," which was the one that did not explicitly occupy Taiwan.
Here is the white paper on the MFA's website that I am referring to.
Here is my translation of that first passage, which clearly shows that the PRC thinks that Taiwan's ancient names included both Liuqiu/Ryukyu/琉球 and Yizhou/夷洲:
>1. Taiwan is an indivisible part of China. The Taiwan area is located on the southeastern edge of mainland China. It is China’s largest island. Along with the mainland, Taiwan is [part of] a whole entity that is indivisible. From ancient times, Taiwan belonged to China. Taiwan’s ancient names include Yizhou (Barbarian Island), and Liuqiu (Ryukyu).
Also, if you are wondering, Chinese historians generally don't think that there was any Chinese administration over Taiwan. Here is Ge Jianxiong, one of China's preeminent historians batting away the idea that Taiwan was a part of China in the Yuan and Song:
>According to the records of the Book of Sui - Eastern Barbarian Chapter,1 at the beginning of the 7th century, at the latest, Taiwan island already had a “king” who governed the local residents. But Taiwan never had a relationship of subordination with the mainland Central Plains Dynasties. Before the Ming Dynasty, we cannot find any historical records [of that kind of relationship]. The Southern Song government set up a local military inspection office in the Penghu Islands within Fujian Province’s Tongan County. There are some people who use this to infer that this local military inspection office also administered Taiwan. This is completely unfounded. The Song Dynasty patrol inspectors were, in general, not a high position, and the administrative area for this local military inspection office set up in Tongan County could not have been very big, and the distance between the Penghus and Taiwan Island is not small, and the Penghu’s area, compared with Taiwan is massively different. Even if they really did set up a local military inspection office to administer Taiwan, they still could not have crossed the strait to administer Taiwan’s public security or border defenses. In the Yuan Dynasty, they also set up a local military inspection office in the Penghus, but, just like in the Southern Song, there is no evidence proving that its administrative borders included Taiwan. Not only did the Southern Song Dynasty not control Taiwan, but neither did the Yuan Dynasty or the Ming Dynasty.
It did not happen. Neither Song nor Yuan China ever ruled Taiwan.
So a lot has been changed, but u saw the Penghu, cuz... Penghu is now part of "ROC", But it doesn't seem reasonable to ask ROC to hand over Penghu, if think ROC should be an independent country
If we're talking about non-serious historical works about China, Chinese historical fiction has already achieved a similar niche, such as *Romance of the Three Kingdoms* and *Romance of the Sui and Tang Dynasties* (although it add a lot of "details", since fiction), which began as early as the Ming Dynasty. Meanwhile, "popular science" level historical discussions are also taking place within China through platforms like Bilibili. So, it means, Chinese was try to. However, due to "incompatibility with the online ecosystem," it is difficult to spread overseas, or even if it is translated, Western audiences may not understand it well, since this involves localization work.
In short, it's all about claiming endless escalation. Theoretically, departments like the Taiwan Affairs Office need all sorts of reliable or unreliable evidence to establish their legitimacy over Taiwan, just as Taiwan itself created a 95% "other population" narrative for de-Sinicization. However, in actual analysis, the root cause remains the ROC's retreat to Taiwan, which is the "origin of the Taiwan issue," as it's ultimately a political matter. But in reality, claims of "sovereign continuity" have been around since Zheng Chenggong's time—this is just my personal opinion. as for "steal", the main issue with this claim is the misappropriation of MTL's wording, as this is a MTL of the original text. we just clarifying that Japan occupied Taiwan and then returned it in 1945.
Song is dead in 13th century, so there is indeed a prerequisite. Furthermore, if you're referring to the entire Ming Dynasty, maps produced in collaboration with Western missionaries clearly indicate (though perhaps not accurately), although this occurred in the later period. And it's certain that it's not Luzon, or rather, Song Lian explicitly stated that it was "unknown how many thousands of miles" east of Penghu; Luzon is clearly somewhat south of that point. However, from the perspective of the Ryukyu Kingdom, it did not occupy Taiwan.
What I wrote is not historical fiction, so I don't think they compare, at all.
Sure, I agree with what I think you are saying. The PRC feels like it needs to lie and claim that Taiwan has long been Chinese. But why the need to lie? It is because their modern claims to the island, grounded in 1949, are so weak and they need to invent something else.
I am not sure I understand any of your points, but I think it is because of the machine translation you are using. No Ming map ever showed a place called Taiwan, but it did show places like Liuqiu/Ryukyu/琉球.
We know that the Chinese knew Taiwan was there, as, in 1603, they sent Chen Di to kill pirates using Taiwan as a base to harass south China shipping. But they probably did not have a good idea of where it was. Even in the 1739 Book of Ming/明史, the official Qing government's description of the island is convoluted.
Also, I never said that the Ryukyu Kingdom occupied Taiwan.
Song Lian does not have a clue whether where he is talking about. And I don't think he mentions Luzon ever. If you have a point where Song Lian references Luzon, I would love to know about it, but I just looked back at his text and could not find it.
In short, there are indeed a group of history enthusiasts on various platforms who are trying to explain history in a relatively popular way. For example, when Chinese forums were just emerging, there was a work called "Those Things About the Ming Dynasty" that discussed the Ming Dynasty. However, this work obviously did not spread overseas, and it cannot be said to be perfect, but it is sufficient for the average Chinese reader.
This involves information warfare. Since I've always held a negative view of the Chinese government's information warfare capabilities (on any topic), I basically understand it as a sloppy paper (on a historical level) that crams every available historical source into its historical claims section—after all, you can never have too much material. But what I can confirm is that the focus of these white papers isn't on "I saw and ruled Taiwan a long time ago" (although it's mentioned, since it can't hurt, even if it might only refer to control of the Penghu Islands), but rather on dissing the US. However, this involves content outside the main topic.
Regarding Song Lian's record, I don't think I said Song Lian knew "Luzon." If you think so, then it's a translation error or I'm just remembering it wrong. In short, my point is: First, he definitely didn't occupy it, and that's what I said. What I mean is, "In modern China, when discussing 'Ryukyu,' it generally refers to the Ryukyu Kingdom, even if Taiwan might have a corresponding ancient name." Furthermore, the possibility of Ryukyu being "Luzon Island" is extremely low. After all, with a compass, "sailing eastward but drifting southwest" (starting from Penghu) is not something a group of sailors could do. This is recorded in the *History of Yuan*, which is Song Lian's book.
Maybe, but the example you offered above, that of historical fiction, is not what I am doing.
Also, again, I welcome lots of folks to publish books on Chinese history. I think it would be great if we could get more Chinese folks who could get published talking about Chinese history in the West.
Maybe you understand that the Chinese government's claims about Taiwan having been part of ancient China as a lie and informational warfare, but my understanding from talking with my Chinese friends is that they mostly sincerely believe that Taiwan was part of ancient China.
It is probably just the translation.
My broader point is that these Chinese-language records are sketchy that it is ridiculous for the Chinese government to point to them to justify that Taiwan was a part of pre-modern China. No power based in China ruled over Taiwan before 1683, and no ethnically Chinese power ruled Taiwan before 1661.
just an example of "popular history books," and historical novels in China are the earliest and most mature example of this, but also can others, if it is the book face to "normal readers"
My personal view is that information warfare isn't necessarily based on "lies." Simply put, I've always felt that China doesn't even have much "voice" in the global public opinion arena (of course, this is just my personal feeling and doesn't fully represent the actual situation). For example, in English-speaking regions, mentioning China often equates to "China is bad," followed by the Cultural Revolution, the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, Xinjiang human rights, and the like. I won't directly deny that these "black materials" are outright lies, but they certainly constitute part of the West's information warfare against China. Of course, this might be due to a misunderstanding of the English term "information warfare." As for the "viewpoints" of the Chinese, no one stipulates that mainland Chinese interested in the Taiwan issue can reach a consensus that "Taiwan should belong to China," not to mention that the period from 1684 to 1895 was indeed part of China. I haven't even included the Ming Zheng regime (i.e., Zheng Chenggong and others). And before 1840 is generally considered "ancient" (the time scale of ancient times is very large; if we start counting from the Shang Dynasty, China's "legitimate territory" would become very small). Of course, it's also possible that the methods of division differ from those of the West.
This is also what I just mentioned, because even without discussing the Song and Yuan dynasties, the Chinese side would consider China before 1840 as "ancient," although this sounds rather hasty.
How do you view the archaeological evidence of Chinese trade in Taiwan during the Tang through Ming dynasty including porcelain, coinage etc.? This is all tangential to Chinese claims of control because trade and contact is not control. But interested in hearing how archaeological evidences is integrated with written records in constructing the pre-Ming Chinese history of Taiwan
There is almost no evidence of trade between China and Taiwan in the Tang and most of the Song. There are a handful of coins, but, as far as I know, nothing else. Those likely came not across the Taiwan Strait, but rather via established trade routes from the Philippines to Eastern Taiwan, which was a much easier journey.
In the Song, Yuan and Ming, there may have been occasional trade with China, but it also could have been coming via the Philippines, it is hard to know. At the Luliao site, beads from China were found. Radiocarbon dating suggested that those were from 990-1600 AD. So, even if these beads did come from China, that may not have occurred until very late in the Ming.
The very limited number of Chinese goods on Taiwan suggests that it is possible a few Chinese folks landed on the island before 1603 (when we have our first confirmed Chinese person stepping on Taiwan and writing it down), but it is also just as possible that these goods came via the Philippines. We don't know.
But, even if the trade between China and Taiwan was happening directly, rather than Chinese goods going down southeast Asia and then back up via the Philippines, as you pointed out, this has nothing to do with control, as trade and contact are not control.
Iirc there are actually quite a lot of Song and Tang coinage that were unearthed around Taiwan. However like you said, there is not concrete proof on whether they came from Chinese traders directly or via SEA. The most interesting artefact unearthed might be a Chinese coin mold found in Duoliang dating to c.500-700AD
十三行 museum itself displays the Song and Tang coinages, as well as various bronze items from archaeological digs. Official website with virtual tour here: https://www.sshm.ntpc.gov.tw/
On coins in the museum, https://www.sshm.ntpc.gov.tw/xmdoc/cont?xsmsid=0G244550619231362861&sid=0G246558547114014178
In the same museum, I also found some interesting Tang dynasty gilded bronzes with camel and lotus motifs:
https://digiarch.sinica.edu.tw/content/subject/resource_content.jsp?oid=16777348&queryType=qs&queryString=%E5%8D%81%E4%B8%89%E8%A1%8C%E9%81%BA%E5%9D%80
There was a similar posting I responded to a few weeks ago. I asked about hard numbers for people killed in Tianemen Square during the student uprising-there are only estimates, nobody has actual numbers. Im intrigued by this post title because from what the other thread revealed is that accurate numbers do not exist because records have been deleted. So the history is not accurate because of the total redaction of facts-they dont exist anywhere. So where are you pulling your data from to answer?
No worries, when I do AMA's, I usually let them run for a while, since I live on Reddit and come back to the AMA again and again.
The sources I used were a mix of contemporary English-language scholarship and Chinese historical documents. For example, when preparing to write the Taiwan section of the book, I was surprised by a contradiction.
Some scholars said that Han Chinese had been on Taiwan for more than a thousand years, but others hinted that they had really been on the island for four hundred years.
So, I went back to Chinese language sources from the late 1600's, such as Yu Yonghe, the first Han Chinese author to write a book-length travelogue about Taiwan, and I saw that those historical Chinese writers all agreed that Taiwan was never before a part of any Chinese empire.
Then, I went back to the historical documents that Beijing purported showed China had owned the island for more than a millennium. And when I read them, I remember thinking, this is all very flimsy. The texts that Beijing points to as proof could be describing Taiwan, maybe. But they also might be describing Luzon or Okinawa, it is so vague as to be really hard to tell.
And then I got hold of a relatively new book on Taiwanese archaeology, and the evidence for a Chinese presence on the island in the archaeological record was extremely thin.
I put all that together, and out came that Taiwan section of the book.
Same too for other sections of the book. For the Xinjiang section of the book, I used lots of historical Chinese documents, archaeological research, English-language histories of the region and some Uyghur studies scholarship as well.
That was how I came to the conclusion that, though lots of people in the West don't know this, the Han Chinese were in Xinjiang about a thousand years before the Uyghurs got there.
Considering that General Tso(zuo zongtang) is an indispensable figure in Xinjiang's history, I'm curious about your thoughts on him, especially the General Tso's Chicken is such a popular Americanized Chinese dish.
Or you could simply summarize the book's main points.
>
Considering that General Tso(zuo zongtang) is an indispensable figure in Xinjiang's history, I'm curious about your thoughts on him, especially the General Tso's Chicken is such a popular Americanized Chinese dish.
I think it is hilarious that General Tso/左宗棠, of chicken dish fame (though he had nothing to do with the dish) was the man who reconquered Xinjiang in the late 1870's. It is weird how history has these weird connections.
As for my thoughts on him, he was a brilliant general and a master of logistics who did a great job of preparing to march across China through some of the most rugged territory the country has to offer.
And, in the end, none of that mattered, as his adversary, Lord Jacob/Yakub Beg, died of natural causes as General Tso was marching across the deserts of Xinjiang to meet him.
>Or you could simply summarize the book's main points.
China claims Taiwan as Chinese from ancient times. That is bullshit. Taiwan is as American as it is Chinese. Like America, Taiwan had an indigenous community who had lived there for millennia. In the 1600's, both places were conquered by a European power. That European colonizer found that the indigenous people could not fulfill their colonial ambitions for plantation-scale intensive agriculture, so they brought another group in from across the water. In America, it was black Africans, in Taiwan, it was the Han Chinese. I then go on to detail the history of Taiwan and the special role that America played in it, from helping to found its second largest city in the 1850's, twice invading it in 1867 to largely taking over the island in the 1950's to protect it from the communists and then, in the 1960's, stoking the Taiwanese economic miracle.
China and the Uyghurs both claim that Xinjiang has long been their territory. Both are wrong.
The Chinese were there a thousand years before the Uyghurs, but only as temporary conquerors. The first Chinese arms marched across the deserts of Xinjiang in the 110's BC. For the two millennia years before 1758, Chinese powers controlled the island for 200 of the 2000 years.
The Uyghurs' first state was established in 744 AD in the middle of Mongolia and had nothing to do with Xinjiang. It was only in the 840's that the Uyghur state collapsed and some of them fled to Beshbalik and Turpan, in modern day Xinjiang, that a Uyghur state was established in the territory that they today claim as their homeland.
This chapter looks at the twisted history of Xinjiang, and how everybody claiming the region as theirs is lying.
The Chinese economy section looks at the three most important events in the Chinese economy, Han Emperor Wu's economic takeover after 136 BC, Wang Anshi's crazy economic policies in the 1070's AD and Mao Zedong's even crazier policies during the 1950's Great Leap Forward. All involved a relatively open Chinese economy taken over by a dictatorial/imperial leader and all crashed and burned.
No extra points for guessing what this says about Xi's economy.
The Hong Kong section of the book looks at the long standing tensions between the Cantonese-speaking south and the Chinese power centers in the north. It goes back to when the Cantonese's ancestors, the Yue, were conquered and brought into the Chinese empire in 111 BC, how the Chinese people looked down on the Yue not as fellow Chinese folk but rather used racism to view them as animals. It tracks how, around a thousand years ago, the Yue went from being regarded as animals to regarded as Chinese people. Then I look at how that was similar to the British colonial treatment of the Chinese in their imperialism in Hong Kong.
sry about that, actually u just need to brief the general tso's lmao
From China's perspective, he did indeed re-establish control over Xinjiang. After all, besides driving out Yaqub Beg (although Yaqub Beg was already dead), he was also responsible for negotiations with Tsarist Russia and establishing Xinjiang as a "province." This may explain why Xinjiang, compared to Tibet and Outer Mongolia, did not have a strong tendency towards independence afterward.
Sure, he did negotiate with Tsarist Russia and help establish Xinjiang as a province.
I would also point out that, one of the reason that Xinjiang did not achieve as much indepdence as Tibet and Mongolia is because the Han Chinese managed to maintain control of Xinjiang. Yang Zengxin, Jin Shuren and Sheng Shicai all maintained control over the region and kept Xinjiang within the Chinese sphere (even if no government inside the pass controlled Xinjiang) at a time that Tibet was exercising de facto independence and Mongolia was exercising de jure independence.
Your sample about Taiwan is irrelevant. China wants to integrate Taiwan because that is where the Mao opposition fled. That's it. It is an embarrassing example of democracy and economic success next door.
I agree with you that the PRC wants to integrate Taiwan mostly because that was where the enemy of the CCP, the KMT, fled after losing China and the Chinese Civil War. Before 1942, the Communists actually wanted Taiwan to be independent.
But you already hinted at a second reason for the PRC to be pissed about Taiwan. As a democracy, it makes Beijing look bad. But you have to remember that Taiwan only recently became a democracy. Really, Taiwanese democracy is less than three decades old (if you choose as the start date for a democracy not when they say that they got started but when the first peaceful transfer of power, the sign of a real democracy, happened). Before that, Taiwan was almost as repressive as the communists.
But none of this is irrelevant. Beijing today is very concerned about the history of the Chinese nation. It has largely ditched communism and become a nationalistic party. And Taiwan matters for that. They see the lose of Taiwan as a part of the damage that imperialism did to China (true, with a cavaet). By restoring Taiwan, the CCP wants to wipe clean all the damage imperialists did to China. In that way, China's desire to integrate Taiwan has nothing to do with Mao and the Chinese Civil War and everything to do with the Century of Humiliation narrative.
Arunchal Pradesh - Yep, China wants to take this. The agreement that put this in British Indian territory (and then, after indepedence, the independent state of India) was made between the British colonial rulers and the de facto independent government of Tibet. China says that Tibet was not independent, so any agreements that that de facto Tibetan government made are invalid. And the PRC makes it clear that it claims parts of Arunachal Pradesh.
Mongolia and the Transamur - No, China does not claim it today. That said, the ideology of the present Chinese state is a wounded nationalism and many quietly think that any territory which was kinda part of the Qing ought to be part of the PRC.
Mongolia's independence was secured by the Tsarist government, and then by the USSR. The Republic of China (now ruling Taiwan, but previously in charge of all of China) has long claimed Mongolia as a part of its territory, though it backed off those claims in the 1990's. I doubt Beijing today would think of doing anything to Mongolia, as it would not only piss off a lot of people in Mongolia and the rest of the world, but also because they are too close to Russia to do it, and Russia sees Mongolia as an important partner. But, if something crazy happens, like the collapse of Russia and China continues to grow more powerful economically, it is possible that they could push to reclaim Mongolia along the same terms that they are pushing to reclaim Taiwan.
Ditto for the Transamur. It is Russian today, and there is no way that the Chinese would screw with it. But there are Chinese nationalists who are bitter about the 'loss" of it. Of course, Qing China's claims to the Transamur were always weak. There were some Qing Manchus who lived there, and the Qing definitely claimed some of that terrritory, but, as Sarah Paine has shown, the Qing state did not know what it was claiming, had no maps of the region and did not really know much about the territory.
Do you mean after the famines of the Great Leap Forward? Or a cover up after the One-Child Policy?
As for the Great Leap Forward, yes, there most definitely was a cover up, as detailed in the article "Famine in China: 1958-1961" by Basil Ashton et al.
Despite the fact that China experienced the largest famine in human history during this period, Kennedy and other officials were not certain that a famine had occurred at all. It was not until Deng Xiaoping released the economic/nutritional data in order to delegitimize Mao that it became clear that this was a famine.
I would have concerns about all numbers coming out of China, and definitely population numbers.
But it is important to note that not all of that is because people are lying. Sometimes it is just citizens responding to dumb laws.
For example, under the One Child Policy, there have been times where you look at the numbers of kids born in a particular year, and then you look at the number of five year olds five years later and the latter is actually larger.
What is going on here?
Under the One Child Policy, lots of people would not register their baby, in order to avoid bureaucrats' anger. But, when it came time to sign up for school, they would register the existence of their child.
As for today's population data, it is hard to say. Certainly, the population numbers aren't looking good for China, which is making the government nervous.
Is it worse than that? Maybe, but it is hard to know.
Is it better than that? I doubt it because I don't see any incentive for anyone in the system to suggest that the numbers are worse than they actually ar, but who knows, anything could happen.
Oh wow very interesting, hope theyll have audiobook version.
Since I didnt read the book yet so dont have a related question, but as a born in Korea Korean American, I may have some..
I understand that China is a good economic partners for neighboring countries like Korea and Japan, but along with the regions history and difference in political system, and with North Korea issue added.. How do you think this will affect China? I ask because I am a firm believer of soft power, but China almost never seems interested in that with neighbors.
Where do you think China would have been if there were no cultural revolution?
I could ask more but since it is unrelated to the book… i should not.
Great Questions, feel free to ask more and, if I can, I will try to answer them.
In pre-modern times, China had lots of soft power. Even though I don't speak a bit of Korean, I can sometimes, looking at the Hanja figure out what the Korean pronounciation of a Korean place name will be, just because the Chinese language was so influential in Korea. In pre-modern times, Koreans read tons of Chinese literature. The same is true for Japan.
It is really only in modern times that China has come to not do well in soft power. Compared to South Korea, China is a soft power pipsqueak.
Why? I would say the answer is mostly communism. Communists censors make it hard for anything cool to make it out of China. Films that do great in China, like Wolf Warrior II, flop outside China. People don't want government censors telling them what they can see. In China, these can be successful because they don't have that much of a choice. Outside China, they are going to fail.
There are some exceptions to that, things like the recent Ne Zha 2, which was quite good, but mostly, Chinese soft power efforts flop.
Doing trade with China is big business, which I guess is what qualifies it as a good economic partner. But, in 2010, China cut off Japan from Rare Earths, so that undermines that claim of good economic partner a bit.
That said, North Korea is interesting. It makes a lot of China's neighbors wary. They see that there is a lot China could do to make its own neighborhood safer, but they don't. I think that North Korea and China not doing much to resolve it weakens China's soft power. Japanese folks (less so South Koreans, because North Korea looks very different from Seoul than Tokyo) look at how China has done nothing to solve their greatest geopolitical threat and are resentful.
This is a counterfactual, and hard to answer. I am trying to think of what things would have been like if the Cultural Revolution had not happen. I suppose Mao could have died in 1964, or something.
I am not sure what would have happened next. There were a lot of people resentful of the Party and what it did during the Great Leap Forward. But, then again, there were a lot of people who were still very supportive of it.
If I had to guess, I would say that, had Mao died before the Cultural Revolution, Deng would have taken over and turned China away from communism much earlier. But I also think it would have been less of a clear break. People were ready to be done with communism after the Cultural Revolution. But had the Cultural Revolution not have occurred, I think it would have been harder for the Party to pull away from communism as much as it did in the 1980's.
But that is just me guessing.
Thanks for your questions, keep them coming, they don't have to be about the book.
Having grown up on a steady diet of Hong Kong action flicks, I'm somewhat nostalgic for a time and place that I never experienced, and was likely never that real anyway.
Have the Chinese "ruined" the romantic vision of Hong Kong I had as a kid? Like obviously I'm not expecting to roll into the kumite, but I'd hate to visit and find a sanitized, soulless city like Dubai or Doha.
In a similar vein, how's Taipei? Does it feel authentic or has the massive economic growth sanitized everything there too?
I haven't been to Hong Kong in a couple of years, so it could have changed, but I think you would still find elements of the Hong Kong you loved from the films there alive and well. Things have definitely changed, but nothing changes that quickly.
Of course, you are right, you are probably seeing things through romantic glasses. The Hong Kong of films was and is as much like the real Hong Kong as the LA imagined by Hollywood was and is like the real LA.
Taipei is real. There are parts of it that are definitely not sanitized at all, particularly Wanhua still feels very real, very gritty.
Tokarev309 | a month ago
Do you have any work that has been peer-reviewed and/or distributed through an academic publisher that one might engage with?
[OP] agenbite_lee | a month ago
I have nothing that is peer-reviewed, but I did publish this scholarly article with the Global Taiwan Initiative on Taiwanese Museums.
SuddenAdvice850 | a month ago
speaking of taiwan. most of your argument is about before qing dynasty china didn't actually control it, which i agreed, but when it comes to qing dynasty, you says Kangxi Emperor didn’t think Taiwan was a part of China.
although that is he said taiwan wasn't important, but still he did it with military and all the cost. i find there is nothing between this and he think taiwan is not part of china, especially all the control of taiwan after this.
especially qing also have dzungar problem, and other wars which is reasonable he did want divers his army.
For me the current taiwan problem has three kind of view,
first is the view of native people and colony, which is the the han chinese colony taiwan which belong to local people.
the second is taiwan as a part of qing and later become part of roc, part of civil war which lead to current situation.
The last is regardless of all history or political, they want independent.
i didn't find a clear view of you but rather mix some to prove a pre decide point that taiwan is not a part of china.
i mean all that story about taiwan before qing and when china really control taiwan the only thing is kangxi dont think so.
[OP] agenbite_lee | a month ago
>speaking of taiwan. most of your argument is about before qing dynasty china didn't actually control it, which i agreed, but when it comes to qing dynasty, you says Kangxi Emperor didn’t think Taiwan was a part of China. although that is he said taiwan wasn't important, but still he did it with military and all the cost. i find there is nothing between this and he think taiwan is not part of china, especially all the control of taiwan after this.
Here is what the Kangxi Emperor said:
>"Taiwan is no bigger than a ball of mud. We gain nothing by possessing it, and it would be no loss if we did not acquire it."
Source: Veritable Records of the Kangxi Emperor, November 27, 1683
Kangxi is clearly saying that Taiwan was not a part of China. He is debating whether to incorporate it into China or to just let it go. Sure, Emperor Kangxi fought a war to take the island, but he also recognizes that it was not originally part of China, as did every other early Qing writer writing on Taiwan.
>especially qing also have dzungar problem, and other wars which is reasonable he did want divers his army.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. I know who the Dzungars are, but your English is just very unclear here. Could you rephrase this?
>For me the current taiwan problem has three kind of view, first is the view of native people and colony, which is the the han chinese colony taiwan which belong to local people. the second is taiwan as a part of qing and later become part of roc, part of civil war which lead to current situation. The last is regardless of all history or political, they want independent.
Again, I can't understand what you are saying here, could you rephrase it?
>i didn't find a clear view of you but rather mix some to prove a pre decide point that taiwan is not a part of china.
As I said in my post, this is just the introduction to the Taiwan section, so there is much that the book says about Taiwan afterwards.
SuddenAdvice850 | a month ago
sorry about that, i will reply when i got longer time.
dedfrmthneckup | a month ago
If your academic background is in language and history, why do you feel qualified to write a history book?
[OP] agenbite_lee | a month ago
East Asian Languages and Literature Departments are generally multidisciplinary. We have linguists, historians and literature scholars all in one department. My dissertation was a history of Chinese and Taiwanese museums, so I am very familiar with the discipline of history. I felt very qualified to write a history.
Furthermore, as this is not a book written for academics, I did not feel like I needed to address the more arcane debates that I would have to if I was writing for an academic audience.
My qualifications are that I have a PhD in Chinese (technically my PhD is in East Asian Languages and Literatures) and I was able to engage with much of the Chinese-language source material. Finally, I have a podcast, the Chinese Literature Podcast; in talking with Americans about China and its literature for the last decade, I feel like I have my finger on the pulse of what Americans need to know about China.
LabAny3059 | a month ago
How did China come up with the money to improve all their cities? Are they gravely in debt now and how long can they hold on? Does democracy have any chance in China's near future? Thank you.
[OP] agenbite_lee | a month ago
Great questions, thanks!
>How did China come up with the money to improve all their cities?
There are two answers to this question.
China's economic miracle really deserves to be called a miracle. From 1979 to really the point when Xi took power or a bit before, China's economy had been growing at a phenomenal clip. The CCP deserves credit for this. They both had great policies that grew the economy, such as investing in urban infrastructure, and, as the economy was growing, the government was able to take in lots of cash from a growing tax base, which was reinvested in cities.
But that is not the whole story. China, like many communist countries, screwed over lots of money from poor farmers, taking lots of grain tax from them and giving them little in return. That extra grain was sent to feed city workers. China did this, as did the USSR and North Korea. It is common in communism (though it did not happen under Cambodia's communist disaster).
Why did they do this? Marxism emphasizes the urban worker in its ideology. But also, I think that they wanted to show off fancy cities in order to convince outsiders, who usually don't visit the farms, that communism was working.
>Are they gravely in debt now and how long can they hold on?
Yes, they are deeply in debt, but I have no ability to predict how long they will be able to hold on. Maybe forever. This is not the greatest problem that the CCP has overcome. It is a strong institution and is filled with really, really smart people. Don't count them out.
>Does democracy have any chance in China's near future?
Yes, I think it has a chance in the near future. I can't predict whether it will succeed, but it definitely has a chance.
Taiwan and South Korea both had fast growing economies under dictatorships from the 1950's to the 1980's. Both these dictatorships resisted democratization, saying that it was not a part of their tradition. Then, at around the same time in the late 1980's, both started the process of democratizing. Taiwan is now one of the best democracies in Asia, with freedom for gay folks and a strong voting tradition.
South Korea is also a strong democracy with an insanely cool creative industry attracting the attention from all over the world. Under the South Korean dictatorship, most movies that the country made were shitty and boring, as was its music. Now, K Pop and Korean cinema are conquering the world.
The CCP will say we have 5000 years of undemocratic history. But so did Taiwan. So did Korea. Who cares? China can change, Chinese folks are very smart. This is not a country stuck in the past. It is more a question of context, whether the right conditions for that change are there.
thataintapipe | a month ago
Korea and Taiwan wouldn’t exist as they do now with American gunboats tho
guffaw128 | a month ago
if you assert that Taiwan is not part of China, do you call for the Republic of China to relinquish control of the island back to the indigenous inhabitants, and for the 95% of the island’s population that are ethnically Chinese to return to the mainland? if not, why do you support one group of foreign Chinese colonisers claim to sovereignty over the island, but reject another’s?
[OP] agenbite_lee | a month ago
>if you assert that Taiwan is not part of China, do you call for the Republic of China to relinquish control of the island back to the indigenous inhabitants, and for the 95% of the island’s population that are ethnically Chinese to return to the mainland? if not, why do you support one group of foreign Chinese colonisers claim to sovereignty over the island, but reject another’s?
I will say that Taiwan has never been a part of the PRC. I will also say I think that the Taiwanese people have the right to democratically decide what they want their future relationship to China and the PRC to be. But I really don't care if Cheng Li-wun becomes president and the Taiwanese voter says they want to join the PRC.
guffaw128 | a month ago
so you do support Chinese colonization/annexation of Taiwan, just as long as it’s done under the pretense of ‘democracy’.
[OP] agenbite_lee | a month ago
>so you do support Chinese colonization/annexation of Taiwan, just as long as it’s done under the pretense of ‘democracy’.
I am unsure what you mean by colonization/annexation. As the world means so many things, it is a bit useless to use, unless you define it.
Also, I am unclear what you mean by "Chinese," another word that has so many different meanings it is useless to use.
Hell0Friends | a month ago
Do you actually have any peer reviewed papers or books you've written?
I'm having a hard time getting through your OP. As someone who grew up in Taiwan, this book reads like alternative historical fiction to further spread Western propaganda.
Especially your parts about how the US made TSMC but then had Intel take everything recently, and is forcing them to move 40% production to the US.
There's so much anger in Taiwan about TSMC being given to the US, but you white washed it so hard while saying you "speak" for Taiwanese people for what westerners want and need to hear that I can't believe and seriously doubt anything else you've said at all.
0xF00DBABE | a month ago
Which preconceived conclusions and motivations did you go in to writing this book with? The title is kind of sensationalist and makes it seem propagandistically motivated.
Elfria114514 | a month ago
MTL english there, since it looks i cant post my mother tangue in most although it might be better about chinese history, but my english not so good for this.
[OP] agenbite_lee | a month ago
>Although you might brush this off with accusations of "brainwashing," I still want to ask what advantages your work has over asking local Chinese people directly?
I welcome all respectful questions like yours and certainly do not consider your question brainwashing. It is a legitimate question.
I would welcome anyone, whether Chinese, American or Uzbeki to write books similar to mine. The more, the better.
That said, I don't know of any book on the history of China written in a way to target a general readership. It has nothing to do with whether or not they are Chinese or not. It has to do with another problem. Most people with sufficient knowledge to write this kind of book are, as I said, "eggheads." They are stuck in their ivory towers, and they can't write a decent sentence that does not scare people. For the average American or Westerner, China is a tough topic for them to pick up a book about just because they know so little about it. What I did was make China fun and unscary as a topic.
>2. Regarding the question of Taiwan's sovereignty, I personally believe that the "late occupation" is not a strong reason to refute mainland China's claim to sovereignty over Taiwan, especially since there was no universally accepted international law at the time. Clearly, the Qing Dynasty had already established a prefecture there, and unless explicitly stated in a treaty as cession, it was undeniably Qing territory. Or rather, Taiwan truly became a matter of debate in 1949 that the conflict between CCP&KM;; at least the Cairo Declaration explicitly identified Taiwan as "territory Japan stole from the Chinese" and demanded its return from Japan.
Maybe, but in nearly every statement that the CCP puts out arguing it ought to take Taiwan and renunify it with China, the CCP makes this argument that it has owned Taiwan since ancient times. If this argument about ancient Taiwan's status is not important, why does the CCP bring this up at nearly every point they are discussing Taiwanese sovereignty.
Yes, the Qing owned Taiwan. But the Japanese did not steal it. The Qing gave it away after having lost a war.
Yes, the Cairo Declaration did declare "Formosa" as territory that Japan had stolen from China. But the Cairo Declaration did not give it back to China. It gave it back to the Republic of China, who still control the island today.
One can make the argument that the thing about ancient Taiwan's status does not matter, but why does the CCP make such a big deal about that. And if ancient Taiwan does not matter because it is ancient history, why does Qing China's control of Taiwan, which to lots of modern folks feels like ancient history matter? If Taiwan has not been part of China since 1895, except for that brief four year period from 1945-1949, why should that change just because of ancient history.
>3. I can tell you definitively that Ryukyu was an "independent sovereign entity" located in present-day Okinawa Prefecture, Japan, which was clearly known in Chinese historical records from the late Yuan and early Ming dynasties (the era of Song Lian). This does not include Taiwan, which was referred to as "Dongfan." While there was indeed frequent confusion in early Yuan dynasty works, I still don't understand why you brought up Ryukyu, because the Chinese already knew that the two were not the same thing.
Sorry, I think you are wrong here. The PRC Ministry of Foreign Affairs has a White Paper on its website saying that, in ancient Chinese texts, Taiwan was referred to as both Liuqiu/Ryukyu/琉球 and as Yizhou/夷洲. When the Yuan and Song texts refer to places as Liuqiu/Ryukyu/琉球, it is never clear if they are referring to Taiwan, to the Ryukyus, to Luzon or to somewhere else. For a long time, Chinese folks were just really confused about what islands were out there beyond the ocean. Some Ming (1368-1644) maps of China and the oceans beyond show no islands at all out there, others show an island named "Liuqiu/Ryukyu/琉球" and another island, about the same size, named "Japan/日本." These Chinese folks back in the day did not know the geography of the Western Pacific very well.
Abstract__Nonsense | a month ago
It’s an odd look to describe Taiwan as being legitimate territory of Japan as the result of the Qing losing a war, most histories these days doesn’t tend to look so kindly on the actions of Imperial Japan in China.
Vis a vis the Cairo declaration giving Taiwan back to the ROC, at the time, and for that matter for decades after this time, the international community considered the ROC to be the rightful government of mainland China. It strikes me as frankly bad faith framing to suggest that the intention was not to return Taiwan to “China” broadly.
Also I don’t think it’s correct to say Taiwan has not been part of “China” since 1895 excepting 1945-1949. The ROC very explicitly considered Taiwan to be part of China at least up to the 90s. The UN considered the ROC to be the rightful government of China in exile until 1971, so we can say the UN considered Taiwan explicitly to be part of China at least until 1971. You could say rightly that Taiwan has not been part of the PRC, but to say Taiwan has not been part of China since 1949 seems to excessively stretch the truth.
[OP] agenbite_lee | a month ago
>It’s an odd look to describe Taiwan as being legitimate territory of Japan as the result of the Qing losing a war, most histories these days doesn’t tend to look so kindly on the actions of Imperial Japan in China.
I disagree. Sure, the Qing lost a war to Japan, and some might question how "legitimate" those gains are, but Japan invaded the Ryukyus in a very illegal war, pushing the Ryukyu king off his throne in Okinawa, but few whether the Ryukyus are legitimate Japanese territory. America took territory from Mexico in a war that Congressman Abe Lincoln famously called immoral. But when Lincoln was President, did he seek to give that territory back to Mexico? Or was he cool with that territory leaving the Union and joining the Confederacy. Nah.
And China itself has won much of its territory in wars. Xinjiang was conquered in a 1758 war that ended with what one scholar called "the 17th Century genocide par excellence." I don't think the fact that the Qing took Xinjiang in a war two and a half centuries before has much to say about China's control of the region today. Even violent conquests often set fact on the ground, facts that, in modern times, don't bear debating.
>Vis a vis the Cairo declaration giving Taiwan back to the ROC, at the time, and for that matter for decades after this time, the international community considered the ROC to be the rightful government of mainland China. It strikes me as frankly bad faith framing to suggest that the intention was not to return Taiwan to “China” broadly.
Is it highly technical to point out that the Cairo Declaration (which was not really legally binding) gave Taiwan to the Republic of China? Sure, but international law is a highly technical subject matter.
I am not making the case that Taiwan should or should not joint the PRC. The broader point I make in the book is that Taiwan has functioned as an independent entity with close links to both China and the US at various times and that it ought to be able to determine its own future.
>Also I don’t think it’s correct to say Taiwan has not been part of “China” since 1895 excepting 1945-1949. The ROC very explicitly considered Taiwan to be part of China at least up to the 90s. The UN considered the ROC to be the rightful government of China in exile until 1971, so we can say the UN considered Taiwan explicitly to be part of China at least until 1971. You could say rightly that Taiwan has not been part of the PRC, but to say Taiwan has not been part of China since 1949 seems to excessively stretch the truth.
Sure, the ROC government considered Taiwan to be a part of China. But it wasn't. Until the 1990's, Taiwan and China had essentially no contact between each other. People from Taiwan could not go to China, mail could not pass between the two, planes were not allowed to fly between the two. Taiwan was not a part of China, they weren't part of the circulation of goods, people and ideas that make a country a country.
Elfria114514 | a month ago
Regarding the original text of the white paper (2022), I believe you also made some errors. When does the white paper refer to "at the time called 'Liuqiu'"? It refers to the Sui Dynasty (581-618). Afterwards, "after the Song and Yuan dynasties, successive central governments of China began to establish administrative jurisdiction over Penghu and Taiwan," in other words, it doesn't discuss this in detail, explicitly starting from 1624 when the Dutch occupied Taiwan. This is different from the "Ryukyu" commonly referred to in Chinese contexts, because unless specifically noted, Ryukyu generally refers to the "Ryukyu Kingdom," which was the one that did not explicitly occupy Taiwan.
[OP] agenbite_lee | a month ago
Here is the white paper on the MFA's website that I am referring to.
Here is my translation of that first passage, which clearly shows that the PRC thinks that Taiwan's ancient names included both Liuqiu/Ryukyu/琉球 and Yizhou/夷洲:
>1. Taiwan is an indivisible part of China. The Taiwan area is located on the southeastern edge of mainland China. It is China’s largest island. Along with the mainland, Taiwan is [part of] a whole entity that is indivisible. From ancient times, Taiwan belonged to China. Taiwan’s ancient names include Yizhou (Barbarian Island), and Liuqiu (Ryukyu).
Here is what it says in Chinese:
一、台湾是中国不可分割的一部分 台湾地处中国大陆的东南缘，是中国第一大岛，同大陆是不可分割的整体。 台湾自古即属於中国。台湾古称夷洲、流求。
Let me know where I translated something wrong.
Also, if you are wondering, Chinese historians generally don't think that there was any Chinese administration over Taiwan. Here is Ge Jianxiong, one of China's preeminent historians batting away the idea that Taiwan was a part of China in the Yuan and Song:
>According to the records of the Book of Sui - Eastern Barbarian Chapter,1 at the beginning of the 7th century, at the latest, Taiwan island already had a “king” who governed the local residents. But Taiwan never had a relationship of subordination with the mainland Central Plains Dynasties. Before the Ming Dynasty, we cannot find any historical records [of that kind of relationship]. The Southern Song government set up a local military inspection office in the Penghu Islands within Fujian Province’s Tongan County. There are some people who use this to infer that this local military inspection office also administered Taiwan. This is completely unfounded. The Song Dynasty patrol inspectors were, in general, not a high position, and the administrative area for this local military inspection office set up in Tongan County could not have been very big, and the distance between the Penghus and Taiwan Island is not small, and the Penghu’s area, compared with Taiwan is massively different. Even if they really did set up a local military inspection office to administer Taiwan, they still could not have crossed the strait to administer Taiwan’s public security or border defenses. In the Yuan Dynasty, they also set up a local military inspection office in the Penghus, but, just like in the Southern Song, there is no evidence proving that its administrative borders included Taiwan. Not only did the Southern Song Dynasty not control Taiwan, but neither did the Yuan Dynasty or the Ming Dynasty.
It did not happen. Neither Song nor Yuan China ever ruled Taiwan.
Elfria114514 | a month ago
and I used 2022 version here
So a lot has been changed, but u saw the Penghu, cuz... Penghu is now part of "ROC", But it doesn't seem reasonable to ask ROC to hand over Penghu, if think ROC should be an independent country
Elfria114514 | a month ago
[OP] agenbite_lee | a month ago
What I wrote is not historical fiction, so I don't think they compare, at all.
Sure, I agree with what I think you are saying. The PRC feels like it needs to lie and claim that Taiwan has long been Chinese. But why the need to lie? It is because their modern claims to the island, grounded in 1949, are so weak and they need to invent something else.
I am not sure I understand any of your points, but I think it is because of the machine translation you are using. No Ming map ever showed a place called Taiwan, but it did show places like Liuqiu/Ryukyu/琉球.
We know that the Chinese knew Taiwan was there, as, in 1603, they sent Chen Di to kill pirates using Taiwan as a base to harass south China shipping. But they probably did not have a good idea of where it was. Even in the 1739 Book of Ming/明史, the official Qing government's description of the island is convoluted.
Also, I never said that the Ryukyu Kingdom occupied Taiwan.
Song Lian does not have a clue whether where he is talking about. And I don't think he mentions Luzon ever. If you have a point where Song Lian references Luzon, I would love to know about it, but I just looked back at his text and could not find it.
Elfria114514 | a month ago
In short, there are indeed a group of history enthusiasts on various platforms who are trying to explain history in a relatively popular way. For example, when Chinese forums were just emerging, there was a work called "Those Things About the Ming Dynasty" that discussed the Ming Dynasty. However, this work obviously did not spread overseas, and it cannot be said to be perfect, but it is sufficient for the average Chinese reader.
This involves information warfare. Since I've always held a negative view of the Chinese government's information warfare capabilities (on any topic), I basically understand it as a sloppy paper (on a historical level) that crams every available historical source into its historical claims section—after all, you can never have too much material. But what I can confirm is that the focus of these white papers isn't on "I saw and ruled Taiwan a long time ago" (although it's mentioned, since it can't hurt, even if it might only refer to control of the Penghu Islands), but rather on dissing the US. However, this involves content outside the main topic.
Regarding Song Lian's record, I don't think I said Song Lian knew "Luzon." If you think so, then it's a translation error or I'm just remembering it wrong. In short, my point is: First, he definitely didn't occupy it, and that's what I said. What I mean is, "In modern China, when discussing 'Ryukyu,' it generally refers to the Ryukyu Kingdom, even if Taiwan might have a corresponding ancient name." Furthermore, the possibility of Ryukyu being "Luzon Island" is extremely low. After all, with a compass, "sailing eastward but drifting southwest" (starting from Penghu) is not something a group of sailors could do. This is recorded in the *History of Yuan*, which is Song Lian's book.
[OP] agenbite_lee | a month ago
Also, again, I welcome lots of folks to publish books on Chinese history. I think it would be great if we could get more Chinese folks who could get published talking about Chinese history in the West.
Maybe you understand that the Chinese government's claims about Taiwan having been part of ancient China as a lie and informational warfare, but my understanding from talking with my Chinese friends is that they mostly sincerely believe that Taiwan was part of ancient China.
It is probably just the translation.
My broader point is that these Chinese-language records are sketchy that it is ridiculous for the Chinese government to point to them to justify that Taiwan was a part of pre-modern China. No power based in China ruled over Taiwan before 1683, and no ethnically Chinese power ruled Taiwan before 1661.
Elfria114514 | a month ago
MagicWishMonkey | a month ago
I believe he’s writing this for people like me, westerners who find China very confusing and hard to understand.
jucheonsun | a month ago
How do you view the archaeological evidence of Chinese trade in Taiwan during the Tang through Ming dynasty including porcelain, coinage etc.? This is all tangential to Chinese claims of control because trade and contact is not control. But interested in hearing how archaeological evidences is integrated with written records in constructing the pre-Ming Chinese history of Taiwan
[OP] agenbite_lee | a month ago
There is almost no evidence of trade between China and Taiwan in the Tang and most of the Song. There are a handful of coins, but, as far as I know, nothing else. Those likely came not across the Taiwan Strait, but rather via established trade routes from the Philippines to Eastern Taiwan, which was a much easier journey.
In the Song, Yuan and Ming, there may have been occasional trade with China, but it also could have been coming via the Philippines, it is hard to know. At the Luliao site, beads from China were found. Radiocarbon dating suggested that those were from 990-1600 AD. So, even if these beads did come from China, that may not have occurred until very late in the Ming.
The very limited number of Chinese goods on Taiwan suggests that it is possible a few Chinese folks landed on the island before 1603 (when we have our first confirmed Chinese person stepping on Taiwan and writing it down), but it is also just as possible that these goods came via the Philippines. We don't know.
But, even if the trade between China and Taiwan was happening directly, rather than Chinese goods going down southeast Asia and then back up via the Philippines, as you pointed out, this has nothing to do with control, as trade and contact are not control.
jucheonsun | a month ago
Iirc there are actually quite a lot of Song and Tang coinage that were unearthed around Taiwan. However like you said, there is not concrete proof on whether they came from Chinese traders directly or via SEA. The most interesting artefact unearthed might be a Chinese coin mold found in Duoliang dating to c.500-700AD
[OP] agenbite_lee | a month ago
What is your source for that?
My source is Pearson, Taiwan Archaeology.
jucheonsun | a month ago
十三行 museum itself displays the Song and Tang coinages, as well as various bronze items from archaeological digs. Official website with virtual tour here: https://www.sshm.ntpc.gov.tw/
On coins in the museum, https://www.sshm.ntpc.gov.tw/xmdoc/cont?xsmsid=0G244550619231362861&sid=0G246558547114014178
In the same museum, I also found some interesting Tang dynasty gilded bronzes with camel and lotus motifs: https://digiarch.sinica.edu.tw/content/subject/resource_content.jsp?oid=16777348&queryType=qs&queryString=%E5%8D%81%E4%B8%89%E8%A1%8C%E9%81%BA%E5%9D%80
Coin mold: https://www.th.gov.tw/Epaper_Content/237/5331/
InsaneAdoration | a month ago
Do you speak/read/understand mandarin (or any common Chinese language/dialect)?
[OP] agenbite_lee | a month ago
Yes, I have a PhD in Chinese and speak and read Mandarin quite well.
tanhauser_gates_ | a month ago
There was a similar posting I responded to a few weeks ago. I asked about hard numbers for people killed in Tianemen Square during the student uprising-there are only estimates, nobody has actual numbers. Im intrigued by this post title because from what the other thread revealed is that accurate numbers do not exist because records have been deleted. So the history is not accurate because of the total redaction of facts-they dont exist anywhere. So where are you pulling your data from to answer?
[OP] agenbite_lee | a month ago
Here and looking forward to questions!
DerJott | a month ago
Hope there will be a 2nd AMA because I just learned about your book and don´t have any questions so far.
But generally, it would be interested to know what sources you used and how you gathered the information.
[OP] agenbite_lee | a month ago
No worries, when I do AMA's, I usually let them run for a while, since I live on Reddit and come back to the AMA again and again.
The sources I used were a mix of contemporary English-language scholarship and Chinese historical documents. For example, when preparing to write the Taiwan section of the book, I was surprised by a contradiction.
Some scholars said that Han Chinese had been on Taiwan for more than a thousand years, but others hinted that they had really been on the island for four hundred years.
So, I went back to Chinese language sources from the late 1600's, such as Yu Yonghe, the first Han Chinese author to write a book-length travelogue about Taiwan, and I saw that those historical Chinese writers all agreed that Taiwan was never before a part of any Chinese empire.
Then, I went back to the historical documents that Beijing purported showed China had owned the island for more than a millennium. And when I read them, I remember thinking, this is all very flimsy. The texts that Beijing points to as proof could be describing Taiwan, maybe. But they also might be describing Luzon or Okinawa, it is so vague as to be really hard to tell.
And then I got hold of a relatively new book on Taiwanese archaeology, and the evidence for a Chinese presence on the island in the archaeological record was extremely thin.
I put all that together, and out came that Taiwan section of the book.
Same too for other sections of the book. For the Xinjiang section of the book, I used lots of historical Chinese documents, archaeological research, English-language histories of the region and some Uyghur studies scholarship as well.
That was how I came to the conclusion that, though lots of people in the West don't know this, the Han Chinese were in Xinjiang about a thousand years before the Uyghurs got there.
Let me know if you have any more questions!
Elfria114514 | a month ago
Considering that General Tso(zuo zongtang) is an indispensable figure in Xinjiang's history, I'm curious about your thoughts on him, especially the General Tso's Chicken is such a popular Americanized Chinese dish.
Or you could simply summarize the book's main points.
[OP] agenbite_lee | a month ago
>
Considering that General Tso(zuo zongtang) is an indispensable figure in Xinjiang's history, I'm curious about your thoughts on him, especially the General Tso's Chicken is such a popular Americanized Chinese dish.
I think it is hilarious that General Tso/左宗棠, of chicken dish fame (though he had nothing to do with the dish) was the man who reconquered Xinjiang in the late 1870's. It is weird how history has these weird connections.
As for my thoughts on him, he was a brilliant general and a master of logistics who did a great job of preparing to march across China through some of the most rugged territory the country has to offer.
And, in the end, none of that mattered, as his adversary, Lord Jacob/Yakub Beg, died of natural causes as General Tso was marching across the deserts of Xinjiang to meet him.
>Or you could simply summarize the book's main points.
China claims Taiwan as Chinese from ancient times. That is bullshit. Taiwan is as American as it is Chinese. Like America, Taiwan had an indigenous community who had lived there for millennia. In the 1600's, both places were conquered by a European power. That European colonizer found that the indigenous people could not fulfill their colonial ambitions for plantation-scale intensive agriculture, so they brought another group in from across the water. In America, it was black Africans, in Taiwan, it was the Han Chinese. I then go on to detail the history of Taiwan and the special role that America played in it, from helping to found its second largest city in the 1850's, twice invading it in 1867 to largely taking over the island in the 1950's to protect it from the communists and then, in the 1960's, stoking the Taiwanese economic miracle.
China and the Uyghurs both claim that Xinjiang has long been their territory. Both are wrong.
The Chinese were there a thousand years before the Uyghurs, but only as temporary conquerors. The first Chinese arms marched across the deserts of Xinjiang in the 110's BC. For the two millennia years before 1758, Chinese powers controlled the island for 200 of the 2000 years.
The Uyghurs' first state was established in 744 AD in the middle of Mongolia and had nothing to do with Xinjiang. It was only in the 840's that the Uyghur state collapsed and some of them fled to Beshbalik and Turpan, in modern day Xinjiang, that a Uyghur state was established in the territory that they today claim as their homeland.
This chapter looks at the twisted history of Xinjiang, and how everybody claiming the region as theirs is lying.
No extra points for guessing what this says about Xi's economy.
Elfria114514 | a month ago
sry about that, actually u just need to brief the general tso's lmao
From China's perspective, he did indeed re-establish control over Xinjiang. After all, besides driving out Yaqub Beg (although Yaqub Beg was already dead), he was also responsible for negotiations with Tsarist Russia and establishing Xinjiang as a "province." This may explain why Xinjiang, compared to Tibet and Outer Mongolia, did not have a strong tendency towards independence afterward.
[OP] agenbite_lee | a month ago
No worries!
Sure, he did negotiate with Tsarist Russia and help establish Xinjiang as a province.
I would also point out that, one of the reason that Xinjiang did not achieve as much indepdence as Tibet and Mongolia is because the Han Chinese managed to maintain control of Xinjiang. Yang Zengxin, Jin Shuren and Sheng Shicai all maintained control over the region and kept Xinjiang within the Chinese sphere (even if no government inside the pass controlled Xinjiang) at a time that Tibet was exercising de facto independence and Mongolia was exercising de jure independence.
mrmrmrj | a month ago
Your sample about Taiwan is irrelevant. China wants to integrate Taiwan because that is where the Mao opposition fled. That's it. It is an embarrassing example of democracy and economic success next door.
[OP] agenbite_lee | a month ago
Kind of.
I agree with you that the PRC wants to integrate Taiwan mostly because that was where the enemy of the CCP, the KMT, fled after losing China and the Chinese Civil War. Before 1942, the Communists actually wanted Taiwan to be independent.
But you already hinted at a second reason for the PRC to be pissed about Taiwan. As a democracy, it makes Beijing look bad. But you have to remember that Taiwan only recently became a democracy. Really, Taiwanese democracy is less than three decades old (if you choose as the start date for a democracy not when they say that they got started but when the first peaceful transfer of power, the sign of a real democracy, happened). Before that, Taiwan was almost as repressive as the communists.
But none of this is irrelevant. Beijing today is very concerned about the history of the Chinese nation. It has largely ditched communism and become a nationalistic party. And Taiwan matters for that. They see the lose of Taiwan as a part of the damage that imperialism did to China (true, with a cavaet). By restoring Taiwan, the CCP wants to wipe clean all the damage imperialists did to China. In that way, China's desire to integrate Taiwan has nothing to do with Mao and the Chinese Civil War and everything to do with the Century of Humiliation narrative.
retroman1987 | a month ago
Does china still have designs on Mongolia, transamur, arunachal pradesh, etc?
[OP] agenbite_lee | a month ago
No and Yes.
Let me explain.
Arunchal Pradesh - Yep, China wants to take this. The agreement that put this in British Indian territory (and then, after indepedence, the independent state of India) was made between the British colonial rulers and the de facto independent government of Tibet. China says that Tibet was not independent, so any agreements that that de facto Tibetan government made are invalid. And the PRC makes it clear that it claims parts of Arunachal Pradesh.
Mongolia and the Transamur - No, China does not claim it today. That said, the ideology of the present Chinese state is a wounded nationalism and many quietly think that any territory which was kinda part of the Qing ought to be part of the PRC.
Mongolia's independence was secured by the Tsarist government, and then by the USSR. The Republic of China (now ruling Taiwan, but previously in charge of all of China) has long claimed Mongolia as a part of its territory, though it backed off those claims in the 1990's. I doubt Beijing today would think of doing anything to Mongolia, as it would not only piss off a lot of people in Mongolia and the rest of the world, but also because they are too close to Russia to do it, and Russia sees Mongolia as an important partner. But, if something crazy happens, like the collapse of Russia and China continues to grow more powerful economically, it is possible that they could push to reclaim Mongolia along the same terms that they are pushing to reclaim Taiwan.
Ditto for the Transamur. It is Russian today, and there is no way that the Chinese would screw with it. But there are Chinese nationalists who are bitter about the 'loss" of it. Of course, Qing China's claims to the Transamur were always weak. There were some Qing Manchus who lived there, and the Qing definitely claimed some of that terrritory, but, as Sarah Paine has shown, the Qing state did not know what it was claiming, had no maps of the region and did not really know much about the territory.
SoulofThesteppe | a month ago
Was there a cover up on population?
[OP] agenbite_lee | a month ago
>Was there a cover up on population?
Do you mean after the famines of the Great Leap Forward? Or a cover up after the One-Child Policy?
As for the Great Leap Forward, yes, there most definitely was a cover up, as detailed in the article "Famine in China: 1958-1961" by Basil Ashton et al.
Despite the fact that China experienced the largest famine in human history during this period, Kennedy and other officials were not certain that a famine had occurred at all. It was not until Deng Xiaoping released the economic/nutritional data in order to delegitimize Mao that it became clear that this was a famine.
SoulofThesteppe | a month ago
Oh I was thinking of the population numbers in recent years. Had some doubt on the truthfulness of the "real" numbers.
[OP] agenbite_lee | a month ago
I would have concerns about all numbers coming out of China, and definitely population numbers.
But it is important to note that not all of that is because people are lying. Sometimes it is just citizens responding to dumb laws.
For example, under the One Child Policy, there have been times where you look at the numbers of kids born in a particular year, and then you look at the number of five year olds five years later and the latter is actually larger.
What is going on here?
Under the One Child Policy, lots of people would not register their baby, in order to avoid bureaucrats' anger. But, when it came time to sign up for school, they would register the existence of their child.
As for today's population data, it is hard to say. Certainly, the population numbers aren't looking good for China, which is making the government nervous.
Is it worse than that? Maybe, but it is hard to know.
Is it better than that? I doubt it because I don't see any incentive for anyone in the system to suggest that the numbers are worse than they actually ar, but who knows, anything could happen.
SoulofThesteppe | a month ago
I appreciate the answer.
The_Sitdown_Gun | a month ago
Oh wow very interesting, hope theyll have audiobook version.
Since I didnt read the book yet so dont have a related question, but as a born in Korea Korean American, I may have some..
I understand that China is a good economic partners for neighboring countries like Korea and Japan, but along with the regions history and difference in political system, and with North Korea issue added.. How do you think this will affect China? I ask because I am a firm believer of soft power, but China almost never seems interested in that with neighbors.
Where do you think China would have been if there were no cultural revolution?
I could ask more but since it is unrelated to the book… i should not.
Thanks! Will def check out your book!!
[OP] agenbite_lee | a month ago
Great Questions, feel free to ask more and, if I can, I will try to answer them.
It is really only in modern times that China has come to not do well in soft power. Compared to South Korea, China is a soft power pipsqueak.
Why? I would say the answer is mostly communism. Communists censors make it hard for anything cool to make it out of China. Films that do great in China, like Wolf Warrior II, flop outside China. People don't want government censors telling them what they can see. In China, these can be successful because they don't have that much of a choice. Outside China, they are going to fail.
There are some exceptions to that, things like the recent Ne Zha 2, which was quite good, but mostly, Chinese soft power efforts flop.
Doing trade with China is big business, which I guess is what qualifies it as a good economic partner. But, in 2010, China cut off Japan from Rare Earths, so that undermines that claim of good economic partner a bit.
That said, North Korea is interesting. It makes a lot of China's neighbors wary. They see that there is a lot China could do to make its own neighborhood safer, but they don't. I think that North Korea and China not doing much to resolve it weakens China's soft power. Japanese folks (less so South Koreans, because North Korea looks very different from Seoul than Tokyo) look at how China has done nothing to solve their greatest geopolitical threat and are resentful.
I am not sure what would have happened next. There were a lot of people resentful of the Party and what it did during the Great Leap Forward. But, then again, there were a lot of people who were still very supportive of it.
If I had to guess, I would say that, had Mao died before the Cultural Revolution, Deng would have taken over and turned China away from communism much earlier. But I also think it would have been less of a clear break. People were ready to be done with communism after the Cultural Revolution. But had the Cultural Revolution not have occurred, I think it would have been harder for the Party to pull away from communism as much as it did in the 1980's.
But that is just me guessing.
Thanks for your questions, keep them coming, they don't have to be about the book.
The_Sitdown_Gun | a month ago
Thanks for the reply!! Off work soon so I can read it soon :)
Antilokhos | a month ago
Having grown up on a steady diet of Hong Kong action flicks, I'm somewhat nostalgic for a time and place that I never experienced, and was likely never that real anyway.
Have the Chinese "ruined" the romantic vision of Hong Kong I had as a kid? Like obviously I'm not expecting to roll into the kumite, but I'd hate to visit and find a sanitized, soulless city like Dubai or Doha.
In a similar vein, how's Taipei? Does it feel authentic or has the massive economic growth sanitized everything there too?
[OP] agenbite_lee | a month ago
Of course, you are right, you are probably seeing things through romantic glasses. The Hong Kong of films was and is as much like the real Hong Kong as the LA imagined by Hollywood was and is like the real LA.