Re: Cheaper Degen's


"John S." <hjsjms@xxxxxx> rewrites history

> > > Taiwan has not nor will it EVER host the Olympics. To host the
> > > olympics a geographic location has to be recognized as a country and
> > > Taiwan will not attain that status. Too bad it isn't otherwise, but
> > > the world of politics is a tough place at times.
> > >
> >
> > So what!
> >

Put your money where your mouth is instead of your crooked history.

> > > It would help protect you from making further erroneous statements if
> > > you read up on the history of Taiwan. It has a very short history as
a
> > > pseudo independent country. It has a much longer history as been one
> > > of being occupied - indeed centuries. The only reason the U.S. called
> > > Taiwan indepdent was to provide a buffer against the perceived
> > > communist threat and to counter conserns over the domino theory.
> >
> > Please name one moment in time when the Chinese Communist Party has ever
set
> > foot on Taiwan. Just one!
> > There are no, none, nada, historical facts to prove that the current
> > Communist regime in Beijing has ANY claim upon Taiwan. In fact Taiwan
has
> > never been claimed as a part of mainland China before 1949, never, in
all of
> > history. In fact, since you are obviously ignorant of the facts, an
ancient
> > emporer of China had refused to encompass Taiwan in its military defense
> > saying so much as Taiwan is not a part of China. Futhermore, if you
beleive
> > that the U.S. would allow the Communist government in Beijing to simply
walk
> > on water onto democratic Taiwan with its full blessings than you are
> > completely ignorant.
>
> Oh please, what an idiotic statement!!! CHINA along with several
> others was an occupier, but you already know that since I gave you this
> history lesson once before.
>

ROTFLMAO

My first mistrust of historical nomenclature came in a European History
Class. Speaking about the German King Otto I (912-973) who wanted to be
known as the temporal-not spiritual-sovereign of Christendom. Our professor
made this point about Otto the Great's self-proclaimed Holy Roman Empire-the
area he ruled. "The first point I would like to make about this kingdom," he
said "is that it was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire."

Whether Otto's kingdom was "Holy, Roman, or an Empire or not" made little
difference in the lives of us undergraduates. It didn't affect us; we had
memorized it and that was that. The same could be said about many other
historical titles and labels. Thus I began to develop a healthy skepticism
of the convenient nomenclature used by historians. At the same time,
however, I also began to realize that many times historical labels can
affect lives. Too often they are used and manipulated to deny people basic
human rights like self-determination as well as to disenfranchise people of
their heritage. One classic example that remains is that of the Mongolians,
Tibetans, Uighurs and Taiwanese.

Examine and judge for yourself some misnomers that continue in western
historical parlance and point to a need of post-colonial revisionism. In
1206, the Mongol Ghengis (c.1162-1227) was named the Great Khan by the
Mongol nobility. He would soon embark on one of the greatest conquests in
the history of man. When he and his successors had finished the Mongol
Empire extended from Korea to Hungary, from Moscow to India. So large was
this empire that it was divided into four different khanates for
administrative purposes, control and perhaps also to avoid Mongol
in-fighting, or shall we say the "internal affairs" of the Mongol Empire.

One of the many countries that the Mongols conquered was the Chinese
Southern Song Kingdom which finally fell in 1279. Before that they had
conquered the lands in the west as well as the Tangut His-Hsia Kingdom
(present day northwest China) and the Jurchen Jin Empire which had
originated in Manchuria and encompassed present day north China and Beijing.
They also had conquered Korea, Russia, Tibet and the Uighur people as they
stretched their borders to present day Hungary. All of the above would then
become one of the four khanates that the Mongol Empire was divided into.

Kublai Khan (ruling 1260-94) moved his capital to present day Beijing in the
conquered Jurchen Jin Empire (1264) and named his rule Yuan in 1271. For
Chinese historians, however, the Yuan Dynasty could only officially be
recognized and begin in 1279 when the last of the Song Dynasty armies were
defeated. Fair enough from their perspective.

When Marco Polo visited Kublai Khan circa 1274, most western history books
will say that he visited China, but in reality, he crossed through vast
amounts of "inviolable and/or inalienable" parts of the Mongol Empire and
visited one of its capitals. He used the name Cathay which seems to have
come from the Khitan people. Mongolian historians had recognized Kublai's
title and rule over this part of the Mongol Empire. Unfortunately since the
nomadic Mongolians were not strong on libraries, their sparse records and
viewpoints are rarely recognized in the West.

For the Chinese historians following a select tradition, the Yuan Dynasty
did not yet exist; however, the area around modern Beijing while part of a
Khitan kingdom for over 300 years and not part of Song Dynasty China could
still be considered China. Westerners continued to repeat such positions and
when Marco visited Kublai's Empire, most western history books will
conveniently say he visited China and not a Mongolian Empire; it is barely
admitted that what Kublai ruled more than the soon to be conquered Song
China.

The Mongolians never did have good marketing and/or public relations skills
to get their perspective of history known. When the Chinese would conquer a
land, it became a part of China, but when Mongolia conquered a land, it did
not become part of Mongolia, at least as presented to and acknowledged by
outsiders.

Part of this comes from a convenient inconsistency in the use of the name
China. It is alternately applied to lands that used an administrative system
developed by Han Chinese, to lands that exhibited Chinese culture but were
ruled by others, to lands that had once been conquered by Han Chinese, and
finally to lands that are ruled by the Han.. This allows for great
flexibility in nomenclature so that one form can be used (in land
acquisition) when another does not apply. Take for example, Tibet which has
a totally different culture and language from the Chinese but still is an
"inalienable" part of China.

Returning to the Mongolians, as their Empire fell apart, the many conquered
lands that were under the various khanates began to break free and regain
self-rule. The Tibetans regained their territory, the Manchus theirs, the
Uighurs staked out areas for themselves. As the Han Chinese broke free, they
did not return to the Song lands. They expanded. Some would say they "took
back" territory that 450 years previous roughly fit the borders of the
ancient Tang Dynasty (618--907) with the exception of the Tarim and Turfan
Basins. Tibet of course was never a part of Tang China.

These new Chinese rulers called their reign the Ming Dynasty. As for the
Yuan Dynasty Mongolians, they were never fully defeated like the Song
Dynasty and they retreated to rule in the steppes from whence they had come.
Though they still ruled there, as far as the Chinese historians were
concerned, the Yuan Dynasty ended in 1368.

Tibet, Mongolia, the Uighur kingdom etc. were never under the Ming Emperors
who reigned from 1368-1644. In the latter years of this reign the Manchus
regrouped and began to build a new kingdom northeast of the Great Wall. They
expanded into Inner Mongolia and then taking advantage of favorable Ming
internal weakness and in-fighting, the Manchus got through the Shanhaiguan
pass and started their conquest of Ming China.

After they conquered the Ming, they continued their conquest of the
neighboring countries including Tibet, Mongolia and that of the Uighurs.
They also occupied the island of Taiwan to prevent any Ming loyalists safe
harbor there. Interestingly enough all of these conquered lands of Tibet,
Mongolia, Taiwan, and China etc. now became a part of China and not
Manchuria. The Manchus like the Mongolians did not have good spin
historians.

Like the Mongolians, the Manchus (not having the required manpower) kept the
administrative structures of the countries they had conquered. Like the
Mongolians of course, the top men were always Manchus. For the Han Chinese
that they were under alien rule was not lost on them. They all had to shave
their heads and wear the Manchu queue. Even now, many Chinese still smart at
the "indignity" of any mention of that fact; it was a disruption of the
order of the universe as they perceived it. Ironically when they in turn
Sinicized lands that they conquered it was different. The Manchu queue
requirement was an indignity; but required Sinicization was not. Perhaps
someone should ask the Tibetans or other dispossessed subjects about this.

In the same way there are many Chinese who still cannot forgive or forget
the humiliation of the Opium wars with England, even though at that time the
English were "humiliating" the Manchu Empire and not China. But, of course
in their historians' minds all the countries that the Manchus had conquered
had now miraculously become China and not the Manchu Empire.

Throughout the long Manchu reign, the Chinese cry was "Down with the Qing
and restore the Ming." There was however one catch. The Han Chinese wanted
to restore the Han rule of the Ming, but they did not wish to restore the
borders of the Ming. They preferred to keep the borders of the other
countries that the Manchus had conquered, i.e. Tibet, Mongolia, Xinjiang and
even Taiwan which the Qing had since given to the Japanese "in perpetuity."

The Tibetans had a slightly different phrase, they said "Down with the Qing,
restore Tibet" but they did not get outside acknowledgement. Only the
Mongolians were lucky in this regard; this was ironically due to their
relationship with Russia (not the democratic West) who preferred a buffer
between their long border with China. Outer Mongolia even got into the
United Nations in 1961; Inner Mongolia was not as lucky.

Somewhere in all these discussions someone will also bring up the
nomenclature of dependant "tributary states." This also has a variety of
applications and interpretations. More often than not, it applies to
bordering states wishing to keep peace on their borders and to facilitate
trade with and gain access to the lucrative China market.

Not long ago, I read about how Henry Paulson, chief executive of Goldman
Sachs recently worked out a lucrative deal with Chinese President Hu Jintao.
Goldman Sachs was given much greater access than any other foreign
investment bank to China's growing financial services market. In exchange
for this access, Goldman Sachs made a US$67 million "donation or gift" to
cover investor losses at a failed Chinese brokerage firm, and agreed to lend
US$100 million to Fang Feng Lei, a Chinese banker who brokered the deal.
US$167 million is no small change.

Now in some circles, the nomenclature of the above could be called
"sweetening the pot," a "bribe" or even setting up a "well-executed
kickback." In other circles it might be termed "business as usual," and
probably as it was put to the board of Goldman Sachs it was "getting one leg
up on the competition." I often wonder however that in some future history
book, an enterprising and loyal Han historian will point out how Henry
Paulson of the kingdom of Goldman Sachs paid homage to and offered
"tributary fealty" to the Chinese Emperor, I mean, President Hu Jintao.

A friend of mine once said, Taiwan is a part of China inasmuch as China is a
part of Mongolia or of Manchuria for that matter. It is a matter of
perspective or perhaps finding a more adequate paradigm.

Face it, a post colonial revisionist history that represents oppressed
voices is still noticeably lacking and still remains in order. All of the
above could be considered academic trivia if peoples' lives were not
affected. Except for a few, most sinologists still don't want to touch this.
They don't want to challenge, clarify or to talk openly about the
perpetuation of out-dated nomenclature as regards China because first of all
it is complex and secondly in the process they would probably endanger their
research in the People's Republic of China. Fair enough, but then again, not
so.

Decades ago, historians were able to separate their appreciation of Russian
culture and their analysis and critique of Russian history. Sinologists
still have not measured up in that regard.

What does this have to do with Otto's claim to the Holy Roman Empire? Well,
whenever you hear someone talking about what "has always been a part of
China," what is an "inalienable and/or inviolable" part of China, and/or
what is "splittist" talk about the "internal affairs" of China, this is the
first warning sign. Check to see what history books they have been reading,
because what you are really witnessing is the cover up and justification for
a simple, good old-fashioned "land grab," and a lot of people are being
dispossessed.

Communist China, the People's Republic of China or PRC, never tires of
denouncing Taiwan as a "renegade province" that belongs to it, and bitterly
complaining that any attempt by any country anywhere in the world to treat
Taiwan as a sovereign independent nation is a gross interference in China's
"internal affairs."

This claim is about to be publicly exposed as baseless - for it turns out
that as a matter of international law, Taiwan is legally an overseas
possession of the United States of America.

Taiwan has been inhabited by a Malayo-Polynesian aboriginal people for
40,000 years. The Chinese never showed any interest in it nor attempted to
colonize it all the way up to the end of the Ming Dynasty in 1644 AD. The
Portuguese, the first European colonizers in Asia, made no attempt to do so
either, although they named it Formosa (Beautiful).

It was the Dutch, who had begun colonizing Java and Sumatra and creating the
Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) in the early 1600s, that established a
base there in 1624 and began to import Chinese men from Fujian across the
Formosa Straits as laborers. A Chinese pirate named Koxinga took over the
island in 1661, kicked out the Dutch and established a pirate kingdom.

In the meantime, over in China, a tribe of nomadic herders similar to the
Mongols called the Manchus had conquered northeastern China, calling their
kingdom Ching (or Qing), "Pure." In 1644, they overthrew the Ming Dynasty by
seizing Beijing, with the last Ming Emperor, Chongzhen, hanging himself on a
tree overlooking the Forbidden City.

The Manchus had to spend the next 17 years consolidating their control over
all of China. After two subsequent decades of raids on their southern coast,
they put an end to Koxinga's pirate kingdom and took over Taiwan in 1683. At
the time there were about 7,000 Han (ethnic Chinese) on the island.

Some two hundred years later, in 1894, the Ching government of China got
into a war with Japan over control of Korea, and lost. In the formal Treaty
of Shimonoseki signed in April, 1985, the Chinese government formally
recognized the independence of Korea, and legally ceded Taiwan to Japan. For
the next 50 years, Taiwan under international law was the possession of
Japan's.

The Japanese Government's control over Taiwan ceased on August 15, 1945 when
it announced its surrender in World War II. The Instrument of Surrender was
signed on the deck of the USS Missouri on September 2, which placed "all
Japanese forces wherever situated" under the command of "the Supreme
Commander of the Allied Powers," Gen. Douglas MacArthur.

That day, McArthur formed the United States Military Government (USMG) with
jurisdiction over Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. General Order No. 1 of the USMG
included the directive that all Japanese commanders and forces in Taiwan
(called Formosa) "shall surrender to Generalissimo
Chiang Kai-shek," leader of the recognized legal government of China, the
Republic of China (ROC). These forces then surrendered to ROC commander Chen
Yi on October 25, 1945.

But the Instrument of Surrender was an armistice, not a formal peace treaty.
Japan had not ceded Taiwan to the ROC. The legal authority in Taiwan
remained the United States Military Government, which had delegated -
delegated, not relinquished - the military occupation of Taiwan to the ROC.

This occupation conducted by Chen Yi proved impossibly corrupt and abusive,
resulting in a rebellion by native Taiwanese known as the 228 Incident, as
it began on February 28, 1947. Chen Yi's soldiers killed thousands of
Taiwanese and instituted a tyranny called the "White Terror."

By now, Mao Tse-tung's Communists were waging full scale war against Chiang
Kai-shek's ROC government. They succeeded in taking over China from April to
November, 1949, during which the Generalissimo, several hundred thousand of
his soldiers, and 2 million refugees crossed the
Formosa Strait to Taiwan. Chiang proclaimed that the city of Taipei was now
the temporary capital of the Republic of China, the sole legitimate
government of mainland China.

It may have been the legitimate capital of China, but not of Taiwan, because
the ROC was not the legitimate government of Taiwan - the USMG was.

Japan did not sign a formal peace treaty until September 8, 1951. Known as
the Treaty of San Francisco, Article 2(b) states:

"Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores"
(islands in the Formosa Straits).

But - the gargantuan but -- no receiving country is specified in the treaty.
In other words, Japan renounced its sovereignty over Taiwan, but did not
turn over that sovereignty to either the PRC in Beijing or the ROC in
Taiwan. Neither the PRC nor the ROC were invited to the San
Francisco treaty conference, and neither was a signatory to the treaty.

This means that the USMG remained the sovereign legal authority in Taiwan.
Article 4(b) of the treaty states this in recognizing the authority of "the
United States Military Government in any of the areas referred to in
Articles 2 and 3," as does Article 23(a) recognizing "the United States of
America as the principal occupying Power."

This treaty is still in effect. In the opinion of a number of scholars of
international law, Taiwan is neither a province of China over which the PRC
has legitimate sovereignty, nor is Taiwan a sovereign state of itself. It
is, rather, an overseas territory of the U.S.

The practical bottom line to this is that the Communist PRC government of
China has no claim to Taiwan under international law.

Further, as Taiwan is a U.S. territorial possession, the United States
government is legally obliged to defend it.

This can only be changed by the United States Congress. As the historical
and legal facts described here sink in to Capitol Hill, expect a number of
bills to be offered in the upcoming session that will either legally turn
over sovereignty of Taiwan from the U.S. to the Taipei government, or make
it legally explicit that China's claim on Taiwan is fraudulent.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Yahoo, Microsoft FILTHY traitors but Google stands up
    ... >>> a possession of Communist China ... >>> search engine, deleted the words 'Taiwan, a province of the People's ... This has drawn rage from Chinese officials and the ... >>> version of Taiwan sovereignty on the borderless world of the Internet. ...
    (rec.arts.tv)
  • Historical Education Opportunity
    ... As a former Naval Aviator, I have been somewhat surprised that at the time of this writing, not one single, publicly disseminated media outlet has observed that the Chinese may well have been attempting to force the U.S. plane down with standard intercept procedural flying. ... The incident occurred over waters recognized as Chinese, /only/ by the People's Republic of China. ... Leaves buildings and infrastructure intact, instantly kills all those pesky people, whether we're talking about "a mere" seven or eight thousand in a U.S. 7th Fleet aircraft carrier battle group, or say a few million souls, if an ICBM now targeted on Taiwan or Los Angeles were unleashed. ... This is the same sea that U.S. ally Japan gets most of its energy and raw materials from. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: Excellent article on Taiwan
    ... Any person who gets on the wrong side of history is doomed to failure. ... - China's President and Communist Party Secretary Hu Jintao, ... THE war of words across the Taiwan Strait - closer these past few days ... as Thunder from the Silent Zone: Rethinking China author Paul Monk ...
    (soc.culture.china)
  • Excellent article on Taiwan
    ... Taiwan's President has infuriated Beijing, ... Any person who gets on the wrong side of history is doomed to failure. ... THE war of words across the Taiwan Strait - closer these past few days ... as Thunder from the Silent Zone: Rethinking China author Paul Monk ...
    (soc.culture.china)
  • Re: Anti Chinese/anti Chinese government vitriol on SCI- utterly shocking.
    ... There's no conspiracy by the Chinese government, ... I believe China will become a democracy along western lines with many ... elections will be free and fair and the Communist party may well win in any ... blockade of the island of Taiwan to force it back to the motherland. ...
    (soc.culture.irish)