Taiwan-ROC or the "People's Republic" of China

[Chinese Regions]

Then why do you claim that south Korea has legitimacy over North Korea but RoC doesn't over the PRC?

I didn't claim that. I explicitly denied that. It would help if you actually listened to what people say instead of assuming you already know the answer. Japan could invade north korea for all I care, provided they they either include NK in national elections or allow as much local democratic autonomy as the people there demand.

But do you believe Taiwan has lesser legitimacy but legitimacy nonetheless?

[Ostroeuropa]

I didn't claim that. I explicitly denied that. It would help if you actually listened to what people say instead of assuming you already know the answer. Japan could invade north korea for all I care, provided they they either include NK in national elections or allow as much local democratic autonomy as the people there demand.

But do you believe Taiwan has lesser legitimacy but legitimacy nonetheless?

It is a legitimate government seeing as it has democratic elections which involve all the peoples in it's territories.
It has no claim to mainland china or to north korea, as it's elections do not include, and do not attempt to include, them.
That someone has no claim to an empty plot of land does not mean they cannot subsequently claim it when they get there.
No entity has a legitimate claim to either north korea or mainland china as no entity performs democratic elections in either.
The next entity that does will have a legitimate claim to the land.

[Ostroeuropa]

I didn't claim that. I explicitly denied that. It would help if you actually listened to what people say instead of assuming you already know the answer. Japan could invade north korea for all I care, provided they they either include NK in national elections or allow as much local democratic autonomy as the people there demand.

But do you believe Taiwan has lesser legitimacy but legitimacy nonetheless?

To expand on the above, if the nation of Taiwan cannot convince the people of mainland china to vote to remain in their nation, they have no claim.
If germany were to annex mainland china and to hold national elections, and Taiwan could not convince the Chinese representatives to the german parliament to vote for secession and re-unification, but instead found that the Chinese were happy to vote for german members of parliament, Taiwan clearly has no claim.

It is the people who live on the land that must ultimate decide it's national identity.

[Byranzytium]

Mongolia, because gib bak clay

/thread

[Renetopia]

Taiwan should be a separate country, as well as Tibet.

[Ostroeuropa]

Taiwan should be a separate country, as well as Tibet.

I have seen nothing to suggest the residents of residents of Tibet wish to have a nation.
Once there is evidence of that, I will agree.

[Cill Airne]

Taiwan should be a separate country, as well as Tibet.

I have seen nothing to suggest the residents of residents of Tibet wish to have a nation.
Once there is evidence of that, I will agree.

You mean the lakhar protests, constant self-immolations, protests, &c. aren't evidence?

[Ostroeuropa]

I have seen nothing to suggest the residents of residents of Tibet wish to have a nation.
Once there is evidence of that, I will agree.

You mean the lakhar protests, constant self-immolations, protests, &c. aren't evidence?

That there are some people who protest shouldn't be taken as evidence.
People protest for all kinds of crazy shit, they could be completely unrepresentative of the majority of the population and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. As an example, the protests and rallies in scotland for scottish independence represent only 1/3rd of the population. The rallying cry should be "A referendum on Tibetan independence." not "Tibetan independence."

[Byranzytium]

You mean the lakhar protests, constant self-immolations, protests, &c. aren't evidence?

That there are some people who protest shouldn't be taken as evidence.
People protest for all kinds of crazy shit, they could be completely unrepresentative of the majority of the population and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. As an example, the protests and rallies in scotland for scottish independence represent only 1/3rd of the population. The rallying cry should be "A referendum on Tibetan independence." not "Tibetan independence."

Oh well, with 2.000.000 Tibetans and 2.200.000 Chinese people in Tibet those referenda will surely go good.

[Cetacea]

Taiwan is part of China. Deal with it.

No it's not. Different culture and history, different ethnicity and different native language

Taiwan is a country independent of China

PRC and Taiwan should be seperate states

(and the Han need to leave Taiwan)

[Ostroeuropa]

That there are some people who protest shouldn't be taken as evidence.
People protest for all kinds of crazy shit, they could be completely unrepresentative of the majority of the population and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. As an example, the protests and rallies in scotland for scottish independence represent only 1/3rd of the population. The rallying cry should be "A referendum on Tibetan independence." not "Tibetan independence."

Oh well, with 2.000.000 Tibetans and 2.200.000 Chinese people in Tibet those referenda will surely go good.

whats the difference between a tibetan and a chinese person other than the obvious that the tibetan independence people identify as tibetans?
If you argue "Well obviously the people who want independence wont get it because more people dont want independence" and use that as an argument for why a referendum is bias, you are doing it wrong.

To insinuate that tibetans and chinese people cannot co-exist and are in some way different races is also to imply a racist reason for independence.

If those chinese people were born in tibet, they have just as much right to vote on the independence of the nation as the tibetans to.
Or are you a also anti-immigration?

[Byranzytium]

Oh well, with 2.000.000 Tibetans and 2.200.000 Chinese people in Tibet those referenda will surely go good.

whats the difference between a tibetan and a chinese person other than the obvious that the tibetan independence people identify as tibetans?
If you argue "Well obviously the people who want independence wont get it because more people dont want independence" and use that as an argument for why a referendum is bias, you are doing it wrong.

To insinuate that tibetans and chinese people cannot co-exist and are in some way different races is also to imply a racist reason for independence.

Because the majority of the Chinese people obviously wants Tibet to stay part of PRC.

Best way is a referendum for Tibetans only though, but I don't see that happen.

[Ostroeuropa]

whats the difference between a tibetan and a chinese person other than the obvious that the tibetan independence people identify as tibetans?
If you argue "Well obviously the people who want independence wont get it because more people dont want independence" and use that as an argument for why a referendum is bias, you are doing it wrong.

To insinuate that tibetans and chinese people cannot co-exist and are in some way different races is also to imply a racist reason for independence.

Because the majority of the Chinese people obviously wants Tibet to stay part of PRC.

Best way is a referendum for Tibetans only though, but I don't see that happen.

Why should we exclude the chinese people? Your saying you want to rig the election to the outcome you want. Would you also say descendents of immigrants shouldn't be able to vote in any elections?
Are you a racist?

[Byranzytium]

Because the majority of the Chinese people obviously wants Tibet to stay part of PRC.

Best way is a referendum for Tibetans only though, but I don't see that happen.

Why should we exclude the chinese people? Your saying you want to rig the election to the outcome you want. Would you also say descendents of immigrants shouldn't be able to vote in any elections?
Are you a racist?

Hmm? No, we should let the Tibetan people decide.

[Ostroeuropa]

Why should we exclude the chinese people? Your saying you want to rig the election to the outcome you want. Would you also say descendents of immigrants shouldn't be able to vote in any elections?
Are you a racist?

Hmm? No, we should let the Tibetan people decide.

You failed to address the substance of my question.
Why only tibetans?
And how do you define a tibetan?
If it's a self-identification, then you are admitting to rigging the election.

[Byranzytium]

Hmm? No, we should let the Tibetan people decide.

You failed to address the substance of my question.
Why only tibetans?
And how do you define a tibetan?

A Tibetan is a person whoms ancestors lived in Tibet before the Chinese occupation. And if the gov't of China can count people by their nationality or etnicity, then it is no problem to held an election based on those criteria.

Why only Tibetans? Because they are the rightfull owners of the land.

[Cetacea]

Because the majority of the Chinese people obviously wants Tibet to stay part of PRC.

Best way is a referendum for Tibetans only though, but I don't see that happen.

Why should we exclude the chinese people? Your saying you want to rig the election to the outcome you want. Would you also say descendents of immigrants shouldn't be able to vote in any elections?
Are you a racist?

considering that most of those chinese immigrants were the PRC's occupying military, then yeah I don't think they have a right to vote in an independence referendum

[Ostroeuropa]

You failed to address the substance of my question.
Why only tibetans?
And how do you define a tibetan?

A Tibetan is a person whoms ancestors lived in Tibet before the Chinese occupation. And if the gov't of China can count people by their nationality or etnicity, then it is no problem to held an election based on those criteria.

Why only Tibetans? Because they are the rightfull owners of the land.

Ah, so you ARE basing it on race.
The chinese government counts self-identification. There is a huge problem with holding it based on those criteria.
They are not the rightful owners of the land if they do not have the majority consent of the populace now are they.

[Ostroeuropa]

Why should we exclude the chinese people? Your saying you want to rig the election to the outcome you want. Would you also say descendents of immigrants shouldn't be able to vote in any elections?
Are you a racist?

considering that most of those chinese immigrants were the PRC's occupying military, then yeah I don't think they have a right to vote in an independence referendum

Military officials vote based on their place of residence prior to service. They would not be counted in a referendum, and are not counted in population statistics. They are counted as residents in their place of residence prior to service.

For the record, THIS disagreement is the difference between being pro liberty and democracy, and just wanting to fuck over the chinese.

[Byranzytium]

A Tibetan is a person whoms ancestors lived in Tibet before the Chinese occupation. And if the gov't of China can count people by their nationality or etnicity, then it is no problem to held an election based on those criteria.

Why only Tibetans? Because they are the rightfull owners of the land.

Ah, so you ARE basing it on race.
The chinese government counts self-identification. There is a huge problem with holding it based on those criteria.
They are not the rightful owners of the land if they do not have the majority consent of the populace now are they.

That's like denying Kosovo independence if their pop. was 3/4 Serbian. You also claim that Inner Mongolia is rightfull Chinese clay?

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Ah, so you ARE basing it on race.
The chinese government counts self-identification. There is a huge problem with holding it based on those criteria.
They are not the rightful owners of the land if they do not have the majority consent of the populace now are they.

That's like denying Kosovo independence if their pop. was 3/4 Serbian. You also claim that Inner Mongolia is rightfull Chinese clay?

Or that the Sudetenland is rightfully German?

[Ostroeuropa]

Ah, so you ARE basing it on race.
The chinese government counts self-identification. There is a huge problem with holding it based on those criteria.
They are not the rightful owners of the land if they do not have the majority consent of the populace now are they.

That's like denying Kosovo independence if their pop. was 3/4 Serbian. You also claim that Inner Mongolia is rightfull Chinese clay?

I don't care what race someone is. It isn't like that at all. You are the one basing your argument on race.
It's more like denying kosovo independence if 3/4ths of the people living there do not want it to be independent, which seems to be as quite proper.

[Byranzytium]

That's like denying Kosovo independence if their pop. was 3/4 Serbian. You also claim that Inner Mongolia is rightfull Chinese clay?

Or that the Sudetenland is rightfully German?

People there choose to stay in Czech Republic, so no problem there.

EDIT: point is the Germans have an own country, Tibetans not.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Or that the Sudetenland is rightfully German?

People there choose to stay in Czech Republic, so no problem there.

EDIT: point is the Germans have an own country, Tibetans not.

Well, back in '38, anyway.

[Ostroeuropa]

Or that the Sudetenland is rightfully German?

People there choose to stay in Czech Republic, so no problem there.

That example supports me, not you.
You would argue all those Czechs are immigrants and only the Germans should be able to vote.