I didn’t say it detracts from criticism of the PRC, I said your argument that the native Taiwanese aren’t ethnically Han Chinese detracts from your other argument that the PRC is attempting settler-colonialism in Taiwan.
If you actually read anything that I wrote, you’d see that I’m not minimizing the imperialism of the PRC. I’m simply stating that their aggression against Taiwan is not an example of settler-colonialism. It’s still a bad thing, but it’s a different kind of bad thing.
If you want to point out examples of the PRC doing settler-colonialism, those exist. I even mentioned a few. But their aggression against Taiwan is not one (but it is, again, still wrong).
I didn’t say it detracts from criticism of the PRC,
you’d be right, but that would also imply that the ROC is the colonizer in this situation, which you could argue, but that detracts from your criticism of the PRC
I don’t see what mindset has to do with this, unless you mean you’re in the mindset that you can’t be wrong and that anyone who corrects your argument must be the one who’s wrong?
Edit: nice, you edited your comment to make my response sound irrelevant. I can edit my comments too.
And yes,
but that detracts from your criticism of the PRC
i.e., your criticism, specifically, that the PRC is attempting settler-colonialism in Taiwan.
That’s a very narrow, limited statement. Not some broad, all-encompassing “criticism of the PRC” writ large.
Again, more proof that you have no concept of nuance. Arguing against a specific point of criticism which happens to be incorrect does not imply an argument against all criticism.
It’s not a subjective matter of perception. The PRC and the ROC are in a protracted civil war with each other. The ROC views themself as the rightful government in exile. The PRC views them as separatists.
Settler-colonialism is about displacing and/or assimilating ethnic/cultural minority groups. It’s a form of ethnic cleansing and cultural imperialism. It’s fundamentally not what this situation is about, according to the facts. Not my opinion, not my perception.
The fact that you can’t see how it’s different means you’re incapable of grasping nuance, and I don’t see why I’m bothering to continue trying to persuade you. Especially since from the beginning, I wasn’t even disagreeing with you. Just correcting a small error that weakens your argument. Feel free to double down more though, I don’t care anymore.
Plenty of Settler Colonialism has been done as part of civil wars, because plenty of wars have the killing and replacing of identity as the motif.
Happened in the Punjabi and Tamil regions of india for instance. You can’t just go “yeah but that was during a civil war” and have the ethnic violence or identity replacement aspects of war go away.
Except the Panjab and Tamil region examples aren’t the same, because Panjabi and Tamili are both considered ethnic/cultural minorities who are historically marginalized by the ruling class in India.
That’s fundamentally different from the PRC-ROC conflict which is between two political groups that are both Mandarin-speaking Han Chinese.
So again, that would be closer to the marginalization of Cantonese-speaking ethnic minority groups in the southern regions of China. Or the settler-colonialism taking place in the Uyghur Xinjiang region or annexed Tibet.
Honestly I don’t even know what you’re arguing against because you seem to keep contradicting yourself in order to refute arguments that I never made…
I didn’t say it detracts from criticism of the PRC, I said your argument that the native Taiwanese aren’t ethnically Han Chinese detracts from your other argument that the PRC is attempting settler-colonialism in Taiwan.
If you actually read anything that I wrote, you’d see that I’m not minimizing the imperialism of the PRC. I’m simply stating that their aggression against Taiwan is not an example of settler-colonialism. It’s still a bad thing, but it’s a different kind of bad thing.
If you want to point out examples of the PRC doing settler-colonialism, those exist. I even mentioned a few. But their aggression against Taiwan is not one (but it is, again, still wrong).
Colonialism is a mindset.
I don’t see what mindset has to do with this, unless you mean you’re in the mindset that you can’t be wrong and that anyone who corrects your argument must be the one who’s wrong?
Edit: nice, you edited your comment to make my response sound irrelevant. I can edit my comments too.
And yes,
i.e., your criticism, specifically, that the PRC is attempting settler-colonialism in Taiwan.
That’s a very narrow, limited statement. Not some broad, all-encompassing “criticism of the PRC” writ large.
Again, more proof that you have no concept of nuance. Arguing against a specific point of criticism which happens to be incorrect does not imply an argument against all criticism.
I’m against the concept of people “correcting” things that are subjective matters of perception.
Colonialism is a mindset too, China has explicitly stated Taiwan is part of their domain, that’s enough for me to view it as Colonialism.
It’s not a subjective matter of perception. The PRC and the ROC are in a protracted civil war with each other. The ROC views themself as the rightful government in exile. The PRC views them as separatists.
Settler-colonialism is about displacing and/or assimilating ethnic/cultural minority groups. It’s a form of ethnic cleansing and cultural imperialism. It’s fundamentally not what this situation is about, according to the facts. Not my opinion, not my perception.
The fact that you can’t see how it’s different means you’re incapable of grasping nuance, and I don’t see why I’m bothering to continue trying to persuade you. Especially since from the beginning, I wasn’t even disagreeing with you. Just correcting a small error that weakens your argument. Feel free to double down more though, I don’t care anymore.
Plenty of Settler Colonialism has been done as part of civil wars, because plenty of wars have the killing and replacing of identity as the motif.
Happened in the Punjabi and Tamil regions of india for instance. You can’t just go “yeah but that was during a civil war” and have the ethnic violence or identity replacement aspects of war go away.
Except the Panjab and Tamil region examples aren’t the same, because Panjabi and Tamili are both considered ethnic/cultural minorities who are historically marginalized by the ruling class in India.
That’s fundamentally different from the PRC-ROC conflict which is between two political groups that are both Mandarin-speaking Han Chinese.
So again, that would be closer to the marginalization of Cantonese-speaking ethnic minority groups in the southern regions of China. Or the settler-colonialism taking place in the Uyghur Xinjiang region or annexed Tibet.
Honestly I don’t even know what you’re arguing against because you seem to keep contradicting yourself in order to refute arguments that I never made…