|
I was under the impression most of the valuable natural resources in China are mostly in Xinjiang, Tibet, and Mongolia? Like China itself isn't actually all that resource rich? It's not like they don't have a motive to insist Tibet has always been part of China besides simply being cartoon villains
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:China is super weird about its borders and history. I don't know why they need to create a false history going back centuries to excuse their current borders. Countries grow, shink, fracture, it's normal. Why does china need this idea that it's borders and national identity were set in stone the moment the earth began to form from cosmic dust? This actually happens alot. For example, the people who call themselves Hungarians have no relation to the Huns. China is not claiming the the vast territory of the Mongol empire though so your analogue is not close. I recently read (listen) to Robert Kaplan's Asia's Cauldron. It's about the South China Sea. The way I see it, basically the resource in the ocean, its pretty much nobody's property. It's no difference from the resource on the moon or the natural resource buried under the arctics. Countries signed some treaties that try to split the resources between different coastal nations. A bunch of countries has not signed it, and everybody who has signed it declare the treaty doesn't apply to their disputed territories. So basically the blue sea is a land rush. China's goal is trying to turn South China Sea into its own Caribbean. whatever7 fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I was under the impression most of the valuable natural resources in China are mostly in Xinjiang, Tibet, and Mongolia? Like China itself isn't actually all that resource rich? It's not like they don't have a motive to insist Tibet has always been part of China besides simply being cartoon villains Some yes, some no. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:This actually happens alot. For example, the people who call themselves Hungarians have no relation to the Huns. Actually they call themselves Magyars
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:China is super weird about its borders and history. I don't know why they need to create a false history going back centuries to excuse their current borders. Countries grow, shink, fracture, it's normal. Why does china need this idea that it's borders and national identity were set in stone the moment the earth began to form from cosmic dust? You could almost call it a Manifest Destiny!
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Some yes, some no. What's the source of this map? I was looking for this very thing a few weeks ago but couldn't find any that were as legible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Actually they call themselves Magyars Well they call their country Hungary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Well they call their country Hungary. Magyarország.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Well they call their country Hungary. Actually it is called, Magyarország (beaten). The Hungarians did originate from Finn-Ugric nomads that raided Central Europe during the 10th and 11th centuries though (Huns were hundreds of years earlier). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Well they call their country Hungary. I'll save you your next post and tell you that the language is also called Magyar.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Which is why its language is (not that I have personal experience) similar to Finnish and Estonian.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Freudian posted:Magyarország. I read it on a Central Asia lecture series so I will dig up the exact quote and post it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Smeef posted:What's the source of this map? I was looking for this very thing a few weeks ago but couldn't find any that were as legible. It's from Wikipedia, I'm not sure where the data itself comes from but it appears to be from 1983. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Economic_maps_of_China Here's a map of coal reserves in China 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:I read it on a Central Asia lecture series so I will dig up the exact quote and post it. It will be wrong, but knock yourself out champ.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
do you having hungary? no, i have turkey, is okay
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
i have turkey but it's covered with greece 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Some yes, some no. This map doesn't really illustrate the importance of Tibet as a freshwater reserve. The tibetan basin is the origin point of the mekong too. edit: Freshwater to China is arguably more important than oil. It's the sort of thing that's actually worth fighting a protracted war over and will become more important in the future. The likelihood of Tibet gaining independence is somewhere from zero to none. Modus Operandi fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Because their land (including the stuff that actually was part of China for thousands of years) was almost divided up in a colonialist squabble. China is one of the few non-western countries that didn't come under western colonial rule.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
dilbertschalter posted:China is one of the few non-western countries that didn't come under western colonial rule. Don't tell a Chinese person that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
dilbertschalter posted:China is one of the few non-western countries that didn't come under western colonial rule. China...Thailand....Iran... Ethiopia... all have very interesting way to develop their states to modernity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
dilbertschalter posted:China is one of the few non-western countries that didn't come under western colonial rule. Only because they weren't called colonies, they were "concessions".
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Hey guys how about Japan!
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Only because they weren't called colonies, they were "concessions". Getting parts of the country detached and being forced to grant foreigners various privileges is completely different than coming under direct or even indirect colonial rule, which is what happened to the vast majority of the world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
dilbertschalter posted:Getting parts of the country detached and being forced to grant foreigners various privileges is completely different than coming under direct or even indirect colonial rule, which is what happened to the vast majority of the world. Was colonialism ever a good thing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
caberham posted:Was colonialism ever a good thing? It was great if you wanted to sell your product to a protected market or perform raw mineral extraction from a distant land.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
caberham posted:Was colonialism ever a good thing? Acemoglu and some other econometricians have a pretty famous (by econometrics standards) paper that argues quite convincingly that colonial settler mortality rates explain current economic performance. The logic is that lower mortality rates led to colonists establishing long-term institutions; higher mortality rates encouraged them to create extractive institutions that have persisted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
caberham posted:Was colonialism ever a good thing? Hong Kong. Your move. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Hong Kong. No see, we just said that wasn't colonial rule.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No see, we just said that wasn't colonial rule. Colonial rule of Hong Kong and the various concessions are is the same thing as colonial rule of literally all of China, there's no need to keep reaching in defense of a dubious argument in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
dilbertschalter posted:Colonial rule of Hong Kong and the various concessions are is the same thing as colonial rule of literally all of China, there's no need to keep reaching in defense of a dubious argument in the first place. My argument is that the Chinese have historically bad memories regarding having their territory taken away and the existence of Hong Kong proves that fact, you're the one who misinterpreted in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No see, we just said that wasn't colonial rule. Sure it was. China as a whole was never under colonial rule, but parts of it were. Macao, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Port Arthur, the other concessions I can't remember offhand (Xiamen?), and then Manchukuo was the big one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Hong Kong. If you were white.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
computer parts posted:My argument is that the Chinese have historically bad memories regarding having their territory taken away and the existence of Hong Kong proves that fact, you're the one who misinterpreted in the first place. Your said: "Because their land (including the stuff that actually was part of China for thousands of years) was almost divided up in a colonialist squabble." When the areas that have provoked the fiercest territorial disputes China is involved in right have basically been terra nullius up to the 20th century.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Also, in any real sense, Hong Kong was merely the headquarters of a boarder colonial system of trade concessions. It is like saying Cape Town is representative of Britain's legacy in South Africa.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
China doesn't see any meaningful distinction between Japan and The West here, does it? Western colonialism was peanuts compared to the Japs marching in and burning half the country to the ground, and Japan is clearly not a western country. Where does Taiwan fit into this? I mean, I'm assuming there is no coherent thought here and it's just CCP officials stirring up nationalism to deflect criticism without rhyme or reason, but maybe not?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Also, in any real sense, Hong Kong was merely the headquarters of a boarder colonial system of trade concessions. This is British preferred style of colonization anyway, having a very weak local ruler to do the dirty job for them. The Brits didn't want to rule India directly but after the up rising they lost their puppet kings. Once they ruled India directly they found out it was more profitable that way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Sure it was. China as a whole was never under colonial rule, but parts of it were. Macao, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Port Arthur, the other concessions I can't remember offhand (Xiamen?), and then Manchukuo was the big one. You don't need to control the body of the dragon when you can control the head. Those ports were arguably the lifeblood of trade and controlling them is the same as controlling the country. Most of China was not administered directly through colonialism but it was in fact colonized by proxy. Most of the Brits and other colonizing empires wisely decided that it wasn't worthwhile to try and micromanage the people. The reason why is that China was a big and complex shithole at the time and beyond the scope of most administrators. It was easier to control the resource extraction points, circle wagons, and call it a day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
dilbertschalter posted:
Obviously I wasn't talking about the land under dispute right now (neither was the post I was quoting). The areas that involved the fiercest debates were undoubtedly part of China since there has been a China.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
I don't think Japs is the preferred nomenclature.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Obviously I wasn't talking about the land under dispute right now (neither was the post I was quoting). Yes, but that doesn't explain China's current attitude about borders, which is very much the subject of discussion! There are many countries that came under full colonial rule that don't go around pathologically lying about historical borders and claiming territory they never ruled.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 04:51
|
|