Quote:
Originally Posted by Claies
I agree with you that the PRC shouldn't pursue such violent methods, but you need to calm down.
Seriously, I see why they value stability highly. Never since the Qing Dynasty (up to 1912) has China enjoyed any semblance of continuous governmental stability. The region suffered at least five serious changes in its political landscape in the 80 years following. The leaders are damn scared of sudden changes because the risks and effects are staggeringly real to them. They've all lived through the past half-century experiencing this. This is something a western country would find hard to understand.
Of course, that never justifies running tanks over people, but it'd be great if everyone can see why they always keep that option on the table.
They were perfectly capable of supporting themselves, albeit not in a European fashion.
In addition, there are multiple definitions of "nation." Aside from the modern definition as a region with well-defined borders, flags, government, and military, the older definition is one defining a common people. The PRC national anthem makes reference to what's translated to the "Chinese Nation" when the actual meaning in English terms would be "Chinese People". Native American groups still follow the latter definition, and simply demand that they're respected as a people. Most of them probably understand that they can't own a border-defined country anymore in the American continents.
|
Meh, gomen. I'm just a bit mad that people automatically assume things that aren't true. *breathes slowly*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoned87
So you support the right of conquest. Military force rules all?
The PRC also believes this
|
If the English can use it, then why not the Chinese? They did use the right of conquest around the same time period anyway.