tronic,
Quote:
|
You are right; but those nation states have evolved and have left behind imperialism. China has not.
|
look at the big picture. is china actively trying to grab these pieces of land back? is it willing to overturn the current system for these pieces of land? from your examples, nazi germany and imperial japan and soviet russia were. china, OTOH, is reliant upon and desperate to continue integrating within the global system, their bombastic propaganda notwithstanding.
Quote:
|
They are both connected, no? Chinese political structure is bad, yes. But it becomes a convenience for a lot of these Chinese folks who are in full support of their government's imperialistic actions.
|
in that case, democracy won't make a big difference. to be honest, i believe this has to do more with the lack of a national ideology, with reflexive nationalism being a substitute for communism.
Quote:
|
No, it was not liberal England. It was Imperial England.
|
but most people will consider imperial england to be an example of liberalism; its constitution, civil/political rights, were all far in advance of other countries at the time. but if that example doesn't suit you, how about the US in the 1920s? it held what in effect were colonial possessions in the phillipines and latin america. at the risk of repeating myself, i don't think democracy is necessarily a block towards imperialism- it is only when the people's opinions about imperialism begin to change that democracy starts plaing a role.
Quote:
|
And yes, Indians considered themselves as Indians, just called themselves Hindustanis. India may have had different kingdoms by the time the British arrived, but the entire subcontinent did always see themselves as the one and same; and did often unite to expel 'foreigners'.
|
sorry, doesn't cut it. how did the british get into india and hold onto an entire subcontinent with less than 30,000 troops? the british played a devilish game of divide and conquer, and it was ONLY when the indians developed nationalism that this no longer could work.
Quote:
|
Sure, territorial disputes are there even between Canada and the US. But these points of contentions are much smaller then the vast amount of land claimed by China, using just plain stupid historical claims. Going by the Chinese logic, India should start laying territorial claims all the way from Indonesia to Afghanistan.
|
i think it's important to realize how malleable these claims are. chiang kai-shek, for example, "ceded" outer mongolia and parts of northwest china to the soviets, and there it remains. the important thing is not so much the claims, the important thing is how seriously the chinese take it. unfortunately for the tibetans, the chinese believe tibet is non-negotiable. fortunately for the indians, the chinese obviously do believe the contested area around the chinese-indian border to be.
Quote:
|
Would the need be there? If they were a democracy, they would rather be holding referendums; then forcefully shoving down Chinese nationalism down someone else's throat.
|
i doubt that very much- the US in 1860 wasn't going to allow a large chunk of the nation to pass away without a fight, referendums or no.
in any case, even were elections to be held, as you say, the flood of han chinese would make tibetan independence highly unlikely.