• Yliaster@lemmy.worldEnglish
    9·
    26 days ago

    Right, take it out on people who have nothing to do with them.

    Conflating the state for people is stupid. The state is never representative of the people anyway. The men she dated didn’t rule any of those areas.

    Shame.

    • LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      25 days ago

      Really most of southeast Asia kinda hates China right now, if for no other reason then China has territory disputes with like all of tthem.

  • Pyr@lemmy.caEnglish
    31·
    26 days ago

    Wait, apologies if I’m ignorant here but I don’t know much of Asian history and politics here.

    But, if an area is ruled by a country for over a thousand years wouldn’t it be fair to say that area is rightfully theirs instead of an occupied territory? Like, at what point is the line drawn?

    For example if Russia keeps Crimea for 1000 years I think at that point it is truly Russian and taking it back would mean Ukraine becoming the occupying force.

    • petrescatraian@libranet.de
      3·
      26 days ago

      That pretty much has to do with how the population feels about it. Transylvania was ruled for hundreds of years by Hungary, then it became an autonomous province under the Ottoman Empire after Budapest fell to it, then part of the Habsburg Empire, only to fall again under the dominance of Budapest under the Austro-Hungarian dual monarchy. Yet the Romanian majority was largely persecuted, firstly because they were Orthodox and not Catholic (and later Protestant/Evangelical), then because they were, you know, Romanian. And as in 1859 the southern provinces of Wallachia and Moldova united to form the nowadays Romania, they naturally gravitated towards it. Likewise, there’s now a strong unionist movement in both Romania and in the Republic of Moldova (which is mostly named as Bessarabia to make a distinction from the Eastern part of Romania also called Moldova) calling for the reunification of both countries (albeit not strong and cohesive enough to create real political pressure, but that’s a different story).

      Regarding Crimea, the issue was not who owned it and for how long, but basically who owned it in recent times. You see, after WW2, people decided it would be too dangerous and too unpleasant to go to war again, so we adopted a series of treaties. And Europe, where some of the bloodiest territorial conflicts occurred, made no exception. Even if it was mostly owned by the Russian Empire throughout its history, then by USSR, Crimea had all the reasons to stay Ukrainian, as to not create a precedent in violating the said agreements.

      Otherwise, if we take the population into account, I would be for an independent Tatar Crimea, but we know there’s a certain state which doesn’t like independent states. And that is not Ukraine, which still views it as an autonomous province.

    • Stamau123@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      26 days ago

      I think even by that point there was a distinction between being Chinese and being Vietnamese, and it persisted even with the north east being separated for a thousand years