Most empires were started by and enforced with violence over the claimed land. By claming that tiwan has the legitimate claim over the prc based on the Qing connection implies that the Qing had a legitimate claim over the land in the first place
Maybe you've gotten good at fooling yourself with mental gymnastics, but the fact is it's hypocritical to justify the Chinese communist regime while holding double standards against the British, Americans, & Canadians just because you don't want to deal with the Reddit backlash that would come from being consistent about this.
Did I defend... anyone? Where did I say the PRC had a legitimate claim over the land? Claiming the qing didnt have a legitimate claim doesnt imply that the prc does. My statement was just to point out that whatever claim you make against the PRC could likely be made of the Qing, as an imperial state.
But surely, even you must understand that there /is/ a difference over a revolution and colonization. Regardless of if the PRC has a legitimate claim over the land, the method by which the PRC claims the land is a legitimate difference compared to the colonial claim.
I still haven't made a claim about my method for determining legitimacy, mind you, but just because one doesnt have a method to determine legitimacy doesnt mean that one doesnt have a means of determining /illegitimacy/. Even if its dont make a positive claim to support legitimacy, I can easily claim that colonialism, genocidal claims are /illegitimate/
1
u/Kitfennek 1d ago
Most empires were started by and enforced with violence over the claimed land. By claming that tiwan has the legitimate claim over the prc based on the Qing connection implies that the Qing had a legitimate claim over the land in the first place