China's Greatest Fear: Dead and Buried Like the Soviet Union (Closed)

Iron Man said:

Why would it be meaningless to ask to the question “are Scottish British”? If they want a “divorce” then this exact question becomes the raison d’etre of an independence vote. Just like asking Tibetans if they are Chinese.

Click to expand...

This is what I understand the definition of British and Britain, Scottish and Scotland.
Britain is the whole island where Scotland, England and Welse are located. British is populace on that island.

Scotland is the northern part of Britain, Scottish is an ethnical group living primarily in Scotland who was Celtic origin. On the south side is England, English is another ethnical group (although mixed with locals) originated from mainland Europe, called Anglo-Saxon Germanics.

See that?, Britain and British is geographical terms, no culture, language or ethnical meanings. The others are the opposite. I think it was the Romans who created the name "Britannia" to refer their newly conquered land, similar to China being the name of Qin dynasty used (created) by the Persians without knowing anything culture, language or ethnical.

So, if Scotland eventually become independent, the Scottish are STILL British, but not English nor Welsh. If one want to redefine the meaning of Britain to only mean English+Welsh, then that is redefinition, asking that question TODAY and before that new definition was widely accepted is STILL meaningless.

Again, you don’t want to ask because you probably wouldn’t like the answer is my suspicion.

Click to expand...

I don't want to ask because I don't like the answer? Learn before you speak.
I won't ask because it is a pervert question. You need to first understand the difference of geographical term and ethnical term.

Also a new question to add to your studying list, "Are Mexicans Americans"? or "Is Hispanic people Americans?"

taxiya said:

This is what I understand the definition of British and Britain, Scottish and Scotland.
Britain is the whole island where Scotland, England and Welse are located. British is populace on that island.

Scotland is the northern part of Britain, Scottish is an ethnical group living primarily in Scotland who was Celtic origin. On the south side is England, English is another ethnical group (although mixed with locals) originated from mainland Europe, called Anglo-Saxon Germanics.

See that?, Britain and British is geographical terms, no culture, language or ethnical meanings. The others are the opposite. I think it was the Romans who created the name "Britannia" to refer their newly conquered land, similar to China being the name of Qin dynasty used (created) by the Persians without knowing anything culture, language or ethnical.

So, if Scotland eventually become independent, the Scottish are STILL British, but not English nor Welsh. If one want to redefine the meaning of Britain to only mean English+Welsh, then that is redefinition, asking that question TODAY and before that new definition was widely accepted is STILL meaningless.


I don't want to ask because I don't like the answer? Learn before you speak.
I won't ask because it is a pervert question. You need to first understand the difference of geographical term and ethnical term.

Also a new question to add to your studying list, "Are Mexicans Americans"? or "Is Hispanic people Americans?"

Click to expand...

There's really no point talking to him. He conflates two different issues, national sovereignty and ethnic identity, and refuses to acknowledge that they're not the same thing. Doesn't matter what you say, he will just keep repeating his talking points based on his self-defined premise. The phrase 对牛弹琴 comes to mind.

It is my first time to suggest the MOD to shut this thread and to second plawolf's earlier suggestion, not only because where it is leading to, but because the very title of the thread is close to (if not already) breaking the forum rule of not attacking a specific country.

solarz said:

... The phrase 对牛弹琴 comes to mind.

Click to expand...

wonder how does the google translation

On the piano playing piano

Click to expand...

fare LOL

Iron Man said:

So it's basically damned if I do, damned if I don't. You are now saying that I'm not ("quite" LOL) crass enough to deliberately "character assassinate" China, but I should have gone off topic in order to create the appearance of some kind of queer worldwide invasion egalitarianism so as to not single out China in this thread about China's "greatest fear" in this forum about China's military. GOT IT.

Click to expand...

I think not singling out China and prodding the rather sensitive point about challenging Chinese sovereignty, and broadening out a to a few other examples may have conveyed your argument more effectively.

edit: also I'm not sure how it's damned if you do and damned if you don't. There's a difference between me accusing you of actually wanting to go after China, vs me accusing your posts of creating that perception.

Well in trying to intentionally needle me you have unintentionally insulted the others by assuming they lack the wit to perceive that I am not in fact trying to single out China for some kind of surreal character assassination.

Click to expand...

If they have (edit) not had as many extensive discussions with you prior to this, then I think they could be pretty well justified in holding that opinion.
The only reason I don't believe you're deliberately going after China due to any of your own personal belief about China or axe to grind or whatever is because I've had enough discussions with you to get a better grasp of what your broader opinions on things are, making me think that such a prospect is unlikely despite the perception you've created in this thread.

Though honestly I don't know which is more surreal, your demand that I include other countries' historical sins or that people are too dumb and/or too emotional and have to be handed a sugar-coated message. Notice also that your posts in this thread have now completely degenerated into a character assassination of me. That's ok, I have a thick skin. But you should practice what you preach, despite what you think about your own "etiquette" in this thread.

Click to expand...

I'm not demanding you do anything.

I said you probably could have got your message across better if you didn't just focus on China.
You're under no obligation to change how you conduct your argument and I don't think I've said you should or have to do anything.

I'm not attacking your character, though I suppose I am attacking the character of your posts.

Guys, just beware of the agent provocateur within our midst who has no business wading into the discussion of our Chinese psyche.

taxiya said:

This is what I understand the definition of British and Britain, Scottish and Scotland.
Britain is the whole island where Scotland, England and Welse are located. British is populace on that island.

Scotland is the northern part of Britain, Scottish is an ethnical group living primarily in Scotland who was Celtic origin. On the south side is England, English is another ethnical group (although mixed with locals) originated from mainland Europe, called Anglo-Saxon Germanics.

See that?, Britain and British is geographical terms, no culture, language or ethnical meanings. The others are the opposite. I think it was the Romans who created the name "Britannia" to refer their newly conquered land, similar to China being the name of Qin dynasty used (created) by the Persians without knowing anything culture, language or ethnical.

So, if Scotland eventually become independent, the Scottish are STILL British, but not English nor Welsh. If one want to redefine the meaning of Britain to only mean English+Welsh, then that is redefinition, asking that question TODAY and before that new definition was widely accepted is STILL meaningless.


I don't want to ask because I don't like the answer? Learn before you speak.
I won't ask because it is a pervert question. You need to first understand the difference of geographical term and ethnical term.

Also a new question to add to your studying list, "Are Mexicans Americans"? or "Is Hispanic people Americans?"

Click to expand...

Actually your example of Scotland vs Britain is a great example to illustrate both your comically Anglocentric view of "British" as well as your Han-centric view of "Chinese". In fact Roman Britannia NEVER referred to Scotland. It referred specifically to the Roman controlled portions of the island which did NOT include Scotland. Ever heard of Hadrian's Wall and why it was built? Read up on it some time.

Second, while the modern use of the word "Britain" may certainly refer to the entire island, the word "British" is certainly NOT viewed as or used as a "geographical" descriptor, but rather a national descriptor. Not only that, have you ever asked a non-English islander (Welsh, Scottish, Cornish, etc.) what he thinks about being called "British"? Of course you haven't; you just make assumptions. Here's what one Welsh politician says: "Britishness is a political synonym for Englishness which extends English culture over the Scots, Welsh, and the Irish" (Gwynfor Evans). A more perfect encapsulation of what independence-minded non-English people feel about being "British" or of potentially what Tibetans feel about being Chinese, or of how obviously clueless you are of either peoples' feelings are, I cannot imagine.

solarz said:

There's really no point talking to him. He conflates two different issues, national sovereignty and ethnic identity, and refuses to acknowledge that they're not the same thing. Doesn't matter what you say, he will just keep repeating his talking points based on his self-defined premise. The phrase 对牛弹琴 comes to mind.

Click to expand...

I haven't ever conflated nationality and ethnicity, and have repeatedly and specifically stated that one may not necessarily imply the other. Tibetans are Chinese nationals and Tibetan ethnics. What you have repeatedly and utterly failed to grasp is that while ethnicity is irrevocable and permanent, NATIONALITY IS CERTAINLY NOT. YOU have in fact been the one conflating the two by forcing a national identity upon an ethnic people who you do not know want such a identity and do not even care to ask whether these people want such an identity. Your views are so skewed morally, historically, and logically that even Bltizo grudgingly DISAGREES with your viewpoints.

Jura said:

wonder how does the google translation

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

fare LOL

Click to expand...

This inflammatory phrase translates as "playing piano for a cow", similar in meaning to the Western/biblical phrase "do not cast pearls before pigs". Funny that this comes from someone who is so woefully unlearned and so utterly unteachable.

t2contra said:

Guys, just beware of the agent provocateur within our midst who has no business wading into the discussion of our Chinese psyche.

Click to expand...

I don't think his goal is to deliberately provoke anyone, but his method of argument is willing to allow an atmosphere of strong mutual animosity to develop if it gets his point across.

t2contra said:

Guys, just beware of the agent provocateur within our midst who has no business wading into the discussion of our Chinese psyche.

Click to expand...

My Chinese psyche is just fine. It is perhaps yours and your fellows' Chinese psyches that are under question here.

Gentlemen, I quote the Chinese sage Han Fei (280-233 B.C.) "To understand the difficulty does not lie in seeing others clearly, but in seeing oneself clearly". Have a good & peaceful day.