Before japan ever conquered anything, was their emporer still an emporer?
Yes — Japan’s emperor was considered an emperor long before Japan engaged in overseas conquest.
π Here’s the context:
Ancient origins: The Japanese imperial line claims descent from the sun goddess Amaterasu. According to tradition, the first emperor, Jimmu, ascended the throne in 660 BCE. While this is partly mythological, the imperial institution is one of the oldest continuous monarchies in the world.
Domestic rule only: For most of its history, Japan’s emperors ruled (or symbolically presided) over the Japanese islands without foreign conquest. Their authority was recognized within Japan itself, even though real political power often shifted to shoguns, regents, or powerful clans.
Title of “Emperor”: The Japanese ruler was called tennΕ (倩η), meaning “heavenly sovereign.” This title was used regardless of whether Japan had colonies or military conquests abroad.
Conquest era: Japan only began overseas expansion in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Taiwan in 1895, Korea in 1910, parts of China in the 1930s). By then, the emperor’s role was already firmly established.
So, to answer directly: Yes, the emperor was still an emperor before Japan conquered anything — the title and institution existed for centuries as the symbolic head of state, rooted in myth and tradition, not dependent on conquest.
Would you like me to trace how the emperor’s actual power shifted over time — from ancient rulers to symbolic figureheads under the shogunate, and then back to prominence in the Meiji era?
Short answer: Taiwan was not directly “liberated” by the United States. Japan surrendered in 1945, ending its colonial rule over Taiwan, and the island was placed under the administration of Chiang Kai-shek’s Republic of China (ROC). The U.S. played a crucial role in defeating Japan in World War II, but Taiwan’s transfer was formally to China, not to the U.S. itself.
πΊ️ The Timeline of Taiwan’s Transition
1895–1945: Taiwan was a Japanese colony after the Treaty of Shimonoseki, when Qing China ceded it to Japan.
1945: Japan surrendered on September 2, ending WWII. On October 25, 1945 (“Retrocession Day”), Taiwan was formally handed over to the Republic of China under Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist government.
Role of the U.S.:
The U.S. was instrumental in defeating Japan militarily, which made Taiwan’s retrocession possible.
However, the U.S. did not occupy or govern Taiwan. Instead, it recognized Chiang Kai-shek’s ROC as the legitimate authority over the island.
Chiang Kai-shek’s position: He was already leader of the Republic of China during WWII. After losing the Chinese Civil War to Mao Zedong’s Communists in 1949, Chiang relocated his government to Taiwan, making it the ROC’s stronghold.
⚖️ Key Distinction
Liberation vs. Retrocession:
Liberation implies the U.S. freed Taiwan and ruled it. That did not happen.
Retrocession means Taiwan was returned to Chinese administration after Japan’s defeat. This is the term used in Taiwanese history.
π Aftermath
Taiwan became the base of Chiang Kai-shek’s government in exile after 1949.
The U.S. later became Taiwan’s security guarantor, especially after the 1954 Mutual Defense Treaty, but that was years after Japan’s surrender.
✅ So, to clarify: The U.S. defeated Japan, which ended Japanese rule in Taiwan, but Taiwan was handed to Chiang Kai-shek’s Republic of China, not occupied or governed by the U.S.
Would you like me to break down how the U.S. role in Taiwan shifted from wartime ally of Chiang Kai-shek to Cold War protector in the 1950s? That’s a fascinating evolution.
Sources:
Quick answer: Most Taiwanese people are not ethnically distinct from other Chinese — the majority are Han Chinese, like the majority in mainland China. However, Taiwan also has unique indigenous groups and a strong sense of separate identity today, which makes the picture more complex.
𧬠Ethnic Composition of Taiwan
Han Taiwanese (≈96%):
Hoklo (Minnan): The largest group, descended from migrants from Fujian province.
Hakka: Another subgroup of Han Chinese, originally from Guangdong and surrounding areas.
Mainlanders (Waishengren): Those who came with Chiang Kai-shek’s government after 1949.
Indigenous Taiwanese (≈2.5%):
Belong to Austronesian/Malayo-Polynesian peoples, culturally and linguistically distinct from Han Chinese.
Taiwan officially recognizes 16 indigenous tribes, such as the Amis, Atayal, and Paiwan.
Immigrants (≈1%): More recent arrivals, often from Southeast Asia or mainland China.
π¨π³ Ethnic Diversity in China
China itself is multiethnic: 56 recognized ethnic groups.
The Han Chinese make up about 92% of the population, but there are many minorities (Tibetan, Uyghur, Mongol, Zhuang, etc.).
Taiwan’s majority Han population shares ancestry with mainland Han groups, but its indigenous peoples are distinct and not found in large numbers in mainland China.
π Identity vs. Ethnicity
Ethnically: Most Taiwanese are Han Chinese, so they are not distinct from the majority of mainland Chinese.
Culturally & Politically: Many Taiwanese today identify as Taiwanese first, not Chinese. A 2024 Pew survey found that most people in Taiwan see themselves primarily as Taiwanese, with only a small minority identifying as primarily Chinese.
Indigenous peoples: These groups are ethnically distinct from Han Chinese and have closer ties to Austronesian peoples across the Pacific.
⚖️ Key Takeaway
Taiwanese ≠ a single ethnicity.
The majority are Han Chinese (like mainland China), but Taiwan also has indigenous Austronesian groups and a unique cultural identity shaped by history, colonialism, and politics.
So while most Taiwanese are not ethnically distinct from other Chinese, Taiwan’s indigenous peoples are, and the modern Taiwanese identity is increasingly distinct from “Chinese” in a political and cultural sense.
Would you like me to map out the 16 indigenous tribes of Taiwan and show how they connect linguistically to other Austronesian peoples (like Filipinos, Polynesians, and Maori)? That’s a fascinating angle.
Sources:
That’s a sharp observation — and yes, the broad percentages line up in a similar way.
π Comparison of Ethnic/Racial Makeup
| Country | Majority Group | % Majority | Minority Groups | % Minority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| China (today) | Han Chinese | ~92% | 55 recognized ethnic minorities (Tibetan, Uyghur, Mongol, Zhuang, Hui, etc.) | ~8% |
| United States (1960) | White (European descent) | ~88–90% | African American, Native American, Asian American, Hispanic/Latino (smaller percentages then) | ~10–12% |
⚖️ Key Similarity
Both societies had a dominant majority group around 90% of the population.
Both had minority groups making up roughly 10%, though the composition of those minorities was very different.
π Important Differences
China’s minorities are highly diverse, with dozens of distinct languages, religions, and cultures.
America’s minorities in 1960 were fewer in number but concentrated in larger communities (e.g., African Americans were about 10% of the population).
In China, minorities are often geographically concentrated (e.g., Tibetans in Tibet, Uyghurs in Xinjiang). In the U.S., minorities were more dispersed but also shaped by segregation and civil rights struggles.
So your analogy works well at the numerical level — ~90% majority, ~10% minority — but the social and historical dynamics are quite different.
Would you like me to show how those percentages shifted in the U.S. after 1960 compared to China’s relatively stable ethnic balance? That contrast is fascinating because America diversified rapidly, while China’s Han majority stayed dominant.
Not quite — China has not diversified in the same way the U.S. has.
π Ethnic Composition Today
China:
Han Chinese remain about 91–92% of the population.
Ethnic minorities (55 recognized groups, including Tibetans, Uyghurs, Mongols, Zhuang, Hui, etc.) make up only 8–9%.
These percentages have stayed relatively stable for decades.
United States (today):
Non-Hispanic Whites are now about 60% of the population.
The rest is a mix of Hispanic/Latino, African American, Asian American, Native American, and multiracial groups.
The U.S. has diversified rapidly since 1960 due to immigration and demographic shifts.
⚖️ Key Difference
China: Still overwhelmingly dominated by one ethnic group (Han). Minorities are numerous in variety but small in percentage.
U.S.: Much more balanced today, with no single group near 90%. The White majority has declined from ~90% in 1960 to ~60% now.
π Why the Contrast?
Immigration: The U.S. has had massive immigration flows since 1965, reshaping demographics.
China: Immigration is minimal, and the Han majority has remained demographically dominant.
Geography: Minority groups in China are often concentrated in specific regions (Xinjiang, Tibet, Inner Mongolia), rather than spread evenly across the country.
✅ So, while the U.S. majority shrank from ~90% to ~60%, China’s majority has stayed around 90%.
Would you like me to show a side-by-side timeline chart of U.S. vs. China majority/minority percentages from 1960 to today? It makes the divergence really clear visually.
I hear the angle you’re taking — but let’s unpack it carefully.
π Diversity as “strength” vs. “weakness”
In the U.S. context: Modern American discourse often frames diversity as a strength — the idea being that multiple perspectives, cultures, and backgrounds fuel innovation, resilience, and adaptability.
In China’s context: China has remained overwhelmingly Han Chinese (~92%). Its government emphasizes unity and stability rather than diversity. From that perspective, lack of diversity isn’t seen as a weakness — it’s seen as cohesion.
⚖️ The reality
Strengths of homogeneity:
Easier to maintain a shared language and cultural identity.
Less internal friction over ethnic differences.
Weaknesses of homogeneity:
Less exposure to outside ideas and cultural innovation.
Vulnerability to groupthink and slower adaptation to global diversity-driven trends.
Strengths of diversity:
Richer pool of ideas, creativity, and adaptability.
Greater ability to connect across cultures in a globalized world.
Weaknesses of diversity:
Potential for social fragmentation, conflict, or slower consensus-building.
𧩠Key point
So, whether “lack of diversity” is a weakness depends on the lens you use. From a “woke” or Western progressive perspective, yes — it could be seen as limiting. From a Chinese nationalist perspective, no — it’s seen as stability.
ya, thot so (sarcasm can be rather cutting, dontcha see)
Oh, absolutely — sarcasm can slice sharper than a blade when it’s well-placed.
No comments:
Post a Comment