I had to post this video. It succinctly explains what is difficult to say without offending someone.
As for Communist China, they could easily break up and form five or six nations and return strips of land back to nations they took it from such as Korea and Mongolia.
What are these nations? Well there is East Turkestan, the brewing rebellious Muslim province that has no connection ethnically nor linguistically to the Han Chinese.
There is of course Tibet.
Then after returning lands to Korea, the border area around North Korea (Most likely North Korea, but I’d prefer it to return to South Korea) and Mongolia, what the Communist call “Inner Mongolia”.
Then there is ‘China’ itself which could be broken up in many pieces because of of linguistic and ethnic differences, ie, Szechuan, Yunnan, Hun an, etc. But to keep it simple lets say Manchuria and Taiwan right off the bat are free. Then the Mandarin speaking north separates from the Cantonese speaking south and leave it at that.
Nothing like a bit of geopolitics to start off the morning.
Art Deco
Tuesday, October 29, AD 2013 12:32pm
As for Communist China, they could easily break up and form five or six nations and return strips of land back to nations they took it from such as Korea and Mongolia.
What are these nations? Well there is East Turkestan, the brewing rebellious Muslim province that has no connection ethnically nor linguistically to the Han Chinese.
There is of course Tibet.
Tibet and Sinkiang are exceedingly low density territories. The slice of Sinkiang which is either predominantly Uighur or predominantly Kazakh has about 6 or 7 million people living in it. IIRC, Tibet has about three million inhabitants. There actually is no supralocal area where Mongols or Koreans constitute a majority. Less than 1% of the population of China lives in these ethnic minority zones.
About a third of the population does live outside the Mandarin language zone. Not sure whether the various dialects are coterminous with identity formations. Decentralization would certainly be a necessity there given the massive population, but not so sure the people on the ground would aspire to political fragmentation along the lines of Germany prior to 1870 (or 1806).
wpDiscuz
Discover more from The American Catholic
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
Brilliant!
Ben Franklin to James Wilson in the musical 1776 during the vote on independence:
“Every mapmaker in the world is waiting for your decision.”
In the same musical the comment about revolutions put into the mouth of Ben Franklin usually equally applies to new nations:
“Revolutions come into this world like bastard children, Mr. Dickinson – half improvised and half compromised.”
Good one Don!
I had to post this video. It succinctly explains what is difficult to say without offending someone.
As for Communist China, they could easily break up and form five or six nations and return strips of land back to nations they took it from such as Korea and Mongolia.
What are these nations? Well there is East Turkestan, the brewing rebellious Muslim province that has no connection ethnically nor linguistically to the Han Chinese.
There is of course Tibet.
Then after returning lands to Korea, the border area around North Korea (Most likely North Korea, but I’d prefer it to return to South Korea) and Mongolia, what the Communist call “Inner Mongolia”.
Then there is ‘China’ itself which could be broken up in many pieces because of of linguistic and ethnic differences, ie, Szechuan, Yunnan, Hun an, etc. But to keep it simple lets say Manchuria and Taiwan right off the bat are free. Then the Mandarin speaking north separates from the Cantonese speaking south and leave it at that.
Nothing like a bit of geopolitics to start off the morning.
As for Communist China, they could easily break up and form five or six nations and return strips of land back to nations they took it from such as Korea and Mongolia.
What are these nations? Well there is East Turkestan, the brewing rebellious Muslim province that has no connection ethnically nor linguistically to the Han Chinese.
There is of course Tibet.
Tibet and Sinkiang are exceedingly low density territories. The slice of Sinkiang which is either predominantly Uighur or predominantly Kazakh has about 6 or 7 million people living in it. IIRC, Tibet has about three million inhabitants. There actually is no supralocal area where Mongols or Koreans constitute a majority. Less than 1% of the population of China lives in these ethnic minority zones.
About a third of the population does live outside the Mandarin language zone. Not sure whether the various dialects are coterminous with identity formations. Decentralization would certainly be a necessity there given the massive population, but not so sure the people on the ground would aspire to political fragmentation along the lines of Germany prior to 1870 (or 1806).