except china, china for some reason always unite despite many civil war and unrest
like imagine at some point roman empire and china is co-exist together and 2000 years later only 1 survive
like imagine at some point roman empire and china is co-exist together and 2000 years later only 1 survive
Yeah but the empire is still in fact china, like you cant change that
1. does they identified some sort of "chinnese" ???: Yeah
2. does they still speak some form of "chinnese language": Yeah
"buttt it iss different eeeerrr" before you talking about whats different, BRO ITS 2000 YEARS, what do you expect ???? like do you expecting people not changing anything for two millenia????? like cmon bruh, use your critical thinking
"china proper" as whole is always referring to "whole region" not just this empire or dynasty or anything
but you can ignore the satirical part and focus at bullet point
also: https://web.archive.org/web/20250102025407/https://nces.ed.g...
I think one possible reason is that the Qin Dynasty really managed to assimilate everyone into the same shared values, religion, language, writing, and so on. Other empires didn't succeed to that level, and the people in them always had strong differences, language, values, religion, beliefs, writing, philosophy, and so on.
Qin conquered the other Chinese states and the ensuing dynasty flamed out immediately. The work of creating an empire was done by the following Han dynasty.
> There's even a famous quote for this: "what is long divided must unite, what is long united must divide"
分久必合，合久必分
https://ctext.org/sanguo-yanyi/ch1
Often given as "the empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide", but your translation is much closer to the text, which doesn't mention empires except in that it follows this statement ["They say that across the course of history, what has long been divided must unite, and what has long been united must divide"] with a discussion of Chinese governments schisming and unifying.
The shared values, religion, language, and writing preexisted the Qin. So much was shared that the state of Qin considered it a problem - Qin propaganda (before the conquest) tended to emphasize how different they were from the other Chinese states.
The point was a glib response to an assertion that China is somehow especially unified as a matter of policy or politics. And, yeah, no; no it is not. At all.
What I said was that the Chinese civil war is technically ongoing, as evidence for deep and persistent Chinese political disunity, and I stand by that 100%.
You're arguing with someone else, I think. And in particular you seem to be arguing from the perspective of the PRC with regard to Taiwanese independence, which I find distasteful.
You continue to make mistakes. The people of Taiwan have no desire to be autocratically ruled by either the winners or the losers of the Chinese civil war and are no longer ruled by either.
I do not. There is no ongoing civil war. The vast majority of Taiwan (except for the small minority composed of the fleeing KMT) had nothing to do with the civil war, so it is incorrect to say that the people who fought that civil war make the chips produced in Taiwan.
> you're just going blue in the face yelling about a technicality regarding what you perceive is my alignment with whoever your enemies in domestic Taiwanese politics are
No, I am fully aware (and have been since the beginning) that you have no conception of Taiwanese politics. I'm correcting your incorrect statements about China and Taiwan's relationship to it.
You have a mistaken belief that Taiwan is mostly descendants and supporters of the KMT. It is not, even after the suppression of other political groups during martial law. Unlike the KMT, the current dominant parties have never aspired to rule China.
It sounds like a joke but that is exactly how it works and many people have forgotten it.