Talk:Two Chinas

Untitled

This is written poorly: "...and the Kuomintang remain control of Taiwan." It probably should be, "...and the Kuomintang remained in control of Taiwan." Just a thought. In fact there are many more similar errors in this release. I would gladly edit it without adding or subtracting any information if you would let me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NedWinter (talk • contribs) 22:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You can edit this page without someone there to "let" you do it. This is Wikipedia. Don't be shy. Äþelwulf Talk to me. 08:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the phrase "de facto" from the statement that their are "Two Chinas" on a "de facto" basis. Many would claim that "in fact", Taiwan is not a "China", because the name "China" should not in fact be used for Taiwan, so Taiwan is only "China" no a "de jure" basis.Readin 01:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really, the internationally accepted interpretation, for example used by the UN, of international law holds that the PRC has succeeded the ROC to the sovereignty of China, including Taiwan. Hence, de jure there is only "one China" by the most commonly accepted view of the laaw. Thus, there are only "two Chinas" on a de facto basis. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't change the statement to say that their are two China's de jure because, as you say, a lot of people will say that there is only 1 China de jure. However, that doesn't imply that there are 2 China's de facto. A possibility is that there is 1 China and 1 Taiwan de facto. You'll find that whatever the claim, there are planty of people and plenty of reasons to dispute it, so I think we either need to leave it out or write up the opinions of all sides.Readin 00:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I have edited the bottom sections to clear up some errors - but the first titled section still needs to be edited - I don't like the definitive conclusion that "thus there are Two Chinas", for example. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we can just get rid of the sentence "Hence there "Two Chinas"". The beginning of the article says that the "Two Chinas" are the PRC and the ROC. Does it need to be restated? As a minor rewording, I would take the sentences before that and turn them into past tense because they is in a section labeled 1912 to 1949. "The People's Republic of China refused to recognise the government of Republic of China in Taiwan, and claimed that the ROC ceased to exist after 1949. However, the government in Taiwan continued to call itself the "Republic of China" and refused to recognize the People's Republic of China." The next section can describe the current situation regarding recognition, as it does in its first sentence. What do you think?Readin 07:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Why I Yanked Phrase About HK and Macau's Autonomy

I undid the edit that created this line: "People's Republic of China (PRC) - established in 1949, currently controlling mainland China. Hong Kong and Macau also nominally belong to PRC but entitled to high degree of [[Autonomous entity|antonomy]" (emphasic added). I thought I should explain why. The word "nominally" seems to push a POV. It seems pretty obvious that HK and Macau are firmly under Beijing's control, despite them having greater autonomy than other parts of China. The word "entitled" also seems out of place, perhaps only because I've seen "granted" or "given" more commonly used. Perhaps "entitled" is a better word. The biggest reason though, is that the sentence about HK and Macau having a higher degree of autonomy compared to the rest of China, is that it doesn't do anything to explain the meaning of "Two Chinas", which is the topic of the article.Readin (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Description of Areas Controlled by ROC

Current article says Republic of China (ROC) - established in 1912, currently controlling Taiwan Province and part of Fujian Province. Previously, it was changed to Republic of China (ROC) - established in 1912, currently controlling Taiwan and several small islands and island groups. But then it was changed back. The current wording is controversial, incomplete, and misleading. First, it is controversial because the term "Taiwan Province" is offensive to many people who consider Taiwan not a province, but a nation. "Taiwan Province" is often used by people to assert their claim that Taiwan is part of China. The wording is incomplete, because ROC actually controls more than just "Taiwan Province" and part of "Fujian Province". For example, Taipei is not considered part of "Taiwan Province" by the ROC. Finally, it is misleading because the amount of "Fujian Province" controlled by the ROC is very tiny. I believe the other wording is better because it uses common terms for the areas controlled by the ROC, just as common terms are used by for the areas controlled by the PRC. The areas controlled by the PRC are described as "currently controlling mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau." Each province is not listed individually, and administrative division names are not used for non-provincial areas controlled by the PRC (for example, it says "Hong Kong", not "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region"). The previous wording listing Taiwan and other islands simply describes the territories without making judgments or granting legitimacy to any particular POV. For these reasons I will restore the previous wording.Readin (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That's it

I've had it up to *here* with idiots who want poorly written drivel instead of researched, nuanced, and grammatically correct material. If you want crap, go right ahead and eat it. Yes, I'm talking about you, User:Da Vynci.

If you seriously think, for even a second, that the current version is better than the one you've reverted away (diff), then there is absolutely no point for me to put in any effort here at all. Wikipedia is probably the only encyclopaedia on earth that (1) doesn't know how to spell encyclopaedia and (2) lets idiots rule the earth. Goodbye. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Background section

We've been having an edit war recently with a large background section being added and removed. The new background section clearly has information that doesn't need to be here. For example "Yuan Shikai and the Beiyang clique, using their influences with the former imperial court and armed forces, controlled the new government in Beijing. Disillusioned followers of Sun Yat-sen formed a separate government in Guangzhou in 1917. Other autonomous enclaves included Chang Tso-lin's Manchuria (Fengtian clique) and the Ma clique of the Northwest." makes for difficult, off-putting, reading without adding significantly to the understanding of "Two Chinas". This information clearly belongs in an article more dedicated to either the history of China or the history of the Chinese Civil War. It doesn't belong in this article.

The new additions, if they are to be kept, need to be modified to be sure everything directly relates to the "Two Chinas" topic.

If you're looking to expand this article, it needs more details on how diplomacy has been handled in the presence of "Two Chinas". How do third countries decide which one to recognize? How do they handle relations with the one they don't recognize? Does having "Two Chinas" cause confusion and how is such confusion dealt with? Some of these issues are dealt with in the article, but more detail could be provided, particularly about how things have changed over time.

There is a section called "other uses". Right now it uses weasal words: there are other situations in history that may be seen by some as "Two Chinas". More details, and especially citations, are needed here.

There are plenty of ways to improve and expand this article, but a repeat of the early history of the Chinese Civil War, long before the exile of the KMT, isn't the way to go. It may be useful to briefly mention the fall of the Qing and the rise of the KMT and CCP as separate parties, but a detailed history is best left for another article.Readin (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

History

The current History section reads

The Republic of China was founded in 1912, ruled by the Kuomintang as a single-party state. In 1921, the Communist Party of China was founded in Shanghai.

After the Chinese Civil War, the communist party took control of Mainland China and founded the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949. The Kuomintang (and the Republic of China) retreated to Taiwan. Until the 1990s, both governments contended to be the sole legitimate government of China. Most foreign governments recognised the Republic of China as the legitimate government before the 1970s, and most switched recognition to the People's Republic of China after the 1970s.

Since the 1990s, however, a rising movement of Taiwanese independence has made the political status of Taiwan the dominant issue, replacing the debate about the legitimate government of China. One significant opinion in Taiwan is that the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both sovereign, thus forming "two Chinas", or "one China, one Taiwan". The current administration of Republic of China President Chen Shui-bian subscribes to this theory, and accordingly has largely abandoned the campaign for the Republic of China to be recognised as the sole legitimate government of China. Instead, it is campaigning for the Republic of China to join the United Nations as representative of its effective territory - Taiwan and nearby islands - only.

How about

The Xinhai Revolution of 1911 led to the abdication in 1912 of Puyi, the last emperor of China in favour of the new Republic of China, governed as a single-party state by the Kuomintang. The Communist Party of China was founded in Shanghai in 1921, and soon grew to become a potent political force. An era of warlordism and almost continuous civil war followed.

As the Chinese Civil War ended, the communist party took control of Mainland China and founded the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949. The Kuomintang (and the Republic of China) retreated to Taiwan.

Though fighting, including the invasion of several coastal islands by the Communists (with both successes and failures), the bombing of Shanghai and other coastal cities by the Republic of China Air Force, as well as a guerilla campaign waged by remaining Kuomintang forces in southwest China, would continue for the next several years, by the time of the Korean War the lines of control were sharply drawn: the Communist-led People's Republic of China government in Beijing controlled most of mainland China, while the Kuomintang-led Republic of China government, now in Taipei, controlled the island of Taiwan, some surrounding islands, and a number of islands off the coast of Fujian. This stale-mate was enforced with the assistance of the United States government, which, after the start of the Korean War, changed from a policy of abandoning Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang regime to the Communists, to protecting Taiwan against an invasion from the mainland, in the First Taiwan Strait Crisis.

Until the 1990s, both governments contended to be the sole legitimate government of China. With the fighting largely over, the major battleground became the diplomatic. Before the 1970s, few foreign governments recognised the People's Republic of China. The first governments to recognise it as the government of China were Soviet bloc countries, members of the non-aligned movement, and the United Kingdom (1950). The catalyst to change came in 1971, when the United Nations General Assembly expelled representatives of the Chiang Kai-shek by refusing to recognise their accreditations as representatives of China. Recognition for the People's Republic of China soon followed from most other governments, including the United States. The Republic of China continued to complete with the People's Republic of China to be recognised as the legitimate government of China.

Since the 1990s, however, a rising movement of for formal recognition of Taiwanese independence has made the political status of Taiwan the dominant issue, replacing the debate about the legitimate government of China. One significant opinion in Taiwan is that the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both sovereign, thus forming "two Chinas", or "one China, one Taiwan". The current administration of Republic of China President Chen Shui-bian subscribes to this theory, and accordingly has largely abandoned the campaign for the Republic of China to be recognised as the sole legitimate government of China. Instead, it is campaigning for the Republic of China to join the United Nations as representative of its effective territory - Taiwan and nearby islands - only.

Readin (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change with PalaceGuard008's acquiescences. My biggest concern with changing it myself was accuracy, and if he says I should change it that's good enough to me.Readin (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Claims of sovereignty

@Lemongirl942: Please present the list of reasons of your revert to my edits as you promised two days ago. Also, a content you restored with reason "Restoring per source" contains word "sovereignty", yet the source itself mentions no "sovereignty" at all. Did you actually read the source? --Matt Smith (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The source is here. The term "sovereignty" doesn't need to be present in the text - it is pretty clear that from this text the authorities on Taiwan claimed to be the sole legitimate government of all of China, including the mainland. As for the rest of the content you are adding, it may(or may not) be suitable for adding to One-China policy or Political status of Taiwan. But this article is a summary of the situation and is supposed to only briefly provide context. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Topics like this one are highly controversial. If the source does not mention "sovereignty", please do not create the word on your own. That can be considered violating policy WP:NOR. WP:NOR says: "In short, stick to the sources."

"But this article is a summary of the situation and is supposed to only briefly provide context" is your own opinion, not a policy. Please explain your reasons of the revert. Thanks. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

If the source does not mention "sovereignty", please do not create the word on your own. That can be considered violating policy WP:NOR That's your opinion and it seems you don't understand the policy properly. As for the second, yes it is my opinion (and I if consensus is to include more here, I wouldn't mind). The important thing is, we do stuff by WP:CONSENSUS here. If you don't have consensus, you don't make the change. If you edit war or force your changes, I won't hesitate to report you to ANI which will probably result in you being blocked. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Please also see Sovereignty. I am not sure whether English is your native language - if it isn't, it could be a possible reason why you feel this is WP:OR. Sovereignty essentially refers to the authority/right of an entity to govern a territory. That is totally fine here and is the intended meaning. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I hope you're being right. Anyway, my source still contradicts with yours so the current phrasing is still not conforming to WP:NPOV.

As for the second, do you mean that you are preventing other editors from adding more contents based on your opinion?

References

--Matt Smith (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any contradiction. The current text doesn't say that the ROC has given up it's "claims of sovereignty". It simply says it doesn't dispute that the PRC defacto controls the mainland. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The current text "Until the constitutional reforms of 1991" says that. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: According to your interpretation of your source, it says the ROC claims sovereignty until 1991, which means the ROC had given up the claim. Do you still have any doubt about that? --Matt Smith (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I understand what you are trying to say now. Hmm, technically ROC didn't give up claims of sovereignty over the mainland, but it accepted that it is not the current ruler of the mainland. The phrasing will need to be changed to show this nuance, but this will also require sources which actually explain this different. Let me see if I can find some. Btw, please don't move the reflist to the bottom. In a discussion concerning references, the reflist is generally placed before an editor's signature to show that it is the editor who has brought the source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Gonna look at these sources later

• Rubinstein, Murray A. Taiwan: A New History. Routledge. p. 516. ISBN 9781317459088. Retrieved 19 January 2017.
• Wachman, Alan M. Why Taiwan? Geostrategic Rationales for China's Territorial Integrity. NUS Press. p. 45. ISBN 9789971694371. Retrieved 19 January 2017.
• Munsterhjelm, Mark. Living Dead in the Pacific: Contested Sovereignty and Racism in Genetic Research on Taiwan Aborigines. UBC Press. p. 10. ISBN 9780774826617.
• Chinese Armed Forces in the 21st Century. DIANE Publishing. p. 291. ISBN 9780756710026. Retrieved 19 January 2017.
• Schubert, Gunter; Damm, Jens. Taiwanese Identity in the 21st Century: Domestic, Regional and Global Perspectives. Routledge. p. 94. ISBN 9781136701269. Retrieved 19 January 2017.
• Doyle, Don H. Secession as an International Phenomenon: From America's Civil War to Contemporary Separatist Movements. University of Georgia Press. p. 363. ISBN 9780820337371. Retrieved 19 January 2017.
• Nathan, Andrew J.; Scobell, Andrew. China's Search for Security. Columbia University Press. p. 229. ISBN 9780231140515. Retrieved 19 January 2017.
• Huang, Jing; Li, Xiaoting. Inseparable Separation: The Making of China's Taiwan Policy. World Scientific. p. 220. ISBN 9789814287371. Retrieved 19 January 2017.
• Schubert, Gunter. Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Taiwan. Routledge. p. 453. ISBN 9781317669708. Retrieved 19 January 2017.
• Krasner, Stephen D. Problematic Sovereignty: Contested Rules and Political Possibilities. Columbia University Press. p. 248. ISBN 9780231505413. Retrieved 19 January 2017.

I will have to look through these and see how it is described. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps this source (the last paragraph, which starts with "In June 2013,") can be used. As for the position of {{Reflist-talk}}, though it is not a serious issue, I will check with others because the current position affect readability and I'm not sure if that is okay. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Update: Yeah. The {{Reflist-talk}} said it was designed to be like that. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: We already have the source (refence 17 in this historical version). That source confirmes that the ROC officially claims sovereignty over mainland China. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't do that. We look at multiple sources, examine them properly and then go by weight. I will look at this later when I have time. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It will never be too late to adjust the content once someone provides a source of the opposite standpoint. After all, there is no policy prohibits the adjustment of contents based on existing sources. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

No it doesn't work like that. We go by WP:WEIGHT. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It will never be too late to adjust the "weight" once someone provides a source of the opposite standpoint. WP:WEIGHT does not prohibit the adjustment of contents based on existing sources. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS does. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

And for the record, it would help if you actually examine the sources I posted above and see how it is described. We don't randomly pick one source for WP:WEIGHT. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Not that I'm being picky about anyone, but the past experience with someone who ate own words makes me unsure about whether I should trust that person again or not. So could you ensure that you will do what you promised at here and let me know how long it will take?

Do you mean this source? That source has been counteracted by this source. And you just reminded me that the current phrasing in the article isn't neutral since it is the phrasing of a source which has been counteracted by another source. So it looks like an adjustment to the current phrasing is needed. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Well if that's your response, and considering that you have been previously blocked for edit warring, I don't see why I should continue to engage with you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and your claim has been counteracted with this source, so we are even now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

And this as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

And another one. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I would say that block had something do with you ate your own words. And to this day, you have made no apology about your credibility. I have been under an impression that you think it is no big deal. I hope you understand that people are supposed to be honest.

I regret to see that the contents of some sources which describe the position of the ROC aren't consistent with the actual position of the ROC, which had been confirmed by its president in 2013. Incidentally, the third source you linked supports the position of the ROC, as far as I can see. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Your were blocked because you were edit warring. When I warned you, you claimed you were not, but in fact you were. Heck, there are some people in the world who absolutely never want to realise that they are wrong - it's always the whole world's fault. I try not to be like that. Credibility is gained by showing that an editor has contributed productively to the encyclopaedia and has enough experience. On the English Wikipedia, we have frequently had problems with editors who edit in one narrow area who cannot recognise their own bias. They also start discussions where hardly anyone agrees with them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You had been responseless for more than one day (which you shouldn't had been) before that block happened; how could you even "warn" me anything? Do you really understand the whole context? I'm not saying that I was perfect in that case, but I think someone who should have kept her promise and shown up should not self-regard as innocent. While credibility can be gained with contribution to the encyclopaedia, it can also be affected seriously with dishonesty. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You could have taken the opportunity to edit in an area other than ROC/Taiwan perhaps and maybe increased your credibility. But you didn't. You decided to tendentiously edit here, and never bothered to contribute to the encyclopaedia. Instead you edit warred and got yourself blocked and moreover, you adamantly refuse to even admit that you were wrong. And if you cannot understand basic English well enough, your contributions and arguments end up wasting editors' time. Maybe your should stick to contributing to your native language Wikipedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not correct to say that I refuse to admit my fault because I did admit that I was not perfect, and I also said sorry to that admin and said I could had been more reasonable. On the contrary, someone just does not want to admit and apologize for failing to keep her own words. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem is not about being reasonable: it is that you are editing tendentiously in a narrow topic area and you do not understand how stuff works here. We don't put hard and fast deadlines here. (And yes, editors who have tried to do this have been blocked as well). I said I will have a look at it later that day and I did. I actually looked at a lot of sources and understood the situation and I posted the results when I next came online. Good research takes time - which is why we don't put arbitrary deadlines here. It would help if you understand that. I also see you that you focus only on the narrow Taiwan/ROC, so I cannot assume any good faith here. If you are really committed to improving the encyclopaedia, try editing a few articles in a different topic. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Please be genuine about what you said that day. You said you would explain your reason of the revert, not just "have a look at" something. No one is forcing anyone to admit anything. What one wants to do depends on his/her own decision. If there is no more important talks about the article, I will end my part in this discussion. --Matt Smith (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Matt Smith: You have been told before not to mention editors in section headings as per WP:TALKNEW. If you ever do so again, administrative intervention will (again) be sought. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 10:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This section was created on 03:43, 19 January 2017, which was 58 hours before you told me something about WP:TALKNEW. That means you are misunderstanding me. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

No. It means that you change neither your edits nor your behaviour on being informed they are unacceptable. Cheers, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I got what you mean. But I think your phrasing is still not appropriate because it gives an impression that I deliberately created a prohibited section heading after being told not to do so.

However, there is one thing that I would like to admit. Actually, I didn't realize that naming others in a section heading is prohibited until you commented at here pointing out what was wrong. When you told me something about WP:TALKNEW, I didn't read it carefully and thought that it only requires a section heading to be clear about the discussion. If I had read it carefully and learned that naming others in a section heading is prohibited, I would had came to here to update the heading of this section myself immediately. So, it was my mistake to read the guideline carelessly. Hopefully, that didn't cause troubles to anyone. If that did, I'm sorry about that. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Bhutan Wrong Colour on Map

Bhutan is the wrong colour in "The map shows the One-China policy in practice" which appears to incorrectly show that Bhutan recognised the PRC. This is not the case because both the ROC & the PRC claim territory controlled by Bhutan. Consequently, Bhutan has refused to recognise either the ROC or the PRC. 1.127.104.203 (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Removed section on "similar situations"

I removed the following. While it's a nice writeup, it's very much WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. DrIdiot (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Within modern-day Greater China

In Chinese history, periods of prolonged political division and dynastic transition saw the existence of more than one "China" at the same time.

China was politically divided during several sustained periods historically, with two or more states simultaneously existing on territories associated with "China" and claiming to represent "China". Examples include the Spring and Autumn, Warring States, Three Kingdoms, Sixteen Kingdoms, Northern and Southern dynasties, and Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms periods, among others. Just as the PRC and the ROC formally claim exclusive mandate over the entirety of China, historical Chinese dynasties that existed during periods of sustained political disunity often claimed exclusive Chinese politico-cultural orthodoxy at the expense of others.

During dynastic transitions, it was rare for one dynasty to end abruptly and transition smoothly to a new one, resulting in the existence of more than one entity claiming to be "China". For instance, during the Ming–Qing transition, the Ming dynasty existed alongside the Qing dynasty from 1636 to 1644. The predecessor of the Qing dynasty, the Later Jin dynasty, was established in 1616 and ruled over northeastern China whilst the Ming dynasty ruled over China proper. Following the fall of the Ming dynasty in 1644, remnants of the Ming imperial family, whose regime is known in historiography as the Southern Ming dynasty, continued to rule parts of southern China until 1662. Multiple ephemeral regimes also existed during this period, including the Shun and Xi dynasties on mainland China, and the Ming loyalist Kingdom of Tungning on Taiwan.

Outside modern-day Greater China

Main article: Little China (ideology)

Historically, various Sinospheric regimes that ruled over modern-day Korea, Vietnam and Japan came to identify themselves as "China" and claimed to be legitimate successors to the Chinese civilization. Through the adoption of names of China and the invocation of traditional Chinese concepts like Sinocentrism and Hua–Yi ethnic distinction, there were effectively multiple states claiming to represent "China" simultaneously. Such regimes as the Joseon dynasty of Korea, the Tokugawa shogunate of Japan, and the Nguyễn dynasty of Vietnam, among various others, held this political and cultural view.

References