I'll add that most of the "Internet's supporters of Taiwan independence" not only do not live in Taiwan, they have never even visited there -- if they did, they would know that even most of Taiwan's population consider Taiwan and (mainland) China to be one entity. And mainland China mostly agrees with that -- where they disagree is what is the political entity that should govern this territory.
My experience is a personal one -- a couple of jobs ago I was travelling extensively to Taiwan (on a multi-year ROC visa) and had lots of conversations with people.
I can offer a link to ROC constitution (above):
> Because the ROC constitution is, at least nominally, the constitution of all China, the amendments avoided any specific reference to the Taiwan area ...
Or this passage:
> The position of the PRC and the KMT in Taiwan remains that there is only one sovereign entity of China, united and indivisible.
> Domestically, the major political contention is between the Pan-Blue Coalition, which favors eventual Chinese unification under the ROC and promoting a pan-Chinese identity, ...
(KMT/Pan-Blue are the biggest party historically and currently, however Pan-Green were a majority recently.)
Or this poll result: (2024)
Independence as soon as possible 3.8%
Maintain status quo, move toward independence 22.4%
Maintain status quo, decide at a later date 27.3%
Maintain status quo indefinitely 33.6%
So about 60% are for doing nothing (either for now or forever), while 26% have expressed their preference for independence.
Since you went there with a visa, I'm sure you noticed that the authority that issued that visa has nothing to do with Beijing.
And since you also know that the taiwanese want to "maintain status quo", it's probably clear to you that they want to keep their full control, and not be under the rule of the CCP.
Which makes it really interesting, why you keep argueing for "one china".
Believing that China and Taiwan should be reunified is not the same as believing that they are, currently, one entity, which is what was originally claimed.
I'm not certain what exactly you address as "what was originally claimed," however the world maps in both PRC and ROC show one China, not two, and I'm not certain why it should be a reason to disqualify TLA on the basis that "it fails to portray the current map accurately, by not to (sic) separating PRC and ROC."
> the world maps in both PRC and ROC show one China, not two
That is irrelevant. The map is not the territory. They are two countries in reality; that is, they operate as two separate sovereign countries in every practical way, regardless of what legal fictions are maintained for political reasons.
This atlas is presumably supposed to be about reality, not about legal fictions.
(BTW: North Korea and South Korea officially claimed to be one country until very recently, and South Korea still does. But every map in the outside world shows them as two. Why should China and Taiwan be treated differently?)
It only looks like this from the West, where the support for independent Taiwan is much higher than in Taiwan itself (not to speak of PRC where it's non-existent.) People in Taiwan don't perceive China as a different country (the way that French perceive Germany for example) but rather as a different (unfortunate) regime over the same nation.
> This atlas is presumably supposed to be about reality, not about legal fictions.
With the current reality in east Ukraine/Georgia/Northern Cyprus/Israel-Palestine/Kosovo/etc.etc.etc., I'm not sure if it's ever possible to get a map that will satisfy everybody, as what is "legal fiction" to you might be "internationally recognised borders" for someone else.
> It only looks like this from the West, where the support for independent Taiwan is much higher than in Taiwan itself (not to speak of PRC where it's non-existent.) People in Taiwan don't perceive China as a different country (the way that French perceive Germany for example) but rather as a different (unfortunate) regime over the same nation.
I think this misses the point. It doesn't matter if 0% or 50% or 100% of people in Taiwan or anywhere else believe that Taiwan is legitimately independent. That has no bearing on whether it actually is, in practice.
An "Atlas of World History" should strive to portray who actually controls territory in the real world, regardless of whether that control is "recognized" or "legitimate". Otherwise it is an "Atlas of Political Thought" or "Atlas of International Law" or something else.
> With the current reality in east Ukraine/Georgia/Northern Cyprus/Israel-Palestine/Kosovo/etc.etc.etc.,
Yes exactly. For the same reasons, Crimea and various parts of East Ukraine should be labeled as part of Russia, East Jerusalem and places like Ari'el should be labeled as part of Israel, etc. This has nothing to do with whether I think any of those borders would be "legitimate" or "legal" or what percentage of the people who live there accept them.
Then this atlas is doing a really really good job, as the label "Taiwan" only appears after 1949, Crimea after 2014, Cyprus is divided after 1974, Georgia after 2008, and (state of) Palestine never appears at all. However sibling comments seem to be offended by Palestine/Crimea/Tibet situation.
Except for a very important one. Taiwan is not internationally recognized as an independent country by almost all nation-states. And those few that recognize Taiwan (or rather ROC) as a country do not recognize PRC as a country.
You may say that ROC is a de facto separate country, although the constitution doesn't imply necessarily so, but simply that there's a different government.
The fact that the international community and even it's own constitution doesn't recognize it as an independent country shows that it's more than legal fiction and simply that de facto China is still under civil war.
Note that in taiwan people want the status quo, not reunification. And nobody likes to do things when threatened by force, which is what the CCP is doing
I'm sure that you can see in the map that there's "free are of the republic of china", which wasn't represented in the map, which was the point I raised originally. I never mentioned taiwan independence, you twist the facts and my word for your political agenda.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ROC_Administrative_a...
I'll add that most of the "Internet's supporters of Taiwan independence" not only do not live in Taiwan, they have never even visited there -- if they did, they would know that even most of Taiwan's population consider Taiwan and (mainland) China to be one entity. And mainland China mostly agrees with that -- where they disagree is what is the political entity that should govern this territory.