China's 'complex disaster' and the response of the Nanjing Nationalist Government in 1931

2021 ◽  
Vol 61 ◽  
pp. 75-112
Author(s):  
Jung-hyun Park
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-128
Author(s):  
Pawel Sendyka

Abstract Taiwan is an island that off the coast of China. To say that Taiwan is a country is to offend the Communist People’s Republic of China which claims sovereignty over the island and markets it to the world as a “renegade province” which must be re-united with the mainland, by force, if necessary. For people who know very little about Taiwan and its big neighbour across the Taiwan Strait this may even sound convincing, but the truth is more complex. In 1949 the nationalist government (Kuomintang or KMT) having lost the Chinese Civil War retreated from the mainland; the communists have never ruled the island. The settling of the Republic of China’s government in Taiwan and the era of “White Terror” was another one in a series of historical events that were fundamental in forming the modern Taiwanese identity. Whatever the proponents of “one China” claim, the truth of the matter is that there is a shift in attitudes of the inhabitants of Taiwan in how they feel about themselves (Taiwanese, Chinese or both). This is a crucial fact that will have to be acknowledged in the cross-strait relations. The identity argument as such, is independent of any historical claims. And this Taiwanese identity has been evolving and will continue to do so, shaped by the past and the most recent events like the Hong Kong protests, the pandemic, politics and the military aggression and intimidation by the People’s Republic of China. This article will examine these factors in turn.


1973 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 623-638 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph S. M. Lau

Though Taiwan has since 1949 been the seat of the Nationalist Government and the domicile of several millions of exiled Chinese, no serious literature has been produced until the late fifties.1 Explanations are not difficult to give. For one thing, since nearly all the important figures of modern Chinese literature have remained in the People's Republic of China,” their works are therefore proscribed for political reasons. Cut off from their mainland base, the disinherited young Taiwanese writers, having no native idols to emulate and anxious to create a tradition of their own, could only import from the West whatever “isms” they considered to be the literary fashions of the day—symbolism, surrealism, existentialism, futurism, modernism, phenomenalism, etc. Quite often, however, what they regarded as daring experiments at the time of initiation later turned out to be


1990 ◽  
Vol 22 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 353-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Grugel ◽  
Monica Quijada

In December 1938 an alliance of the Radical, Communist and Socialist parties took office in Chile, the first Popular Front to come to power in Latin America. A few months later, in Spain, the Nationalist forces under Generalísimo Franco occupied Madrid, bringing an end to the civil war. Shortly after, a serious diplomatic conflict developed between Spain and Chile, in which most of Latin America gradually became embroiled. It concerned the fate of 17 Spanish republicans who had sought asylum in the Chilean embassy in the last days of the seige of Madrid, and culminated in July 1940 when the Nationalist government broke off relations with Chile. Initially, the issue at the heart of the episode was the right to political asylum and the established practice of Latin American diplomatic legations of offering protection to individuals seeking asylum (asilados). The causes of the conflict, however, became increasingly obscured as time went on. The principles at stake became confused by mutual Spanish– Chilean distrust, the Nationalists' ideological crusade both within Spain and outside and the Chilean government's deep hostility to the Franco regime, which it saw as a manifestation of fascism. The ideological gulf widened with the onset of the Second World War. This article concentrates primarily, although not exclusively, on the first part of the dispute, April 1939–January 1940. In this period asylum, which is our main interest, was uppermost in Spanish–Chilean diplomatic correspondence.


2008 ◽  
Vol 80 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 191-220
Author(s):  
Alvin O. Thompson

Focusses on the commemoration and symbolic functions of the slavery past in the Americas, with a particular focus on Guyana. Author explains that while symbolic representations of the legacies of slavery increased in the Americas since the 1960s, the nationalist government under Forbes Burnham since 1970 went further in using the slavery past as its ideological foundation. He discusses how this relates to Guyana's history and ethnic development of 2 main, often opposed groups of African- and Indian-descended groups, calling on their respective slavery or indenture past in emphasizing their national significance. He further describes slavery-related symbolic representations promoted under Burnham, specifically the 1763 slave revolt led by Cuffy, presented as first anticolonial rebellion aimed at liberation, and as a precursor to the PNC government, and other slave rebellions and rebels, such as led by Damon in 1834. He points out how some Indian-Guyanese found that Indian heroes were sidelined in relation to these. Author then describes how the annual commemoration of Emancipation Day continues to refer to the martyrdom of these slave rebels, along with other discursive connections, such as regarding reparations. He also pays attention to the activities of nongovernmental organizations in Guyana up to the present in commemorating the slavery past, often with broader African diaspora connections.


Author(s):  
Paul J. Heer

This chapter chronicles Kennan’s and Davies’s central and successful role in formulating US policy toward China on behalf of Secretary of State Marshall during 1947-49. Their focus was on justifying gradual disengagement from US involvement in the Chinese civil war and retreat to a policy of minimum aid to the Koumintang (KMT or Nationalist) government of Chiang Kai-shek, on the grounds that Chiang’s regime was a lost cause and China was strategically expendable. The chapter discusses Kennan’s and Davies’s relative assessments of the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and the prolonged debate over China policy between the State Department and the US military establishment (the Defense Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document