Sure, ignoring the rightful owner of any lands of any aborigines works for your narrative. Maybe not so for the Aborigines. Don't they see it as conquering colonials -- whether in Australia, USA to Taiwan? It's silly from your perspective since its been hundreds of years ago and the conquerors basically decimated the native populations with the justification that they brought economic development to the lands. That's exactly what the Afrikaners said about owning South Africa and the enslavement of the native blacks.
Like I said earlier,
time seems to be the solution to washing off the sins of the past -- and not restitution or acknowledgement -- like some self-imposed statute of limitation.
But I digress.
The Chinese have been on the island of Taiwan since the 1300s. Not this 'rebel' government but under the rule of the prevailing governments of Beijing.
Beijing did not invade HK and Macau to get back what they perceive to be their lands. So I don't see them invading Taiwan either.
As far as they see it, it's a domestic situation. So why provoke the situation?
What does the US Congress/Gov't gain by visiting?
Some symbol of freedom? Give me a break -- it lost the moral high ground when they left the women and children in Afghanistan to be abused again under the Taliban a year ago. (That's a HUGE black stain in my books.)
And so you seriously think the US is willing to lose American blood in the protection or in a more politically palatable/jingoistic term:
the fight for the freedom of the Taiwanese people?
There is zero chance of that happening especially after walking out on the women & children of Afghanistan.
So why provide false promises and hopes and fool the Taiwanese government into emboldening of their stance?
There are zero purposes for the visit other than for one's own political expediency.
Btw. the different Taiwanese governments have varying stances toward China too. Some are more pro-unification than others.
1. From my quick research, the Taiwanese apparently claim that they were self-ruled (NOT ruled by China) until the 1600s, and then the island was given by China to Japan in 1895. So the implication that the Chinese have an ancient claim to Taiwan dating to the 1300s is false. Yes, you elided that implication by stating Chinese "have been on the island" but, of course, whether Chinese "have been on the island" is absolutely irrelevant.
China claims self-governed Taiwan as part of its territory - but the island sees itself as distinct.
www.bbc.com
2. You assume aboriginal's are the "rightful owners" of any piece of land. I reject that. I'm betting the Chinese government agrees with me and not you. A lot of Uyghers might back up this claim:
China has been accused by the US of genocide and crimes against humanity against the Muslim minority group.
www.bbc.com
3. Given the treatment of the Uyghers (see link above), if we accept your premise and poll only Tawainese aboriginals on the question: Do you want the Chinese Communist Party to rule over you or do you prefer your present arrangement with the Tawainese government? How does that come out?
4. You are being inconsistent with your complaint that "time washes away the sins of the past." On the one hand you claim that CHINA has a rightful claim to Taiwan because they conquered it 400 years ago; yet that the current Tawainese (who treat the aborigines much better, I'm willing to bet, than the conquerors in the 1600s--not the 1300s) do not. Unless you are claiming that the Chinese want to use military force to take over the island to restore its rightful owners, the aboriginals? Obviously, you don't believe that. (I'd insert a cute emoji here but don't know how).
And OF COURSE time wipes away the sins of the past. Do you honestly think someone who traces his lineage back to an ancient Egyptian Pharoah owes an apology or money or land to someone who traces his lineage back to an enslaved Egyptian? Our quibble, if we were to have one, is on how close in time, not your wrongly asserted, too-broad statements.
But on this fundamental point, we will disagree. I am firmly within the Western tradition--I think morality (and merit) is to be applied to individuals, not groups, and certainly not cross-generational "peoples." (I admit there is a continuum of reasonableness for using the morality metaphor towards groups, based on how big they are, what they do, and the temporal link between them). Logically, I think applying those terms to groups is a category error. Pragmatically, I think that kind of thinking leads to all kinds of bad results--like racism, genocide, discrimination, etc. "Narratively," I think it is used as a tribal mechanism to suggest supernatural links between people who might be related or look alike, and I reject all forms of mysticism.
So If you are not going to argue within that tradition and with that assumption and instead refer to some mystical "spirit of a people" or "the way Chinese are" or the "the way colonozers are," etc. and their collective guilt that is passed down to us in the present, we can't really advance very far in persuading each other on that point.
5. I don't care about which nation has "the moral high ground." I grant that the U.S. government's concern with Taiwan is based on national self-interest, as defined by the ruling class and that that interest is based in economics, not the human flourishing of the Taiwanese.
But
I care about the actions that might advance the collective good of the people involved. And in that calculus, I care much less about stock market returns than I do the lives of 24 million people living on the island of Taiwan. Does Pelosi care about those lives? I don't know (I would hope she does). Her motivations do not affect MY calculus as to whether the action helps or hurts the Taiwanese. (By the way, the politicians know this which explains why they use the rhetoric they do--indeed that is one of the fundamental skills of a politician of any age or culture--translating national interest goals into personal moral goals/language of the society).
Please note: I've addressed your arguments; I have not attacked you as a person. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.
