China: From One Dot to Another Dot
The purpose of this research and writing is to conceptualize and, as a next step, rationalize everything in terms of a dot, which is a version of dialectics, embracing the five grand and smaller models, each one of which could also be looked at as a dot or a partial dot of the original or larger dot.
Arguably, by applying the one-dot theory, we can logically, systematically, and coherently describe, explain, and infer since day 1 of the existence of a HanRen/the Han Chinese and a dynasty or empire. More importantly, the same theory can help us to analyze, for example, the complicated and complex marine and maritime relationship between the two republics, since October 1, 1949: Republic of China (ROC) and People’s Republic of China (PRC), which could be understood dialectically and non-“dialectically.”
The major finding of this writing is that bits and pieces of information, data, and analysis can be easily slotted in the one-dot theory. Hence, we can say that China has been evolving from one dot to another dot in general or from one dot to another dot or dots, only to return to one dot again, in particular. Yes, paraphrasing what John Fitzgerald said in the title of his book chapter, the history of death of China has been greatly exaggerated.
KeywordsChinese history One-dot theory Era and time line Republic of China People’s Republic of China
- Goodman, D. S. G., & Segal, G. (Eds.). (1994). China deconstructs (pp. 21–58). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- LiQing, Z. (2013). CongYiGeZhongGuoKuangJiaDaoYiGeZhongGuoTiXiDeFeiYao. China Review, 188, 4–11.Google Scholar
- Yu, P. K.-H. (2012). First case study as one dot: Conceptualizing Taiwan, Xinjiang, Tibet, etc. as one dot: Contrasting and testing three on-dot theories. In P. K.-H Yu (Ed.), One-dot theory, described, explained, inferred, justified, and applied (pp. 27–40). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar