[爆卦]Lessee是什麼?優點缺點精華區懶人包

雖然這篇Lessee鄉民發文沒有被收入到精華區:在Lessee這個話題中,我們另外找到其它相關的精選爆讚文章

在 lessee產品中有3篇Facebook貼文,粉絲數超過2萬的網紅Mordeth13,也在其Facebook貼文中提到, Jenna Cody : Is Taiwan a real China? No, and with the exception of a few intervening decades - here’s the part that’ll surprise you - it never has be...

 同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...

lessee 在 Rei Hayashi Instagram 的最佳貼文

2021-02-03 16:58:46

Many people ask me “Why not ride your Scrambler?” . In Taiwan, almost every adult will have his own scooter as a means of transportation. Especially ...

  • lessee 在 Mordeth13 Facebook 的精選貼文

    2021-03-09 12:04:03
    有 14 人按讚

    Jenna Cody :

    Is Taiwan a real China?
    No, and with the exception of a few intervening decades - here’s the part that’ll surprise you - it never has been.

    This’ll blow your mind too: that it never has been doesn’t matter.

    So let’s start with what doesn’t actually matter.

    Until the 1600s, Taiwan was indigenous. Indigenous Taiwanese are not Chinese, they’re Austronesian. Then it was a Dutch colony (note: I do not say “it was Dutch”, I say it was a Dutch colony). Then it was taken over by Ming loyalists at the end of the Ming dynasty (the Ming loyalists were breakaways, not a part of the new Qing court. Any overlap in Ming rule and Ming loyalist conquest of Taiwan was so brief as to be inconsequential).

    Only then, in the late 1600s, was it taken over by the Chinese (Qing). But here’s the thing, it was more like a colony of the Qing, treated as - to use Emma Teng’s wording in Taiwan’s Imagined Geography - a barrier or barricade keeping the ‘real’ Qing China safe. In fact, the Qing didn’t even want Taiwan at first, the emperor called it “a ball of mud beyond the pale of civilization”. Prior to that, and to a great extent at that time, there was no concept on the part of China that Taiwan was Chinese, even though Chinese immigrants began moving to Taiwan under Dutch colonial rule (mostly encouraged by the Dutch, to work as laborers). When the Spanish landed in the north of Taiwan, it was the Dutch, not the Chinese, who kicked them out.

    Under Qing colonial rule - and yes, I am choosing my words carefully - China only controlled the Western half of Taiwan. They didn’t even have maps for the eastern half. That’s how uninterested in it they were. I can’t say that the Qing controlled “Taiwan”, they only had power over part of it.

    Note that the Qing were Manchu, which at the time of their conquest had not been a part of China: China itself essentially became a Manchu imperial holding, and Taiwan did as well, once they were convinced it was not a “ball of mud” but actually worth taking. Taiwan was not treated the same way as the rest of “Qing China”, and was not administered as a province until (I believe) 1887. So that’s around 200 years of Taiwan being a colony of the Qing.

    What happened in the late 19th century to change China’s mind? Japan. A Japanese ship was shipwrecked in eastern Taiwan in the 1870s, and the crew was killed by hostile indigenous people in what is known as the Mudan Incident. A Japanese emissary mission went to China to inquire about what could be done, only to be told that China had no control there and if they went to eastern Taiwan, they did so at their own peril. China had not intended to imply that Taiwan wasn’t theirs, but they did. Japan - and other foreign powers, as France also attempted an invasion - were showing an interest in Taiwan, so China decided to cement its claim, started mapping the entire island, and made it a province.

    So, I suppose for a decade or so Taiwan was a part of China. A China that no longer exists.

    It remained a province until 1895, when it was ceded to Japan after the (first) Sino-Japanese War. Before that could happen, Taiwan declared itself a Republic, although it was essentially a Qing puppet state (though the history here is interesting - correspondence at the time indicates that the leaders of this ‘Republic of Taiwan’ considered themselves Chinese, and the tiger flag hints at this as well. However, the constitution was a very republican document, not something you’d expect to see in Qing-era China.) That lasted for less than a year, when the Japanese took it by force.

    This is important for two reasons - the first is that some interpretations of IR theory state that when a colonial holding is released, it should revert to the state it was in before it was taken as a colony. In this case, that would actually be The Republic of Taiwan, not Qing-era China. Secondly, it puts to rest all notions that there was no Taiwan autonomy movement prior to 1947.

    In any case, it would be impossible to revert to its previous state, as the government that controlled it - the Qing empire - no longer exists. The current government of China - the PRC - has never controlled it.

    After the Japanese colonial era, there is a whole web of treaties and agreements that do not satisfactorily settle the status of Taiwan. None of them actually do so - those which explicitly state that Taiwan is to be given to the Republic of China (such as the Cairo declaration) are non-binding. Those that are binding do not settle the status of Taiwan (neither the treaty of San Francisco nor the Treaty of Taipei definitively say that Taiwan is a part of China, or even which China it is - the Treaty of Taipei sets out what nationality the Taiwanese are to be considered, but that doesn’t determine territorial claims). Treaty-wise, the status of Taiwan is “undetermined”.

    Under more modern interpretations, what a state needs to be a state is…lessee…a contiguous territory, a government, a military, a currency…maybe I’m forgetting something, but Taiwan has all of it. For all intents and purposes it is independent already.

    In fact, in the time when all of these agreements were made, the Allied powers weren’t as sure as you might have learned about what to do with Taiwan. They weren’t a big fan of Chiang Kai-shek, didn’t want it to go Communist, and discussed an Allied trusteeship (which would have led to independence) or backing local autonomy movements (which did exist). That it became what it did - “the ROC” but not China - was an accident (as Hsiao-ting Lin lays out in Accidental State).

    In fact, the KMT knew this, and at the time the foreign minister (George Yeh) stated something to the effect that they were aware they were ‘squatters’ in Taiwan.

    Since then, it’s true that the ROC claims to be the rightful government of Taiwan, however, that hardly matters when considering the future of Taiwan simply because they have no choice. To divest themselves of all such claims (and, presumably, change their name) would be considered by the PRC to be a declaration of formal independence. So that they have not done so is not a sign that they wish to retain the claim, merely that they wish to avoid a war.

    It’s also true that most Taiwanese are ethnically “Han” (alongside indigenous and Hakka, although Hakka are, according to many, technically Han…but I don’t think that’s relevant here). But biology is not destiny: what ethnicity someone is shouldn’t determine what government they must be ruled by.

    Through all of this, the Taiwanese have evolved their own culture, identity and sense of history. They are diverse in a way unique to Taiwan, having been a part of Austronesian and later Hoklo trade routes through Southeast Asia for millenia. Now, one in five (I’ve heard one in four, actually) Taiwanese children has a foreign parent. The Taiwanese language (which is not Mandarin - that’s a KMT transplant language forced on Taiwanese) is gaining popularity as people discover their history. Visiting Taiwan and China, it is clear where the cultural differences are, not least in terms of civic engagement. This morning, a group of legislators were removed after a weekend-long pro-labor hunger strike in front of the presidential palace. They were not arrested and will not be. Right now, a group of pro-labor protesters is lying down on the tracks at Taipei Main Station to protest the new labor law amendments.

    This would never be allowed in China, but Taiwanese take it as a fiercely-guarded basic right.

    *

    Now, as I said, none of this matters.

    What matters is self-determination. If you believe in democracy, you believe that every state (and Taiwan does fit the definition of a state) that wants to be democratic - that already is democratic and wishes to remain that way - has the right to self-determination. In fact, every nation does. You cannot be pro-democracy and also believe that it is acceptable to deprive people of this right, especially if they already have it.

    Taiwan is already a democracy. That means it has the right to determine its own future. Period.

    Even under the ROC, Taiwan was not allowed to determine its future. The KMT just arrived from China and claimed it. The Taiwanese were never asked if they consented. What do we call it when a foreign government arrives in land they had not previously governed and declares itself the legitimate governing power of that land without the consent of the local people? We call that colonialism.

    Under this definition, the ROC can also be said to be a colonial power in Taiwan. They forced Mandarin - previously not a language native to Taiwan - onto the people, taught Chinese history, geography and culture, and insisted that the Taiwanese learn they were Chinese - not Taiwanese (and certainly not Japanese). This was forced on them. It was not chosen. Some, for awhile, swallowed it. Many didn’t. The independence movement only grew, and truly blossomed after democratization - something the Taiwanese fought for and won, not something handed to them by the KMT.

    So what matters is what the Taiwanese want, not what the ROC is forced to claim. I cannot stress this enough - if you do not believe Taiwan has the right to this, you do not believe in democracy.

    And poll after poll shows it: Taiwanese identify more as Taiwanese than Chinese (those who identify as both primarily identify as Taiwanese, just as I identify as American and Armenian, but primarily as American. Armenian is merely my ethnicity). They overwhelmingly support not unifying with China. The vast majority who support the status quo support one that leads to eventual de jure independence, not unification. The status quo is not - and cannot be - an endgame (if only because China has declared so, but also because it is untenable). Less than 10% want unification. Only a small number (a very small minority) would countenance unification in the future…even if China were to democratize.

    The issue isn’t the incompatibility of the systems - it’s that the Taiwanese fundamentally do not see themselves as Chinese.

    A change in China’s system won’t change that. It’s not an ethnic nationalism - there is no ethnic argument for Taiwan (or any nation - didn’t we learn in the 20th century what ethnicity-based nation-building leads to? Nothing good). It’s not a jingoistic or xenophobic nationalism - Taiwanese know that to be dangerous. It’s a nationalism based on shared identity, culture, history and civics. The healthiest kind of nationalism there is. Taiwan exists because the Taiwanese identify with it. Period.

    There are debates about how long the status quo should go on, and what we should risk to insist on formal recognition. However, the question of whether or not to be Taiwan, not China…

    …well, that’s already settled.

    The Taiwanese have spoken and they are not Chinese.

    Whatever y’all think about that doesn’t matter. That’s what they want, and if you believe in self-determination you will respect it.

    If you don’t, good luck with your authoritarian nonsense, but Taiwan wants nothing to do with it.

  • lessee 在 多益達人 林立英文 Facebook 的精選貼文

    2020-12-12 23:04:59
    有 4 人按讚

    #相似詞語辨析07

    addressee, addresser

    這一對詞都是 address 的派生詞,但涵義卻不相同。
    Addressee /的意思是“收信人”或“收件人 (a person or organization to whom a letter, parcel, telegram, etc. is addressed); addresser/的意思是“發信人”或“發件人” (a person or organization that sends a letter, parcel, telegram, etc.). addresser 亦可寫作 addressor.
    請看例句:
    “Who is the addressee of that letter?" – "It's Prof. Lu, Institute of Foreign Languages, East China University of Technology."
    “這封信的收信人是誰?”“是華東工業大學外語學院的盧教授。”
    I could not find the addressee of this telegram.
    我找不到這封電報的收報人。
    Could you tell me the addresser of the fax?
    您能否告訴我這封傳真是誰發的?
    The addresser is the editorial department of The Commercial Press (H.K.) Ltd.
    發件人是商務印書館(香港)有限公司的編輯部。

    與之類似區別的詞有:
    employee僱員
    employer僱主

    lessee 租借人
    lessor 出租人

    payee收款人
    payer付款人

    licensee被授權人
    licensor 授權人

    ee 是法語後綴,加在動詞之後,構成人稱名詞,表示動作的承受者。 -er 是與ee 相對應的古英語名詞後綴,它表示動作的施授者。通過下例,我們可以進一步辨清用 -ee構成的人稱名詞和用 -er 構成的人稱名詞之間所存在的“承受者”和 “施授者”的詞義區別:
    As we know, it takes two parties to license a work-a licensee and a licensor
    如所周知,授權時要有兩方面的人——被授權人和授權人。

    值得注意的是,在英語裏,有一些以-ee 結尾的名詞並不具有“承受者”的意味,例如,refugee 是“難民”、“流亡者”; devotee 是“信徒”、“愛好者”; escapee 是“逃犯”、“逃亡 者”; absentee 是“缺席者”、“曠課(職)者”。這些詞表達的是 “主動”的涵義,並非“被動”涵義。

    #高雄人 #學習英文 請找 #多益達人林立英文
    #高中英文 #成人英文
    #多益家教班 #商用英文
    #國立大學外國語文學系講師

  • lessee 在 Jeannie Mai Facebook 的最讚貼文

    2017-03-14 05:12:34
    有 538 人按讚


    Damn Mai nails were delish this week, thx M&A Nails! Lessee what's Mai next design 💅 #ManiMonday #MaiGlamFam #MaiBeauty #MaiManicure

  • lessee 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最佳解答

    2021-10-01 13:19:08

  • lessee 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳解答

    2021-10-01 13:10:45

  • lessee 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳解答

    2021-10-01 13:09:56

你可能也想看看

搜尋相關網站