Doesn't this answer your own question? 50 years are nothing in historical terms.
So if the short timescale discounts Taiwan shouldn't it also discount China?
Of course what should matter is what the people of Taiwan want. Will the West provide enough response if it were needed? Sadly I suspect not.
The way I see it, PRC is just the current regime, China is the whole culture/nation. Tomorrow China might not be RPC, but China and Taiwan peoples will still have much longer historical ties.
It makes sense for Taiwanese people to want to have their own regime (after all the whole regime there was defined in opposition to the communist change in China), but it also makes sense for the mainland culture to consider them a part of their nation.
So, if those places had historical and cultural ties with other nations that go way back (like Chinese and Taiwanese people have), then yes, a recent split might not mean much for the legitimacy of a new country.
If those places were merely occupied for centuries/millennia and "gotten their independence" then no.
Heck, colonial powers designed and build states based on all kind of splits in existing peoples to "divide and conquer" them. Statehood comes and go, actual historical and national cultural ties are what's long lasting.
From your past comment histories, it is clear you are pro China in every sense of the word. Maybe you should reexamine your values and see why you are so supportive of a disgusting government.
That's quite an overreaction, considering the person you are replying to did not mention China at all.
I'm not supporting any governments, I'm for supporting peoples and exposing hypocrisy.
I have my issues with the Chinese government (for their internal behavior to their people), but Chinese foreign policy ain't it.
People from places who actively invaded tens of countries that did nothing to theirs (and meddled with mine and others nearby), cry crocodile tears about China's horrible behavior -- the drop of tourism in some Pacific islands they have a beef with...
Your feelings are easy to understand, but HN is an international site and people have strong feelings on all sides of such questions. For HN to continue as a forum for thoughtful discussion, we all need to remain respectful. If you can't do that, please don't post here.
Creating an account and showing up in the threads gunslinging is not ok, and levelling personal accusations against another user for political or nationalistc reasons is a bannable offense.
A split into two countries South / North post Civil War would be a better example.
That seems like a distinction without a difference for this topic.
It really seems like you're trying delegitimize the idea of Taiwanese independence by being extremely selective with the criteria you consider, to the point of introducing irrelevant ones to deter analogies that are favorable to it.
Yes, Taiwan is ethnically and culturally Chinese, but it's also a de-facto independent nation that's a prosperous democracy. If they want to subsume themselves into the PRC's Communist dictatorship, the decision should be up to the Taiwanese and the Taiwanese alone. If they chose independence, that choice is entirely legitimate, despite any ethic or cultural ties that may exist.
Similarly, if it's so important to the PRC that mainland China be politically united with Taiwan, they're also perfectly free to dissolve their government and place the mainland under the jurisdiction of the ROC.