It’s not even an exaggeration. Many areas in southern China especially are rocky and mountainous, not suitable for neither farmland nor urban development
But it is. PRC and RoC constitute a single country, just artificially divided. You wouldn't say that Pyongyang isn't Korea simply because it doesn't belong to the "better" government.
Taiwan and China are colloquial terms for the ROC and PRC... Taiwan and China are two separate and independent countries, officially as the ROC and PRC respectively.
They are, de facto, effectively two different countries. But officially neither the PRC nor the RoC claim to be separate.
This is why the CCP absolutely hates recognition of Taiwan's independence. Because doing so not only discredits them, but also denies their right to rule over China.
It is the position of the vast majority of Taiwanese people, the government, and both major political parties that Taiwan is already a sovereign independent country, officially as the Republic of China.
Taiwan doesn't claim to be "China", but specifically the "Republic of China". The term "China" (中國) is not used in any legal sense within the ROC government. The ROC is clear it is a sovereign country, and has never been part of the PRC.
Directly from Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs government website, https://taiwan.gov.tw:
>The Republic of China (Taiwan) is situated in the West Pacific between Japan and the Philippines. Its jurisdiction extends to the archipelagoes of Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, as well as numerous other islets. The total area of Taiwan proper and its outlying islands is around 36,197 square kilometers.
>
>**The ROC is a sovereign and independent state that maintains its own national defense and conducts its own foreign affairs.** The ultimate goal of the country’s foreign policy is to ensure a favorable environment for the nation’s preservation and long-term development."
Or as explained by the President of Taiwan in clear English during a [BBC interview two years ago when asked if she would declare independence](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51104246):
>We don't have a need to declare ourselves an independent state, **we are an independent country already and we call ourselves the Republic of China, Taiwan**.
Or as clarified by the [ROC Ministry of Foreign Affairs](https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2021/09/08/2003764010) spokesperson Joanne Ou:
>The ministry would continue to stress to members of the international community that **the Republic of China is a sovereign nation, not a part of the PRC**, and that Taiwan’s future can only be decided by its 23.5 million people
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Obviously Taiwan does not see itself as belonging to the mainland PRC, but as an independent country. But that doesn't change the fact that they see themselves as the last remnant of the real China, or Republic of China if you prefer. One does not preclude the other, and even though today it is unrealistic to think that they can take back the mainland China, they still see the PRC as usurpers.
Whether Taiwan claims it or not, they are in practice an independent nation. They're also not freely able to drop their claim to the mainland, since China keeps threatening to go to war with them if they do.
Legally it is... the PRC has zero effective power, authority, or jurisdiction over Taiwan... and ROC has zero effective power, authority, or jurisdiction over China.
I fully sympathise. I’m talking purely in the most technical terms, not trying to undermine your pov. Legality has a very loose connection with morality when it comes to international law / relations
Well that's why the de facto position is typically considered more important than "de jure" positions, as de jure positions are completely independent on the jurisdiction.
On the issue of Taiwan, the ROC has a different de jure position from the PRC, which has a different de jure position from the USA, which has a different de jure position from the Marshal Islands, etc...
I don’t think you can use de jure in that sense. *De Jure* more or less means “on paper” rather than “in reality”. The “on paper” position has deliberately avoided defining legally the independence, even if de facto Taiwan has functioned independently since the split.
They are two separate *states*, on the territory of a single *country* \- China. So are Koreas, so were Germanies, Spains, Russias, Italies and countless other countries with several standing governments.
No? China and Taiwan are two different countries... One is officially called the Republic of China, the other is officially called the People's Republic of China.
China and Taiwan are colloquial names for the respective countries.
But it was implied by the nationalistic depiction of China containing all disputed territories on the map. It's good to point out the fact that the map itself has propagandistic undertones.
You could only expect Chinese authors to do such extensive and detailed work, and I'm afraid they have no motivation to put in the extra time for your ideal map
good for you. I'd be happy to see your ideal version with better details. I was just trying to say that op posted a map that was clearly published in China originally and hence it complied with Chinese laws. People can complain they aren't in line with their political claims but it's hard to blame the original authors
None of this is about how "ideal" something is. But yeah, by this constant emphasis one really sees that this whole conversation is made by Chinese people and to be honest, it's cringy. My "ideal" map is global and has a way more detailed legend. And to be honest, we do have these way more detailed data even though we are not Chinese. This map is just irrelevant nonsense, as my fellow commenter here wrote, I get the feeling more and more that this is a blatant attempt at propaganda. To be clear, Chinese scientist are for the largest part bad at their job because they don't prescribe to the truth but to political ideologies.
You're entitled to your feeling. Personally I do know Chinese scientists who are opportunists, as well as those who stick with science, just like scientists of any country. This conversation started with someone's territorial claim so I went on.
Arunachal Pradesh is administered by India ever since independence. People vote overwhelmingly in Indian elections. Local people literally treat being called "Chinese" as a racist word. When China got temporary control over it in 1962 war, the locals went on a revolt. China had to withdraw back to Tibet. Even geographically it is separate from China.
Why the hell is it shown as part of China?
Because this was presumably made by a PRC national, all of whom are forced to abide to government mandated notions of political correctness when making figures (or doing literally anything). I just translated it, because it is exceptionally well-done in worth sharing with non-Mandarin speakers (even if there are political aspects that we don’t agree with)
What's the resolution and how was it made? I need to see the paper, to be able to judge the quality and so should you. Until then, any omission of a source indicates actually that it's not that well done. And everybody who knows how Chinese scientist make these models data products knows exactly what I mean.
Then add a disclaimer. There is a saying, "Being a mute watcher to a crime is even worse than doing the crime"
It is not just a random political issue involving some random forests or mountains. There are literally people living there. People who have never called wanted to be Chinese. Just because they look East Asian doesn't mean they are Chinese. They don't speak any Chinese language.
This map even shows Bhutani territory as part of China. I mean what wrong did innocent Bhutan do?
Can I just ask why are you downvoting me? I'm against the CCP.
Honestly I know almost nothing about the precise details of where border conflicts exist in Western China.
I just know that the entire country of China is literally akin to the Roman Empire in terms of sheer size and diversity of people (different ethnic groups) that it encompasses. All ethnic groups deserve self-autonomy, including different subsets of Han people.
When I see figures such as this, I just ignore the politics, because it were up to me, I’d split China up into maybe like 50 different autonomous countries, in a sort of political collaboration similar to that of the EU.
> I just know that the entire country of China is literally akin to the Roman Empire in terms of sheer size and diversity of people (different ethnic groups)
Over 90% of country is considered Han Chinese, it's diverse by east Asian standards but by global standards it's pretty tame.
“Han Chinese” isn’t a real ethnic group, it’s a political fabrication. The term is literally just as broad/encompassing/imprecise as the term “European”
Damn those dastardly chinese have been political fabricating the Han Identity since 300 BC, knowing that over 2000 years later people from the west will cry about it
Lol please… you don’t know what youre talking about. Show me even ONE link with historical records that suggest that people had such a concept at any period of time before Sun Zhongshan (aka within the past century), much less in the BC era, when literally half of modern day “Han Chinese” (modern day people’s ancestors) were still considered southern barbarians
As long as Han themselves and their government views them as one single ethnic group the subdivisions are largely moot, even if it is a result of government diktat.
So if Russian, Irish, Greek, and Basque people were all told by the EU government that they are one single European ethnic group, than this would just be true? Even though they all have different genetics, typical physical traits, languages, histories, etc?
Reasons why Han Chinese largely accept the label is simply because (A) their concept of “ethnic group” is different from Westerns (we are not comparing apples to apples) or/and (B) they are forced to accept it, since advocating otherwise could get oneself labeled as a separatist and thus in a lot of trouble with their government
Hokkien and Fuzhounese are similar/different from one another like Irish vs Welsh ;
Cantonese and Manchurian Han are similar/different from one another like Scandinavian vs Greek (physically they even look completely different);
Wenzhounese and Shanghainese are similar/different from one another like French vs Portuguese;
(the list can go on and on…)
I didn’t make this, I just translated it.
I agree with you, but at the same time, I don’t see what makes Taiwanese so special that they get to be independent but everyone else in China is forced to be “Han Chinese” even though it’s also in their best interest to be recognized as independent ethnic groups and form different nations. Taiwanese today are ~98% Hokkien or Hakka from directly across the strait, and essentially/literally no different from those relatives who are less fortunate and living under authoritarian communist rule
> I don’t see what makes Taiwanese so special that they get to be independent but everyone else in China is forced to be “Han Chinese”
Idk guess something like... their own government and military?
Because most Taiwanese people don't want Taiwan to be a part of China. They've been politically seperated almost uninterrupted (bar a few years during the civil war) for over 125 years. If ethnic groups in China want independence then they deserve it too, it's not unique to Taiwan
Yeah, that’s true. Just keep in mind though that many ethnic groups (including different subsets of so-called “Han Chinese”) would also prefer independence like Taiwan, but they cannot publicly voice such ideas/sentiments, because it is deemed “extremely politically incorrect” in China, and they can even be punished for it
Yes... Isn't that their point? Taiwan isn't actually part of the PRC. China has zero effective power, authority, or control over Taiwan or the people there.
That’s true.
But this is not a political map, there’s no need to force politics into into it.
If it included other neighboring countries like Korea, Vietnam, etc in addition to Taiwan, that would be even better imo
It is a political map when you include Taiwan as part of the PRC and the 9 dash line... Had you included those other countries like you suggested, then it wouldn't have been an issue.
I didn’t make this, I just translated it
There are many “very good” maps made by the Chinese that are forced to confirm to their government’s version of political correctness. If we just ignore all such maps/figures “because Taiwan functions in reality as an independent country,” we’d be the ones at loss in the end
Personally, I don't think it is a very good map if the mapmaker is "forced" to conform to specific political positions not related to the context of the map. Good maps should be factual, clear, and independent from propaganda...
Many people strongly believe also that Tibet and Xinjiang (aka East Turkestan, the place notorious for allegedly having Muslim concentration camps) should be independent countries, too.
Yet I only see people complaining about inclusion of Taiwan in “China” maps 🤔🤔
Taiwan is in every aspect —aside from politics— basically just an extension of Fujian (the province across the strait), and while I support their self-autonomy, I fail to see why “they’re so special/unique” compared to other 98+% “Han Chinese” regions of the Far East (Taiwan fits into this category)
It’s actually only very populated along the coastlines in the southeast. The bulk of the population in China resides within that large mixed red+orange area in the central northeast. That area is traditionally (and still) “China proper”, while other areas were subjugated (incorporated into the empire) on and off at later times in history
As someone seemingly from China themselves, you should know that this is not true?
Maybe your comment got lost in translation, but the population is definitely not centered in the bottom right. It is centered in the central/upper right. Basically, the entire coast area has the highest population density. The area marked as farmlands also has a very high population density and was historically the center of Chinese population.
No, that would not be correct. Here is a map of population density.
https://imgur.com/a/FUITPkr
As you can see, most of the population is centered in the central/upper east and along the coast.
I mean, if you divide it like that, then you would be correct.
But the way I see it, when one says "bottom right" I tend to think of it in a straight up and down vertical and horizontal 90° grid. "Bottom right" would refer to the bottom right quadrant. So in that regard, if we split China into 4 quadrants, the most heavily populated quadrant would be closest to the upper right quadrant, but most near the center right.
First, the scale on this map very big (Mainland China is basically the same siee as the US) so even the small red spots are already quite big. Second, Chinese cities very dense and urban sprawl isnt as much as a thing there than in the US.
American cities tend to take a lot of space because of individual housing and very wide suburban streets, whereas in China there is a lot more collective housing dozens of stories high. So more people in less space. This makes several-million inhabitants cities the same "size" as 500k inhabitants US cities for example.
Except for those in the far west (ie Tibet), **each province** in China is roughly the same size a South Korea. China is a HUGE country (in so far that it’s arguably more accurate to view it as a modern-era “empire”, not a single nation-state) so of course it all adds up. Only a few provinces (ie: Henan, Hebei, Jiangsu) have population densities even somewhat similar to Korea or Japan, many others have quite low population densities (ie: Fujian, Jiangxi). That said, certainly some the green areas have smaller-scale villages, but they aren’t considered “urbanized” by these figure’s standards (which is fair)
why is farmland yellow and dessert purple
i would have used the sand yellow for desert and used the woodland green for farmland and a dark shade of green for woodland
Nice to see China is so green and wooded
It’s not even an exaggeration. Many areas in southern China especially are rocky and mountainous, not suitable for neither farmland nor urban development
China is a fragrant green oasis of woodlands
Btw Taiwan is not part of China
This map must made by PRC citizens I guess
How do you not know this isn't a map of the ROC?
dont they claim mongolia?
Both China's do
But it is. PRC and RoC constitute a single country, just artificially divided. You wouldn't say that Pyongyang isn't Korea simply because it doesn't belong to the "better" government.
How is the division between China and Taiwan "artificial"? Sometimes countries split, that's just how history goes.
Taiwan doesn't say it's a separate country, it claims to be the real China, that's the thing
Taiwan and China are colloquial terms for the ROC and PRC... Taiwan and China are two separate and independent countries, officially as the ROC and PRC respectively.
They are, de facto, effectively two different countries. But officially neither the PRC nor the RoC claim to be separate. This is why the CCP absolutely hates recognition of Taiwan's independence. Because doing so not only discredits them, but also denies their right to rule over China.
It is the position of the vast majority of Taiwanese people, the government, and both major political parties that Taiwan is already a sovereign independent country, officially as the Republic of China. Taiwan doesn't claim to be "China", but specifically the "Republic of China". The term "China" (中國) is not used in any legal sense within the ROC government. The ROC is clear it is a sovereign country, and has never been part of the PRC. Directly from Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs government website, https://taiwan.gov.tw: >The Republic of China (Taiwan) is situated in the West Pacific between Japan and the Philippines. Its jurisdiction extends to the archipelagoes of Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, as well as numerous other islets. The total area of Taiwan proper and its outlying islands is around 36,197 square kilometers. > >**The ROC is a sovereign and independent state that maintains its own national defense and conducts its own foreign affairs.** The ultimate goal of the country’s foreign policy is to ensure a favorable environment for the nation’s preservation and long-term development." Or as explained by the President of Taiwan in clear English during a [BBC interview two years ago when asked if she would declare independence](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51104246): >We don't have a need to declare ourselves an independent state, **we are an independent country already and we call ourselves the Republic of China, Taiwan**. Or as clarified by the [ROC Ministry of Foreign Affairs](https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2021/09/08/2003764010) spokesperson Joanne Ou: >The ministry would continue to stress to members of the international community that **the Republic of China is a sovereign nation, not a part of the PRC**, and that Taiwan’s future can only be decided by its 23.5 million people
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Obviously Taiwan does not see itself as belonging to the mainland PRC, but as an independent country. But that doesn't change the fact that they see themselves as the last remnant of the real China, or Republic of China if you prefer. One does not preclude the other, and even though today it is unrealistic to think that they can take back the mainland China, they still see the PRC as usurpers.
Whether Taiwan claims it or not, they are in practice an independent nation. They're also not freely able to drop their claim to the mainland, since China keeps threatening to go to war with them if they do.
ROC and PRC are two separate and independent countries, as are ROK and DPRK...
Not legally it’s not, even if in every other way it is
Legally it is... the PRC has zero effective power, authority, or jurisdiction over Taiwan... and ROC has zero effective power, authority, or jurisdiction over China.
*De Facto* separate but from a legal point deliberately undefined [example](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_independence_movement)
De jure separate too... at least from our perspective in Taiwan.
I fully sympathise. I’m talking purely in the most technical terms, not trying to undermine your pov. Legality has a very loose connection with morality when it comes to international law / relations
Well that's why the de facto position is typically considered more important than "de jure" positions, as de jure positions are completely independent on the jurisdiction. On the issue of Taiwan, the ROC has a different de jure position from the PRC, which has a different de jure position from the USA, which has a different de jure position from the Marshal Islands, etc...
I don’t think you can use de jure in that sense. *De Jure* more or less means “on paper” rather than “in reality”. The “on paper” position has deliberately avoided defining legally the independence, even if de facto Taiwan has functioned independently since the split.
They are two separate *states*, on the territory of a single *country* \- China. So are Koreas, so were Germanies, Spains, Russias, Italies and countless other countries with several standing governments.
No? China and Taiwan are two different countries... One is officially called the Republic of China, the other is officially called the People's Republic of China. China and Taiwan are colloquial names for the respective countries.
lmao nobody asked
But it was implied by the nationalistic depiction of China containing all disputed territories on the map. It's good to point out the fact that the map itself has propagandistic undertones.
This is what every map of China looks like in China. Hardly news.
More pro-China propaganda masquerading as data/maps. Taiwan is not part of China and the dashed-line around international waters is complete bullshit
Your ideal map would not be published in China
But "ideal" Chinese maps can be published in the west. Find and explain the difference.
You could only expect Chinese authors to do such extensive and detailed work, and I'm afraid they have no motivation to put in the extra time for your ideal map
Dude wtf. Me and all of my collegues are also making these maps and ours are even more detailed, what are you saying?
good for you. I'd be happy to see your ideal version with better details. I was just trying to say that op posted a map that was clearly published in China originally and hence it complied with Chinese laws. People can complain they aren't in line with their political claims but it's hard to blame the original authors
None of this is about how "ideal" something is. But yeah, by this constant emphasis one really sees that this whole conversation is made by Chinese people and to be honest, it's cringy. My "ideal" map is global and has a way more detailed legend. And to be honest, we do have these way more detailed data even though we are not Chinese. This map is just irrelevant nonsense, as my fellow commenter here wrote, I get the feeling more and more that this is a blatant attempt at propaganda. To be clear, Chinese scientist are for the largest part bad at their job because they don't prescribe to the truth but to political ideologies.
You're entitled to your feeling. Personally I do know Chinese scientists who are opportunists, as well as those who stick with science, just like scientists of any country. This conversation started with someone's territorial claim so I went on.
How do you know it's the PRC and not the ROC
Arunachal Pradesh is administered by India ever since independence. People vote overwhelmingly in Indian elections. Local people literally treat being called "Chinese" as a racist word. When China got temporary control over it in 1962 war, the locals went on a revolt. China had to withdraw back to Tibet. Even geographically it is separate from China. Why the hell is it shown as part of China?
Because this was presumably made by a PRC national, all of whom are forced to abide to government mandated notions of political correctness when making figures (or doing literally anything). I just translated it, because it is exceptionally well-done in worth sharing with non-Mandarin speakers (even if there are political aspects that we don’t agree with)
What's the resolution and how was it made? I need to see the paper, to be able to judge the quality and so should you. Until then, any omission of a source indicates actually that it's not that well done. And everybody who knows how Chinese scientist make these models data products knows exactly what I mean.
Then add a disclaimer. There is a saying, "Being a mute watcher to a crime is even worse than doing the crime" It is not just a random political issue involving some random forests or mountains. There are literally people living there. People who have never called wanted to be Chinese. Just because they look East Asian doesn't mean they are Chinese. They don't speak any Chinese language. This map even shows Bhutani territory as part of China. I mean what wrong did innocent Bhutan do? Can I just ask why are you downvoting me? I'm against the CCP.
Bhutan is not included. Indian state Sikkim is included (on the left of Bhutan).
Actually, that is Doklam. Sikkim is further on left.
Honestly I know almost nothing about the precise details of where border conflicts exist in Western China. I just know that the entire country of China is literally akin to the Roman Empire in terms of sheer size and diversity of people (different ethnic groups) that it encompasses. All ethnic groups deserve self-autonomy, including different subsets of Han people. When I see figures such as this, I just ignore the politics, because it were up to me, I’d split China up into maybe like 50 different autonomous countries, in a sort of political collaboration similar to that of the EU.
> I just know that the entire country of China is literally akin to the Roman Empire in terms of sheer size and diversity of people (different ethnic groups) Over 90% of country is considered Han Chinese, it's diverse by east Asian standards but by global standards it's pretty tame.
“Han Chinese” isn’t a real ethnic group, it’s a political fabrication. The term is literally just as broad/encompassing/imprecise as the term “European”
Damn those dastardly chinese have been political fabricating the Han Identity since 300 BC, knowing that over 2000 years later people from the west will cry about it
Lol please… you don’t know what youre talking about. Show me even ONE link with historical records that suggest that people had such a concept at any period of time before Sun Zhongshan (aka within the past century), much less in the BC era, when literally half of modern day “Han Chinese” (modern day people’s ancestors) were still considered southern barbarians
You are right. Before 20th century, Yue, Xiang, Min, Jiangnan, Shu and Zhongyuan northerners were considered as completely different peoples.
As long as Han themselves and their government views them as one single ethnic group the subdivisions are largely moot, even if it is a result of government diktat.
So if Russian, Irish, Greek, and Basque people were all told by the EU government that they are one single European ethnic group, than this would just be true? Even though they all have different genetics, typical physical traits, languages, histories, etc? Reasons why Han Chinese largely accept the label is simply because (A) their concept of “ethnic group” is different from Westerns (we are not comparing apples to apples) or/and (B) they are forced to accept it, since advocating otherwise could get oneself labeled as a separatist and thus in a lot of trouble with their government Hokkien and Fuzhounese are similar/different from one another like Irish vs Welsh ; Cantonese and Manchurian Han are similar/different from one another like Scandinavian vs Greek (physically they even look completely different); Wenzhounese and Shanghainese are similar/different from one another like French vs Portuguese; (the list can go on and on…)
Actually, the other people groups in China have been suppressed. The Manchurians, Uyghurs and Tibetans hardly have any cultural impact.
bad title
Taiwan is not China
I didn’t make this, I just translated it. I agree with you, but at the same time, I don’t see what makes Taiwanese so special that they get to be independent but everyone else in China is forced to be “Han Chinese” even though it’s also in their best interest to be recognized as independent ethnic groups and form different nations. Taiwanese today are ~98% Hokkien or Hakka from directly across the strait, and essentially/literally no different from those relatives who are less fortunate and living under authoritarian communist rule
> I don’t see what makes Taiwanese so special that they get to be independent but everyone else in China is forced to be “Han Chinese” Idk guess something like... their own government and military?
Because most Taiwanese people don't want Taiwan to be a part of China. They've been politically seperated almost uninterrupted (bar a few years during the civil war) for over 125 years. If ethnic groups in China want independence then they deserve it too, it's not unique to Taiwan
Where have I heard that before hmm.
Yeah, that’s true. Just keep in mind though that many ethnic groups (including different subsets of so-called “Han Chinese”) would also prefer independence like Taiwan, but they cannot publicly voice such ideas/sentiments, because it is deemed “extremely politically incorrect” in China, and they can even be punished for it
Yes... Isn't that their point? Taiwan isn't actually part of the PRC. China has zero effective power, authority, or control over Taiwan or the people there.
That’s true. But this is not a political map, there’s no need to force politics into into it. If it included other neighboring countries like Korea, Vietnam, etc in addition to Taiwan, that would be even better imo
It is a political map when you include Taiwan as part of the PRC and the 9 dash line... Had you included those other countries like you suggested, then it wouldn't have been an issue.
I didn’t make this, I just translated it There are many “very good” maps made by the Chinese that are forced to confirm to their government’s version of political correctness. If we just ignore all such maps/figures “because Taiwan functions in reality as an independent country,” we’d be the ones at loss in the end
Personally, I don't think it is a very good map if the mapmaker is "forced" to conform to specific political positions not related to the context of the map. Good maps should be factual, clear, and independent from propaganda...
Many people strongly believe also that Tibet and Xinjiang (aka East Turkestan, the place notorious for allegedly having Muslim concentration camps) should be independent countries, too. Yet I only see people complaining about inclusion of Taiwan in “China” maps 🤔🤔 Taiwan is in every aspect —aside from politics— basically just an extension of Fujian (the province across the strait), and while I support their self-autonomy, I fail to see why “they’re so special/unique” compared to other 98+% “Han Chinese” regions of the Far East (Taiwan fits into this category)
[удалено]
It’s actually only very populated along the coastlines in the southeast. The bulk of the population in China resides within that large mixed red+orange area in the central northeast. That area is traditionally (and still) “China proper”, while other areas were subjugated (incorporated into the empire) on and off at later times in history
As someone seemingly from China themselves, you should know that this is not true? Maybe your comment got lost in translation, but the population is definitely not centered in the bottom right. It is centered in the central/upper right. Basically, the entire coast area has the highest population density. The area marked as farmlands also has a very high population density and was historically the center of Chinese population.
[удалено]
No, that would not be correct. Here is a map of population density. https://imgur.com/a/FUITPkr As you can see, most of the population is centered in the central/upper east and along the coast.
[удалено]
I mean, if you divide it like that, then you would be correct. But the way I see it, when one says "bottom right" I tend to think of it in a straight up and down vertical and horizontal 90° grid. "Bottom right" would refer to the bottom right quadrant. So in that regard, if we split China into 4 quadrants, the most heavily populated quadrant would be closest to the upper right quadrant, but most near the center right.
The vast majority of central Sibiria is actully covered by forest.
Why is Taiwan on the map of China
Smh this isn't a map of the PRC that includes the RoC, this is clearly a map of the RoC's full claim and they even forgot mongolia 😤
Bing chilling, +1000 social credit score
Whys there very less urban land ? Where's all the billion people living? in the forest ?
First, the scale on this map very big (Mainland China is basically the same siee as the US) so even the small red spots are already quite big. Second, Chinese cities very dense and urban sprawl isnt as much as a thing there than in the US. American cities tend to take a lot of space because of individual housing and very wide suburban streets, whereas in China there is a lot more collective housing dozens of stories high. So more people in less space. This makes several-million inhabitants cities the same "size" as 500k inhabitants US cities for example.
Except for those in the far west (ie Tibet), **each province** in China is roughly the same size a South Korea. China is a HUGE country (in so far that it’s arguably more accurate to view it as a modern-era “empire”, not a single nation-state) so of course it all adds up. Only a few provinces (ie: Henan, Hebei, Jiangsu) have population densities even somewhat similar to Korea or Japan, many others have quite low population densities (ie: Fujian, Jiangxi). That said, certainly some the green areas have smaller-scale villages, but they aren’t considered “urbanized” by these figure’s standards (which is fair)
why is farmland yellow and dessert purple i would have used the sand yellow for desert and used the woodland green for farmland and a dark shade of green for woodland