Article: China must recover territory 'looted' by neighbours, said PLA General

[civfanatic]

As I know, people in south Tibet are yellow race, and they are unhappy.

Arunachaalis are as Chinese as you are Japanese.

Instead of assuming the feelings of 1 million people, you should go talk to them personally. IMO, they are among the most patriotic peoples in India.

 

[Ray]

here is real Chinese history in terms of Han nationalist view. and yes, it disregard Yuan and Qing. even so, China has it much better under this lens than Macedonia vs "real" Greek states. and India is many times worse in terms of single entity.

Anti-China nationalists like to argue that China was often conquered by foreign peoples, and that therefore the Chinese are a weak people who can't fight.

I will prove in this thread that this is not the case, and that their false perceptions exist strictly because they fail to correctly understand history and to define what they mean.

Definitions

In order to measure how often China was conquered by foreign peoples, we must first define what is China and what is Chinese. This is common sense, yet most anti-China nationalists fail at it like they fail at life. If you are the sort that says, "well, Shang lived in the region of Dongyi and must therefore have been non-Chinese, so we must say that Chinese were enslaved by Shang" then I would rather punch you in the face than try to argue with you because it's obvious you are simply retarded. Besides the historical errors with that statement, you can't fundamentally be "non-Chinese" before there was a concept of "Chinese," and you can't expect the "Chinese" to defend "China" before such a state existed. The Shang, like the Zhou and the Xia, were proto-Chinese and must be treated as such. You would not say that Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla conquering each other's land is an example of Koreans being conquered, would you? Then why say it of Chinese?

So how do we define Chinese? Well, the first mention of Zhongguo, the Central Kingdom, comes from Shangshu, which was written around the 6th century BC. It was around this time that the idea of civilized Chinese and uncivilized barbarians first arose, so it is this time that must be treated as the rise of China and the Chinese identity. Actually, the Shangshu was speaking of opinions held during the Eastern Zhou (Spring and Autumn, ~770 BC) or earlier, when the civilization around the Central Plains pulled ahead of their neighbors in sophistication and power. Even though China was still divided between many states at this time, I will start my count here because it is possible to talk about Chinese and non-Chinese.

Count

From 770 BC - 221 BC, China was never conquered by a foreign people. The various aristocratic houses of the Warring States were all linked by common belief in their inheritance of the splendid Chinese civilization that was the relic of the three proto-Chinese dynasties (San Dai) of Xia, Shang, and Zhou.

So far, ratio of Chinese:foreigner is 550:0.

Beginning in 238 BC, the state of Qin began a campaign to conquer China. In 221 BC, it was completed. The next fifteen years, Qin ruled. Now, many people say that Qin was semi-barbarian - of Rong or partial Rong stock. For the sake of consistency in defining Chinese and non-Chinese, I will pretend that Qin was non-Chinese even though Qin was mostly developed by Central Plains administrators (ie Shang Yang). This is because we are measuring how often the core of China was conquered by peoples considered barbaric or semi-barbaric to it.

So, the ratio is now 550:15.

Next, Qin was overthrown and Liu Bang, a northern Jiangsu native, assumed power. Liu Bang started the Han Dynasty, which lasted for the next four hundred years. In all this time, never was China conquered by a foreign people. Instead, China expanded in all directions, conquering many foreign peoples.

The ratio is now 950:15.

In 200 AD, the Han Dynasty collapsed. People often think this was the time China was conquered by northern nomads. This is not true. Western Jin Dynasty lasted at least until 300 AD.

The ratio is now 1050:15.

Now comes the first period in which China was actually conquered by a foreign people. But was China really conquered? As I said in other thread, it was Jin Dynasty's policy of settling barbarians in China that resulted in China's northern provinces being slowly taken over by nomads. Thus, we cannot say that nomads conquered China by invading it. Still, they did manage to shake off Chinese rule so I will give it to them, even though:

1. Southern China was never lost
2. Many of China's northern regions, even cut off from Jin Dynasty help, managed to hold off the nomads for a long time

Age of Fragmentation lasted until 600 AD.

The ratio is now 1050:315.

Next part is where anti-China nationalists once again fails to have a clue. Sui and Tang Dynasties rise to power. Because Sui and Tang emperors apparently have Xianbei blood, to them that means non-Chinese conquered China. This is plainly retarded. Sui and Tang emperors were not foreigners. Even the Xianbei part of their family had been in China for several centuries. They did not conquer China from the outside. They raised Chinese armies and identified as Chinese. Sui and Tang emperors never claimed to be non-Chinese; instead they claimed descent from Han Dynasty nobles. In judging a people's ability to resist conquest it is imperative to figure out whether they had any cause to resist. Chinese had no cause to resist Sui and Tang emperors because they were regarded as Chinese. So Sui and Tang Dynasty cannot be considered as conquest by non-Chinese.

The ratio is now 1350:315.

With the collapse of Tang in 900 AD, there was a period of about 60 years in which five dynasties ruled northern China. Three of these were non-Chinese, while two were Chinese. It must be noted that none of these dynasties managed to conquer all of China. Indeed many only held parts of China in the far north. Moreover, they claimed to be legitimate successors of the Tang, a Chinese dynasty, which actually put them in power (as local princes) in the first place. But to be consistent, I will count them as non-Chinese.

The ratio is now 1350:345.

Northern Song came to power next. Northern Song held northern China for 150 years. However, some parts of northern China were held at this time by Khitan Liao, ceded to them by treacherous Shatuo Turk from five dynasties, and Tangut Xi Xia. But Khitan Liao and Xi Xia actually didn't hold much Chinese core territory.

They certainly didn't hold Chinese capitol at the time, so can't be considered conqueror. Losing some territory != being conquered, or else Korea would be conquered for most of its history.

The ratio is now 1500:345.

Jurchen Jin came next. Jurchen Jin was conquest dynasty of Jurchens. It lasted 120 years in northern China. But not all of China was conquered by Jurchen Jin - like with Age of Fragmentation, Southern China survived this whole time. Still, I will count it for consistency.

The ratio is now 1500:465.

Next was Mongol Yuan, which lasted 100 years. All of China was conquered by Mongols. It was first true conqueror dynasty and treated Chinese as occupied people.

The ratio is now 1500:565.

Next was Ming Dynasty, which lasted 300 years.

The ratio is now 1800:565.

Finally, Qing was Manchu conquest dynasty for 250 years. Second dynasty to conquer all of China and treat Chinese as occupied people (though better than Mongols; Manchus eventually adopted most Chinese ways).

The ratio is now 1800:815.

ROC + PRC is 100 years. Note Japan never conquered all of China, but since Japanese held Chinese capitol I will include it for consistency sake (8 years).

The ratio is now 1900:823.

From this, we can see that Chinese controlled core of China 70% of the times in last three thousand years of history. Only 30% of the times was Chinese northern core conquered, and Southern China was only conquered by foreigners for about 350 years total, or 12.8% of its history.

We see that Chinese are hardly pushovers. It is only by playing ethnic ancestry games that anybody can argue with my analysis, but such games are clearly besides the point. We are talking about Chinese ability to defend their country. If Chinese don't rise to defend their country because emperor is considered Chinese, how does that reflect Chinese weakness? All it really does is reflect ignorance by other people of Chinese way: Mandate of Heaven based on merit, no matter ethnicity, so long as person follows Chinese culture and self-identifies as Chinese.

To those who disagree: let me ask - Obama is half-black. Does that mean blacks conquered US?

Get real.




this is to not even get into how Greeks (macedonia), Egyptians (too many, but greeks as example), India (foreign muslims covers more) have more issues under this lens. frankly put, China was more of a unified single entity than its historic peers throughout the same time frame.

So, after all the hoop la and jumping the hoops, calling people names and using unsophisticated language, enlightenment seems to have visited you and it appears that your new found discovery that the Yuan and the Qing are non Han!

We are discussing China and not the Greece, India or for that matter, Patagonia. To divert indicates shaky grounds under your feet. What we are discussing is what Han China is and not which of the civilisation was the best or worst.

Anti China sentiments may like to discuss the conquering of China, but is that wrong? Are you suggesting that China was never conquered? Even the official Communist line of China speaks of the 100 years of Shame. Since you are a diehard fan of the CCP, are you suggesting that Wen and his partymen are talking through their hat?

Do read 'Washing 100 Years of Shame' that the official line projects.
Washing 100 years of Shame

No country or civilisation has been strong right through history and it is asinine to believe that it is so. It is your paranoia that suggests to you that anyone is mentioning that China is a weak nation. What are you actually trying to prove? You seem to be very angry young man on an overdrive of vicious jingoism that is bereft of reality.

To be frank, you have to prove nothing. And no one is asking you to achieve martyrdom! History, as is available in the books and articles, is what we go by and not waft on the wings of fantasy and ridiculous interpretation that has the stink of indoctrination.

The recorded history of China starts possibly with the two distinct cultural groups of the Neolithic The Yangshao and the Lungshan. The Xia Dynasty was thought to be a part of a myth that the Chinese tell as part of their history. The Xia Dynasty was in oral histories, but no archaeological evidence was found of it until 1959. Excavations at Erlitous, in the city of Yanshi, uncovered what was most likely a capital of the Xia Dynasty. The site showed that the people were direct ancestors of the Lungshan and were predecessors of the Shang.

And then the dynasties of Imperial China succeeded one after the other till the modern times of today.

What is China?

China claims to be of Han entity. Therefore, any land or people who were not Han are people who have been captured and converted to become Han and thus, their lineage cannot be accepted as Han!

That is the reality but not the fiction being spun that non Hans are actually Hans all the way through history!

Since you raised the issue of India, unlike China where people are forced and their identity and culture is crushed to make them one single entity, in India, it is the reverse. We are liberal and we welcome all and we don't impose a single culture and language. We believe that it is Unity in Diversity. We allow all to flourish in their original avatar while still being an Indian!

We are proud that we are One People with many cultures, religions and languages. It makes us rich by this experience of freedom to chose!

Next to the most ridiculous argument that you put forth on Obama being half black and US history. Has the American every claimed that history started with the arrival of 'Pilgrims Progress' or the arrival of the black slaves?

You want others to 'Get real'. Guess who requires to do so rather urgently?

Doctor Heal Thyself!

 

[Ray]

Quote Originally Posted by Minghegy View Post
As I know, people in south Tibet are yellow race, and they are unhappy.

They are unhappy?

Who told you?

Wen or Mao?

At this rate, you will claim that poster maomao is a Chinese!

Many Bengalis have Mongoloid blood, as do Assamese.

So, they are Chinese?

 

[Ray]

Timeline of Chinese Dynasties

Timeline

 

[Ray]

Just for Laughs,

Read all my posts above in reply to all yours and then go ahead. This will prevent repetitions and going around in circles.

By the way, why was the Great Wall built if all were Hans and hence Chinese?

Han Chinese constitute about 92% of the population of the People's Republic of China (mainland China).

So that means everyone and every dynasty were all Hans!

Right?

 

[Ray]

an interesting debate. if u don't get your BASIC facts straight, actually u're trying to build a tower on sands which's bound to collapse. for example

Here Mao's metaphor - East Wind >> Socialism, and Anti-Colonism forces; West Wind >> 'Imperialism', Colonism, "Capitalism"



oh My God, can anyone come up clarifying if it's true - 40% of India under control of Maoists??

Please, tell me it's not some intelligence from your almighty Fool-Ya Bureau, Myanmar, or Bangladesh are already 'under the spell of Beijing'.. eh? someone mentioned Sri Lanka was about to kowtow to Beijing too??

Did you not see the thread showing Chinese photograph showing Nepali Maoist wearing Chinese uniforms?

The photo read:

身穿中国制军服的尼泊尔毛派武装

= China-made military uniforms, wearing the Maoists in Nepal.

 

[pmaitra]

dont bs. Yuan and Qing is like Mughal to India.

Why, because they were non-Han? If one has to be Han to be Chinese, then why are Tibet, East Turkestan, Manchuria and Inner Mongolia even part of PRC? I hope you realise who all the "bs" [sic] is coming from.

I am pretty sure, PRC is like the Mughals for the Uighurs and Tibetans and PRC isn't particularly famous all around the world for its human-rights records in these regions.

Besides, giving titles does not entitle PRC the right to forcibly rule others. The current occupation of Tibet and East Turkestan is by force, and by force alone. Majority of Tibetans and Uighurs resent presence of Han Chinese in their regions, whether civilians or security forces. One just needs to take away PRC's capability to use brute force on occupied territories and PRC will shrink into half of its current size.

 

[JustForLaughs]

Sorry for the late reply.

I was preoccupied with my other work.

Appealing to your vanity that you are knowledgeable does not in any manner prove that you are so equipped!

Your logic is unique. What do you wish to imply by stating that the Yaun Dynasty was the shortest in history? By that token you would state that they Mao era does not count in Chinese history. By the Chinese logic I would not be surprised that when he was alive and in power he was 100% correct as and now that he is dead already there is the official statement that Mao was 70% correct and 30% wrong! Therefore, changing and suiting history is but a Chinese expertise that knows no parallel.

What are you trying to explain by appending a whole lot of links without explanation?

So Kublai Khan was a Chinese? He is as Chinese as I am a Mongolese (if there is anything like that)!

Kublai (or Khubilai) Khan was the fifth Great Khan of the Mongol Empire from 1260 to 1294 and the founder of the Yuan Dynasty in East Asia. Kublai Khan had also claimed the title of Great Khan, i.e. supremacy over the other Mongol khanates (Chagatai Khanate, Golden Horde, Ilkhanate).

As I said earlier, the Yuan Dynasty is not Chinese. It is Mongol. It, however, is a part of Chinese history where an imperial foreign ruler ruled what is China. The Yuan Dynasty of Kublai Khan was what untied what is known as China. He defeated the Southern Song.
How does the u/m that you mention makes him a Chinese?
1. moving capital from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karakorum to Beijing
2. claiming the Mandate of Heaven
3. even declaring a dynasty
4. Yuan Emperors were not even recognized by Mongols later because they were "too Chinese"
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_era_name
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven
And who says that the Mongols or other Khans did not recognise Kublai? Why was he known as the Great Khan? Check what I have written about his supremacy of the Khanates.

By the way Kublai Khan issued paper banknotes known as Chao (鈔) in 1273. Paper currency had been issued and used in China before the Yuan time. By that token and your logic, the world should be part of the Song dynasty and so a part of the Chinese Empire, right? After all, the world also uses paper currency!!

The Mandate of Heaven was coined by the Zhou Dynasty and thereafter it remained as a part of succeeding dynasty since it was a heaven sent formula to usurp power by invoking the Almighty and his realm! And anyway, the Zhou began as a semi-nomadic tribe that lived to the west of the Shang kingdom and thus hardly Chinese.

As far as the word China is concerned that you so copiously refer to, the history of the word is that the first recorded use of the word "China" in English is found in Decades of the New World (1555) by Richard Eden. The origin of this word is the subject of various scholarly theories. It may be derived from Cin, a Persian name for China popularized in Europe by Marco Polo. The word China is derived from the Sanskrit word CÄ«na, used as a name for China as early as AD 150.

The traditional theory, proposed in the 17th century by Martin Martini, is that "China" is derived from "Qin" (秦 =Chin), the westernmost of the Chinese kingdoms during the Zhou dynasty, or from the succeeding Qin dynasty (221 – 206 BC).[ In the Hindu scriptures Mahābhārata (5th century BC )\ and Laws of Manu (2nd century BC), the Sanskrit word CÄ«na is used to refer to a country located in the Tibeto-Burman borderlands east of India.[20] Another theory is that the inhabitants of Yelang, an ancient kingdom in what is now Guizhou, referred to themselves as 'Zina', and may also be the source of the Sanskrit word CÄ«na.

The official name of China changed with each dynasty or with each new government, the imperial governments referred to themselves as the Empire of the Great Qing, Empire of the Great Ming, etc. However, the common name remained as Zhōngguó through dynastic changes. This translates traditionally as "Middle Kingdom," or as "central country."


Could you connect with my post what made you comment - more ignorance. Tang Taizong's maternal side was mixed xianbei. Chinese follow the fatherline? You seem to have lost me.

The bringing up the issue of the Han Chinese calling others barbarians and converting them to be Hans by destroying their identity and culture means a lot. Ask the Tibetans and Uighurs. It is the typically pathetic Chinese mindset that feels that if one is forced to accept the Han Chinese way, be it following Chinese culture, administration and tradition and so on, it means that the people have 'arrived'. Very preposterously racist, to say the least.

Of course non Han means non Chinese. If it were not so, then why make those you called barbarians follow Han culture, tradition and also the language and now you classify them as Hans?! Your logic and analytical power leaves much to be desired.

History may not have ethnicity to do anything for the right to rule, but history does not also show that you destroy a culture and identity and force them to become your identity and follow your culture. If it were so, then people from a large part of the world would have become Englishmen since the sun never set on the British Empire!! Your logic astounds!

You say that if the Chinese considers a previous dynasty as Chinese, then it is! Bravo! Logic, sir, your astounding logic wildly at play! Are you being serious or have you mistaken this as the Jokes Thread? It is beneath contempt to comment since such a thought is only credible from a Communist and not from the free world where we have not mortgaged our brains and intelligence to the State.

So, you are now claiming Manchuria and Mongolia as a part of China? Actually, historically, the Manchus and the Mongols had made what the geographical entity is called China as theirs. Therefore, China was but Mongolia and then Manchuria. Sun Yat Sen brought about what is modern China as is known today.

There is nothing funny about my posts. What is funny is that you are a hilarious addition to the DFI!! Welcome! Your moniker is well selected!

If the truth is that Chinese have no historical identity, then it is a sad commentary. As I understand all human beings on Earth have some identity to start with and then their identity evolves with the passage of time!

how anyone can make such incredibly long posts and still say nothing is amazing.

you seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between Han and Chinese. no one claim Mongol or Manchu has Han. it is CHINESE that we are arguing.

wrong, it isnt just if Chinese consider it Chinese, it is outsiders as well of that time period. you are a nobody.

you cant read french, but you were COMPLETELY CONQUERED AND RULED by Britain. can you read english?


THE TREATY OF NANKING
Nanking, August 29, 1842
Peace Treaty between the Queen of Great Britain and the Emperor of China.

This treaty between Britain and China ended the first opium war, fought between 1839 and 1842. The occasion for the war was the destruction in May 1839 by the Chinese emperor's 'drug tsar', Lin Zexu, of thousands of casks of Indian opium, without compensation, that were destined to be sold by the private British traders operating in Canton harbor to Chinese dealers in defiance of a ban placed on the illegal substance by the Chinese government. Despite the ban, the British government supported the traders on the specious grounds that suppression of the drug was China's responsibility only and that it should not proceed by an assault on the property (i.e., opium) of British subjects.

The fighting, via sporadic land and naval battles, ended in complete victory for Britain which was thus in a position to impose the following onerous terms on China in relation to the opening of additional ports of trade and the elimination of barriers to the convenient conduct of a centuries old lawful trade. Note that no mention is made of opium which continued to be an illegal substance. Moreover, the drug trade could now continue without interruption as far as the traders were concerned for the treaty also ceded to Britain the offshore island of Hong Kong where the opium traders could thenceforth conduct their illegal operations.

HER MAJESTY the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and His Majesty the Emperor of China, being desirous of putting an end to the misunderstandings and consequent hostilities which have arisen between the two countries, have resolved to conclude a Treaty for that purpose . . . . . . .
Who, after having communicated to each other their respective Full Powers, and found them to be in good and due form, have agreed upon and concluded the following [selected] Articles:

I.

The Government of China having compelled the British merchants trading at Canton to deal exclusively with certain Chinese merchants, called Hong merchants (or Co-Hong), who had been licensed by the Chinese Government for that purpose, the Emperor of China agrees to abolish that practice in future at all ports where British merchants may reside, and to permit them to carry on their mercantile transactions with whatever persons they please; and His Imperial Majesty further agrees to pay to the British Government the sum of 3,000,000 of dollars, on account of debts due to British subjects by some of the said Hong merchants (or Co-Hong), who have become insolvent, and who owe very large sums of money to subjects of Her Britannic Majesty.

There shall henceforward be peace and friendship between Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and His Majesty the Emperor of China, and between their respective subjects, who shall enjoy full security and protection for their persons and property within the dominions of the other.

II.

His Majesty the Emperor of China agrees, that British subjects, with their families and establishments, shall be allowed to reside, for the purposes of carrying on their mercantile pursuits, without molestation or restraint, at the cities and towns of Canton, Amoy, Foochowfoo, Ningpo, and Shanghai; and Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, &c., will appoint Superintendents, or Consular officers, to reside at each of the above-named cities or towns, to be the medium of communication between the Chinese authorities and the said merchants, and to see that the just duties and other dues of the Chinese Government, as hereafter provided for, are duly discharged by Her Britannic Majesty's subjects.

III.

It being obviously necessary and desirable that British subjects should have some port whereat they may [maintain] and refit their ships when required, and keep stores for that purpose, His Majesty the Emperor of China cedes to Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, &c., the Island of Hong-Kong, to be possessed in perpetuity by Her Britannic Majesty, her heirs and successors, and to be governed by such laws and regulations as Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, &c., shall see fit to direct.

IV.

The Emperor of China agrees to pay the sum of 6,000,000 of dollars, as the value of the opium which was delivered up at Canton in the month of March, 1839, as a ransom for the lives of Her Britannic Majesty's Superintendent and subjects, who had been imprisoned and threatened with death by the Chinese High Officers
And it is further stipulated, that interest, at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum, shall be paid by the Government of China on any portion of the above sums that are not punctually discharged at the periods fixed.

V.

The Government of China having compelled the British merchants trading at Canton to deal exclusively with certain Chinese merchants, called Hong merchants (or Co-Hong) . . . the Emperor of China agrees to abolish that practice in future at all ports where British merchants may reside, and to permit them to carry on their mercantile transactions with whatever persons they please; and His Imperial Majesty further agrees to pay to the British Government the sum of 3,000,000 of dollars , on account of debts due to British subjects by some of the said Hong merchants, who have become insolvent, and who owe very large sums of money to subjects of Her Britannic Majesty.

VI.
The Government of Her Britannic Majesty having been obliged to send out an expedition to demand and obtain redress for the violent and unjust proceedings of the Chinese High Authorities towards Her Britannic Majesty's officer and subjects, the Emperor of China agrees to pay the sum of 12,000,000 of dollars, on account of the expenses incurred; and Her Britannic Majesty's Plenipotentiary voluntarily agrees, on behalf of Her Majesty, to deduct from the said amount of I2,000,000 of dollars, any sums which may have been received by Her Majesty's combined forces, as ransom for cities and towns in China, subsequent to the 1st day of August, 1841

VII.

It is agreed, that the total amount of 21,000,000 of dollars, described in the 3 preceding Articles, shall be paid as follows:
6,000,000 immediately.
6,000,000 in 1843; that is, 3,000,000 on or before the 30th of the month of June, and 3,000,000 on or before the 3Ist of December.
5,000,000 in 1844; that is, 2,500,000 on or before the 3oth of June, and 2,500,000 on or before the 3Ist of December.
4,000,000 in 1845; that is, 2,000,000 on or before the 3oth of June, and 2,000,000 on or before the 3Ist of December.
And it is further stipulated, that interest, at the rate of 5 per cent per annum, shall be paid by the Government of China on any portion of the above sums that are not punctually discharged at the periods fixed.

VIII

The Emperor of China agrees to release, unconditionally, all subjects of Her Britannic Majesty (whether natives of Europe or India), who may be in confinement at this moment in any part of the Chinese empire.

IX.

The Emperor of China agrees to publish and promulgate, under his Imperial sign manual and seal, a full and entire amnesty and act of indemnity to all subjects of China, on account of their having resided under, or having had dealings and intercourse with, or having entered the service of Her Britannic Majesty, or of Her Majesty's officers; and His Imperial Majesty further engages to release all Chinese subjects who may be at this moment in confinement for similar reasons.

X.
His Majesty the Emperor of China agrees to establish at all the ports which are, by the 2nd Article of this Treaty, to be thrown open for the resort of British merchants, a fair and regular tariff of export and import customs and other dues, which tariff shall be publicly notified and promulgated for general information; and the Emperor further engages, that when British merchandise shall have once paid at any of the said ports the regulated customs and dues, agreeable to the tariff to be hereafter fixed, such merchandise may be conveyed by Chinese merchants to any province or city in the interior of the Empire of China, on paying a further amount as transit duties, which shall not exceed [see Declaration respecting Transit Duties below] on the tariff value of such goods.

XI.

It is agreed that Her Britannic Majesty's Chief High Officer in China shall correspond with the Chinese High Officers, both at the capital and in the provinces, . . . . . on a footing of perfect equality . . .

XII.

On the assent of the Emperor of China to this Treaty being received, and the discharge of the first instalment of money, Her Britannic Majesty's forces will retire from Nanking and the Grand Canal, and will no longer molest or stop the trade of China. The military post at Chinhai will also be withdrawn, but the Islands of Koolangsoo, and that of Chusan, will continue to be held by Her Majesty's forces until the money payments, and the arrangements for opening the ports to British merchants, be completed.

XIII.

The ratification of this Treaty by Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, &c., and His Majesty the Emperor of China, shall be exchanged as soon as the great distance which separates England from China will admit; but in the meantime, counterpart copies of it, signed and sealed by the.Plenipotentiaries on behalf of their respective Sovereigns, shall be mutually delivered, and all its provisions and arrangements shall take effect.
Done at Nanking, and signed and sealed by the Plenipotentiaries on board Her Britannic Majesty's ship Cornwallis, this 29th day of August, 1842 . . . .

(L.S.) HENRY POTTINGER.
[SIGNATURES OF THE THREE CHINESE PLENIPOTENTIARIES]

DECLARATION respecting Transit Duties.
Whereas by the Xth Article of the Treaty between Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and His Majesty the Emperor of China, concluded and signed on board Her Britannic Majesty's ship Cornwallis, at Nanking, on the 29th day of August, 1842 . . . . it is stipulated and agreed, that His Majesty the Emperor of China shall establish at all the ports which, by the 2nd Article of the said Treaty, are to be thrown open for the resort of British merchants, a fair and regular tariff of export and import customs and other dues, which tariff shall be publicly notified and promulgated for general information; and further, that when British merchandise shall have once paid, at any of the said ports, the regulated customs and dues, agreeable to the tariff to be hereafter fixed, such merchandise may be conveyed by Chinese merchants to any province or city in the interior of the Empire of China, on paying a further amount of duty as transit duty;
And whereas the rate of transit duty to be so levied was not fixed by the said Treaty; Now, therefore, the undersigned Plenipotentiaries of Her Britannic Majesty, and of His Majesty the Emperor of China, do hereby, on proceeding to the exchange of the Ratifications of the said Treaty, agree and declare, that the further amount of duty to be so levied on British merchandise, as transit duty, shall not exceed the present rates, which are upon a moderate scale; and the Ratifications of the said Treaty are exchanged subject to the express declaration and stipulation herein contained.
In witness whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the present declaration, and have affixed thereto their respective seals.

Done at Hong-Kong, the 26th day of June, 1843 . . . . .

(L.S.) HENRY POTTINGER.
[SEAL AND SIGNATURE OF THE CHINESE PLENIPOTENTIARY]

NOTE:
In the following year, on Oct. 8, a supplementary treaty was concluded which included extraterritorial provisions regarding crimes and offences committed both by British subjects and Chinese at the five ports. Art. XI stated that 'lawless natives of China' found in Hong Kong or aboard British vessels would be handed over to Chinese officials for trial. Likewise, China was to hand over to British officials any British subjects who fled to Chinese territory

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob24.html


again, cant be bothered to highlight how wrong you are.


how about another treaty in the language of your overlords?

TREATY OF TIEN-TSIN
Tien-tsin, June 26, 1858
Peace Treaty between the Queen of Great Britain and the Emperor of China.

This treaty is associated with the so-called second opium war between Britain and China. The concessions of the earlier (1842) treaty of Nanking only whetted the appetites of British producers of legal goods for further expansion of the China trade beyond the handful of coastal towns designated under the 1842 treaty. Great profits, for example, were expected by the British cotton manufacturers if China's millions throughout the vast country could be reached directly. The Chinese government, however, remained adamantly opposed to any liberalization of the existing trade. Not until 1856 did an event occur that offered the opportunity to confront Chinese high-handedness (as viewed by Britain). When Chinese harbor police at Canton boarded a private boat flying the British flag in search of a known bandit, a fracas occurred which induced the truculent governor of (British) Hong Kong to demand an apology. None was forthcoming from the stubborn Chinese governor of Canton. The hostilities that ensued ended two years later in the second 'unequal' treaty imposed on China. The treaty of Tientsin yielded all Britain's demands for opening up the interior even to the import, by default, of the hitherto illegal opium

HER MAJESTY the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and His Majesty the Emperor of China, being desirous to put an end to the existing misunderstanding between the two countries, and to place their relations on a more satisfactory footing in future, have resolved to proceed to a revision and improvement of the Treaties existing between them; and, for that purpose, have named as their Plenipotentiaries . . . . etc, etc.
Who, after having communicated to each other their respective powers, and found them to be in good and due form, have agreed upon and concluded the following Articles:

I.

The Treaty of Peace and Amity between the two nations, signed at Nanking on the 29th day of August, in the year 1842, is hereby renewed and confirmed.
The Supplementary Treaty and General Regulations of Trade having been amended and improved, and the substance of their provisions having been incorporated in this Treaty, the said Supplementary Treaty and General Regulations of Trade are hereby abrogated.

II.

For the better preservation of harmony in future, Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and His Majesty the Emperor of China mutually agree that, in accordance with the universal practice of great and friendly nations, Her Majesty the Queen, may, if she see fit, appoint ambassadors, ministers, or other diplomatic agents to the Court of Peking; and His Majesty the Emperor of China may, in like manner, if he see fit, appoint ambassadors, ministers, or other diplomatic agents to the Court of St. James.

III.

His Majesty the Emperor of China hereby agrees that the ambassador, minister, or other diplomatic agent, so appointed by Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, may reside, with his family and establishment, permanently at the capital, or may visit it occasionally, at the option of the British Government. He shall not be called upon to perform any ceremony derogatory to him as representing the Sovereign of an independent nation on a footing of equality with that of China. On the other hand, he shall use the same forms of ceremony and respect to His Majesty the Emperor as are employed by the ambassadors, ministers, or diplomatic agents of Her Majesty towards the Sovereigns of independent and equal European nations.
It is further agreed, that Her Majesty's Government may acquire at Peking a site for building, or may hire houses for the accommodation of Her Majesty's Mission, and that the Chinese Government will assist it in so doing.
Her Majesty's Representative shall be at liberty to choose his own servants and attendants, who shall not be subjected to any kind of molestation whatever.
Any person guilty of disrespect or violence to Her Majesty's Representative, or to any member of his family or establishment, in deed or word, shall be severely punished.

IV.

It is further agreed, that no obstacle or difficulty shall be made to the free movements of Her Majesty's Representative, and that he, and the persons of his suite, may come and go, and travel at their pleasure. He shall, moreover, have full liberty to send and receive his correspondence, to and from any point on the sea-coast that he may select; and his letters and effects shall be held sacred and inviolable. He may employ, for their transmission, special couriers, who shall meet with the same protection and facilities for travelling as the persons employed in carrying despatches for the Imperial Government; and, generally, he shall enjoy the same privileges as are accorded to officers of the same rank by the usage and consent of Western nations.
All expenses attending the Diplomatic Mission of Great Britain in China shall be borne by the British Government.

V.

His Majesty the Emperor of China agrees to nominate one of the Secretaries of State, or a President of one of the Boards, as the high officer with whom the ambassador, minister, or other diplomatic agent of Her Majesty the Queen shall transact business, either personally or in writing, on a footing of perfect equality.

VI.

Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain agrees that the privileges hereby secured shall be enjoyed in her dominions by the ambassadors, ministers, or diplomatic agents of the Emperor of China, accredited to the Court of Her Majesty.

VII.

Her Majesty the Queen may appoint one or more Consuls in the dominions of the Emperor of China; and such Consul or Consuls shall be at liberty to reside in any of the open ports or cities of China, as Her Majesty the Queen may consider most expedient for the interests of British commerce. They shall be treated with due respect by the Chinese authorities, and enjoy the same privileges and immunities as the Consular officers of the most favoured nation . . . .

VIII.

The Christian religion, as professed by Protestants or Roman Catholics, inculcates the practice of virtue, and teaches man to do as he would be done by. Persons teaching or professing it, therefore, shall alike be entitled to the protection of the Chinese authorities, nor shall any such, peaceably pursuing their calling, and not offending against the law, be persecuted or interfered with.

IX.

British subjects are hereby authorized to travel, for their pleasure or for purposes of trade, to all parts of the interior, under passports which will be issued by their Consuls, and countersigned by the local authorities. These passports, if demanded, must be produced for examination in the localities passed through. If the passport be not irregular, the bearer will be allowed to proceed, and no opposition shall be offered to his hiring persons or hiring vessels for the carriage of his baggage or merchandize. If he be without a passport, or if he commit any offence against the law, he shall be handed over to the nearest Consul for punishment; but he must not be subjected to any ill-usage in excess of necessary restraint. No passport need be applied for by persons going on excursions from the ports open to trade to a distance not exceeding 100 li, and for a period not exceeding days.
The provisions of this Article do not apply to crews of ships, for the due restraint of whom regulations will be drawn up by the Consul and the local authorities.
To Nanking, and other cities disturbed by persons in arms against the Government, no pass shall be given, until they shall have been recaptured.

X.

British merchant ships shall have authority to trade upon the Great River (Yang-tse). The Upper and Lower Valley of the river being, however, disturbed by outlaws, no port shall be for the present opened to trade, with the exception of Chin-kiano, which shall be opened in a year from the date of the signing of this Treaty.
So soon as peace shall have been restored, British vessels shall also be admitted to trade at such ports as far as Han-kow, not exceeding three in number, as the British Minister, after consultation with the Chinese Secretary of State, may determine shall be ports of entry and discharge.

XI.

In addition to the cities and towns of Canton, Amoy, Fuchow, Ningpo, and Shanghai, opened by the Treaty of Nanking, it is agreed that British subjects may frequent the cities and ports of New Chwang, Tang-Chow, Tai-Wan (Formosa), Chau-Chow (Swatow), and Kiung-Chow (Hainan).
They are permitted to carry on trade with whomsoever they please, and to proceed to and fro at pleasure with their vessels and merchandise.
They shall enjoy the same privileges, advantages, and immunities, at the said towns and ports, as they enjoy at the ports already opened to trade, including the right of residence, of buying or renting houses, of leasing land therein, and of building churches, hospitals, and cemeteries.

XII.

British subjects, whether at the ports or at other places, desiring to build or open houses, warehouses, churches, hospitals, or burialgrounds, shall make their agreement for the land or buildings they require, as the rates prevailing among the people, equitably, and wtihout exactions on either side.

XIII.

The Chinese Government will place no restrictions whatever upon the employment, by British subjects, of Chinese subjects in any lawful capacity.
British subjects may hire whatever boats they please for the transport of goods or passengers, and the sum to be paid for such boats shall be settled between the parties themselves, without the interference of the Chinese Government. The number of these boats shall not be limited, nor shall a monopoly in respect either of the boats, or of the porters or coolies engaged in carrying the goods, be granted to any parties. If any smuggling takes place in them, the offenders will, of course, be punished according to law . . . .

XV.

All questions in regard to rights, whether of property or person, arising between British subjects, shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the British authorities.

XVI.

Chinese subjects who may be guilty of any criminal act towards British subjects shall be arrested and punished by the Chinese authorities, according to the laws of China.
British subjects who may commit any crime in China shall be tried and punished by the Consul, or other public functionary authorized thereto, according to the laws of Great Britain.
Justice shall be equitably and impartially administered on both sides.

XVII.

A British subject having reason to complain of a Chinese, must proceed to the Consulate, and state his grievance. The Consul will inquire into the merits of the case, and do his utmost to arrange it amicably. In like manner if a Chinese have reason to complain of a British subject, the Consul shall no less listen to his complaint, and endeavour to settle it in a friendly manner. If disputes take place of such a nature that the Consul cannot arrange them amicably, then he shall request the assistance of the Chinese authorities, that they may together examine into the merits of the case, and decide it equitably.

XVIII.

The Chinese authorities shall at all times afford the fullest protection to the persons and property of British subjects, whenever these shall have been subjected to insult or violence. In all cases of incendiarism or robbery, the local authorities shall at once take the necessary steps for the recovery of the stolen property, the suppression of disorder, and the arrest of the guilty parties, whom they will punish according to law.

XIX.

If any British merchant-vessel, while within Chinese waters, be plundered by robbers or pirates, it shall be the duty of the Chinese authorities to use every endeavour to capture and punish the said robbers or pirates, and to recover the stolen property, that it may be handed over to the Consul for restoration to the owner.

XX.

If any British vessel be at any time wrecked or stranded on the coast of China, or be compelled to take refuge in any port within the dominions of the Emperor of China, the Chinese authorities, on being apprized of the fact, shall immediately adopt measures for its relief and security; the persons on board shall receive friendly treatment, and shall be furnished, if necessary, with the means of conveyance to the nearest Consular station.

XXI.

If criminals, subjects of China, shall take refuge in Hong Kong, or on board the British ships there, they shall, upon due requisition by the Chinese authorities, be searched for, and, on proof of their guilt, be delivered up.
In like manner, if Chinese offenders take refuge in the houses or on board the vessels of British subjects at the open ports, they shall not be harbored or concealed, but shall be delivered up, on due requisition by the Chinese authorities, addressed to the British Consul.

XXII.

Should any Chinese subject fail to discharge debts incurred to a British subject, or should he fraudulently abscond, the Chinese authorities will do their utmost to effect his arrest, and enforce recovery of the debts. The British authorities will likewise do their utmost to bring to justice any British subject fraudulently absconding or failing to discharge debts incurred by him to a Chinese subject.

XXIII.

Should natives of China who may repair to Hong Kong to trade incur debts there, the recovery of such debts must be arranged for by the English Courts of justice on the spot; but should the Chinese debtor abscond, and be known to have property, real or personal, within the Chinese territory, it shall be the duty of the Chinese authorities, on application by, and in concert with, the British Consul, to do their utmost to see justice done between the parties.

XXIV.

It is agreed that British subjects shall pay, on all merchandise imported or exported by them, the duties prescribed by the tariff; but in no case shall they be called upon to pay other or higher duties than are required of the subjects of any other foreign nation.

XXV.

Import duties shall be considered payable on the landing of the goods, and duties of export on the shipment of the same.

XXVI.

Whereas the tariff fixed by Article X of the Treaty of Nanking, and which was estimated so as to impose on imports and exports a duty at about the rate of 5 per cent. ad valorem, has been found, by reason of the fall in value of various articles of merchandise, therein enumerated, to impose a duty upon these considerably in excess of the rate originally assumed as above to be a fair rate, it is agreed that the said tariff shall be revised, and that as soon as the Treaty shall have been signed, application shall be made to the Emperor of China to depute a high officer of the Board of Revenue to meet, at Shanghai, officers to be deputed on behalf of the British Government, to consider its revision together, so that the tariff, as revised, may come into operation immediately after the ratification of this Treaty.

XXVII.

It is agreed that either of the High Contracting Parties to this Treaty may demand a further revision of the tariff, and of the commercial Articles of this Treaty, at the end of 10 years; but if no demand be made on either side within 6 months after the end of the first 10 years, then the tariff shall remain in force for 10 years more, reckoned from the end of the preceding 10 years; and so it shall be, at the end of each successive period of 10 years.

XXVIII.

Whereas it was agreed in Article X of the Treaty of Nanking, that British imports, having paid the tariff duties, should be conveyed into the interior free of all further charges, except a transit duty, the amount whereof was not to exceed a certain percentage on tariff value; and whereas no accurate information having been furnished of the amount of such duty, British merchants have constantly complained that charges are suddenly and arbitrarily imposed by the provincial authorities as transit duties upon produce on its way to the foreign market, and on imports on their way into the interior, to the detriment of trade; it is agreed that within four months from the signing of this Treaty, at all ports now open to British trade, and within a similar period at all ports that may hereafter be opened, the authority appointed to superintend the collection of duties shall be obliged, upon application of the Consul, to declare the amount of duties levyable on produce between the place of production and the port of shipment, and upon imports between the Consular port in question and the inland markets named by the Consul; and that a notification thereof shall be published in English and Chinese for general information.
But it shall be at the option of any British subject, desiring to convey produce purchased inland to a port, or to convey imports from a port to an inland market, to clear his goods of all transit duties, by payment of a single charge. The amount of this charge shall be levyable on exports at the first barrier they may have to pass, or, on imports, at the port at which they are landed; and on payment thereof, a certificate shall be issued, which shall exempt the goods from all further inland charges whatsoever.
It is further agreed, that the amount of this charge shall be calculated, as nearly as possible, at the rate of 2 1/2 per cent. ad valorem, and that it shall be fixed for each article at the Conference to be held at Shanghai for the revision of the tariff.
It is distinctly understood that the payment of transit dues, by commutation or otherwise, shall in no way affect the tariff duties on imports or exports, which will continue to be levied separately and in full . . . .

XXIX.

..............................
Any vessel clearing from any of the open ports of China for any other of the open ports, or for Hong-Kong, shall be entitled, on application of the master, to a special certificate from the Customs, on exhibition of which she shall be exempted from all further payment of tonnage dues in any open port of China, for a period of 4 months, to be reckoned from the date of her port clearance.

XXX.

The master of any British merchant-vessel may, within 48 hours after the arrival of his vessel, but not later, decide to depart without breaking bulk, in which case he will not be subject to pay tonnage dues. But tonnage dues shall be held due after the expiration of the said 48 hours. No other fees or charges upon entry or departure shall be levied.

XXXI.

No tonnage dues shall be payable on boats employed by British subjects in the conveyance of passengers, baggage, letters, articles of provision, or other articles not subject to duty, between any of the open ports. All cargo boats, however, conveying merchandize subject to duty shall pay tonnage dues once in 6 months . . .

XXXII.

The Consuls and Superintendents of Customs shall consult together regarding the erection of beacons or lighthouses, and the distribution of buoys and light-ships, as occasion may demand . . . .

XXXVI.

Whenever a British merchant-vessel shall arrive off one of the open ports, the Superintendent of Customs shall depute one or more Customs officers to guard the ship. They shall either live in a boat of their own, or stay on board the ship, as may best suit their convenience. Their food and expenses shall be supplied them from the Custom- House, and they shall not be entitled to any fees whatever from the master or consignee. Should they violate this regulation, they shall be punished proportionately to the amount exacted.

XXXVII.

Within 24 hours after arrival, the ship's papers, bills of lading, &c., shall be lodged in the hands of the Consul, who will, within a further period of 24 hours, report to the Superintendent of Customs the name of the ship, her register tonnage, and the nature of her cargo. If, owing to neglect on the part of the master, the above rule is not complied with within 48 hours after the ship's arrival, he shall be liable to a fine of 50 taels for every day's delay; the total amount of penalty, however, shall not exceed 200 taels [under China¡¯s complex currency system, the tael, or ounce of silver, was the unit of account].
The master will be responsible for the correctness of the manifest, which shall contain a full and true account of the particulars of the cargo on board. For presenting a false manifest, he will subject himself to a fine Of 500 taels; but he will be allowed to correct, within 24 hours after delivery of it to the Customs officers, any mistake he may discover in his manifest, without incurring this penalty.

XXXVIII.

After receiving from the Consul the report in due form, the Superintendent of Customs shall grant the vessel a permit to open hatches. If the master shall open hatches and begin to discharge any goods without such permission, he shall be fined 500 taels, and the goods discharged shall be confiscated wholly.

XXXIX.

Any British merchant who has cargo to land or ship, must apply to the Superintendent of Customs for a special permit. Cargo landed or shipped without such permit, will be liable to confiscation.

XL.

No transshipment from one vessel to another can be made without special permission, under pain of confiscation of the goods so transhipped.

XLI.

When all dues and duties shall have been paid, the Superintendent of Customs shall give a port-clearance, and the Consul shall then return the ship's papers, so that she may depart on her voyage.

XLII.

With respect to articles subject, according to the Tariff, to an ad valorem duty, if the British merchant cannot agree with the Chinese officer in fixing a value, then each party shall call two or three merchants to look at the goods, and the highest price at which any of these merchants would be willing to purchase them, shall be assumed as the value of the goods . . . .

XLVI.

The Chinese authorities at each port shall adopt the means they may judge most proper to prevent the revenue suffering from fraud or smuggling.

XLVII.

British merchant-vessels are not entitled to resort to other than the ports of trade declared open by this Treaty. They are not unlawfully to enter other ports in China, or to carry on clandestine trade along the coasts thereof. Any vessel violating this provision, shall, with her cargo, be subject to confiscation by the Chinese Government.

XLVIII.

If any British merchant-vessel be concerned in smuggling, the goods, whatever their value or nature, shall be subject to confiscation by the Chinese authorities, and the ship may be prohibited from trading further, and sent away as soon as her accounts shall have been adjusted and paid.

XLIX.

All penalties enforced, or confiscations made, under this Treaty, shall belong and be appropriated to the public service of the Government of China.

L.

All official communications, addressed by the Diplomatic and Consular Agents of Her Majesty the Queen to the Chinese authorities, shall, henceforth, be written in English. They will for the present be accompanied by a Chinese version, but it is understood that, in the event of there being any difference of meaning between the English and Chinese text, the English Government will hold the sense as expressed in the English text to be the correct sense. This provision is to apply to the Treaty now negotiated, the Chinese text of which has been carefully corrected by the English original.

LI.

It is agreed, that henceforward the character "I" ('barbarian') shall not be applied to the Government or subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, in any Chinese official document issued by the Chinese authorities, either in the capital or in the provinces.

LII.

British ships of war coming for no hostile purpose, or being engaged in the pursuit of pirates, shall be at liberty to visit all ports within the dominions of the Emperor of China and shall receive every facility for the purchase of provisions, procuring water, and. if occasion require, for the making of repairs. The Commanders of such ships shall hold intercourse with the Chinese authorities on terms of equality and courtesy.

LIII.

In consideration of the injury sustained by native and foreign commerce from the prevalence of piracy in the seas of China, the High Contracting Parties agree to concert measures for its supression.

LIV.

The British Government and its subjects are hereby confirmed in all privileges, immunities, and advantages conferred on them by previous Treaties; and it is hereby expressly stipulated, that the British Government and its subjects will be allowed free and equal participation in all privileges, immunities, and advantages that may have been, or may be hereafter, granted by His Majesty the Emperor of China to the Government or subjects of any other nation.

http://jds.cass.cn/english/20070304170417.asp

had enough?

 

[JustForLaughs]

So, after all the hoop la and jumping the hoops, calling people names and using unsophisticated language, enlightenment seems to have visited you and it appears that your new found discovery that the Yuan and the Qing are non Han!

We are discussing China and not the Greece, India or for that matter, Patagonia. To divert indicates shaky grounds under your feet. What we are discussing is what Han China is and not which of the civilisation was the best or worst.

Anti China sentiments may like to discuss the conquering of China, but is that wrong? Are you suggesting that China was never conquered? Even the official Communist line of China speaks of the 100 years of Shame. Since you are a diehard fan of the CCP, are you suggesting that Wen and his partymen are talking through their hat?

Do read 'Washing 100 Years of Shame' that the official line projects.
Washing 100 years of Shame

No country or civilisation has been strong right through history and it is asinine to believe that it is so. It is your paranoia that suggests to you that anyone is mentioning that China is a weak nation. What are you actually trying to prove? You seem to be very angry young man on an overdrive of vicious jingoism that is bereft of reality.

To be frank, you have to prove nothing. And no one is asking you to achieve martyrdom! History, as is available in the books and articles, is what we go by and not waft on the wings of fantasy and ridiculous interpretation that has the stink of indoctrination.

The recorded history of China starts possibly with the two distinct cultural groups of the Neolithic The Yangshao and the Lungshan. The Xia Dynasty was thought to be a part of a myth that the Chinese tell as part of their history. The Xia Dynasty was in oral histories, but no archaeological evidence was found of it until 1959. Excavations at Erlitous, in the city of Yanshi, uncovered what was most likely a capital of the Xia Dynasty. The site showed that the people were direct ancestors of the Lungshan and were predecessors of the Shang.

And then the dynasties of Imperial China succeeded one after the other till the modern times of today.

What is China?

China claims to be of Han entity. Therefore, any land or people who were not Han are people who have been captured and converted to become Han and thus, their lineage cannot be accepted as Han!

That is the reality but not the fiction being spun that non Hans are actually Hans all the way through history!

Since you raised the issue of India, unlike China where people are forced and their identity and culture is crushed to make them one single entity, in India, it is the reverse. We are liberal and we welcome all and we don't impose a single culture and language. We believe that it is Unity in Diversity. We allow all to flourish in their original avatar while still being an Indian!

We are proud that we are One People with many cultures, religions and languages. It makes us rich by this experience of freedom to chose!

Next to the most ridiculous argument that you put forth on Obama being half black and US history. Has the American every claimed that history started with the arrival of 'Pilgrims Progress' or the arrival of the black slaves?

You want others to 'Get real'. Guess who requires to do so rather urgently?

Doctor Heal Thyself!

no one claim Yuan and Qing as Han dynasty. what in the world is wrong with you?

what you cant understand is how every dynasty worked. you bring up policies of China now (run by mostly Han ethnic) against other ethnic like tibet or uighur.

and cant understand how it is no different than qing policy toward han.

this is simply how the ruling ethnic ruled China. during Han controlled dynastys you think mongol and manchu were just chilling in the steppes? no, different groups were vassals at one point or another.

even during Ming the Manchu were vassals. Nurhaci was raised as a HOUSE SERVANT to a Ming general.

Chinese history is not just Han. it is an ongoing story between Han and the "barbarians". you look at the differences in how the ruling ethnic treats a different one and say "how can it be "chinese unity". what you miss is the similarities of the big picture.


also your selective choosing and picking is simply distortion. i said later Emperors of Beijing were not recognized as Khan by other Mongols, not Kublai.



your biggest failure is if Kublai Khan had no intention of being Chinese (like British did for India) he would have ruled like British did India. he would be JUST a khan, no emperor. no mandate of heaven. no moving away from traditional mongol capital. you think it is coincidence that when the Ming Dynasty took over China the northern yuan moved back to its traditional capital?

did Britain move London to New Dehli? did Britain use their own ruling system on India? did the Queen or King of England ever become w/e you call your rulers?

if you logic was right, Yuan and Qing actions are completely inconsistent.



now read the treatys i gave you. dont feign not being able to read french. a treaty is perfect to highlight your failure because it involves China and Europe.

 

[JustForLaughs]

Why, because they were non-Han? If one has to be Han to be Chinese, then why are Tibet, East Turkestan, Manchuria and Inner Mongolia even part of PRC? I hope you realise who all the "bs" [sic] is coming from.

I am pretty sure, PRC is like the Mughals for the Uighurs and Tibetans and PRC isn't particularly famous all around the world for its human-rights records in these regions.

Besides, giving titles does not entitle PRC the right to forcibly rule others. The current occupation of Tibet and East Turkestan is by force, and by force alone. Majority of Tibetans and Uighurs resent presence of Han Chinese in their regions, whether civilians or security forces. One just needs to take away PRC's capability to use brute force on occupied territories and PRC will shrink into half of its current size.

yes, because they were non Han. and no, you dont have to be Han to be Chinese. meaning i have no clue what the rest of that post was for.

btw, you better recheck the Han Migration into these areas before you assume anything. pretty soon even if these places were given a VOTE to stay or leave they would be out voted.

 

[JustForLaughs]

im still curious why Ray continues to

1. invent his own definition of "China" and "Chinese" as to be just Han

2. then argue about ethnics (completely ignoring the very ideology of what is a Chinese ruler, mandate of heaven. which doesnt even mention it has to be Han ethnic). he doesnt even know basic Chinese tradition (we follow the father line. if Tang Taizong has some xianbei blood it means it isnt Chinese. even though his army was Chinese, not xianbei and he claim descent from Han noblement. the Li Family that ruled Tang claimed descent from Laozi) now with all this, i cant say it is Chinese. but the mere fact there is xianbei blood Ray can say it isnt. makes sense? NOPE.

3. then highlighting Qing policy to Han and point out any fights between Manchu and Han. (ignoring that the Bannermen system was the CORE of Manchu identity. better relook what ethnics are in there Ray). after high lighting these policies, he will point out Tibet and Uighur plights. AND COMPLETELY MISS THE SIMILARITY.

4. i post links, like Chinese era name. explain all these actions kublai took that is completely contrary to maintaining a pure Mongol state. he misses that too. (also, it was a Han commander who defeated the Southern Song in the last battle).

5. British is a perfect example of foreign ruler with no assimilation. so if Ray want to say Yuan and Qing is not Chinese. he must show how it is more like the British. i wonder, did East India Company ever claim to be the legit successor dynasty to a previous Indian Kingdom? because Yuan and Qing all claim to be legit successors.

6. now, the MOST IMPORTANT fact. we are talking about China. i guess specifically non Han like Qing. i show Ray a treaty, in original FRENCH, that shows Qing Dynasty referred to as China and Chinese. now he says he cant read French. OK. convenient.

that i have TWO treatys with Britain, his former ruler of his ENTIRE land. now if Chinese consider it Chinese, and Europeans also recognize Qing as Chinese, then what exactly do you think your posts mean? the only groups that matter already clearly indicate it is China and Chinese. as for Yuan, did Marco Polo refer to "Cathay" or "Tartary"?




btw, as for Obama, he is not descendant of black slaves. he is Kenyan or w/e. even something simple like this Ray cant understand. this is so annoying.


i see some mainlanders around. im amazed they allow Ray to post so much bs about Chinese history. not that anyone would come to this forum for Chinese history though.

 

[amoy]

i see some mainlanders around. im amazed they allow Ray to post so much bs about Chinese history. not that anyone would come to this forum for Chinese history though

why shall we "DEBATE" about that part of history?? I think it's just a given - i.e. Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming Qing - all these dynasties are part of Chinese history.

Tang Royalty (Li) was said to have Turkic blood. At Tang's dusk, Uigur (回鹘）came to its rescue.
Yuan Dynasty: Hui Nationality came into being with their ancesters from Arabia, Persia, Central Asia or even SE Asia
Ming: enforced assimilation. But at the same Zheng He the great navigator and explorer sailed ahead as far as E. African Coast
Qing: China finally took shape with major tributaries Han, Manchu, Mongol, Tibetan, Hui (Muslim)

We don't debate that. Instead we live it.

Now we're mature enough to appreciate Mongols, Manchurian or Uigur who once were rulers and contributed to the making of the nation while getting over 'astrocities' involved.

In India do people nowadays spend time "debating" whether Babur or Akbar... were Indians?

 

[A.V.]

Using Insulting Words in the comments feature is not tolerable , members please note this....

 

[neoshangh]

Territory issues are complcated and hard to resolve.

Just look at Take_shima Issue between JApan and Korea.......both claim that Take_shima is their land.If this going on,it will never be resolved.

Yes,you Indians believe that Ak and south Tibet are your lands.Yet,we also believe that's our land.You strongly believe that we invaded you and occupied Indians' land,while we have same views towards you.

How come if this go on again and once again?Territory issues would never be resolved.Japan never give up its territorial claim over Take_shima,though it is unreaonable seen by the Koreans.koreans believe that Take_shima is theirs while Japanese claim theirs.

I don't think it is a issue that we can simply conduct a conclusion and resolveit since sovereignty never be a small matter in any country.

 

[Ray]

no one claim Yuan and Qing as Han dynasty. what in the world is wrong with you?

what you cant understand is how every dynasty worked. you bring up policies of China now (run by mostly Han ethnic) against other ethnic like tibet or uighur.

and cant understand how it is no different than qing policy toward han.

this is simply how the ruling ethnic ruled China. during Han controlled dynastys you think mongol and manchu were just chilling in the steppes? no, different groups were vassals at one point or another.

even during Ming the Manchu were vassals. Nurhaci was raised as a HOUSE SERVANT to a Ming general.

Chinese history is not just Han. it is an ongoing story between Han and the "barbarians". you look at the differences in how the ruling ethnic treats a different one and say "how can it be "chinese unity". what you miss is the similarities of the big picture.


also your selective choosing and picking is simply distortion. i said later Emperors of Beijing were not recognized as Khan by other Mongols, not Kublai.



your biggest failure is if Kublai Khan had no intention of being Chinese (like British did for India) he would have ruled like British did India. he would be JUST a khan, no emperor. no mandate of heaven. no moving away from traditional mongol capital. you think it is coincidence that when the Ming Dynasty took over China the northern yuan moved back to its traditional capital?

did Britain move London to New Dehli? did Britain use their own ruling system on India? did the Queen or King of England ever become w/e you call your rulers?

if you logic was right, Yuan and Qing actions are completely inconsistent.



now read the treatys i gave you. dont feign not being able to read french. a treaty is perfect to highlight your failure because it involves China and Europe.

I have no failures in reading and interpreting history since not only I read, but I read the commentary by historians and not conjure history merely by gut feeling!

The problem with you is that you look at history in a cut and dried manner.

History is all about the evolution of people and their land.

The difference between the British and Kublai Khan is the difference in psychology.

To clarify in simple terms:

The British came exploit Indian resources for the good of their Motherland and then seeing the opportunity, rule the land without settling down and making the land their permanent home.

Moguls and Mongol came as conquerors to own the land and not merely to exploit the riches of the land to suit their original country.

The Moguls of India came from Central Asia, but they lived and died in the country they conquered i.e. India, which they made their own home.

Once again, the British did not come to conquer India, but as traders who wanted to exploit the riches of the land and which they did. Their Queens and Kings did not come to India. They ruled through their agents i.e. Viceroys.

 

[JustForLaughs]

I have no failures in reading and interpreting history since not only I read, but I read the commentary by historians and not conjure history merely by gut feeling!

The problem with you is that you look at history in a cut and dried manner.

History is all about the evolution of people and their land.

The difference between the British and Kublai Khan is the difference in psychology.

To clarify in simple terms:

The British came exploit Indian resources for the good of their Motherland and then seeing the opportunity, rule the land without settling down and making the land their permanent home.

Moguls and Mongol came as conquerors to own the land and not merely to exploit the riches of the land to suit their original country.

The Moguls of India came from Central Asia, but they lived and died in the country they conquered i.e. India, which they made their own home.

Once again, the British did not come to conquer India, but as traders who wanted to exploit the riches of the land and which they did. Their Queens and Kings did not come to India. They ruled through their agents i.e. Viceroys.

you are caught not making sense once again. "original country"? so Qing was known as Manchuria? hows the time machine coming along? you have to remind both Qing and Britain/France its not China and Chinese.


sure, everything for there original land, too bad they forgot their capital was in Beijing. someone forgot to tell them all their investment and building in Beijing was in the wrong place. Kublai, you silly man, Ray says you were supposed to develop Karakorum, not Beijing!


HAHA better yet. you need to go back in time and tell Nurhaci his Seven Grievances are wrong and he actually wants to invade because of resources.

you want to talk about psychology? after you completely disregard just how many Chinese customs and traditions the Yuan and Qing emperors kept?

too funny. i think i know why the mainlanders dont bother to reply to this stuff.

 

[Ray]

why shall we "DEBATE" about that part of history?? I think it's just a given - i.e. Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming Qing - all these dynasties are part of Chinese history.

Tang Royalty (Li) was said to have Turkic blood. At Tang's dusk, Uigur (回鹘）came to its rescue.
Yuan Dynasty: Hui Nationality came into being with their ancesters from Arabia, Persia, Central Asia or even SE Asia
Ming: enforced assimilation. But at the same Zheng He the great navigator and explorer sailed ahead as far as E. African Coast
Qing: China finally took shape with major tributaries Han, Manchu, Mongol, Tibetan, Hui (Muslim)

We don't debate that. Instead we live it.

Now we're mature enough to appreciate Mongols, Manchurian or Uigur who once were rulers and contributed to the making of the nation while getting over 'astrocities' involved.

In India do people nowadays spend time "debating" whether Babur or Akbar... were Indians?

There is no conflict in the historical aspects of the so called 'debate'.

The debate started with the issue of the CCP General stating in his article that China has to recover territory 'looted' by neighbours.

The operative words are 'recover'. 'territory', 'looted' and 'neighbours'.

The issue thus was to highlight who looted what.

As a corollary, it was brought out that if about 92% of China's population were Hans, then where did the remainder disappear?

They did not disappear. They were made into Hans!

Therefore, the idea that China is merely Han is not correct. There are the others who form a sizeable majority, since the actual Han land was North of the Yellow River. These non Han are no longer recognised so, thanks to the Han policy of converting such, what they called 'barbarians' into Hans by making them forget their identity and culture and instead obey and follow the Han culture and identity.

As regarding the Treaty in French, it is not my fault that I do not know French. So, what is this brouhaha over flashing treaties in French. What if someone flashes some treaty in Pali. How many know Pali?

As regards the word 'China' and why it was used, I have given a copious explanation of the manner in which this word came into being.

But if someone does not read what I have written, and instead rides his favourite hobby horse, then I can hardly be blamed.

You have given some points about the various dynasties and their foreign antecedents.

Had I said so, then Heavens would have fallen!

Debate does not mean one should with anger use offensive terms and declare others clueless or wanting people to 'get real'. I am quite capable of following that norm but doing so would be beneath my station. I have used syntax that in not a crude manner, indicate my ire at being subjected to language that is not quite palatable.

Lastly, not withstanding AV's caution, I have not reported the posts, since I am capable of handing the worst of situation.

Indians do debate their history since they are inquisitive to know why events happened the way it happened. They do not take what is written or taught at face value and as the Gospel truth!

 

[Ray]

you are caught not making sense once again. "original country"? so Qing was known as Manchuria? hows the time machine coming along? you have to remind both Qing and Britain/France its not China and Chinese.


sure, everything for there original land, too bad they forgot their capital was in Beijing. someone forgot to tell them all their investment and building in Beijing was in the wrong place. Kublai, you silly man, Ray says you were supposed to develop Karakorum, not Beijing!


HAHA better yet. you need to go back in time and tell Nurhaci his Seven Grievances are wrong and he actually wants to invade because of resources.

you want to talk about psychology? after you completely disregard just how many Chinese customs and traditions the Yuan and Qing emperors kept?

too funny. i think i know why the mainlanders dont bother to reply to this stuff.

I am afraid you display the ideal vacuum between your ears!

I am not quite so silly as you claim. Your tantrums through an overdose of indoctrination does make you appear to what you accuse me of and even in a worse light.

Yuan and Qing maintained Chinese customs?

Now that is what is the point of the debate - what is Chinese?

Your logic defies imagination.

I am not funny. You yourself realise that you are the funniest man around - that is why your moniker is 'Just for Laughs'.

You are hilarious!

Good comic relief indeed, even in such a heavy discussion!

 

[JustForLaughs]

Lastly, not withstanding AV's caution, I have not reported the posts, since I am capable of handing the worst of situation.

Using Insulting Words in the comments feature is not tolerable , members please note this....

i use the comment feature? or he is talking about the guy who called me a prick?


hey, if im hurting your feelings just let me know and ill apologize LOL

 

[JustForLaughs]

I am afraid you display the ideal vacuum between your ears!

I am not quite so silly as you claim. Your tantrums through an overdose of indoctrination does make you appear to what you accuse me of and even in a worse light.

Yuan and Qing maintained Chinese customs?

Now that is what is the point of the debate - what is Chinese?

Your logic defies imagination.

what is Chinese?

Han, Tang, Yuan, Ming, Qing, ALL Chinese dynastys.

what is Chinese now?

People's Republic of China.

who are Chinese?

you are talking with one.