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

[Ray]

You can view the page at http://www.defenceforum.in/forum/content.php?r=303-China-must-recover-territory-'looted'-by-neighbours-said-PLA-General

 

[abhinaba]

any reliable source of your topic???....

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

Then we should go back into the history and see the entire south-asian countries. You will find that Korea, Combodia, Bhutan, Myanmar were being ruled by the GREAT CHOLA AND PANDIYA KINGDOMS............

THE GREAT ANGORWOT is a HINDU temple built by RAJENDRA VARMAN II of the PANDIYA DYNASTY in 1000 B.C. If we still go deeper and deeper then we can see that not only the south-asian countries but also RUSSIA was under the influence of HINDUSaccording to people who use the word HINDU.

There are evidences that relics and statues of HINDU GODS were found and are being found in those places.......

So, If you see this then we INDIANS must claim that RUSSIA, TIBET and all south-Asian countries are ours.

How do the chinese claim that TIBET is a part of china? On what basis do they claim that....

If china was to conquer the land looted by the enimies, think INDIA should conquer the whole world.........:emot15::emot154::angry_6:

 

[A.V.]

check the actual thread on the forum for sources

 

[amitkriit]

China is to 21st century what Germany was to 20th century. History is repeating itself.

 

[KS]

Please move the thread to 'Stupid and Funny Section' if it exists.

 

[captonjohn]

ha ha ha I can't stop. If this is so then India must also get back Aksai chin and why not Tibbet? I wander who has stolen chinese land? Then what he thinks about tibbet? Did chinese hugged Tibetans to win it?:emot15:

 

[JustForLaughs]

Then we should go back into the history and see the entire south-asian countries. You will find that Korea, Combodia, Bhutan, Myanmar were being ruled by the GREAT CHOLA AND PANDIYA KINGDOMS............

THE GREAT ANGORWOT is a HINDU temple built by RAJENDRA VARMAN II of the PANDIYA DYNASTY in 1000 B.C. If we still go deeper and deeper then we can see that not only the south-asian countries but also RUSSIA was under the influence of HINDUSaccording to people who use the word HINDU.

There are evidences that relics and statues of HINDU GODS were found and are being found in those places.......

So, If you see this then we INDIANS must claim that RUSSIA, TIBET and all south-Asian countries are ours.

How do the chinese claim that TIBET is a part of china? On what basis do they claim that....

If china was to conquer the land looted by the enimies, think INDIA should conquer the whole world.........:emot15::emot154::angry_6:

have you lost your mind? Chola have nothing to do with Korea. Russia too?

"There are evidences that relics and statues of HINDU GODS were found and are being found in those places."

that doesnt mean anything. if you want to talk historical, you need historical records. so lets see what you have to back up your claims.


btw, influence or cultural exchange is not administration. or any ethnic restaurant can claim a country. historical record of administration is what you need if you want to claim you had it. Chinese have historical records for all territory it claims. in fact, historical record is the basis for the claims. what you tried to do is not remotely similar.

 

[Shaitan]

How do the chinese claim that TIBET is a part of china? On what basis do they claim that....

The strange thing is "China" got Tibet from INVADERS OF CHINA, the Mongols and Machurians who are northern nomadic tribes that invaded China and took Tibet with it. Qing empire and Yuan empire is equivalent to the British, Timurids, etc to India.

 

[Ray]

any reliable source of your topic???....

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article965958.ece

 

[JustForLaughs]

The strange thing is "China" got Tibet from INVADERS OF CHINA, the Mongols and Machurians who are northern nomadic tribes that invaded China and took Tibet with it. Qing empire and Yuan empire is equivalent to the British, Timurids, etc to India.

dont bs. Yuan and Qing is like Mughal to India. British ruled India with British style. first East India Trade Company then directly under the crown.

Yuan and Qing followed the exact ruling style of Chinese emperors, claim the mandate of heaven and follow the same procedures in basically everything. even funnier, everyone should know EMPEROR is Chinese, KHAN is Mongol. they are not one and the same thus you can be both. Emperor Taizong of Tang was also the Khan of the Goturks.

however, lethalforce, read this as even fellow Indian know China has Tibet in the past. granted it was Yuan that broke Tang's treaty.

im new to this forum and dont now how to reply to lethal force properly:

Nansha Islands
http://www.spratlys.org/history/spratly-islands-history-timeline.htm

More for Nansha
http://www.southchinasea.org/docs/Historical Evidence To Support China's Sovereignty over Nans.htm

The History of Tibet during Yuan
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-05/06/content_6665078.htm

The History of Tibet during Ming
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-05/06/content_6665075.htm

The History of Tibet during Qing
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-05/06/content_6665072.htm

even if you ignore Chinadaily (which is foolish, Chinese are well known for being meticulous historical record keepers. plus they have PICTURES OF THE HISTORICAL RECORDS)

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-05/06/content_6665075_2.htm

even Chinese and non Chinese scholars know of the title giving. the only debate is whether Tibet was fully incorporated into Chinese Empire. at the same time no sovereign nation has another country involved in their internal affiars (like bestowing titles) India bestowed titles on Russia? on Korea? the weakest claim for China still has Chinese giving titles to Tibetans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet_...y#Ming_practices_of_giving_titles_to_Tibetans


Taiwan, taken by Ming loyalist in 1661
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Taiwan#Ming_loyalist_rule



now, truth is even if you want to debate the details or w/e, these are stronger claims BY FAR, then finding so called gods somewhere.








LethalForce is obviously not looking to debate. trying to dismiss the information offhand. i cant seem to post the picture.

http://img839.imageshack.us/i/0013729e4771098a4e765c.jpg/

try looking at the references first. or at the actual pictures of the historical documents. it doesnt get any more historical fact than this besides getting hit in the face with the actual document.

 

[Ray]

Classical Chinese ethnography (like much contemporary ethnography) was often sketchy. Ethnonyms were haphazardly applied to various groups with little effort to correctly differentiate peoples who the Han Chinese authors considered "barbarians" (i.e. their lifestyles were highly different from that of themselves). Many of the ethnonyms they used were virtually synonyms with "barbarian".

Read below items in columns:

• Pinyin Romanization↓ Names in Chinese characters and Pronunciation↓ Approximate residence according to Chinese texts↓ Time of appearance in the history of China↓ Equivalence(s) of non-Chinese names↓ Time of appearance outside China↓ Possible Descendant(s)

• Miao è‹— (Miáo) Name applied to peoples in various areas stretching from provinces (Hebei, Shanxi) north of the Huang He to Yunnan province As early as 25th century BC to present Hmong see Miao Miao/Hmong, ethnic groups in China, America and Europe

• Yuezhi 月氏 (YuèzhÄ«) Tarim basin 6th century BC ? to 162 BC, then driven out by Xiongnu. Kushans, Tocharians? mid 2nd century BC in Central Asia No known descendants, but possibly absorbed into the Uyghurs, who now show a large plurality of Indo-European DNA [1], despite the majority of Uighurs having Mongoloid racial traits (although there are some Uighurs with certain European traits, such as light hair, light eyes, face shape, etc

• Wuhuan 烏桓 (WÅ«huán) Western portions of Manchuria (Heilongjiang, Jilin, Liaoning provinces) and Inner Mongolia 4th century BC to late 3rd century, assimilated by Han No known equivalence N/A No known descendants

• Xianbei 鮮卑 (XiānbÄ“i) Manchuria (Heilongjiang, Jilin, Liaoning provinces), Mongolia and Inner Mongolia. Moved into areas north of the Huang He as they founded a dynasty there. 4th century BC ? to mid 6th century, assimilated into Hans N/A N/A No known descendants (some Han have the Xianbei surname Murong, Tuoba and Yuwen)

• Qiang 羌 (Qiāng) Gansu, Qinghai, western portion of Sichuan, eastern portion of Xinjiang and northeastern portion of Tibet Mentioned in oracle bone inscriptions of the Shang Dynasty circa 14th century BC to circa 1050 BC 4th century BC ? to late 5th century, assimilated into Hans No known equivalence N/A As minorities in Sichuan

• Di 氐 (DÄ«) Areas of neighbouring borders of Gansu, Qinghai, Sichuan and Shaanxi 8th century BC ? to mid 6th century, assimilated into Hans No known equivalence N/A As minorities in Sichuan

• Jie 羯 (Jié) Shanxi province late 2nd century to mid 4th century, assimilated into Hans No known equivalence N/A No known descendants

• Dingling, Gaoche, Shule 丁零 (DÄ«nglíng), 高車 (GāochÄ“), 疏勒 (ShÅ«lè) Banks of Lake Baikal and on the borders of present-day Mongolia and Russia then migrated to Shanxi province and Xinjiang region 1st century BC to late 5th century, assimilated into Hans ? ? Some descendants still living by the lake ?

• Rouran, Ruru, 柔然 (Róurán), è •è • (Rúrú), 茹茹 (Rúrú) Present-day Mongolia, Inner Mongolia, northern portions of Shanxi, Shaanxi, Gansu, Ningxia and eastern portion of Xinjiang early 3rd century to early 6th century Turkic peoples and/or Mongolic peoples (possibly others falling under the label as well) late 6th century to early 9th century Turkic peoples

• Tujue 突厥 (TÅ«jué) Present-day Mongolia, Inner Mongolia, northern portions of Shanxi, Shaanxi, Gansu, Ningxia, Xinjiang, eastern portion of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan late 5th century to mid 10th century Göktürks mid 6th century to early 9th century The western Turks partly migrated to Transoxiana, Persia, and Anatolia, while the eastern Turks assimilated mainly to the Uyghurs in Xinjiang; mostly nowadays Turkmen and Uyghur in Central Asia along with other Turkic peoples, and to a lesser degree the Turkish-speaking population of modern-day Turkey share that ancestry.

• Huihu 回紇 (Huíhé) Present-day Mongolia, Inner Mongolia, northern portions of Shanxi, Shaanxi, Gansu, Ningxia early 7th century to mid 10th century Uyghurs early 9th century to present Uyghurs - largest ethnic group in Xinjiang region, and Yugurs

• Tufan 吐蕃(TÇ”bō, also pronounced as TÇ”fān in Taiwan) Present-day Tibet, Qinghai, western border of Sichuan, Gansu and Shaanxi and Southern border of Xinjiang mid 6th century to present Tibetans early 6th century to present Tibetans

• Qidan 契丹 (Qìdān) Present-day Mongolia, Inner Mongolia, Manchuria, Liaoning, northern border of Shanxi and Hebei and later in Xinjiang and eastern border of Kazakhstan 388-1125 Khitan 388-1211 Daur and Evenks people. There exist descendants of war-scattered Qidan soldiers sent to Yunnan and Guangxi province during the Yuan Dynasty. The majority of these Qidan descendants currently live in Baoshan, Yunnan.

• Xi or Kumo Xi 庫莫奚 (KùmòxÄ«) More or less the same residence of the Khitans since regarded as two ethnic groups with one unique ancestry before 4th century to mid 12th century No known equivalence N/A No known descendants

• Shiwei 室韋 (Shìwéi) Present-day Mongolia, Inner Mongolia, western Manchuria and southern Siberia late 6th century - late 10th century No known equivalence N/A Conquered by Khitans, splinter groups and remnants re-emerged as Mongols

• Menggu 蒙古 (MénggÇ”) Present-day Mongolia, Inner Mongolia, western Manchuria, southern Siberia, eastern and central Xinjiang before Genghis Khan since late 8th century (?) Mongol late 12th century to present Mongol

• Dangxiang å…šé … (DÇŽngxiàng) Ningxia, Gansu, northern portions of Shanxi, southwestern portion of Mongolia, Southeastern portion of Xinjiang mid 8th century to early 13th century Tanguts ' Part of Hui nationality (Dungan), Ersu, part of Amdo Tibetans

• Mohe 靺鞨 (Mòhé) Manchuria and northern portion of Inner Mongolia, helped to establish Balhae early 7th century to early 10th century. Malgal N/A Jurchen (see entry below)

• Nüzhen or Manzuren 女真 (NÇšzhÄ“n), 滿 (MÇŽn) Manchuria and northern portion of Inner Mongolia early 10th century to present, established Jin Dynasty and Qing Dynasty Jurchen, Mancho, Manchus or Manchurian Since mid 17th century, first encountered by Russians Largest minority ethnic group in Dongbei region or Manchuria. Their culture has very much assimilated with the Han but some distinctive aspects still remain.

 

[Ray]

Tibetan History


Please keep in mind that this is a very basic overview of both early and modern Tibetan history. For a more complete picture of Tibet's complex and beautiful history, please see this list of Recommended Reads. Especially see John Avedon's In Exile from the Land of Snows and Tsering Shakya's The Dragon In the Land of the Snows: A History of Modern Tibet Since 1947.

Although the history of the Tibetan state began in 127 B.C., with the establishment of the Yarlung Dynasty, the country as we know it was first unified in the 7th Century A.D., under King Songtsen Gampo and his successors. Tibet was one of the mightiest powers of Asia for the three centuries that followed, as a pillar inscription at the foot of the Potala Palace in Lhasa and Chinese Tang histories of the period confirm. A formal peace treaty concluded between China and Tibet in 821/823 demarcated the borders between the *two countries and ensured that, "Tibetans shall be happy in Tibet and Chinese shall be happy in China."

Mongol Influence

As Genghis Khan's Mongol Empire expanded towards Europe in the West and China in the East in the 13th Century, Tibetan leaders of the powerful Sakya school of Tibetan Buddhism forged an agreement with the Mongol rulers in order to avoid the conquest of Tibet. The Tibetan Lama promised political loyalty and religious blessings and teachings in exchange for patronage and protection. The religious relationship became so important that when, decades later, Kublai Khan conquered China and established the Yuan Dynasty (1279-1368), he invited the Sakya Lama to become the Imperial Preceptor and supreme pontiff of his empire.

The relationship that developed and continued to exist into the 20th Century between the Mongols and Tibetans was a reflection of the close racial, cultural, and especially religious affinity between the two Central Asian peoples. The Mongol Empire was a world empire and, whatever the relationship between its rulers and the Tibetans, the Mongols never integrated the administration of Tibet and China or appended Tibet to China in any manner.

Tibet broke political ties with the Yuan emperor in 1350, before China regained its independence from the Mongols. Not until the 18th Century did Tibet again come under a degree of foreign influence.

Relations with Manchu, Gorkha and British Neighbours

Tibet developed no ties with Chinese Ming Dynasty (1386-1644). On the other hand, the Dalai Lama, who established his sovereign rule over Tibet with the help of a Mongol patron in 1642, did develop close religious ties with the Manchu emperors, who conquered China and established the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911). The Dalai Lama agreed to become the spiritual guide of the Manchu emperor, and accepted patronage and protection in exchange. This "priest-patron" relationship (known in Tibetan as Choe-Yoen), which the Dalai Lama also maintained with some Mongol princes and Tibetan nobles, was the only formal tie that existed between the Tibetans and Manchus during the Qing Dynasty. It did not, in itself, affect Tibet's independence.

On the political level, some powerful Manchu emperors succeeded in exerting a degree of influence over Tibet. Thus, between 1720 and 1792, Emperors Kangxi, Yong Zhen, and Qianlong sent imperial troops to Tibet four times to protect the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people from foreign invasions by Mongols, and Gorkhas or from internal unrest. These expeditions provided the emperor with the means for establishing influence in Tibet. He sent representatives to the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, some of whom successfully exercised their influence, in his name, over the Tibetan government, particularly with respect to the conduct of foreign relations. At the height of Manchu power, which lasted a few decades, the situation was not unlike that which can exist between a superpower and a satellite or protectorate, and therefore one which, though politically significant, does not extinguish the independent existence of the weaker state. Tibet was never incorporated into the Manchu Empire, much less China, and it continued to conduct its relations with neighboring states largely on its own.

Manchu influence did not last very long. It was entirely ineffective by the time the British briefly invaded Lhasa and concluded a bilateral treaty with Tibet, the Lhasa Convention, in 1904. Despite this loss of influence, the imperial government in Peking continued to claim some authority over Tibet, particularly with respect to its international relations, an authority which the British imperial government termed "suzerainty" in its dealings with Peking and St. Petersburg, Russia. Chinese imperial armies tried to reassert actual influence in 1910 by invading Tibet and occupying Lhasa. Following the 1911 revolution in China and the overthrow of the Manchu Empire, the troops surrendered to the Tibetan army and were repatriated under a Sino-Tibetan peace accord. The Dalai Lama reasserted Tibet's full independence internally, by issuing a proclamation, and externally, in communications to foreign rulers and in a treaty with Mongolia.

Tibet in the 20th Century

Tibet's status following the expulsion of Manchu troops is not subject to serious dispute. Whatever ties existed between the Dalai Lama and the Manchu emperors of the Qing Dynasty were extinguished with the fall of that empire and dynasty. From 1911 to 1950, Tibet successfully avoided undue foreign influence and behaved, in every respect, as a fully independent state. Tibet had its own currency, issued its own passports, and had a modern post & telegraph system.

Tibet maintained diplomatic relations with Nepal, Bhutan, Britain, and later with independent India. Relations with China remain strained. The Chinese waged a border war with Tibet while formally urging Tibet to "join" the Chinese Republic, claiming all along to the world that Tibet already was one of China's "five races"

In an effort to reduce Sino-Tibetan tensions, the British convened a tripartite conference in Simla in 1913 where the representative of the three states met on equal terms. As the British delegation reminded his Chinese counterpart, Tibet entered the conference as "independent nation recognizing no allegiance to China." The conference was unsuccessful in that it did not resolve the difference between Tibet and China. It was, nevertheless, significant in that the Anglo-Tibetan friendship was reaffirmed with the conclusion of bilateral trade and border agreements. In a Joint Declaration, Great Britain and Tibet bound themselves not to recognize Chinese suzerainty or other special rights in Tibet unless China signed the draft Simla Convention which would have guaranteed Tibet's greater borders, its territorial integrity and full autonomy. China never signed the Convention, however, leaving the terms of the Joint Declaration in full force.

Tibet conducted its international relations primarily by dealing with the British, Chinese, Nepalese, and Bhutanese diplomatic missions in Lhasa, but also through government delegations traveling abroad. When India became independent, the British mission in Lhasa was replaced by an Indian one. During World War II Tibet remained neutral, despite combined pressure from the United States, Great Britain, and China to allow passage of raw materials through Tibet.

Tibet never maintained extensive international relations, but those countries with whom it did maintain relations treated Tibet as they would with any sovereign state. Its international status was in fact no different from, say, that of Nepal. Thus, when Nepal applied for United Nations' membership in 1949, it cited its treaty and diplomatic relations with Tibet to demonstrate its full international personality.

The Invasion of Tibet

The turning point of Tibet's history came in 1949, when the People's Liberation Army of the PRC first crossed into Tibet. After defeating the small Tibetan army and occupying half the country, the Chinese government imposed the so-called "17-Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet" on the Tibetan government in May 1951. Because it was signed under duress, the agreement lacked validity under international law. The presence of 40,000 troops in Tibet, the threat of an immediate occupation of Lhasa, and the prospect of the total obliteration of the Tibetan state left Tibetans little choice.

As the resistance to the Chinese occupation escalated, particularly in Eastern Tibet, the Chinese repression, which included the destruction of religious buildings and the imprisonment of monks and other community leaders, increased dramatically. By 1959, popular uprising culminated in massive demonstrations in Lhasa. By the time China crushed the uprising, 87,000 Tibetans were dead in the Lhasa region alone, and the Dalai Lama had fled to India, where he now leads the Tibetan Government-in-exile, headquartered in Dharamsala. In 1963, the Dalai Lama promulgated a constitution for a democratic Tibet. It has been successfully implemented, to the extent possible, by the Government-in-exile.

Meanwhile, in Tibet religious persecution, consistent violations of human rights, and the wholesale destruction of religious and historic buildings by the occupying authorities have not succeeded in destroying the spirit of the Tibetan people to resist the destruction of their national identity. 1.2 million Tibetans have lost their lives, (over one-sixth of the population) as a result of the Chinese occupation. But the new generation of Tibetans seems just as determined to regain the country's independence as the older generation was.

History of Tibet

 

[Ray]

The history of China as is understood by the Chinese people has been engineered through history to airbrush the conquests of foreign elements and also obfuscate the differences between the different peoples who were not Hans, but were captured and then forcibly Hanised 'through the Chinese way'.

I have dwelled at length in various posts on this by giving the synopsis of China's expansion resulting in the land mass called China as also how the people South of the Yellow River were contemptuously not only dismissed as barbarians but also as cooked barbarians or shufan(converted to Han thinking and culture) and raw barbarians or shengfan(those not converted). The Hans were racially so arrogant that they called themselves as the 'inner people' (nei ren) and the remainder of peoples as 'outer people' (wei ren).

As if that was not enough, the Hans added animal radicals to the name of the 'barbarians'. Di, a northern tribe was linked to the Dog, the Man and the Min of the South linked to the reptile and the Qiang linked with a Sheep radical. The were considered as 'inhuman savages'.

The identity and the culture of the non Han people were systematically destroyed and they were assimilated as the Han people. This historical activity of destruction of identity and culture is still to be seen in Tibet and East Turkmenistan.

Now let us analyse the issue further.

Therefore, what is called China or Han China?

Yuan and Qing are foreign dynasties because their rulers were not "Han people." Now, consider these past Chinese dynasties:

- Zhou was foreign to Shang (as they were neighbouring states)

- Qin was not one of the "central plains states," but it unified China. A non-central state was once called "barbarian."

- Han was founded by Chu people, Chu also was not a central plain state and deemed "barbarian" by Spring Autumn/Warring States chroniclers.

- Sui and Tang were founded by Xianbei people (or mix of Xianbei and Han, before the latter identity existed) with Han names.

The only "native dynasties" of a united China would be Ming.

Yuan is foreign because Mongolia exists as a separate nation today.

1. The definition of "Chinese" as "han-chinese" only. This view was held by quite a number of Han nationalists and others. But this view was no longer accepted by Chinese historians in China, due to the present-day 'multi-ethnic' definition of Chinese because it suit their convenience to wipe out the actuality of history.

2. China is defined by "China Proper" (i.e. excluding, Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet). The concept of 'China Proper' in its modern sense (i.e., the provinces of the PRC excluding Xinjiang, Tibet, Qinghai, Inner Mongolia, Heilongjiang, Jilin, and Liaoning), the Chinese claim that this is a product of European perceptions of the Qing empire. And, the Chinese claim it is incorrectly assumed that there was a part of this empire that was Chinese and a part that was not." Obviously, this concept is not accepted by Chinese historians in China, given that today's China territory includes these territories and beyond which is still to be captured i.e. the islands in the sea and the sea itself!

3. Any Chinese dynasty should be ruled by "han-chinese" in order to be properly defined as a "Chinese dynasty". Again, there is the Chinese historical chimera that the non Han were Hans since these 'once foreign' invaders had been absorbed into Chinese civilization and as such that they effectively become sinicized and eventually became local Chinese. The conveniently forget how the Han systematically destroyed identities and cultures and forced their own on these hapless people.

Majority of the Chinese historians today (and also folks in China) claim Yuan and Qing dynasty as Chinese dynasties, because the Mongols and Manchu ruled China for a long period of time. As such, in China, Yuan and Qing history has been listed as part of the authoritative Chinese historiography - "24 histories". Very convenient!

It may be interesting to note that during the Zhou period, China was referred only to the central plain of China.

It must be appreciated that there are a number of sides to an individual's, organizations', or government or Nation's identity. A political identity, cultural identity and an ethnic identity is the bare minimum.

It maybe mentioned that culturally the Xi Xia, Liao, Yuan and very early Qing did not follow the so called Chinese culture.

The Mongols were disliked by the Han (former Jin Dynasty subjects?) and Nanren (former Southern Song?) populace and the Manchu were hated by many of the local Han Chinese counterpart populace for various reasons and many refused to serve under both regimes.

Therefore, in true Chinese way of presentation, the Chinese history has been conveniently airbrushed to project a false image wherein invasions and destruction of cultural and political identities of the non Han people are glossed over to give the idea 'and they lived happily ever after'.

The books to read are, Imperial China: 900-1800 by Mote and The Manchu Way: The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China by Elliott. Both books cite many events and instances where the Mongols/Manchus did not get along with the Han Chinese and were seen as alien people. For example, in The Manchu Way, Elliott describes an incident in a Dezhou opera house where bannermen members (Manchu, Mongols, Hanjuan) and green standard army members (Han) got into a brawl as a spillover of ethnic tensions that lasted throughout the dynasties.

Or is the destruction of external identity and culture and then engineering history to suit the convenience is a case of "history written by the Hans." to suit the Hans.

 

[Ray]

The expansion of China:

 

[Ray]

As the state's legal code, the Da Qing lüli 大清律例 (Statutes and supplementary articles of the Great Qing) applied to the entire realm, but the judicial treatment of Chinese and Manchus was not the same in practice. In the early Qing, more Chinese than Manchus were sentenced according to the severe guanggun li 光棍例 (supplementary article on scoundrels) for collective offences. This study uses cases in which members of the Hangzhou garrison were involved in robbery of civilians, taking women by force (during the Revolt of the Three Feudatories), and affrays to show how the Qing dynasty upheld Manchu judicial privileges.

Qing Dynasty Chinese

Could someone explain why the Qing dynasty (who are said to be Chinese by the Chinese) were upholding Manchu judicial privileges?

 

[Ray]

It would be worth reading the last five posts to understand that China as a single entity is a delusion.


It is the history where the Hans systematically destroyed the identity and culture of the various peoples and through humiliation and restriction forced people to accept the Han identity, wherein as of today, these people are known as Hans and not barbarians as they were then called.

This reality is being worked through in current Tibet and in Xinjiang and hence it is for all to observe how they do it.

 

[Ray]

EVOLUTION OF CHINESE FOREIGN POLICY


Understanding the origins and forces shaping China's foreign policy provides a framework in which to view both the changes and the continuities in Chinese foreign policy from 1949 to the late 1980s. The origins of China's foreign policy can be found in its size and population, historical legacy, worldview, nationalism, and Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought. These factors have combined with China's economic and military capabilities, governmental structure, and decision-making processes to make certain foreign policy goals prominent: security, sovereignty and independence, territorial integrity and reunification, and economic development.

Historical Legacy and Worldview

China's long and rich history as the world's oldest continuous civilization has affected Chinese foreign relations in various ways. For centuries the Chinese empire enjoyed basically unchallenged greatness and self-sufficiency. China saw itself as the cultural center of the universe, a view reflected in the concept of the Middle Kingdom (Zhongguo, the Chinese word for China). For the most part, it viewed non-Chinese peoples as uncivilized barbarians. Although China was occasionally overrun and ruled by these "barbarians," as during the Yuan (1279- 1368) and Qing (1644-1911) dynasties, the non-Chinese usually retained enough Chinese institutions to maintain a continuity of tradition. Because the Chinese emperor was considered the ruler of all mankind by virtue of his innate superiority, relations with other states or entities were tributary, rather than state-to-state relations between equals. Traditionally, there was no equivalent of a foreign ministry; foreign relations included such activities as tributary missions to the emperor made by countries seeking trade with China and Chinese military expeditions against neighboring barbarians to keep them outside China's borders. The first Europeans who sought trade with China, beginning in the sixteenth century, were received as tributary missions and had to conform to the formalities and rituals of the tribute system at the Chinese court. China's view of itself as the undisputed center of civilization--a phenomenon called sinocentrism--remained basically unchanged until the nineteenth century, when the Qing dynasty began to deteriorate under Western pressure.

A traditional concept related to China's view of itself as the Middle Kingdom that continues to have relevance is the idea of "using barbarians to control barbarians." In modern times, this practice has taken the form of using relations with one foreign power as a counterweight to relations with another. Two examples are China's policy of "leaning to one side" in the Sino-Soviet alliance of the 1950s for support against the United States and Beijing's rapprochement with the United States in the 1970s to counteract the Soviet threat China perceived at the time. China's strong desire for sovereignty and independence of action, however, seems to have made Chinese alliances or quasi-alliances shortlived .

Another effect of China's historical legacy is its tendency toward isolationism and an ambivalence about opening up to the outside world. In imperial times, China's foreign relations varied from dynasty to dynasty--from cosmopolitan periods like the Tang dynasty (A.D. 618-907) to isolationist periods such as the Ming dynasty (1368-1644), when few foreigners were allowed in the country. Overall, the sinocentric worldview and China's history of centuries of self-sufficiency favored isolation, which contributed to China's difficulty when confronted by expansionist Western powers in the nineteenth century. The debate over self-reliance and possible corruption by foreign influences or opening up to the outside world in order to modernize more quickly has continued for over a century and was still an issue in the late 1980s.

http://countrystudies.us/china/123.htm



An Aide Memoir.

Does this not ring a bell - A traditional concept related to China's view of itself as the Middle Kingdom that continues to have relevance is the idea of "using barbarians to control barbarians."

They call all non Han people as barbarians and they are the only civilised and human on this planet.

 

[JustForLaughs]

The history of China as is understood by the Chinese people has been engineered through history to airbrush the conquests of foreign elements and also obfuscate the differences between the different peoples who were not Hans, but were captured and then forcibly Hanised 'through the Chinese way'.

I have dwelled at length in various posts on this by giving the synopsis of China's expansion resulting in the land mass called China as also how the people South of the Yellow River were contemptuously not only dismissed as barbarians but also as cooked barbarians or shufan(converted to Han thinking and culture) and raw barbarians or shengfan(those not converted). The Hans were racially so arrogant that they called themselves as the 'inner people' (nei ren) and the remainder of peoples as 'outer people' (wei ren).

As if that was not enough, the Hans added animal radicals to the name of the 'barbarians'. Di, a northern tribe was linked to the Dog, the Man and the Min of the South linked to the reptile and the Qiang linked with a Sheep radical. The were considered as 'inhuman savages'.

The identity and the culture of the non Han people were systematically destroyed and they were assimilated as the Han people. This historical activity of destruction of identity and culture is still to be seen in Tibet and East Turkmenistan.

Now let us analyse the issue further.

Therefore, what is called China or Han China?

Yuan and Qing are foreign dynasties because their rulers were not "Han people." Now, consider these past Chinese dynasties:

- Zhou was foreign to Shang (as they were neighbouring states)

- Qin was not one of the "central plains states," but it unified China. A non-central state was once called "barbarian."

- Han was founded by Chu people, Chu also was not a central plain state and deemed "barbarian" by Spring Autumn/Warring States chroniclers.

- Sui and Tang were founded by Xianbei people (or mix of Xianbei and Han, before the latter identity existed) with Han names.

The only "native dynasties" of a united China would be Ming.

Yuan is foreign because Mongolia exists as a separate nation today.

1. The definition of "Chinese" as "han-chinese" only. This view was held by quite a number of Han nationalists and others. But this view was no longer accepted by Chinese historians in China, due to the present-day 'multi-ethnic' definition of Chinese because it suit their convenience to wipe out the actuality of history.

2. China is defined by "China Proper" (i.e. excluding, Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet). The concept of 'China Proper' in its modern sense (i.e., the provinces of the PRC excluding Xinjiang, Tibet, Qinghai, Inner Mongolia, Heilongjiang, Jilin, and Liaoning), the Chinese claim that this is a product of European perceptions of the Qing empire. And, the Chinese claim it is incorrectly assumed that there was a part of this empire that was Chinese and a part that was not." Obviously, this concept is not accepted by Chinese historians in China, given that today's China territory includes these territories and beyond which is still to be captured i.e. the islands in the sea and the sea itself!

3. Any Chinese dynasty should be ruled by "han-chinese" in order to be properly defined as a "Chinese dynasty". Again, there is the Chinese historical chimera that the non Han were Hans since these 'once foreign' invaders had been absorbed into Chinese civilization and as such that they effectively become sinicized and eventually became local Chinese. The conveniently forget how the Han systematically destroyed identities and cultures and forced their own on these hapless people.

Majority of the Chinese historians today (and also folks in China) claim Yuan and Qing dynasty as Chinese dynasties, because the Mongols and Manchu ruled China for a long period of time. As such, in China, Yuan and Qing history has been listed as part of the authoritative Chinese historiography - "24 histories". Very convenient!

It may be interesting to note that during the Zhou period, China was referred only to the central plain of China.

It must be appreciated that there are a number of sides to an individual's, organizations', or government or Nation's identity. A political identity, cultural identity and an ethnic identity is the bare minimum.

It maybe mentioned that culturally the Xi Xia, Liao, Yuan and very early Qing did not follow the so called Chinese culture.

The Mongols were disliked by the Han (former Jin Dynasty subjects?) and Nanren (former Southern Song?) populace and the Manchu were hated by many of the local Han Chinese counterpart populace for various reasons and many refused to serve under both regimes.

Therefore, in true Chinese way of presentation, the Chinese history has been conveniently airbrushed to project a false image wherein invasions and destruction of cultural and political identities of the non Han people are glossed over to give the idea 'and they lived happily ever after'.

The books to read are, Imperial China: 900-1800 by Mote and The Manchu Way: The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China by Elliott. Both books cite many events and instances where the Mongols/Manchus did not get along with the Han Chinese and were seen as alien people. For example, in The Manchu Way, Elliott describes an incident in a Dezhou opera house where bannermen members (Manchu, Mongols, Hanjuan) and green standard army members (Han) got into a brawl as a spillover of ethnic tensions that lasted throughout the dynasties.

Or is the destruction of external identity and culture and then engineering history to suit the convenience is a case of "history written by the Hans." to suit the Hans.

you have no clue what you are talking about.

Yuan was one of the shortest dynastys in Chinese history. besides this, little of what Kublai did was Mongol.

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


all Chinese tradition. of course those with lacking knowledge will ignore how Marco Polo visited CHINA. or how Qing treaties with European countries were also referenced as CHINA.

as for getting along with Manchu is irrelevant. what is relevant is Han is one of the ethnic of the Banner system which is fundamental in Manchu identity.

more ignorance. Tang Taizong's maternal side was mixed xianbei. Chinese follow the fatherline.

bringing up ancient Chinese calling others barbarians doesnt mean anything since every Chinese dynasty follow Chinese culture, administration and tradition so much.


anyway, non Han doesnt mean non Chinese. historic view of right to rule didnt even have anything to do with ethnic.

priority one, if Chinese consider a previous dynasty is Chinese, then it is. second priority, if you want to go to outsiders, go see whether Europeans referred to past dynasty as China or not. for example, treaty with France in original French referencing Qing as China. thats Chinese and Europeans, which is pretty much the only parties of significance/relevance for that time period. find me where they were called Mongolia and Manchuria instead of China and you might be able to say it isnt Chinese.


the funniest part of your failed posts, is that even with JUST MING DYNASTY, the claims to the territory from nansha, to tibet, to taiwan are STILL THERE. talk about useless.


truth is Chinese do not have such historic identity issues like Indians. early indo aryan migration (bringing with them most of your culture), dehli sultanate, mughal rule, british rule.

 

[JustForLaughs]

Could someone explain why the Qing dynasty (who are said to be Chinese by the Chinese) were upholding Manchu judicial privileges?

can you explain why NON CHINESE QING was referenced as CHINA in treatys with Europeans?

this is the difference between reality and interpretation. you are forced to detail into all these little variances (easily explained that manchu is not ethnic han) and ignore the simple and big picture. that Chinese and treatys with Europeans say its China. frankly, you are nobody to say otherwise. as i mentioned before, it doesnt change a thing even if you were magically right. as i said, Ming has the same territorial claims historically. nothing's changed from my post. sources i had maybe counted as biased too, but they actually had PICTURES of historical records.

more than i can say for students for a free tibet ahahahaha.