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

[JustForLaughs]

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.

 

[Yusuf]

On a separate note, showing wrong flag is against forum rules.

 

[Vyom]

How does one counter the rumor that China is advancing on Indian territories, inch-by-inch?

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

MEMBERS can judge fo themselves wether i am a fool to tell that the cholas were ruling the south -asian countries. Some members told that I am a fool to tell this. see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chola_Dynasty

This link below will show that Angkor wat is a HINDU temple

http://wikitravel.org/en/Angkor_Archaeological_Park

Well I posted the name of the KINg wrongly. I regret for the false information. But everybody can get the correct name here.....

http://www.angkorwhat.net/news/angkor-wat-history.html

Well some member told that I am out of my mind...............

They should go to doctor after seeing this to check themselves..............

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

This is the map of the territory of the CHOLAS

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

The CHOLAS had a very powerfull NAVY at that time.........

Check this out for more info of the NAVAL POWER
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chola_Navy

http://pfr2006.nic.in/MaritimeHistory3.htm

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

I never hurt or pass comments which hurt others personal feelings and saying that I am out of my mind is not nice. One should know the knowledge that others have before making a comment on others........

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

INDIANS had the power to conquer the whole WORLD. But did not do so b'cos of the innocent nature of our people. We INDIANS follow the PATH OF DHARMA UNTIL WE DIE. So, we were not interested to conquer others. But it does not mean that we are weak. When the need arises we shall proove our strength.......
:emot154:

 

[civfanatic]

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.

I will not argue with the other points that you raised, due to a lack of personal knowledge, but I will respond to this because it attacks the very identity of my country.

First of all, and this is crucially important, India is an amalgation of many different people, while China is the result of many centuries of centralized ethno-cultural assimilation. This is why over 90% of modern Chinese consider themselves Han, even though their ancient ancestors likely did not.

Due to the ethnic diversity of India, the identity of "Indians" as a people is not grounded in race as it is in China (even though most Indians look more or less alike), but instead in a shared culture and history dating back to the rise of human civilization itself. India's greatest attribute throughout history was its ability to absorb migrants and create a genuine "Indian" culture that was a mix of various different peoples, ideas, and customs.

In your ignorance of history you try to believe that India is a country with no identity that has its modern origins in places outside the borders of present-day India. What you don't realize is that the Delhi Sultanate and especially Mughals are to India what the Yuan and Qing dynasties are to China: a militarily dominant people conquered a primarily sedentary people, but were eventually assimilated by the conquered peoples' superior culture. Just as the Mongol and Manchu rulers adopted Chinese customs and foreign dignitaries referred to the lands they ruled as "China", the Turkic and Mughal rulers adopted Indian customs and ruled over a land known to outsiders as "India". In both cases, the cultural framework of Indian or Chinese civilization was left largely untouched, as the conquering people had no civilization of their own to replace it.

Both India and China, however, also had genuinely "indigenous" rulers come to power, including the Mauryas and Guptas in India and the Tang and Ming in China. These dynasties helped reinforce Indian and Chinese culture, respectively, and in many ways formed the basis of the modern-day cultures of India and China.

Before trying to attack the cultural identity of one billion people, you should at least attempt to learn their history. Also, please remove the Afghan flag from your avatar. You are disgracing the nation of Afghanistan, which also, by the way, has much of its historic roots in India

 

[JustForLaughs]

MEMBERS can judge fo themselves wether i am a fool to tell that the cholas were ruling the south -asian countries. Some members told that I am a fool to tell this. see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chola_Dynasty

This link below will show that Angkor wat is a HINDU temple

http://wikitravel.org/en/Angkor_Archaeological_Park

Well I posted the name of the KINg wrongly. I regret for the false information. But everybody can get the correct name here.....

http://www.angkorwhat.net/news/angkor-wat-history.html

Well some member told that I am out of my mind...............

They should go to doctor after seeing this to check themselves..............

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............

hey genius, i called you on korea and russia. how convenient of you to avoid that when i call you out on it.

im still waiting for historical record that say you administered korea.



as for flag, i rushed sign up and dont know how to change it LOL.

 

[JustForLaughs]

I will not argue with the other points that you raised, due to a lack of personal knowledge, but I will respond to this because it attacks the very identity of my country.

First of all, and this is crucially important, India is an amalgation of many different people, while China is the result of many centuries of centralized ethno-cultural assimilation. This is why over 90% of modern Chinese consider themselves Han, even though their ancient ancestors likely did not.

Due to the ethnic diversity of India, the identity of "Indians" as a people is not grounded in race as it is in China (even though most Indians look more or less alike), but instead in a shared culture and history dating back to the rise of human civilization itself. India's greatest attribute throughout history was its ability to absorb migrants and create a genuine "Indian" culture that was a mix of various different peoples, ideas, and customs.

In your ignorance of history you try to believe that India is a country with no identity that has its modern origins in places outside the borders of present-day India. What you don't realize is that the Delhi Sultanate and especially Mughals are to India what the Yuan and Qing dynasties are to China: a militarily dominant people conquered a primarily sedentary people, but were eventually assimilated by the conquered peoples' superior culture. Just as the Mongol and Manchu rulers adopted Chinese customs and foreign dignitaries referred to the lands they ruled as "China", the Turkic and Mughal rulers adopted Indian customs and ruled over a land known to outsiders as "India". In both cases, the cultural framework of Indian or Chinese civilization was left largely untouched, as the conquering people had no civilization of their own to replace it.

Both India and China, however, also had genuinely "indigenous" rulers come to power, including the Mauryas and Guptas in India and the Tang and Ming in China. These dynasties helped reinforce Indian and Chinese culture, respectively, and in many ways formed the basis of the modern-day cultures of India and China.

Before trying to attack the cultural identity of one billion people, you should at least attempt to learn their history. Also, please remove the Afghan flag from your avatar. You are disgracing the nation of Afghanistan, which also, by the way, has much of its historic roots in India

i dont realize?

"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."
post 11.

For China it is much easier and shorter to just list non han dynasty (yuan and qing) than to try and list ethnic han dynastys. OK, you seem reasonable. i wont mention india here again.





oh and merry christmas Ray. look what i found.

Tientsin Accord: Text of the accord (original French)

The original French text of the accord, in five articles, is given below.[4]

Art. 1. La France s'engage à respecter et à protéger contre toute agression d'une nation quelconque, et en toutes circonstances, les frontières méridionales de la Chine, limitrophes du Tonkin.

Art 2. Le Céleste Empire, rassuré par les garanties formelles de bon voisinage qui lui sont données par la France, quant à l'intégrité et à la sécurité des frontières méridionales de la Chine, s'engage : 1° à retirer immédiatement, sur ses frontières les garnisons chinoises du Tonkin ; 2° à respecter dans le présent et dans l'avenir, les traités directement intervenus ou à intervenir entre la France et la Cour de Hué.

Art. 3. En reconnaissance de l'attitude conciliante du Gouvernement du Céleste Empire, et pour rendre hommage â la sagesse patriotique de Son Excellence Li-Hong-Chang, négociateur de cette convention, la France renonce à demander une indemnité à la Chine. En retour, la Chine s'engage à admettre, sur toute l'étendue de ses frontières méridionales limitrophes du Tonkin, le libre trafic des marchandises entre l'Annam et la France d'une part, et la Chine de l'autre, réglé par un traité de commerce et de tarifs à intervenir, dans l'esprit le plus conciliant, de la part des négociateurs chinois, et dans des conditions aussi avantageuses que possible pour le commerce français.

Art. 4. Le Gouvernement français s'engage à n'employer aucune expression de nature à porter atteinte au prestige du Céleste Empire, dans la rédaction du traité définitif qu'il va contracter avec l'Annam et qui abrogera les traités antérieurs relatifs au Tonkin.

Art. 5. Dès que la présente Convention aura été signée, les deux Gouvernements nommeront leurs Plénipotentiaires, qui se réuniront, dans un délai de trois mois, pour élaborer un traité définitif sur les bases fixées par les articles précédents.

Conformément aux usages diplomatiques, le texte français fera foi.

Fait à Tien-Tsin, le 11 mai 1884, le dix-septième jour de la quatrième lune de la dixième année du Kouang-Sin, en quatre expéditions (deux en langue française et deux en langue chinoise), sur lesquelles les Plénipotentiaires respectifs ont signé et apposé le sceau de leurs armes.

Chacun des Plénipotentiaires a gardé un exemplaire de chaque texte.

Signé : Ll-HONG-TCHANG. Signé : FOURNIER.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tientsin_Accord

cant be bothered to bold every China and Chinese. yes even in century of humiliation i can prove my point. so i think you better travel back in time and tell the Europeans Qing is not Chinese so why call them China and CHinese in treaty.

 

[Minghegy]

I hope China buy them back. For example, gives India a management fee for thanks your management of south Tibet, transfer 1000 billions dollar debt, you can ask U.S. cash the debt

 

[sayareakd]

I hope China buy them back. For example, gives India a management fee for thanks your management of south Tibet, transfer 1000 billions dollar debt, you can ask U.S. cash the debt

you see we tried to discuss land dispute with China, china keeps sending its soldiers in the area, which was cause for concern.

if china continue to be behave like that, including building projects in area which is claim by India, we have no option but to raise issues like Tibet, if that dont stop then probably arms sales to few of the nations close to China. (as china sell M9 and M11 to pak).

 

[chex3009]

Threat from China

New Delhi's portrayal of the humiliating defeat at the hands of Chinese in 1962 as 'betrayal' and 'surprise' is untrue. The pacifist Indian leadership that was crying hoarse from rooftops for friendship at any cost remained blind to Communist China's repeated claims on Tibet and large part of Indian territories. Mao termed Tibet as the palm of a hand with its five fingers as Ladakh, Sikkim, Nepal, Bhutan, and NEFA. He claimed that these were Chinese territories that needed to be 'liberated'. Tibet was 'liberated' by force while New Delhi slept.

The historical characteristics of the Chinese and the statements issued by the Communists from time to time clearly exposed their expansionist ambitions in Asia that spelt direct threat to India's well being. Despite such overt indications, if we could not prepare ourselves to meet those challenges, the fault lies with us. Instead of pretending to be surprised or betrayed, it is time we face the truth for the fiasco in 1962 and prepare our military for the serious threat posed by the Chinese.

To Mao and the Chinese what singularly mattered was achieving the final goal. The means whether fair or foul to win were irrelevant. If New Delhi had deciphered what Mao was advocating in 1946 and studied the historical Chinese characteristics, alarm bells should have clearly rung in the South Block.

Mao repeatedly said from 1950 onwards that Taiwan, Tibet, and Hainan Islands were Chinese territories and they will be re-possessed. The predominant trait in this claim is the Chinese attraction for acquiring new territories. On take over by the Communists, maps depicting large parts of Korea, Indo-China, Mongolia, Burma, Malaysia, Eastern Turkestan, India, Tibet, Nepal, Sikkim, and Bhutan as Chinese territories were produced. Despite such demands, New Delhi always overlooked the basic fact that Communists inherited both, the traditional Chinese expansionism as well as imperialism.

Tibet and China that were part of Mongolian Empire at one point in history now became part of the Chinese Empire under Mao, in reverse order. Strangely, from this it follows that since Tawang or Sikkim which have been closely related to Tibet in the past, needed to be 'liberated' and made part of the new Chinese empire. If the leadership of independent India had bothered to study and understand the British mantle that was inherited, Chinese aims would become crystal clear- Mao the great strategist, always announced his goals publicly and never wavered.

Further Mao often quoted a famous Chinese saying, " "¦If the east wind does not prevail over the west wind, then east wind will prevail over the east wind." This clearly indicates another trait of the Han Chinese -their obsession to dominate other nations in their vicinity. If Nepal in history paid tribute ever as a vassal state to the Chinese Emperor, than whenever the regime in Beijing was powerful, it would ensure Nepal accepts its orbit of influence. With Maoists taking over Nepal, the designs of the Communists in China have succeeded and pacifists in New Delhi stand compromised on our geo-political interests.

While Indians were bending backwards to force their friendship in the last fifty-eight years, China was busy consolidating its hold on Tibet and other occupied territories. It extended its influence in Asia through economic and military power, unprecedented development of logistic infrastructure and demographic invasion. By 1987 it poured in 75 million Han Chinese into Manchuria, 7 million in Eastern Turkestan (Xinjiang), 8.5 million into Inner Mongolia, and 7.5 million into Tibet. Similarly it bolstered itself against India militarily by building roads up to the borders in Tibet and connecting Sinkiang province by cutting a road through Indian Territory Aksai Chin. Yet we were not alarmed as a nation and continue to swim in the euphoria of five principals of Indo-Chinese friendship termed Panchsheel!'

Historically Indian and Chinese influences in Asia have coexisted. However, possibly for the first time in history, India and China were rising almost simultaneously. This produced two contenders for the leadership of Asia. On the chessboard, while Nehru took the initiative to lead Asia- without developing military sinews and powerful international alliances- through The Asian Relations Conference in 1947 and a second Conference on Indonesia in 1949, a year later, Mao's army executed liberation of Tibet in one masterstroke.

Mao, thus demonstrated to the world that China was the actual leader of Asia and India merely a paper tiger, good for holding conferences but incapable of defending a small country in its vicinity. He also understood strategic importance of Tibet, which provided the base in Himalayas, from where a large part of Asia could be engulfed in its sphere of influence.

Despite invasion of Tibet, New Delhi did not understand the significance of the Chinese communists growing up as a military organization, unlike other communist movements. Their core competency lay in the PLA and military virtues were promoted throughout the cadres. If China today dares to claim Arunachal and piece of Sikkim, it is primarily based on its military prowess. On the other hand, the fine Indian military machine built by the British continues to be degraded and demoralized by the Indian civil leadership- its like axing the branch one sits on.

Traditionally Chinese leadership leans on teachings of Master Sun Tzu. Mao in particular was highly influenced by Sun Tzu, who said, " "¦To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

Therefore, a willing proxy was found in Pakistan. For the first time in history, nuclear weapons and missile technology were transferred to countervail and further boost its hatred against India. Of course, we all know how preoccupied Pakistan has kept our national security managers and resources, while Chinese developed a free run in Asia.

Similarly Maoists in Nepal supported clandestinely by the Chinese are in cahoots with the Indian Maoists who now control 40 percent of India's territory. If you think that's not smart enough for warriors of Sun Tzu, than take a look at the borders from North to East -Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar are under the spell of Beijing, shrinking India's influence in its own vicinity without recourse to war. Its matter of time before Chinese upstage Bhutan and Sri Lanka may go the Chinese way due to our inaptitude.

China, over a period of time, has cleverly managed to deploy two authoritarian streams of threats against India to break its will and the territorial integrity. Foremost is the Communist threat that originates from Beijing and the second is the Islamic fundamentalist threat from its proxies. Besides these two, there are other threats like Nepal Maoists or getting the Indo-US Nuclear deal blocked by their comrades in India.

Today for China to threaten Arunachal Pradesh and demand a slice of Sikkim after assured of its vice-like grip on India is a natural progression, even as New Delhi continues its slumber.

In 1999 the Dalai Lama in hindsight admitted, "When Tibet was free, we took our freedom for granted"¦In former times Tibetans were a war-like nation whose influence spread far and wide. With the advent of Buddhism our military prowess declined"¦" The Dalai Lama could easily have said the same for India.

Pacifist philosophies may be good for the individual's soul but are suicidal for nation's security.

By : Bharat Verma
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/IDR-Updates/Threat-from-China.html

 

[Minghegy]

you see we tried to discuss land dispute with China, china keeps sending its soldiers in the area, which was cause for concern.

if china continue to be behave like that, including building projects in area which is claim by India, we have no option but to raise issues like Tibet, if that dont stop then probably arms sales to few of the nations close to China. (as china sell M9 and M11 to pak).

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

 

[chex3009]

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

I see people in China are even more unhappy, so what??? we can"t conquer whole of China for that matter. Take a break before posting such posts. Everybody in this world for their own interest portray that the area they want, the people living in it are actually unhappy.

The whole world knows how happy the chinese in general are in their own country!!!

 

[sayareakd]

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

i could say the same thing for pakistan, they are of same race, (some of them relatives) and they are unhappy.

Race has nothing to do with it.

 

[amoy]

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

Further Mao often quoted a famous Chinese saying, " "¦If the east wind does not prevail over the west wind, then east wind will prevail over the east wind." This clearly indicates another trait of the Han Chinese -their obsession to dominate other nations in their vicinity

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

Similarly Maoists in Nepal supported clandestinely by the Chinese are in cahoots with the Indian Maoists who now control 40 percent of India's territory. If you think that's not smart enough for warriors of Sun Tzu, than take a look at the borders from North to East -Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar are under the spell of Beijing

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??

 

[Ray]

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.

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!

 

[Ray]

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.

I have explained in details in my last post as to why as Zhōngguó ( 中国) was called China. Therefore, the land of the non Chinese Qings were referred to as China.

Scholarship demands looking at little details to finally see the Big picture.

Those denied the majesty of scholarship look at the Big Picture alone or those afflicted by a lethargy of mind.

It is true that I am nobody to recreate history - a feat you excel in - and I have no inclination to do so! What I have produced in the posts are facts as gleaned from books and I have been good enough to have mentioned the books. At the same time, it is those who are handicapped and are dispossessed with the freedom to independently think for themselves are those who are most vocal and parrot what is drilled into their head by a regime that fears free thought and deed.