Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 2nd, 2012, 12:41 PM   #411
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: In the Western Hemisphere
Posts: 3,553

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo_Wong View Post
The Manchus integrated themselves into Chinese culture, but it doesn't mean that they're Chinese. I find it hard to consider Yuan and Qing to be Chinese when

1. The rulers explicitly did not consider themselves to be Chinese.
2. The Chinese population did not consider the rulers to be Chinese.
3. The rulers practiced racist apartheid against the Chinese.
4. The rulers had separate rules for themselves, and a different set of rules for the Chinese.
5. The Chinese were considered as the lowest class of citizens.
6. At the highest positions of power, there were no Chinese officials.
7. The Chinese had lost control of their country.
8. The rulers making the most important decisions for the country were not Chinese.
1. If you consider being the legitimate sovereigns of China, Chinese, then yes they did.
2. They did, or are you completely ignoring the Confucian bureaucracy that operated the Qing Dynasty?
3. As the Han did against non-Han.
4. Rulers always have separate rules for themselves and a different rule for their subjects, or are you referring to Manchurians having one set of rules and the Han, grouped with Yue groups and dozens of others, with another?
5. Yes, because we all those a part of the ruling body of China under the Emperor were the lowest class of citizen, like Zhang Tingyu.
6. Once again, because we all know that people directly under the Emperor with the highest were not all that powerful. Its not like it was ultimately those related to the Emperor that near universally occupied the most powerful positions, such as the Emperor's own clan? The clan we already take for granted as not being "Chinese"?
7. Which implied the Chinese ever had control over their country, which does not work beyond the fact that your autocrat was a native and he employed other natives to keep his autocracy's bureaucracy intact.
8. For reference, you are saying that the Qing Dynasty was not Chinese because the ruler was not Chinese? Okay. The Third Reich was not German, the Soviet Union was not Russian, the United Kingdom isn't British, or even remotely English, because of the whole Hanover inheritance, the Romanovs weren't actually ruling a Russian Dynasty because the house came from Germany, the Spanish monarchs are actually a French Dynasty, and---should I continue?

Most of your points don't connect, or when followed through are not particularly helpful nor do they really support your point. And once again you didn't really answer my point.
scholar is offline  
Remove Ads
Old August 2nd, 2012, 12:48 PM   #412
Scholar
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 971

Quote:
Originally Posted by scholar View Post
1. If you consider being the legitimate sovereigns of China, Chinese, then yes they did.
2. They did, or are you completely ignoring the Confucian bureaucracy that operated the Qing Dynasty?
3. As the Han did against non-Han.
4. Rulers always have separate rules for themselves and a different rule for their subjects, or are you referring to Manchurians having one set of rules and the Han, grouped with Yue groups and dozens of others, with another?
5. Yes, because we all those a part of the ruling body of China under the Emperor were the lowest class of citizen, like Zhang Tingyu.
6. Once again, because we all know that people directly under the Emperor with the highest were not all that powerful. Its not like it was ultimately those related to the Emperor that near universally occupied the most powerful positions, such as the Emperor's own clan? The clan we already take for granted as not being "Chinese"?
7. Which implied the Chinese ever had control over their country, which does not work beyond the fact that your autocrat was a native and he employed other natives to keep his autocracy's bureaucracy intact.
8. For reference, you are saying that the Qing Dynasty was not Chinese because the ruler was not Chinese? Okay. The Third Reich was not German, the Soviet Union was not Russian, the United Kingdom isn't British, or even remotely English, because of the whole Hanover inheritance, the Romanovs weren't actually ruling a Russian Dynasty because the house came from Germany, the Spanish monarchs are actually a French Dynasty, and---should I continue?

Most of your points don't connect, or when followed through are not particularly helpful nor do they really support your point. And once again you didn't really answer my point.

My points connect fine, it's just that you don't understand basic logic. You've failed to disprove any of my points.

The Japanese had assimilated a lot of Chinese culture before their invasion, they even use Chinese characters in their writing. If they set up a 大和王朝, would it be Chinese? They use Japanese as the official court language, segregate the Chinese and the Japanese, and don't give an top positions to the Chinese. Just because they conquered China, now they become Chinese?

This is why the Mongols are laughing their asses off at how the Chinese view history. China is behaving like a girl who got raped. She got raped by 2 guys, the first guy was called Mongol, and the 2nd guy was named Manchu. It was clearly rape at the time. But now she calls them her husbands?

It seems like whoever succeeds in raping her, automatically becomes her husband.

China needs to face history head-on, and stop trying to save face.
Bo_Wong is offline  
Old August 2nd, 2012, 12:55 PM   #413
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: In the Western Hemisphere
Posts: 3,553

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo_Wong View Post
My points connect fine, it's just that you don't understand basic logic. You've failed to disprove any of my points.
Then respond to them and flaunt your logical prowess. Just talk slow and use small words and I'm sure eventually I'll understand.

That is, if for the first time since I've got online today you actually want to respond to my points rather than crafting a new argument every single time I respond to you to prove an ever elusive point.
scholar is offline  
Old August 2nd, 2012, 12:56 PM   #414
Scholar
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 971

Quote:
Originally Posted by scholar View Post
1. If you consider being the legitimate sovereigns of China, Chinese, then yes they did.
2. They did, or are you completely ignoring the Confucian bureaucracy that operated the Qing Dynasty?
3. As the Han did against non-Han.
4. Rulers always have separate rules for themselves and a different rule for their subjects, or are you referring to Manchurians having one set of rules and the Han, grouped with Yue groups and dozens of others, with another?
5. Yes, because we all those a part of the ruling body of China under the Emperor were the lowest class of citizen, like Zhang Tingyu.
6. Once again, because we all know that people directly under the Emperor with the highest were not all that powerful. Its not like it was ultimately those related to the Emperor that near universally occupied the most powerful positions, such as the Emperor's own clan? The clan we already take for granted as not being "Chinese"?
7. Which implied the Chinese ever had control over their country, which does not work beyond the fact that your autocrat was a native and he employed other natives to keep his autocracy's bureaucracy intact.
8. For reference, you are saying that the Qing Dynasty was not Chinese because the ruler was not Chinese? Okay. The Third Reich was not German, the Soviet Union was not Russian, the United Kingdom isn't British, or even remotely English, because of the whole Hanover inheritance, the Romanovs weren't actually ruling a Russian Dynasty because the house came from Germany, the Spanish monarchs are actually a French Dynasty, and---should I continue?

Most of your points don't connect, or when followed through are not particularly helpful nor do they really support your point. And once again you didn't really answer my point.


I feel sorry for you, you've been so thoroughly brainwashed by Manchu-written historical fiction that you can't even see the truth.

The Yuan and the Qing were periods of time when the Chinese had lost their country.

The Mongols and Manchus explicitly state that they're not Chinese, and rule over Chinese with the Chinese as the lowest class, treat them like dirt, yet you still consider the Mongols and the Manchus to be Chinese?

You've been so thoroughly brainwashed by Manchu propaganda that you're beyond help.

It's understandable, because most Western history books regarding China are written based on Manchu historical records (which are fake and fabricated).

The Manchus had massively distorted Chinese history in order to legitimize their foreign rule, and they've succeeded. Because you're still believing their distorted version of Chinese history.

If the ethnic Chinese have intermarried with nomadic groups so much, why is Chinese Y-chromosomal DNA so homogeneous? And why is it so different from Manchu and Mongol DNA?

You can believe whatever you want, but the DNA doesn't lie. The ethnic Chinese stem from a directly bloodline and have different ancestors compared to the Mongols, Manchus, and other ethnic minorities.
Bo_Wong is offline  
Old August 2nd, 2012, 12:58 PM   #415

HackneyedScribe's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,199
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by scholar View Post
You didn't actually answer me.

Regardless of whether or not Cixi and Qianlong did not agree that they were Chinese, ultimately means nothing. As I said before, my points have all stemmed from before the later era of the Qing. Further, the Qing Dynasty itself, the name, the era names, the temple names. What are these if not Chinese concepts? What of their calender? What of their government? You seem to be mistaking something, the act of separation between the Manchurian and the Chinese was to prevent the Manchurian from being assimilated. Even in all their attempts to remain separate, nearing the end of their reign they weren't. Their language was dying, their customs fading, and their marriages becoming more mixed.

Also, a Manchurian writer is not a Chinese peasant, and there were many other cases of Manchurians assimilating into Chinese culture and not saying they were not Chinese, but rather saying they were.
You are actually assuming Bo-Wong's translations are correct. This is a false assumption in the first place. For example, Bo Wong translates:

Quote:
雍正说:“ 朕以外国之君主中国之事”。
Yongzheng says: "I rule over China as a foreign ruler."
The original quote was "在逆贼等之意,徒谓本朝以满洲之君,入为中国之主,妄生此疆彼界之私,遂故为讪谤诋讥之说耳。不知本朝之为满洲,犹中国之有籍贯。舜为东夷之人,文王为西夷 之人,曾何损于圣德乎?" from 大义觉迷录, used to describe the views of anti-Manchu Ming-revivalist movements, and is not the personal view of YongZheng. What Bo-Wang said was a edited perversion of the original text. From the text the emperor actually views Manzhou as a part of China rather than the other way around.

If you don't believe me, someone else gave the translation at CHF:

In the opinions of the rebellious criminals, just because the dynasty is headed by a Manchu emperor, he becoming the master of China is unacceptable by their narrow-minded nationality prejudice that comes from nowhere. They then fabricated theories that are merely libelous and slanderous nonsense, but they were unaware of the fact that the dynasty being Manchu was like the Chinese having different origins and different home towns.

Emperor
Shun was a non-Han from the Eastern Barbarian, and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Wen_of_Zhou"]King Wen of Zhou[/ame] was a non-Han from the Western Barbarian, what harm did these facts do to their holy virtues? The rhetoric from “[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi_Jing"]Shi Jing[/ame]”, “We are going to attack Rongdi, the barbarians in the north and in the west, we are going to fight against Jingshu, the barbarians in the south” has its reason. Those barbarians should be punished because they had rebelled and installed a puppet king, disrespecting the king-subject order; not because they were non-Han.

If being non-Han had ever been an issue, then when Confucius travelled around, he should not have accepted King Zhao’s invitation to go to Chu; also, because
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Mu_of_Qin"]Duke Mu of Qin[/ame]was the ruler of Western Barbarians, when Confucius edited history books, he should not have listed King Mu’s oath at the end of the Chronicles of Zhou.

Perhaps, the Han vs. non-Han argument originated in the Jin, Song and Six Dynasties period, when all those countries had equal size of territories and the same level of moral standard; but they could not appreciate one another. For this reaon, the people in the north called those in the south “isolated barbarians”, and the southerners referred the northerners as “barbarians with pigtails”. People at that time did not make efforts to improve their morality, did not practice kindness, instead they just foulmouthedly sneered at one another. That was already extremely disgusting and extremely detestable back then.


Today, in a time when under the Heaven has been united, and the Han and the non-Han live together like a family, the rebellious criminals are making groundless judgments on what is Chinese and what is foreign, stirring up resentment and hate among people. Aren’t these criminals defying the heavenly will and going against reason, ignoring their fathers and the emperor? Aren’t these criminals a bunch of alien creatures that are even lower than insects?
-http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?/topic/28033-qing-defeat-of-ming-invasion-or-unification/page__st__30

Here's another example:
Quote:
乾隆說: “朕乃夷狄之君,非中国之人。
Qianlong says: "I am a foreign prince, and am not a Chinese person."
This is a rumor and Qianlong never said this. I don't think this is part of any original text at all.
HackneyedScribe is online now  
Old August 2nd, 2012, 01:05 PM   #416
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: In the Western Hemisphere
Posts: 3,553

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo_Wong View Post
If the ethnic Chinese have intermarried with nomadic groups so much, why is Chinese Y-chromosomal DNA so homogeneous? And why is it so different from Manchu and Mongol DNA?
Because its... not?

Quote:
Han Chinese constitute about 92% of the population of the People's Republic of China (mainland China), 98% of the population of the Republic of China (Taiwan), 74% of the population of Singapore, and about 20% of the entire global human population, making it the largest ethnic group in the world. There is considerable genetic, linguistic, cultural, and social diversity among the subgroups of the Han, mainly due to thousands of years of immigration and assimilation of various regional ethnicities and tribes within China.[12] The Han Chinese are a subset of the Chinese nation (Zhonghua minzu). Sometimes Han and other Chinese refer to themselves as the "Descendants of the Yan and Huang Emperors" (simplified Chinese: 炎黄子孙; traditional Chinese: 炎黃子孫).
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese]Han Chinese - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
scholar is offline  
Old August 2nd, 2012, 01:08 PM   #417
Scholar
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 971

Quote:
Originally Posted by scholar View Post
1. If you consider being the legitimate sovereigns of China, Chinese, then yes they did.
2. They did, or are you completely ignoring the Confucian bureaucracy that operated the Qing Dynasty?
3. As the Han did against non-Han.
4. Rulers always have separate rules for themselves and a different rule for their subjects, or are you referring to Manchurians having one set of rules and the Han, grouped with Yue groups and dozens of others, with another?
5. Yes, because we all those a part of the ruling body of China under the Emperor were the lowest class of citizen, like Zhang Tingyu.
6. Once again, because we all know that people directly under the Emperor with the highest were not all that powerful. Its not like it was ultimately those related to the Emperor that near universally occupied the most powerful positions, such as the Emperor's own clan? The clan we already take for granted as not being "Chinese"?
7. Which implied the Chinese ever had control over their country, which does not work beyond the fact that your autocrat was a native and he employed other natives to keep his autocracy's bureaucracy intact.
8. For reference, you are saying that the Qing Dynasty was not Chinese because the ruler was not Chinese? Okay. The Third Reich was not German, the Soviet Union was not Russian, the United Kingdom isn't British, or even remotely English, because of the whole Hanover inheritance, the Romanovs weren't actually ruling a Russian Dynasty because the house came from Germany, the Spanish monarchs are actually a French Dynasty, and---should I continue?

Most of your points don't connect, or when followed through are not particularly helpful nor do they really support your point. And once again you didn't really answer my point.
1. The Manchus and the Mongols admit that they're not Chinese, and the vast majority of the Chinese population don't consider them to be Chinese. The Chinese people resented the foreign rule, and detested the Tartars. There's countless 1st hand evidence of this.
2. They had a Confucian bureaucracy, but it was a bastardized racist version of it, where the Manchus had all the real power. The Chinese just did the scut work. All the real power was held in Manchu hands.
3. Chinese discriminated against other ethnic minorities, but it still doesn't change that the Manchus and Mongols heavily discriminated against the Chinese to a much larger extent.
4. During Chinese dynasties, like the Ming, there was much less discrimination against the population. The Manchus practiced Literary Inquisition, something that Chinese dynasties never did.
5. Look, the Chinese population suffered greatly under Mongol and Manchu rule, period. The Chinese people were doing much better under native dynasties.
6. You don't have a point here. Nothing worth refuting.
7. Foreign dynasties simply treated the Chinese much worse than a native dynasty. 25 million Chinese died resisting the orignal Manchu conquest, another 35 million Chinese died from the White Lotus and Taiping Rebellions. Countless more Chinese died from the Queue Order, or the Literary Inquistion. This level of mistreatment is simply not found and ethnic strife and ethnic hatred is simply not found in a native Chinese dynasty.
8. These are other countries that are much less ethnically homogeneous than China, so the people respond very differently to foreign rulers. What they do in their countries is their business, the Manchus and Mongols still aren't Chinese. They admitted so themselves, and the Chinese people also thought so. Who are you to say otherwise?
Bo_Wong is offline  
Old August 2nd, 2012, 01:09 PM   #418
Scholar
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 971

Quote:
Originally Posted by scholar View Post

Haha, is this how you do research, using Wikipedia?

No wonder you have such a distorted view of Chinese history...
Bo_Wong is offline  
Old August 2nd, 2012, 01:11 PM   #419
Scholar
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 971

Quote:
Originally Posted by scholar View Post
I have an MD, and I've read genetic studies done on the Y-chromosome of ethnic Chinese. You should reach those papers.

If the methodology confuses you, just read the abstract and conclusion.

At the Chinese expanded, they killed most of the native men, and then the Chinese men married with the local women. This explains why there's so much mitochondrial DNA diversity.

The Y-chromosomal DNA, however, which is paternal, is very homogeneous for such a large ethnic group with such a large geographical distribution.
Bo_Wong is offline  
Old August 2nd, 2012, 01:13 PM   #420
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: In the Western Hemisphere
Posts: 3,553

Quote:
Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
You are actually assuming Bo-Wong's translations are correct. This is a false assumption in the first place.
I guess I trust too much?
scholar is offline  
Closed Thread

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
chinese, dynasties, qing, yuan



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who is your favorite Chinese leader after end of Qing Dynasty? DeliciousTomatoesYay Asian History 10 April 1st, 2011 04:49 AM
Why are Chinese Dynasties treated differently from European ones? Kiwi Asian History 31 November 2nd, 2010 09:19 AM
Most competent general of the Ming and Qing Dyansty FailWhale War and Military History 1 September 15th, 2010 07:36 PM
On dynasties... lokariototal General History 6 July 22nd, 2010 05:24 AM
Political Dynasties Dr Realism American History 10 March 22nd, 2009 06:27 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.