Were the Yuan and Qing Dynasties Chinese? - Page 51 - Historum

HackneyedScribe · August 3rd, 2012, 12:54 AM

Quote:

I've read everything that you wrote, it's just that I don't believe it. It's not convincing at all.

People commit atrocities against each other all the time, but the Manchus and Mongols still aren't Chinese.

Just look at the full name for the PRC national anthem. Why is it called the Anti-Manchu Anti-Japanese March of the Volunteers?

Because both the Manchus and the Japanese were seen as foreigners. You have no right to put words into the mouths of the Chinese people who suffered under foreign rule.

Everything that you've shown me is retrospective rationalization.
Signing treaties representing China doesn't mean that the Manchus are Chinese. Japan also occupied China during WWII, even setup Manchukuo. They lived in China, but they're not Chinese.

You're one to talk, Bo-Wong. I have given primary sources from Manchu emperors, Manchus nationals not under the jurisdiction of the Qing government, Tibetan/Mongolian/Manchu linguistics on Qing Chineseness. All I have from you is repetition along with some badly translated texts which perverts the original, as I have shown here: http://www.historum.com/asian-histor...ml#post1152471

Quote:

Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe

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
King Wen of Zhou

King_Wen_of_Zhou
was a non-Han from the Western Barbarian, what harm did these facts do to their holy virtues? The rhetoric from “
Shi Jing

Shi_Jing
”, “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 Duke Mu of Qin

Duke_Mu_of_Qin
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:

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.

Bo_Wong · August 3rd, 2012, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heavenlykaghan

That is your definition. The idea that Chinese is a cultural rather than a racial idea dates way before the Manchus. In fact the earliest work to tackle whether foreigners can be Chinese is present in the Chun Qiu biography of Gong Yang in the Spring and Autumn period and gained prominence in Han times where Gong Yang school was formed; the Manchus merely adopted it.

The Gong Yang school clearly noted that if a barbarian enters China and adopts Chinese customs, then it “内夏而外夷狄", "becomes Chinese and remain outside of the barbarians." Similarly, if a Chinese state abandons Chinese customs then, the opposite happens.

In fact, the Gongyang school had been the prominent school of early China until the Song period. So if anything, one can argue that it was the Song which distorted the original doctrine in the first place of what Chinese is by arguing for lineage.

The modern PRC abandoned a lot of Chinese culture, so right now, China isn't Chinese? It's not ruled by Chinese people?

Hahahahahaha.

I'm sorry, but bloodline and ethnicity DO MATTER.

Going by your Manchu definition, which the Japanese loved, then the Japanese are Chinese, and their conquest and rule over the Chinese is legitimate.

After all, the Japanese are preserving a lot more Chinese customs and rituals than the modern day Chinese are.

**Wenge** · August 3rd, 2012, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fangqingming

If I didn't remember it wrong, your proof had became holes after we debated last time.

You never debated this with me. The fact is mao thanked the Japanese. This has been documented and proven.

HackneyedScribe · August 3rd, 2012, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bo_Wong

Quote:

For someone in China you should know that being an ethnic Han and being a Chinese national are two completely different concepts. Again, for such a Han nationalist you should argue that China should shrink to the size of the Northern Song, as that's where the "ethnic Chinese" are located and all other lands are simply foreign occupation.

If you want to be discriminatory, then please don't be hypocritical about it. If you only want Han to be considered "Chinese", and if being "ethnically Chinese" has so much importance in being "Chinese", then frankly China has no business governing lands in Tibet, Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, or Central Asia. If you don't want to give them the right to be "Chinese", then China shouldn't occupy their land. Otherwise they'll be living as second class citizens, in other words people who lived and was born in China but couldn't be considered Chinese simply due to ethnicity. I pity the man who couldn't see anything wrong with that, enough said.

I'm not hypocritical, but the Chinese won't give up minority land. The Chinese completely dominate and run China, but they want the minority land, so they have to somewhat cater to the minorities.

I'm not sure if they like the minorities, but they certainly like the minorities' land.

You are one scary person Bo-Wong. If that is your justification for occupation, then I sure hope most Chinese don't hold the same view. Otherwise the world will have a dark future ahead, as I'm sure the Chinese likes a lot of things that other people have. I pray they do not have the same "like/might makes right" attitude you hold. The Manchus and Japanese liked Chinese land too, I don't see you being too happy about it. Last time I checked this was hypocrisy by the book.

heavenlykaghan · August 3rd, 2012, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bo_Wong

Only on forums like this do we have people like you.

Everywhere else in the world, people refer to the Manchu Qing rule over China, or the Mongol Yuan. This were perids of time when the Chinese had lost their country.

You write a lot, but you've nothing to demonstrate to me that they're real, authentic Chinese.

It's just a lot of Manchu rationalizing.

You constantly claim everywhere in the world, but in fact the Qing was recognized as a predecessor to the ROC through international law and that was why the previous treatise were kept and remain valid. That is the official recognition.

Quote:

If the Japanese conquered China, set up a dynasty, kept all the political power in their hands, lived in segregated communities, put Chinese people in the lowest class, forbid Chinese immigration to Japan, force Chinese people to wear the Chonmage haircut and wear kimonos, and kill people who write anything about Japan.

Would you really believe that they set up a Chinese dynasty? Would the Japanese people be Chinese?

They might claim to be Chinese in order to legitimize their rule, but look at what they're actually doing.

If the Manchus are Chinese, then the Japanese are Chinese.

If! If wishes were horses. Despite a constant if, the fact was that it never happened. The Japanese did not set up a Chinese dynasty despite occupation and did nothing more than establish a puppet regime. And under the nationalistic driven ideologies of world politics at the time, it would be difficult to imagine them doing something as ridiculous as what you suggest and what the Manchus did. The time were different, the Japanese lived in a period of rampant nationalism and a world order of equal nation states while the Manchus lived in a time where the ideology of a central government surrounded by satellite vassals was prominent. You need a better analogy than that.

heavenlykaghan · August 3rd, 2012, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bo_Wong

The modern PRC abandoned a lot of Chinese culture, so right now, China isn't Chinese? It's not ruled by Chinese people?

Hahahahahaha.

I'm sorry, but bloodline and ethnicity DO MATTER.

Going by your Manchu definition, which the Japanese loved, then the Japanese are Chinese, and their conquest and rule over the Chinese is legitimate.

After all, the Japanese are preserving a lot more Chinese customs and rituals than the modern day Chinese are.

Do I sense the fallacy of shifting grounds along with the fallacy of a strawman or a simple failure to absorb and respond to whats written? But why am I even asking this to a person who has no concept of logical fallacies? Let me answer it; its definitely both. Maybe you think laughing like a Hyena in every post gives support to your argument?

Well, that is certainly amusing, and gave me a laugh, but still not historical.

heavenlykaghan · August 3rd, 2012, 01:05 AM

Quote:

You never debated this with me. The fact is mao thanked the Japanese. This has been documented and proven.

He certainly has, and even refused Japanese war reparations. The irony with today's policies.

**fangqingming** · August 3rd, 2012, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wenge

You never debated this with me. The fact is mao thanked the Japanese. This has been documented and proven.

hmm~~~

thanks for what? Do you dare to post whole paragraph instead of make a deliberate misinterpretation out of context?

Bo_Wong · August 3rd, 2012, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe

You are one scary person Bo-Wong. If that is your justification for occupation, then I sure hope most Chinese don't hold the same view. Otherwise the world will have a dark future ahead, as I'm sure the Chinese likes a lot of things that other people have. I pray they do not have the same "like/might makes right" attitude you hold. The Manchus and Japanese liked Chinese land too, I don't see you being too happy about it. Last time I checked this was hypocrisy by the book.

Hahaha, now you're getting it. The Manchus did like Chinese land and Chinese taxes, that's why they invaded China, same with the Japanese.

And that's why they're not Chinese. That's why it's called an invasion and conquest. If the Manchus were Chinese, it would've been referred to as a civil war.

The Japanese had assimilated A LOT more Chinese culture and customs than the Manchus, so going by your definition, they should be Chinese?

You're really making it sound like the Japanese are Chinese...

HackneyedScribe · August 3rd, 2012, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Hahaha, now you're getting it. The Manchus did like Chinese land and Chinese taxes, that's why they invaded China, same with the Japanese.

And that's why they're not Chinese. That's why it's called an invasion and conquest. If the Manchus were Chinese, it would've been referred to as a civil war.

The Japanese had assimilated A LOT more Chinese culture and customs than the Manchus, so going by your definition, they should be Chinese?

You're really making it sound like the Japanese are Chinese...

You are diverging from the point. You think it's wrong for Japan and the Manchus to take Han Chinese land, but it's OK for your people to take non-Chinese land simply because they "like minority land"? You really think this doesn't make you hypocritical? Why are you not addressing this? Or does the fact that you can't have the cake and eat it too make you uncomfortable?