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


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 16th, 2013, 08:19 PM   #21
rawr
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Los Santos, San Andreas
Posts: 4,428

Quote:
Originally Posted by emperor of seleucid View Post
Using bows and arrows in a time when firearms were starting to take over, rejecting sophisticated Western simple technology thinking they are the greatest state in the world, and refusing to modernize decades after humiliating defeats are definitions of a primitive state.
Your statementss are too broad and they are wrong.

Quote:
Using bows and arrows in a time when firearms were starting to take over,
Chinese troops had been equipped with Chinese made firearms since the Ming (albeit the quality was not on par with the Europeans), and the Qing armies definitely had firearms. The Xiang, Huai, Beiyang, and Nanyang armies were all equipped with Western firearms, and the Qing built many arsenals. It was just firearms were not used exclusively throughout the Qing armed forces because modernization tended to be decentralized and focused on regions.

Quote:
rejecting sophisticated Western simple technology thinking they are the greatest state in the world,
Not true. The Qing built arsenals, railroads, telegraph lines, and warships. Like I said before, modernization was decentralized. You had strong regional Viceroys like Li Hongzhang and Zhang Zhidong modernizing their military and region while the central government encouraged them from behind.

As for the Chinese thinking they are the center of the world, didn't the Europeans think the same way? White man's burdern? Imperialism?

Quote:
refusing to modernize decades after humiliating defeats
You have to define what modernization is. If you mean using Western technology and modernizing the military, then the Qing did that. But if you mean political change, then the Qing failed. However, modernization can occur without political change.

Finally, you're confusing primitive with savagery. Compared to us, the Romans were probably primitive because they didn't have firearms, electricity, or cars, but the Romans certainly weren't savages.

Last edited by mingming; January 16th, 2013 at 09:20 PM.
mingming is online now  
Remove Ads
Old January 16th, 2013, 08:41 PM   #22
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 189

The Manchus had a notorious reputation of being very brutal when they conquered China, rich cities in the lower Yangtze River valley and river delta region were sacked and had their inhabitants systematically massacred. They also created some kind of white terror by forcing Chinese to adopt their dress code and costume, and people failed to comply were executed. Many Chinese fled to SE Asia to escape Manchu persecution. Although the Manchu later on adopted some of the Chinese culture like the civil servant examination system, the damage inflicted on the Chinese cultural heritage was massive.
Not to mention the extremely conservative attitude and terrible corruption in late Qing which is partially responsible for China's failure in modernization.
To sum up, I dislike the Qing dynasty.
h6wq9rjk is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 10:31 PM   #23
Academician
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 69

I don't understand what is with all your Westerner's obsession with Tibet, let's put aside the evidence of whatever they were historically China or not.

Does it really matter???? Was North America full of white people when China started Qing dynasty? NOPE, but why is there no political movement for everyone to go back to Europe?

Was the modern Israeli territory full of Israelite at the time of 1948? NOPE, and by some measurement they are still not the majority of the population today, I don't see any political movement supporting by the Western democratic government for the cause of deporting the 6 million Jews back to Europe.

When USA wanted to purchase half of Mexico for $25 million dollars, and when Mexico refuses, did US give up? NOPE, they invaded Mexico anyway, and took away half of their land. Afterwards they give Mexico $15 million dollars, but did Mexico have a choice in this matter? NOPE and to me, this is a perfectly legitimate war, the strong saw what they wanted and took it with force. I don't see any political movement in China today calling for the return of California back to Mexico, so why are so many people in US calling "Free Tibet"

History is full of example of strong dominating over the weak simply because THEY CAN. Tibet is Chinese territory today because China have the force to kept it, just like the way USA is able to take over half of Mexico and develop it.

All of your "Free Tibet" lovers, please provide me one example in all of human history that the strong willingly give up their territory for the weak.
stardave is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 10:56 PM   #24

Wenge's Avatar
American
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: The True Capital of China
Posts: 7,566

Quote:
Originally Posted by stardave View Post
I don't understand what is with all your Westerner's obsession with Tibet, let's put aside the evidence of whatever they were historically China or not.

Does it really matter???? Was North America full of white people when China started Qing dynasty? NOPE, but why is there no political movement for everyone to go back to Europe?

Was the modern Israeli territory full of Israelite at the time of 1948? NOPE, and by some measurement they are still not the majority of the population today, I don't see any political movement supporting by the Western democratic government for the cause of deporting the 6 million Jews back to Europe.

When USA wanted to purchase half of Mexico for $25 million dollars, and when Mexico refuses, did US give up? NOPE, they invaded Mexico anyway, and took away half of their land. Afterwards they give Mexico $15 million dollars, but did Mexico have a choice in this matter? NOPE and to me, this is a perfectly legitimate war, the strong saw what they wanted and took it with force. I don't see any political movement in China today calling for the return of California back to Mexico, so why are so many people in US calling "Free Tibet"

History is full of example of strong dominating over the weak simply because THEY CAN. Tibet is Chinese territory today because China have the force to kept it, just like the way USA is able to take over half of Mexico and develop it.

All of your "Free Tibet" lovers, please provide me one example in all of human history that the strong willingly give up their territory for the weak.
This is only my viewpoint but the issue with China taking over Tibet is that World War II was a war fought because of evil powers invading and occupying unwilling populaces. China, being one of the, supposed, winners of WWII fought against being occupied by an evil enemy.

In 1950 China did nothing more than what the Japanese did to them during WWII. They invaded and continue to occupy an area that does not belong to them and hence, China is the evil occupier of an unwilling populous.
Wenge is online now  
Old January 16th, 2013, 11:20 PM   #25
Academician
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 69

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge View Post
This is only my viewpoint but the issue with China taking over Tibet is that World War II was a war fought because of evil powers invading and occupying unwilling populaces. China, being one of the, supposed, winners of WWII fought against being occupied by an evil enemy.

In 1950 China did nothing more than what the Japanese did to them during WWII. They invaded and continue to occupy an area that does not belong to them and hence, China is the evil occupier of an unwilling populous.
Ah I see, so there is a cutoff line, before WW2, the Western nation can invade, privilege, rape any nation it desires and carry off the bounty as it wished.

And when all said and done, some of them even gets to keep their bounty, just like how Americans got to keep half of Mexico. But when the Chinese wants Tibet... they can't do that, because they are doing it AFTER the cut offline already, which by no accident that the "good guys" have already did their crimes. This is your logic right?

Oh and btw... not that it makes any difference, you probably think that the evil communist China invaded Tibet, that a democratic China won't do anything like it. But did you actually checked out the official map of Republic of China? (The good China) Tibet is part of it, Independent Mongolia is now part of it.

And I'm 10000% certain if Chiang kai-shek have won the civil war, he would have no problem whatsoever sending troops to Tibet as well.

And lastly, can you explain to me the position of US's stance of Israel in the Middle East?

I mean by your logic, they would be the LAST people do to that, they got genocides and mass murdered and mass explosion by the Germans, and in turn, they pretty much did the same thing to the Arabs when they landed in the Middle East, except the genocide part. But why is Western nations all supports Israel?

That was a rhetorical question, don't answer it. And trust me, if Chiang kai-shek had won the civil war, and took over Tibet and China was part of the Western alliance against the USSR, you would not even know the word "Tibet" today.

One last question for you, by your logic that after WW2, the people that have suffered under invasion should not be oppress others, how can you explain France's post WW2 action?

Why did France wanted and fought to the very end to kept their oversea colonies in Vietnam? A war which was STRONGLY supported by the democratic USA? And same question for France's action in Algeria, why did the France massacred the native population and waited as long as possible until they were defeated in granting the colony independence? And again... the action was supported by USA?

You want me to go on? I can poke holes in your hypocrisy all day long my friend.
stardave is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 11:25 PM   #26
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 189

Quote:
Originally Posted by stardave View Post
History is full of example of strong dominating over the weak simply because THEY CAN. Tibet is Chinese territory today because China have the force to kept it, just like the way USA is able to take over half of Mexico and develop it.
I must point out that this kind of reasoning may be true but it is also very dangerous, the same kind of reasoning can be used to justify any aggression of any country. The WW2 and the Holocaust can easily be seen as the strong attempting to exercise their dominion over the weak under the same logic, the Jews are weak, therefore the Nazis can massacre them at will because THEY CAN, same for Japanese imperial army in China. This is the dire and horrible conclusion it leads to, and while it may be historical truth, we as human being should avoid this view at all cost. For the sake of mankind.
h6wq9rjk is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 11:28 PM   #27
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 189

Quote:
Originally Posted by stardave View Post
And lastly, can you explain to me the position of US's stance of Israel in the Middle East?
Please, other countries' wrongdoings do not justify another country's wrongdoing. This is logical fallacy.
h6wq9rjk is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 11:44 PM   #28
Academician
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 69

Quote:
Originally Posted by h6wq9rjk View Post
I must point out that this kind of reasoning may be true but it is also very dangerous, the same kind of reasoning can be used to justify any aggression of any country. The WW2 and the Holocaust can easily be seen as the strong attempting to exercise their dominion over the weak under the same logic, the Jews are weak, therefore the Nazis can massacre them at will because THEY CAN, same for Japanese imperial army in China. This is the dire and horrible conclusion it leads to, and while it may be historical truth, we as human being should avoid this view at all cost. For the sake of mankind.
Why don't you follow the conversation from the very beginning and keep up, I am not arguing with you on moral, ethics or philosophy.

Whatever you want to believe or not, ALL NATIONS on earth from the past to present follow the same rule, the strong does what it want, the weak suffer what it must all the way down to the present. I'm only pointing out the patterns.

However I find it EXTREMELY fracking hilarious that the Western civilization are one of the most violent and destructive civilization on earth and yet.. people today from those Western nations conveniently choose to forget their own crimes and have the balls to lecture other people's problem which was far less in the harm compare to what they have done to others.

Wenge is the best example here, always choose to be the noble up right person standing on his own damn high horse like he is some kind of saint, and judging and smiting at those those evil Chinese , but yet... never once think of what their own people have done in the past.

No one's hand is clean, and before you lecture others why don't you take a close look at yourself, YOU HAVE NO MORAL AUTHORITY ON JUDGING ANYONE.
stardave is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 11:47 PM   #29
Academician
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 69

Quote:
Originally Posted by h6wq9rjk View Post
Please, other countries' wrongdoings do not justify another country's wrongdoing. This is logical fallacy.
Again... please keep up with the conversation before make a fool of yourself, why does Wenge so willingly condemn other people's crime while conveniently ignore some who are allies with his own nation?

Why does Syria deserve DEMOCRACY!!!! FREEDOM!!!!

While the corrupt monarchy in Kuwait, Saudi, Bahrain get's a discount when purchase Made in USA F-16?
stardave is offline  
Old January 17th, 2013, 12:37 AM   #30

Wenge's Avatar
American
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: The True Capital of China
Posts: 7,566

Quote:
Originally Posted by stardave View Post
Ah I see, so there is a cutoff line, before WW2, the Western nation can invade, privilege, rape any nation it desires and carry off the bounty as it wished.

And when all said and done, some of them even gets to keep their bounty, just like how Americans got to keep half of Mexico. But when the Chinese wants Tibet... they can't do that, because they are doing it AFTER the cut offline already, which by no accident that the "good guys" have already did their crimes. This is your logic right?

Oh and btw... not that it makes any difference, you probably think that the evil communist China invaded Tibet, that a democratic China won't do anything like it. But did you actually checked out the official map of Republic of China? (The good China) Tibet is part of it, Independent Mongolia is now part of it.

And I'm 10000% certain if Chiang kai-shek have won the civil war, he would have no problem whatsoever sending troops to Tibet as well.

And lastly, can you explain to me the position of US's stance of Israel in the Middle East?

I mean by your logic, they would be the LAST people do to that, they got genocides and mass murdered and mass explosion by the Germans, and in turn, they pretty much did the same thing to the Arabs when they landed in the Middle East, except the genocide part. But why is Western nations all supports Israel?

That was a rhetorical question, don't answer it. And trust me, if Chiang kai-shek had won the civil war, and took over Tibet and China was part of the Western alliance against the USSR, you would not even know the word "Tibet" today.

One last question for you, by your logic that after WW2, the people that have suffered under invasion should not be oppress others, how can you explain France's post WW2 action?

Why did France wanted and fought to the very end to kept their oversea colonies in Vietnam? A war which was STRONGLY supported by the democratic USA? And same question for France's action in Algeria, why did the France massacred the native population and waited as long as possible until they were defeated in granting the colony independence? And again... the action was supported by USA?

You want me to go on? I can poke holes in your hypocrisy all day long my friend.
There is no hypocrisy in anything I said. I stated that it was my own view and nothing else.

Post WWII is a different matter from pre WWII and we are only speaking of China in this thread.

Tibet was never a part of or a colony of China. 1950 was a clear invasion of a sovereign nation
Wenge is online now  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
china, manchus, ruin


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Manchus and The Jurchens 1991sudarshan Asian History 92 May 10th, 2013 10:43 AM
Did the Manchus Ruin China emperor of seleucid Asian History 70 August 4th, 2012 11:02 PM
Did the Manchus disprove that 'The pen is mightier than the sword'? Jake10 Asian History 33 September 20th, 2011 04:09 PM
Could anything ruin Christianity Commander Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 13 February 10th, 2007 09:06 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.