Is Chinese history overrated?

Chinese history overrated?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 20.8%
  • No

    Votes: 84 79.2%

  • Total voters
    106

HackneyedScribe

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
6,553
I said most of north america was wilderness, not 'the indians didn't have any buildings or villages or anything whatsoever anywhere'.
This was what you said in post 240: Well they were settlers and they did create their nations and civilizations where there was nothing. You can call them invaders too if you want, because they took over land with nothing on it that Indians had previously fought each other over.

Now you seem to believe that "land with nothing on it" have buildings and villages. And if the land is "mostly wilderness", that is the choice of the owners of said land, it is the owners of the land who gets to choose how to use it. Plenty of land owners today own entire swathes of land in which the land isn't being used for much if anything. It's just nature. You may have the right to disagree with how they use their land, but that's not the same as having the right to kick them out of their homes.

Your implication so far:
1. If you own land with "mostly wilderness", then you lose the right to your land <----You need to justify WHY this is, and WHY you draw the line where you did.
For example, you could have drawn the line at:​
a. a housing property with mostly yard rather than building​
b. a district with mostly natural preserve rather than building​
c. a state such as Alaska with mostly wilderness rather than buildings​
2. If you are less developed, then you lose the right to your land <----You need to justify WHY this is, and why this rule applies to some people but not others such as the Amish, or are you applying this rule to the Amish as well?

Also, how long did it take the colonists to turn a land of mostly wilderness, to "not wilderness"? How do you draw the line between what's wild land and what's not? Population density? Or a set number of structural area per given area? How do you justify using this definition to kick people out of their homes?
 
Last edited:
Aug 2018
631
london
all those links are quoting the same rubbish source, just some claim made by some guy and repeated by others. No actual evidence.

There was no Iroquois text written with those words until much later so obviously Rutledge didn't read out a non-existent text.
 
Apr 2018
29
Los Angeles
Almost all of north America was a wilderness.
A. Not true.
B. Even if so, "almost all" is the not the same as "nothing".

The white settlers who created Canada and the US didn't move in and start making use of the infrastructure built by the natives, they built everything from scratch.
At the expense of the natives who were already living there because "might makes right" Am I correct?

Everyone was fighting each other for millennia.
Including Europeans which furthers my point, had a more advanced force come in to wipe everything out on the European continent and if these invaders then decided build a new state on top of what had previously existed, would it be justifiable under the idea that "might makes right"?

The white settlers didn't 'put everything to torch' they built modern civilizations in a wilderness.
At the expense of people who already lived there.

Building your own civilization from nothing is not the same thing as immigrating into someone else's civilization so you can benefit from what they created.
A few things to comment on here:

A. European colonists didn't exactly "build" so as much as they "expanded". Just nitpicking at terminology here. Either way, it doesn't change the that they did so at the expense of the natives already living there and for some people, it's justifiable because "Might makes right".
B. I'll go ahead and play devil's advocate and agree that they're not the "same thing". That being said, is one more justifiable than the other? Is mass immigrating to an already built society more inherently wrong than "expanding one's society at the expense of less advanced natives because they're just a bunch of tribes living in the wilderness"? If so? Why? Because your group doesn't benefit from it?
C. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Irish, German, Italian, Polish come in droves to the United States? Were they not immigrants? Did they not immigrate here to "benefit from what as already created?" Or Am I missing something?


No, according to you if some Indian tribes fight over land that's fine and whoever wins is the rightful eternal owner,
Never stated such.

but if Europeans fight with them over land that's morally wrong.
Again, never stated such. I'm merely questioning the idea that "Might makes right" which seems to be a sentiment you adhere to in the fullest extent.

You're a hypocrite.
I find it ironic that someone who implies that building/expanding their society at the expense of millions of natives in historically brutal/genocidal fashion is more justifiable and inherently morally superior to allowing millions of different colored people to immigrate to a new land because apparently, they're leeches that simply want to benefit from said society can accuse another of hypocrisy. While you didn't explicit say this, I'm going to safely assume that these are your exact sentiments. And just to clarify, may I ask you are they?

Like I said, immigrating into countries/civilizations created by other people so you can benefit from what they created isn't the same thing as building your own.
Well in that case, those pesky Irish, Italians and Germans that came in the 19th century here fit that same description. Or does your comment only apply to non-European immigrants?


Colonizers don't immigrate into other people's countries and demand welfare handouts or political rights. Those people are called immigrants, not the same thing as the white settlers who built Canada and the US from scratch, countries which other people now want to immigrate into.
See my comment/question above. Are colonizers more inherently superior to immigrants?

Now that I think about it, immigrants can also colonize as well. I mean, if you take a look at certain neighborhoods in big cities, you'll see plenty of Chinatowns, Koreatowns, Little Ethiopias, Little Manilas etc. In a way, setting up ethnic enclaves is a form of colonization but hey, at least it doesn't involved brutal warfare and mass epidemics. If one wants to argue that this is a new form of colonialism, any sane mind would argue that it's more benign :) than what the original European colonizers did :).

Demographics don't lie, at least not here in the states. We will probably be seeing more ethnic neighborhoods in the near future.
The US will become ‘minority white’ in 2045, Census projects
 
Last edited:
Apr 2018
29
Los Angeles
Agreed! I do apologize since I partook in this thread derailment. That being said, I can't help myself. I enjoy conversing with Eurocentric nationalists purely for amusement purposes.
 
Dec 2012
446
To be honest, the Sinitic city (used here to imply types of settlements with rammed earth or later other fencing around them which appear in what is now the PRC) was hardly useful defensively or functionally from a military standpoint. The major functions were primarily religious (temple complexes which double as political centres) as well as economic (the Chinese word 商人 for example, now meaning merchant or businessman, but originally meaning someone from the commercial centre of Shang). To suggest they were like the medieval castle-walled complexes is a misconception.

Likely disease and other issues were rampant and therefore the development of the city was, at least not immediately a set back to the health of its inhabitants in contrast to nomadic life. Furthermore, the battlements of the Chinese city, usually made of rammed earth (築 in Chinese) were not particularly effective at staving off invasions and were more for demarcating boundaries. By the medieval period, military restriction was primarily done through water and mountain ranges, rather than city battlements. The reason for this is the simple fact that major cities like Luo Yang and even more so Chang'an (modern day Xi'an) were hard to defend as cities, given their proximity to major commercial roadways. People should consider the Sinitic city more as a commercial centre anyway -- the word for city in Chinese literally translates as walled market (城市), and it is this feature which drove their development, rather than defense, which is instead the preoccupation of the Sinitic Guan (關 or mountain pass) which served the function that most castle spaces and eventually cities would have under feudal development in the Western Europe.

And, just an FYI, rammed earth (or packed mud if you will) was the primary building material of Sinitic foundation and walls for most of Sinitic history (concrete came later from Europe). The word for construction in Chinese 建筑 is a composite of the word to establish or build 建 as in 建立 and 築 originally a verb meaning to ram earth, which, given the nature of classical Sinitic grammar, doubles as a noun for rammed earth or construction. Stone masonry and concrete were not the preoccupations of the Sinitic engineers, who worked primarily in wood and, yes, rammed earth.
Rammed earth walls could resist early 20th century cannon fire
 
Nov 2019
53
Solar System
It depends on where you're talking about. In Europe and America Chinese history is indeed somewhat underrated, but then again you can"t really blame them since for them Chinese history is very foreign. In China I get the feeling that the historiography is very much centered on the Central Plains / the Sinitic peoples, while other parts of China, particularly the south, have being ignored.
 
Mar 2019
1,809
KL
china has been overrated in many ways, for instance their silk production has received the sole credit because of greek and roman records. It is misguidingly claimed that until the Byzantines, silk was a closely guarded Chinese secret despite ample evidences that not only in india, the central asians were known for fine quality silk production.

regards