Rape of Hakka women, Taiwanese massacres by Japanese. Why Lee Tung Hui support Japan?

Mar 2012
4,349
LIKE ALWAYS AGAIN............. INTERPRETATIONS BY BARBARIANS

Do you even read your sources before you postED all this ?

Here's the link for god sake.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pKltRQDPEvAC&pg=PA58&dq=When+a+barbarian+adopts+the+way+of+China+(zhongguo),+they+are+then+seeing+as+China,+when+Zhongguo+adopts+the+way+of+barbarians,+then+it+should+be+viewed+as+barbarian&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOvtbr65bbAhUBPFAKHdT8BoMQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=When%20a%20barbarian%20adopts%20the%20way%20of%20China%20(zhongguo)%2C%20they%20are%20then%20seeing%20as%20China%2C%20when%20Zhongguo%20adopts%20the%20way%20of%20barbarians%2C%20then%20it%20should%20be%20viewed%20as%20barbarian&f=false
The Political Philosophy of Zhang Taiyan: The Resistance of Consciousness
By Viren Murthy


" In order to strengthen the legitimacy of the Qing government, they blurred the distinction between the inside and outside. Followers of the Next Textbook school famously interpreted the " Spring and Autumn Annals " in a manner exemplified by the scholar Yang Huan ( 1234 - 1299 ) who adopted such a theory of identity to legitimate the Yuan dynasty, "

" Yuan dynasty (1234–1299), who adopted such a theory of identity to legitimate the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368): “If the Chinese adopt the way of the barbarian, one should see them as barbarians. When the barbarians learn the ways of China, they become Chinese "


Why is every of source always comes from the interpretations of conquerors.
Do you understand throughout history conquerors have always tried to themselves ? Same with germanic tribes, sames with bulgars, Hungarians, same with Mughals, same with Manchus, Mongols, same with Scythians and Indo-Scythians, same with Turks and Persian-Turks, same with the Magyars, Hephalites ..... same with Pathans..... historically it had always been like that with all the minority conquering tribes who assimilated in the nation of the subjugated majority.
:deadhorse:

Well they do say impudence is the bastard of ignorance. From your naive comments, I assume you didn't even know that the passage these people used to justify these regimes comes from the Spring and Autumn Annals of Confucius and the Gong Yang school itself was the dominant form of thought during the Han dynasty?

You said Han always had a strong sense of race, they didn't. There is no trace of racial Chinese identity whatsoever in the Zhou and Han period. So you are wrong. That was all I refuted.
 
Aug 2016
232
UK london
They are not diffrent things and thats the point.
Why are they not different ? firstable the Indo-Aryan invasion had been proven to be a myth by various scholars, geneticist aswell. Manchus conquering China is a proven fact on the other hand.

You need to realize that the word ethnicity can have very broad meanings. However, since you tend to use the word in conjunction with race, I can only assume that you are using it in a more anthropological way, and that is, it is related to descent group. In that case, no, the Manchus were obviously not considered a different race/ethnic group.
They are simply considered barbarians who are tained by bad Qi.
Do not project modern European classifications onto the ancient Chinese.
Manchus were considered barbarians and foreign invaders and that had existed and remained strong by many Chinese nationalist to the end of the early 20th century.

Sun Yat-sen ( father of modern China and one of founder of ROC ) although is rule was short and it was really Yuan Shikai who addicated the last Manchu emperor still he is regarded as the father of modern china.

“ To restore our national independence, we must first restore the Chinese nation. To restore the Chinese nation, we must drive the barbarian Manchus back to the Changbai Mountains. To get rid of the barbarians, we must first overthrow the present tyrannical, dictatorial, ugly, and corrupt Qing government. Fellow countrymen, a revolution is the only means to overthrow the Qing government! "

Here are some quotations of Zou Rong:

"Sweep away millennia of despotism in all its forms, throw off millennia of slavishness, annihilate the five million and more of the furry and horned Manchu race, cleanse ourselves of 260 years of harsh and unremitting pain"
"I do not begrudge repeating over and over again that internally we are slaves of the Manchus and suffering from their tyranny, externally we are being harassed by the Powers, and we are doubly enslaved."
"Kill the emperor set up by the Manchus as a warning to the myriad generations that despotic government is not to be revived."
"Settle the name of the country as the Republic of China."[27]






An outdated study which does not address the issues I brought up. Historiography up to the 1990s are still heavily centered on European ideas of race. I've cited primary sources where the term Han is used in non-ethnic terms from Shaoyun and Mark Elliott which addressed specifically these issues. Don't use a source dating to 1989 to challenge that.
If Han was used in a non-ethnic term than why do so many overseas Chinese address themselves a Han/Hua instead of Chinese ?

If you want to play this stupid game, then who give a crap what the Ming thought? This is the 21st century; the PRC definition is all that matters.
But since you are hardly a follower of that when you started talking about what ancient Chinese thought, then this "crap" is very much relevant to our conversation.
Ming dynasty was a ethnic Han ruled dynasty and there the real ancestors who represents majority Han-China people unlike the Qing, Yuan, Northern wei, Jin, Liao ect

The Wu never identified with the Han, but they were not considered barbarians in traditional sources (neither were the Xianbei of the Northern Wei and Northern Zhou by Sui and Tang sources, the Shato Turks of the Five dynasties and Koryo were also not considered barbarians in Song sources). Therefore your argument that all non-Han people are barbarians does not stand.

THAT'S MY POINT. If they had considered themselves Han than there's no way there's going to be a distinctions.

Xianbei and Shatou Turks were so sinicized to the point that they even had paternal Han ancestral lineages. So the Song dynasty and Shatou Turks already mixed with Han.



No they weren't. Neither Koryo nor Chosun was ever conquered by the Song or Ming, they paid tribute out of its own will and it was called little Zhonghua because of cultural affinities. Chosun even kept the Ming calendar and used emperor Chongzheng's reign title after the Ming dynasty collapsed.

Yes, Koreans were very Zhonghuanized. It's easy to see when you look at their dress, customs, they even read and wrote in Chinese only thing was they spoke Korean.

No they didn't. I have read the Tang code and there is no law which talked about Han. A Tang subject is not the equivalent of a Han because many people in the Tang are actually not Han (such as Wu people or Xianbei).
Cite the source or stop making things up.
Tang dynasty (618–907 AD)


" Tang law, forbade enslaving free people, but allowed enslavement of criminals and foreigners.[13] Free people could however willingly sell themselves. The primary source of slaves came from southern tribes and young slave girls were the most desired on the market. Although various officials such as Kong Kui, the governor of Guangdong, banned the practice, the trade continued anyways .[14] Other peoples sold to Chinese included Turks, Persians, and Korean women, who were sought after by the wealthy.[15][13] On the silk road slave girls were a major item and much more expensive than silk. Silk was up to five times less than the value of a slave girl. Central Asian slave girls were exported from Central Asia Iranian areas to China. It is believed that the wealthy merchants and aristocratic noblemen of the Chinese capital of Chang'an were the consumers for the huge amount of Central Asian slave women brought by the Sogdians to China to sell to the Chinese. The Central Asian foreign women in the Sogdian owned wineshops in the Chinese capital are also believe to have been slaves since Chinese poets depicted then as homesick, sad and melancholy and they would service travelers by keeping them company overnight. Merchants and literati would frequent the wineshops.[16] The Sogdians reaped massive profits from selling slave girls and so did the Chinese government by taxing the sale of the slaves. Slave girls were one of the major products Chinese bought from Sogdians. Persian poets often wrote about wine and women since the wineservers were often girls and this wine culture with girl servers seems to have spread to China. There were many Sogdian wineshops and Persian shops in Chang'an along with a large slave market. The wineshops were staffed with young girls who served wine to customers and danced for them. Most of the slave girls were 14 or 15 years old. They provided services like sex, dancing, singing, and served wine to their customers in Chang'an as ordered their masters who ran the wineshops. A Sogdian merchant, Kang Weiyi 康尾義 had Indians, Central Asians, and Tokharistanis (Bactrians) among the 15 slave girls he was bringing to sell in the Chinese capital of Chang'an.[17][18] "


If Koreans were considered part of Zhonghua why than were also considered foreign slaves ?


Bullocks. Which primary source stated that only Han people is entitled to be Hua? Cite it or stop making things up.
READ THIS PLEASE.
Where does it say barbarians can be considered Hua
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huaxia

Barbarians who identify as Han chinese are totally the ones who only practice Chinese culture but kept their own identity.


Verdictpunjab, if you don't know something, don't make things up. The name Xianbei exist even in the 8th century. Many prominent Tang officials proudly trace their ancestors to Xianbei clans throughout the dynasty. There is no evidence at all that Xianbei dissappeared as an identity.
Oh heally than where is the Xianbei people today ?:eek:






Except I showed you numerous sources which refuted that completely, staring with Confucius himself in his Spring and Autumn Annals, followed by the Zuo commentary, and Dongshong Shu's commentaries from the Han period. Ignoring that isn't going to help you. I've even showed you Song sources which included Korea as Hua. You have nothing but your worthless opinion and half baked researches that are outdated by decades, yet you have the arrogance and ignorance to challenge those who have superior command of sources than you, pathetically.
No. You are using sources under the dynasties that were interpreted by the foreign invaders who conquered China and Chinese.

The Han was never a strong ethnic identity, and never more prominent than the Hua identity. And if you say otherwise, you need to cite your source instead of your opinion.

LEARN SOMETHING BEFORE YOU EXPLAIN YOUR INTERPRETATIONS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese

"
The fall of the Han dynasty was followed by an age of fragmentation and several centuries of disunity amid warfare among rival kingdoms. During this time, areas of northern China were overrun by various non-Han nomadic peoples, which came to establish kingdoms of their own, the most successful of which was Northern Wei (established by the Xianbei). Starting from this period, the native population of China proper began to be referred to as Hanren, or the "People of Han", to distinguish them from the nomads from the steppe. Warfare and invasion led to one of the first great migrations of Han populations in history, as they fled south to the Yangtze and beyond, shifting the Chinese demographic center and speeding up sinicization of the far south. At the same time most of the nomads in northern China came to be sinicized as they ruled over large Chinese populations and adopted elements of their culture and administration. Of note, the Xianbei rulers of Northern Wei ordered a policy of systematic sinicization, adopting Han surnames, institutions, and culture. "



Don't shift grounds. That was not your original point. You said the Han identity is racial/ethnic and its only modern China which made the Chinese identity multi-ethnic. After I debunked that nonsense you tell me that Chinese always distinguished themselves from foreign invaders; thats a non starter, even the Manchus distinguished Hua from foreign invaders such as the west and Japan. So whats your point?
Han is indeed racial/ethnic. Multi-ethnic was a Qing concept made by the conquerors.

You didn't debunked anything with your own overstretched opinion.

What king logic are you using ??? ---> " even the Manchus distinguished Hua from foreign invaders such as the west and Japan. So whats your point? "
The west are caucasian people.....
The Japanese are different people with different country....
Why the heck wouldn't they be distinguished ???


There was a distinctive identity between the Han/Or native Chinese between the newcomers who conquered the nation.
Yes that is true.




Language is not race, and Pamela Crossley already demonstrated that Jurchen during Nurhachi's time was largely cultural, not racial/descent.
Nurhachi also lived before the term Manchu or Qing even existed.
Language is generally connected with race and identity. Almost all Europeans are indo-european speakers although Iranians, Kurds, Afghans, Tajins, North Indians are distantly related to them .

Nurhaci distinguished themselves from Koreans, Chinese claiming they were devils for skinning dogs alive also saying they were they were a different people from Manchus. Even now manchus retained their distinct identity and refused to had their ethnic identity completely assimilated like the Xianbei and Shatou Turks who mixed with Han Chinese even before the Tang dynasty/Song dynasty.


That's irrelevant. This topic is about whether the Manchus were accepted as Zhonghua/Chinese and of the same civilization by the Han majority, and they were as I already demonstrated with the Han attachment to the queue.
They were never accepted by the Han ancestors. All your doing is cherrypicking sources that comes from interpretations of ethnic foreign dynasties who ruled China.


Chinese writers of the Gongyang school also said anyone who adopted Chinese ways can become Chinese, that's why no sources of the Sui and Tang treated the Xianbei of the Northern dynasties as barbarians. A point you still failed to grasp. The Manchus did that, so they are accepted as Hua.
And let me guess again.... it comes from ethnic foreign dynasties of China. The Xianbei already claimed paternal Han ancestry even before Tang dynasty began.






You still speak like a modern nationalist and your comparison is all over the place.
What the hell is an Indian ruler and a foreign ruler? Is the Chola foreign? The Central Asian based Rajputs? Are you referring to the geography, the culture, or a particular ethnic group? Set a standard and use the same standard when you compare China.
Right now you are using the modern ethno-linguistic term Han to compare to the geographical region of India. They are not of the same standard, and that's what people has been telling you.
Chola can be considered native Indian dynasties
Rapjuts only had "THEORIES" that connect them with Scythians, Hunas... now disproven.

Indians who claim to identify with Mughals, Arabs, Turks, Pathans, Anglo-Indians are not real Indians. I will consider them Indians and even Indian racially but they never as Indian as the regular ones if they claimed invading ethnic groups who were not native of India but it's hard to consider them as Indian seeing they are so heavily mixed with Indians and have Indian appearance.



How is that any different from the ROC forcing peopel to cut their queue? Even if it wasn't as violent, force was applied too. The Tang also massacred the people of Hebei for rebelling, by your logic, the Tang is not "Chinese" either. It's ROC propaganda that Manchus are foreign, just like its Manchu propaganda that the queue represented Chinese civilization, and the people eventually accepted it because time passed.



I cited to you the Spring and Autumn Annals of Confucius himself.

“夷狄入中国,则中国之,中国入夷狄,则夷狄之"
"When a barbarian adopts the way of China (zhongguo), they are then seeing as China, when Zhongguo adopts the way of barbarians, then it should be viewed as barbarian."


Are you telling me that Confucius is not Chinese or lived under a foreign regime?

I also cited Dongzhong Shu, a Han dynasty subject

"The Spring and Autumn annals often claim, if one does not use the rites of the barbarian but use the rites of Zhongguo. Since the battle of Bi, this went the other way, how so? The Spring and Autumn Annals have no universal definition, things change. Now that the Jin became a barbarian while the Chu became civilized."

Are you telling me the Han dynasty is foreign? If you do, you are contradicting yourself in claiming that the Han ethnic group existed since the Han itself.
[/SIZE]
I cannot find a source where confucious said what you quoted

What you cited with Dongzhong Shu is totally a different thing. Do not compare these childish nonsense with Jin, Chun, Han during the warring states. They are native Chinese dynasties because they were all created within China ( or Zhonghua ) that time also they were all Sino-Tibetan speaking dynasties and wrote similar characters and spoke similar languages. Totally different from the Manchus who were Tungustic speakers and later only became Chinese through being a conqueror who assimilated with the subjugated Han Chinese majority (which is typical in majority of history and nations ).
 
Last edited:
Mar 2012
4,349
Understand the differences please


On the concept of Hua/Zhonghua. There's a huge difference between a Han officials who were ruled by dynasties of foreign origins (after intruding conquering China and making Han as subjects ) VERSES The han officials who in their own native dynasties of Han origin.
Irrelevant to my argument. What I refuted was your claim that Han had a strong sense of race. Han was never a descent based identity.


If you really wanted to prove the point you could use references from the Han, Song, Ming instead.

I did. Twice. You just don't understand what source I even posted either due to a poor grasp of the subject, or just a half baked effort in this debate.

For the third time, and pay close attention to the damn source:

Han dynasty scholars promoted this view, for example the Han scholar Dong Zhongshu under Han Wudi wrote the following:

"The Spring and Autumn annals often claim, if one does not use the rites of the barbarian but use the rites of Zhongguo. Since the battle of Bi, this went the other way, how so? The Spring and Autumn Annals have no universal definition, things change. Now that the Jin became a barbarian while the Chu became civilized."


This is a Han dynasty source stating Chu (a none Chinese state in the beginning, becoming a Chinese state, and Jin, a Chinese state, becoming a barbarian)

This below is from Confucius himself, not the Yuan, not any "foreign dynasty":
“夷狄入中国,则中国之,中国入夷狄,则夷狄之"
"When a barbarian adopts the way of China (zhongguo), they are then seeing as China, when Zhongguo adopts the way of barbarians, then it should be viewed as barbarian."

I showed you that early Chinese cultural identity from Zhou down to the Tang always thought barbarians could become Hua. It is the Song and Ming interpretations which are new and exceptional, and even these regimes was not interpreting Chinese based on race since they accepted Korea as Hua.




What Zhuyu said did not implied that barbarians were part of Chinese. You just misinterpreted it's meaning based on your exaggerated overstretch perceptions.
No, I used Zhuyu to show you that Han was not an idea which Chinese people called themselves. They used the term Zhongguo or Hua foremost, and Han people serving the Wei called the Wei "Hua".
 
Aug 2016
232
UK london
:deadhorse:

Well they do say impudence is the bastard of ignorance. From your naive comments, I assume you didn't even know that the passage these people used to justify these regimes comes from the[Bitself was the dominant form of thought during the Han dynasty?

You said Han always had a strong sense of race, they didn't. There is no trace of racial Chinese identity whatsoever in the Zhou and Han period. So you are wrong. That was all I refuted.

Show me a link or otherwise is useless.
Do not claim something you cannot back up with.
 

heylouis

Ad Honorem
Apr 2013
6,397
China
This below is from Confucius himself, not the Yuan, not any "foreign dynasty":
“夷狄入中国,则中国之,中国入夷狄,则夷狄之"
"When a barbarian adopts the way of China (zhongguo), they are then seeing as China, when Zhongguo adopts the way of barbarians, then it should be viewed as barbarian."
sorry for interruption, (but the thread is a ruin anyway...)

韩愈:孔子之作《春秋》也,诸侯用夷礼则夷之,夷而进于中国则中国之。
the phrasing is used by han yu, not confucius
 
Mar 2012
4,349
Why are they not different ? firstable the Indo-Aryan invasion had been proven to be a myth by various scholars, geneticist aswell.
I'm not talking about the name Indo-Aryan or Dravidian itself. The Chola invasion of Northern India is a foreign invasion to other states no more than Khitan or Jurchen invasions of China. These people spoke a different language and was a different state.
Manchus conquering China is a proven fact on the other hand.
Manchus are not more of an ethnic identity than Chola, and you cannot find a single contemporary Chinese source which called them a "foreign race". I challenge you again to find such a source if you insist.

Manchus were considered barbarians and foreign invaders and that had existed and remained strong by many Chinese nationalist to the end of the early 20th century.


Sun Yat-sen ( father of modern China and one of founder of ROC ) although is rule was short and it was really Yuan Shikai who addicated the last Manchu emperor still he is regarded as the father of modern china.


“ To restore our national independence, we must first restore the Chinese nation. To restore the Chinese nation, we must drive the barbarian Manchus back to the Changbai Mountains. To get rid of the barbarians, we must first overthrow the present tyrannical, dictatorial, ugly, and corrupt Qing government. Fellow countrymen, a revolution is the only means to overthrow the Qing government! "

Here are some quotations of Zou Rong:

"Sweep away millennia of despotism in all its forms, throw off millennia of slavishness, annihilate the five million and more of the furry and horned Manchu race, cleanse ourselves of 260 years of harsh and unremitting pain"
"I do not begrudge repeating over and over again that internally we are slaves of the Manchus and suffering from their tyranny, externally we are being harassed by the Powers, and we are doubly enslaved."
"Kill the emperor set up by the Manchus as a warning to the myriad generations that despotic government is not to be revived."
"Settle the name of the country as the Republic of China."[27]

No. Read my lips. Sun Yet-sen and the revolutionary ideologies were all introduced from western and Japanese ideas of race based nationalism, it is a foreign concept to most Chinese at the time.

Since you are just going to reiterate revolutionary propaganda even when I showed you they are not mainstream, I'm just going to repost my refutations.

The fact that the majority of Han were not in any way enthusiastic about the revolution is reflected by the fact that most Han people of the time refuses to cut their queue. The Xinhai order forcing people to cut queue is an arbitrary command adopted by a new regime to display power little different from the Qing order that forced people to adopt the queue.


In 1912, the British embassy in Najing stated that "the army uses scissors as weapons and guarded the various gates of Nanjing. They patrolled on the various streets and cut those who had the Chinese pigtail. This resulted in the people of Nanjing being angry about the force used by the Zhe army."
Another British embassy, Smith who resided in Yunnan stated that "The public is cold to the revolution. People have no enthusiasm...its rare to see on the street those who cut their queue."

Republicans forcing people to cut queue:




As for Han hating the Manchus, the fact is, most Han didn't even know the Manchus were a different ethnicity nor did they have the concept of ethnicity. Qian Mu's record Shiyou Zaji 《师友杂忆》mentioned just one such an episode. His teacher, having been influenced by revolutionary teachings, told him "do you know our emperor is not Chinese? After I heard this, I was very surprised, and said, no I didn't. I went back home and asked my father, and he said your teacher is right. Our emperor is Manchu, we are Han" :“伯圭师随又告余,汝知今天我们的皇帝不是中国人吗。余骤闻,大惊讶,云不知。归,询之先父。先父云,师言是也。今天我们的皇帝是满洲人,我们则是汉人。”

Note that Qian's teacher Bojia is a revolutionary and his father also already influenced by the revolutionaire ideas of what is Chinese or not. Qian himself, representing the traditional literati mases never understood the Manchus were foreign.


Wang Faseng's book 《权力的毛细管作用:清代的思想、学术与心态》stated that at the time, "people already treated their queue as a custom of their ethnicity and protected and honored it" “已将剃发留辫当成自己民族固有的习俗加以遵行和维护。”


As late as 1923, according to the Shanghai published "Records of the Customs of the whole nation of China" 《中华全国风俗志》,those who kepted their Queue at Baoding numbered 50-60 percent" In Tianjing, "the bad custom of keeping the queue, is especially strong here, regardless of upper, middle, or lower class, those who cut their hair are extremely few". “蓄辫之恶俗,反较他埠为独甚。无论上中下三等人,剪发者殆居最少数。”


Some Han people went to extremes in opposing the queue cutting. For example, After the queue cutting order was made, a group of men in the Shangdong town of Changyi led by Liang Renhuai decided to violently oppose the revolutionary government. After Liang was forced to cut his queue, he claimed:
"How could the subjects of the Great Qing not wear queue? Other than us two, who were forced to cut off our queue, those who do not wear queue are all rebel bandits and needs to be slaughtered." The next day Liang Renhuai and the others carried their weapons and killed any man who did not war a queue. The revolutionary representatives were hacked to death on the spot. All the other revolutionaries who promoted cutting the queue went into hiding. Altogether 27 were killed.

After the revolutionary army came in to round up Liang's force of 63, Liang stayed and chose to die with his queue and was executed.



In fact, after Taiwan fell to Japan, a queue cutting was ordered and the people there all lamented the cutting of their queue.

To quote Chun-Chieh Huang:

During the Japanese occupation (1895-1945), Taiwanese intellectuals held a romantic image of cultural China. For example, the Taichung-area cultural figure, Ye Rongzhong葉榮鐘 (1900-56), writer Wu zhuoliu 濁流 (1900-76), doctorwriter Wu Xinrong 新榮(1906-67) and Taiwanese merchant in China, Wu Sanlian 三連 (1899-1988) all viewed China as their own cultural homeland.(19) Writer Zhang Shenqie張深切’s (1904-65) recollection of being forced to have his pigtails cut off during the Japanese occupation ex pressed the Taiwanese sense of Chinese cultural identification at that time. He wrote:
"When we were about to have our pigtails cut off, our whole family cried. Kneeling before our ancestors’ tablets, hot tears flowed down our faces as we repented and promised our descendants would not do the same and live up to the standard. Today we had our pigtails cut, so we can receive Japanese education and be authorized to be Japanese citizens. But, we wish to expel these Japanese devils and grow back our hair in order to pay our respects to our ancestors. After kowtowing, we knelt down to have our hair cut. Mother just couldn’t do it. Dad is braver; he steeled himself, gritted his teeth, grabbed my queue and lopped it off with one stroke. My skull suddenly felt lighter and I knew my hair was gone. I let out a loud cry, as if I was in mourning."
Zhang’s cry expressed his lament at being split off from his Chinese cultural identity in this dramatic way.
Far from seeing Manchu queue as foreign, late Qing Chinese people all viewed it as part of their Chinese identity. Sun Yet-Sen's Japanese influenced ideologies of Han nationalism are the ones that are considered foreign and un-Chinese. For some of the Han Chinese, 1912 might have been seen as the end of traditional Confucian Chinese civilization.
 
Aug 2016
232
UK london
Irrelevant to my argument. What I refuted was your claim that Han had a strong sense of race. Han was never a descent based identity.
Yes, obviously the did.




I did. Twice. You just don't understand what source I even posted either due to a poor grasp of the subject, or just a half baked effort in this debate.

For the third time, and pay close attention to the damn source:

Han dynasty scholars promoted this view, for example the Han scholar Dong Zhongshu under Han Wudi wrote the following:

"The Spring and Autumn annals often claim, if one does not use the rites of the barbarian but use the rites of Zhongguo. Since the battle of Bi, this went the other way, how so? The Spring and Autumn Annals have no universal definition, things change. Now that the Jin became a barbarian while the Chu became civilized."


This is a Han dynasty source stating Chu (a none Chinese state in the beginning, becoming a Chinese state, and Jin, a Chinese state, becoming a barbarian)

This below is from Confucius himself, not the Yuan, not any "foreign dynasty":
“夷狄入中国,则中国之,中国入夷狄,则夷狄之"
"When a barbarian adopts the way of China (zhongguo), they are then seeing as China, when Zhongguo adopts the way of barbarians, then it should be viewed as barbarian."

I showed you that early Chinese cultural identity from Zhou down to the Tang always thought barbarians could become Hua. It is the Song and Ming interpretations which are new and exceptional, and even these regimes was not interpreting Chinese based on race since they accepted Korea as Hua.

You are again not showing me any source.



But let's say it's true it most likely he was referring to the warring states or he mean't the Wuyue of Zhenjiang, Baiyue of Guangdong, Mingyue of Fujian where they were barbarians who became assimilated as Han. Southern China had experienced large migrant waves to Southern China and are mixture of Han and barbarian genetically but identity is 100% Han.

Conficious was born in 551 BC died in 479 BC, Yuan existed in 13th century. He had no idea of the the Khitans, Jurchens, Xianbei, Hu, Mongols, Manchus who were completely different to the warring states differences. All states referred eachother as barbarians during that time but you can't compare them with the Altaic invaders from Mongolia, Manchuria of that time,


Apples and oranges.


You are comparing ancient chinese dynasties who shared similar origins, language, culture, with high culture Verses the nomadic barbarians with a different language and low culture. The differences are acceptable enough in the warring state periods even if they considered other states barbarians.

I don't think Conficious will claim completely foreign conquerors as Chinese.

No, I used Zhuyu to show you that Han was not an idea which Chinese people called themselves. They used the term Zhongguo or Hua foremost, and Han people serving the Wei called the Wei "Hua".
They made clear distinctions.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2012
4,349
Show me a link or otherwise is useless.
Do not claim something you cannot back up with.
Verdict Punjab, I showed you multiple primary sources in verbatim which stated explicitly that "a barbarian adopting Chinese ways is viewed as Chinese" by Confucius himself. This is a basic passage that every Chinese literati knows since it came from the Spring and Autumn Annals; one of the five fundamental classics of Confucianism. The fact that you don't even know this work was from Confucius shows to me that you do not even have a basic grasp of the subject.

If you think a link featuring third hand quotation is superior to a primary source, then you you are even more pathetic than I thought. In fact I'm beginning to suspect that from the naive nonsense you are maintaining, you do not even understand what a primary source is.
 
Aug 2016
232
UK london
sorry for interruption, (but the thread is a ruin anyway...)

韩愈:孔子之作《春秋》也,诸侯用夷礼则夷之,夷而进于中国则中国之。
the phrasing is used by han yu, not confucius

You see with this guy. That's why you can't trust heavenlykaghan. I checked everywhere and can't find his crap on that quote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Yu
"
Han Yu was a Chinese writer, poet, and government official of the Tang dynasty who significantly influenced the development of Neo-Confucianism "


TANG DYNASTY..... this was ethnic dynasty of Han/Xianbei like the ruling class so why wouldn't Han yu make such phrasing. Again it proves my point.... there's a huge difference between a Han officials who were ruled by dynasties of foreign origins (after intruding conquering China and making Han as subjects VERSES The han officials in their own native dynasties of Han origin.
 
Last edited:

heylouis

Ad Honorem
Apr 2013
6,397
China
You see with this guy. That's why you can't trust heavenlykaghan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Yu
"
Han Yu was a Chinese writer, poet, and government official of the Tang dynasty who significantly influenced the development of Neo-Confucianism "


TANG DYNASTY..... this was ethnic dynasty of Han/Xianbei like the ruling class so why wouldn't Hanyu make such phrasing.
that does not mean you make sense. sorry.....
 

Similar History Discussions