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

Aug 2016
232
UK london
that does not mean you make sense. sorry.....
What I mean't is those Han Chinese historians from the Qing, Yuan and even Tang (this one is partially ) always claimed that the barbarian who conquered their nations and native population are Chinese. Truth is they were properly forced to say it or else they would have been executed

Although Xianbei, Shatou Turks were already heavily sinicized to the point they even claim to be descent Han Chinese paternal ancestry and so they regard themselves also Han but in the case of Mongols, Manchus even after they ruled the Chinese for hundred years they still kept their own distinctive identity very separately and that's why they are still survive as a ethnic group while the Xianbei, Khitan, Shatou, Wu Hu were all long disappeared.
 
Mar 2012
4,349
Yes, obviously the did.
Which part of this sentence sounds like Chinese is a race to you?

“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."





You are again not showing me any source.
I'll be lenient and see this as your lack of basic training in Chinese historiography, considering the sources I cited are basic Confucian classics.

You can easily find the above in Chinese links, but since you don't read it, its pointless directing you there.
I can baby sit you if you really want me to find a published version of Spring and Autumn Annals or the other sources I cited, but it will be tedious on my part especially when you are still finding excuses even after accepting them to be true like below.


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.
You can't be 100% Han, when there is no concept of Han yet.

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,
Why are you still ignoring the example of Koryo and Chosun Korea being viewed as Hua by the Song and Ming dynasties? This is of course ignoring the fact that Han people serving the Northern Wei stated that they are Hua as well. And don't give me the "they are pressured" nonsense. I've showed you Han subjects of the Qing been attached to Qing queue and viewed the Qing as representative of Chinese civilization.


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.
Korea does not speak Chinese, and its viewed as Hua. The Shato Turk regimes of the Later Jin were also never referred to as Yi. And these are from Song sources.
I don't think Conficious will claim completely foreign conquerors as Chinese.
Define "completely foreign". Confucius knew the existence of the Beidi and Dongyi who were not Sinitic speakers and the Spring and Autumn rites never pretended that its not universally applied to all.


They made clear distinctions.
Where? Cite the passage from Confucius which defined Hua in any racial way.
 
Last edited:

heylouis

Ad Honorem
Apr 2013
6,397
China
What I mean't is those Han Chinese historians from the Qing, Yuan and even Tang (this one is partially ) always claimed that the barbarian who conquered their nations and native population are Chinese. Truth is they were properly forced to say it or else they would have been executed

Although Xianbei, Shatou Turks were already heavily sinicized to the point they even claim to be descent Han Chinese paternal ancestry and so they regard themselves also Han but in the case of Mongols, Manchus even after they ruled the Chinese for hundred years they still kept their own distinctive identity very separately and that's why they are still survive as a ethnic group while the Xianbei, Khitan, Shatou, Wu Hu were all long disappeared.
already does not make sense here.
plz don't bother discuss this topic with me, i really do not want to know whatsoever.
 

heylouis

Ad Honorem
Apr 2013
6,397
China
Well if that still doesn't make sense to you than study more so you can keep up in the future.
who would keep up with this long page costing, don't know what talking about thread?

i am not keeping up with the thread, just have some fun here.

you were directed from taiwan to zhonghua etc., that is really... cannot be kept up with...
 
Aug 2016
232
UK london
Which part of this sentence sounds like Chinese is a race to you?

“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'm not even going to bother waste my time on your replies.

As said by Heylouis the phrasing was used by han yu, not confucius. So unless you prove to me is confucious with a source I won't be wasting my time. Han yu was a official of the Tang dynasty (emperors had partial barbarian blood ).
 
Mar 2012
4,349
What I mean't is those Han Chinese historians from the Qing, Yuan and even Tang (this one is partially ) always claimed that the barbarian who conquered their nations and native population are Chinese. Truth is they were properly forced to say it or else they would have been executed

Although Xianbei, Shatou Turks were already heavily sinicized to the point they even claim to be descent Han Chinese paternal ancestry and so they regard themselves also Han but in the case of Mongols, Manchus even after they ruled the Chinese for hundred years they still kept their own distinctive identity very separately and that's why they are still survive as a ethnic group while the Xianbei, Khitan, Shatou, Wu Hu were all long disappeared.

"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), doctor-writer Wu Xinrong 新榮(1906-67) and Taiwanese merchant in China, Wu Sanlian 三連 (1899-1988) all viewedChina 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
expressed 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. "


That does not sound forced whatsoever.


And considering you think only web links are sources, the passage above came from here:
http://www.nishogakusha-kanbun.net/02kanbun-408chun.pdf
 
Mar 2012
4,349
I'm not even going to bother waste my time on your replies.

As said by Heylouis the phrasing was used by han yu, not confucius. So unless you prove to me is confucious with a source I won't be wasting my time. Han yu was a official of the Tang dynasty (emperors had partial barbarian blood ).
Don't bother, I'm done wasting time on an amateur who thinks websites are more authoritative than primary sources. All you've been doing is back peddling this whole thread, changing your stance from "there was never a concept of a multi-ethnic state before Qing" and the Tang is a Han regime to "Tang is half barbarian and hence anyone writing under the dynasty doesn't count." If your goal is to make a mockery of yourself, I congratulate you as you've done a brilliant job of that, but you've failed in practically establishing everything you've originally argued. Your argument that Chinese was a strong racial idea has already been refuted by multiple primary sources from the Zhou and Han period; which are not "Foreign regimes". The fact that you don't even know what the Gongyang school is and the significance it had on early Chinese thought means you simply aren't qualified to talk about the subjects.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2012
4,349
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

I thought Hanyu was citing the Spring and Autumn Annals directly because he mentioned the text before he wrote the passage. This is an understandable, and a rather insignificant oversight since this still doesn't change any part of my argument; Hanyu's passage was still summarizing Confucius; as examples of barbarians changing into Hua and vice versa can be found in numerous places.


Just in case Verdictpunjab tries to poison the well by attacking my credibility based on one single oversight (ignoring the numerous ones he made which he isn't even man enough to admit), I will provide the article where the rest of the quotes from Dong Zhongshu and Gongyang can be found and an analysis of the Gongyang school on how its purely cultural (so he won't divert the subject on ad hominem methods when he has nothing valuable to provide). Here is the link to shut him up and end this boring discussion (any Chinese members here can verify it if he challenges me on its authenticity):

????????????? - ????


Source: Chen Qitai "Rujia Gonyang Xuepai Yixiaguan Ji Qi yingxiang"
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions