56 replies to this topic

[ren]

I think those academics are not mainstream because of these claims, and the agenda you see in them, but because they published papers and books, which, through peer review, were deemed good by a number of recognised specialists. That's the way academia works.

Excuse me, but, based on my discussion with you, I think I have a better idea of the way academia works than you. If they publish works that are accepted as good in academia, it means they are well-accepted and thus mainstream. Maybe some of their ideas are not mainstream, but they certainly are.

As for the bold and unsubstantiated claims, this is called research.

My god. Research is when you do research to substantiate claims. Unsubstantiated claims is when you don't do research and pull an idea out of your a**. As a mod, I see a tendency in you to pull me down with nonsense because you are offended by what I write.

(do you think relativity, or quantum physics, were anything but bold conjectures when they were first proposed?)

Relativity and quantum physics were theories published accompanied by hardcore prove (mathematics). You don't just through up a theory without prove and expect people to accept it. I don't know where you went to school, but that standard shows you have no idea how academia works.

Specialists offer new conjectures (ie unproven ideas), often bold, and even shocking, which get discussed, and sometimes end up being proven right, and sometimes wrong... It is not specific to history, btw

Well, I'm trying to discuss the actual merits of the various scholars right now. and I see you keep tripping me up by not discussing the merit of the theories themselves. You're first post towards me was when you accused me of being a biased Chinese. I suggest you chill out, get some objectivity, instead of taking offense to my "critique of Western Sinologists".
The world is full of critiques. Deal with it like a man.

Right now, the fashion is on foreign influences, you see an agenda, perhaps...

I don't care about agendas. Everyone has their own agendas, sentiments, like you now. I'm asking for some evidence. Unless you post discussing that with me, you are just wastign my time. I mean this argument with me about nothing has taken up all of our conversation. Don't you have better things to do than to accuse me of being a biased Chinese?

I'm not going even to waste my time answering what you ahave to write. You miss my point. I;ve answered enough. Be a mod.

[ren]

Well think again champ because there is more than one book on the subject, and don't assume I would call a book 'white' or 'yellow' or 'green'. You clearly have grabbed the proverbial 'wrong end of the stick'. It seems odd you would accept this and then be annoyed that somebody said the earliest bronze cultures were Indo-European too.

When did I say I was offended by bronze being a Western import?

Perhaps you could stop being a dickhead by now suggesting that I am fearmongering too.

That's it. you've crossed the line by calling me a dickhead.
And you are fear-mongering by making up all this nonsense about how American academia arr made to teach that Plato is "nergoid". It shows you have a lot of hostility towards blacks.

[Kenneth]

My initial post said very little about Afrocentrism, just as a 'by the way' addtion, hence BTW.
If not for your odd unbalanced comments I would have said nothing more on the subject.
Ironically it is only being discussed here because you have asked me to qualify my impressions.
I said more about the myth of the Aryan (ubermensch).
Am I hostile against whites too?

It shows you have a lot of hostility towards blacks.

This is the kind of c**p I would expect from somebody deserving the adjective I applied to you.
It kind of reinforces my points about those who might challenge the holders of psuedo-historical ideas.
You are remarkably unperceptive about what I think, since you don't seem to paraphrase me acurately.
I won't even bother with the 'some of my best friends are black' thing. I just need to say your accusations are well off the mark.
Read; "psuedo-history needs confronting and all racial appropriation of anothers legacy is inherently negative"
or "I am against any group that wants to unfairly claim the achievements of another race for their own, whether they are any colour..."

When did I say I was offended by bronze being a Western import

Sigh, did I say you were offended by bronze being a Western import?
I said it is odd you believe, unlike me, that bronze came via Indo-Europeans but then are offended by suggestions the earliest bronze cultures in China, i.e Shang, would -be- Indo-European.
It appears paradoxical.

...And you are fear-mongering by making up all this nonsense about how American academia arr made to teach that Plato is "nergoid".

There you go again with the wrong end of the stick. I said nothing of the sort. I said that Afrocentric views are taught to students, as have other commentators, I have not said just that American academia say Plato was black.
Much as I don't expect you are saying that US Academic teaches the Indo-European idea as fact, but that people within academic teach it.

Edited by Kenneth, 18 June 2007 - 07:06 PM.

[ren]

My initial post said very little about Afrocentrism, just as a 'by the way' addtion, hence BTW.
If not for your odd unbalanced comments I would have said nothing more on the subject.
Ironically it is only being discussed here because you have asked me to qualify my impressions.
This is the kind of c**p I would expect from somebody deserving the adjective I applied to you.
It kind of reinforces my points about those who might challenge the holders of psuedo-historical ideas.

I only added my comment because you saw the need to bring up Afrocentrists, which you keep doing. In one post you talked in Ebonics to insult someone. This forum is about Chinese history. Voice your personal anger elsewhere. If you can talk in ebonics, it means it doesn't take much for you to talk in an exaggerated Chinese accent.

[Kenneth]

Ebonics BTW is a term I first, and have only seen, used on CHF.
If you mean my use of ebonics on Susunomi or whoever he was called I barely recall it. Perhaps refresh my memory since you are calling me a bigot. Provide a link for the context. It may be after I saw the black-supremacy material on his links about Melanin (dark skin) making people smarter and Europeans having different brains & inferior etc. etc. After pages of discussing with people like that I can't take them very seriously. Did I say 'Y'all', 'word' or 'dissing' or something?
I find it hard to understand why you would be offended about an incident I presume was that, from years back, when I have never even seen you on CHF before this thread.
Given that you denounced opponents of Afrocentrism as being 'PC' this objection is again a paradox.
I think there is more to you than meets the eye, based on your comments about Egyptians being substantially sub-Saharan.
Talking about voicing personal anger...I think it has a lot more to do with why this is happening now.
This is about your psychoolgy and not that anything I said is really contentious.

it means it doesn't take much for you to talk in an exaggerated Chinese accent.

Yes, that really would be a scandal. Please don't expose me!.
It's...it's like your reading my thoughts!



Later, Hater.

Edited by Kenneth, 18 June 2007 - 07:20 PM.

[Intranetusa]

I only added my comment because you saw the need to bring up Afrocentrists, which you keep doing. In one post you talked in Ebonics to insult someone. This forum is about Chinese history. Voice your personal anger elsewhere. If you can talk in ebonics, it means it doesn't take much for you to talk in an exaggerated Chinese accent.

The NOVA documentary is genuine and is not called "bearers of civilization to the Chinese..." The neo-nazi who posted it is the one who implies that they were "bearers of civilization" by fabricating that title.
This is another case of historical distortion similar to Neo-Nazis claiming Egyptians were white Aryans and Afrocentrists claiming Egyptians were Sub-Saharan blacks.

It's just an analogy.

Edited by Intranetusa, 18 June 2007 - 07:26 PM.

[ren]

Ebonics BTW is a term I first, and have only seen, used on CHF.
If you mean my use of ebonics on Susunomi or whoever he was called I barely recall it. Perhaps refresh my memory since you are calling me a bigot. Provide a link for the context. It may be after I saw the black-supremacy material on his links about Melanin (dark skin) making people smarter and Europeans having different brains & inferior etc. etc. After pages of discussing with people like that I can't take them very seriously. Did I say 'Y'all', 'word' or 'dissing' or something?
I find it hard to understand why you would be offended about an incident I presume was that, from years back, when I have never even seen you on CHF before this thread.
Given that you denounced opponents of Afrocentrism as being 'PC' this objection is again a paradox.
I think there is more to you than meets the eye, based on your comments about Egyptians being substantially sub-Saharan.
Talking about voicing personal anger...I think it has a lot more to do with why this is happening now.
This is about your psychoolgy and not that anything I said is really contentious.
Yes, that really would be a scandal. Please don't expose me!.
It's...it's like your reading my thoughts!
Later, Hater.

Oh, grow up. You've just wasted a lot of time and words on trying to insult me personally.

Edited by ren, 18 June 2007 - 07:27 PM.

[fcharton]

Excuse me, but, based on my discussion with you, I think I have a better idea of the way academia works than you. If they publish works that are accepted as good in academia, it means they are well-accepted and thus mainstream. Maybe some of their ideas are not mainstream, but they certainly are.

This is exactly what I said, read my post, please.

My god. Research is when you do research to substantiate claims. Unsubstantiated claims is when you don't do research and pull an idea out of your a**. As a mod, I see a tendency in you to pull me down with nonsense because you are offended by what I write.

No, if research was about proving everything, and only publishing what it proven, it wouldn't go very far. Even mathematics, admittedly the branch of science most connected to logic and proof has such a thing as "conjectures", ie unproven statements. In social sciences (eg history) the situation is even worse, because it is very hard (if not impossible) to "prove" something. The best you can do is try to argue about theories, find a couple of facts which seem to validate them, but in many cases, theories backed up by apparent facts end up being proven wrong in the end.

I'm not trying to pull you down, but, as a mod, I am doing my best to try to have something interesting to come out of those threads, and I'm afraid it will be very difficult, because you seem to have little interest in discussing history (see how little you pick from the facts people provide, eg Bao Pu's quotes from Mair, my comments on the Yigupai, or Kenneth's points on bronze), and only seem interested in repeating the same quotes of quotes ad nauseam (while throwing a few ad hominem at us). If I 'were a mod' (and didn't participate), I'd probably close this thread which proves to be totally useless and devoid of any interesting content. Of course, you could then shout that you are being repressed, or that we're just a bunch of revisionists, but I think we'd survive...

Relativity and quantum physics were theories published accompanied by hardcore prove (mathematics). You don't just through up a theory without prove and expect people to accept it. I don't know where you went to school, but that standard shows you have no idea how academia works.

No. Experimental evidence (not proof, see below) of relativity and quantum physics came years later, at the beginning, their premises were just unsubstantiated claim. That they use mathematical models, and therefore are consistent has nothing to do with them being proven, or even substantiated, substantiation comes from experimental evidence, not by proving that the maths work (they always do)...

Just to explain a bit. What Einstein originally had was one weird experiment (Michelson), which failed to measure differences in the speed of light. Other people had proposed mathematical models which explained (in the conservative fashion) why it didn't. But Einstein went on to claim that time and space "changed" depending on one's speed, so as to preserve the speed of light. This is contrary to all our physical experience of the world, so yes it was a huge claim. General relativity is even more spectacular, as it states that mass twists space and time... Both were presented as conjectures, read Einstein, he does say it. Evidence of the truth of both came later.

As for quantum physics, it emerged as a purely mathematical theory which made incredible claims, for instance that individual particles of matter (electrons) could travel by two different paths at the same time, or that energy and time, or position and speed were linked by a mathematical construct, a tool, formerly used to solve equations, called a Fourier transform. Some partial justifications were then found, by having some of their theoretical predictions experimentally validated.

But even now, a century later, there are several paradoxes which show that quantum theory and relativity are not quite correct (or not both correct), eg the reversibility of time in quantum physics, or the EPR Paradox. But you know all that don't you?

Well, I'm trying to discuss the actual merits of the various scholars right now. and I see you keep tripping me up by not discussing the merit of the theories themselves. You're first post towards me was when you accused me of being a biased Chinese. I suggest you chill out, get some objectivity, instead of taking offense to my "critique of Western Sinologists".
The world is full of critiques. Deal with it like a man.

Hahaha, you're trying to discuss their merits, but what have you done so far, out of caricaturing them, saying they were wrong, and demanding proof at the top of your voice? Nothing. Besides, everytime someone tries to join the debate, by offering different interpretation, you shout at them (is there one person you haven't told to grow up?. I have tried to bring some history related comments in this thread, others did the same on other threads, but you never seem to have something to say about the "history part". I find this amusing...

I deal with it, like a man, a mod or whatever it is you feel nice to call me in the next round of abuse, you seem to be the one who gets all hot and angry about this. Anyway, we get guys like you from time to time, who come here to "expose eurocentrism", and demand "proof", yet never consider that they should also do *their* homework. In general, they get bored before us and leave.

But anyway, this is getting a bit ridiculous, so you'll have to count me out of this discussion. Have fun alone!

Francois

[Kenneth]

Tocharic was found in the mountaineous area between altai and lake baikal, tocharic mummies had blond hair.

Tocharic moved and settled in todays urumqi area around 3,500 years ago, and by around 3,000 in years, they were gone?
anyone know how/why they disapeared? or did they mixed in with the locals.

Is there a gene specific to tocharic lineage?

Is there anyone still carry tocharic gene today? if so who are they?

what are the extent of contact between the tocharic and ancient chinese in yellow river basin cultures?

what technology or ideals from tocharic influenced ancient chinese, if it did ?

----

if any tocharic archaeologist out there.. answer these and add some thoughts as well.

Try a forum search for some extra pictures and thoughts. The Tarim mummies/Xinjiang mummies are mentioned numerous times on CHF.

The documentary link at the beginning of this thread may help for starters.
It suggests the historical Tocharians are descended from the mummified pre-historic Europeans (or Indo-Europeans) who date from around the 18th century BC to the Eastern Zhou period (the Tarim mummies) so they lasted longer that 500 years.
The movement of pre-historic people supposedly from 'Europe' (the exact location is contentious) IIRC ceased with enviromental change due to mountain passes closing, but the 'community' lasted for a long time.
The genes should be there somewhere. The Tocharian community was still distinct in Tang times according to the link. The mummies do not date so late however. Even if the community was 'assimilated' by Turkic/Muslim peoples there is no suggestion of genocide so the 'blood' will be there.

There were Asian peoples found buried/mummified with 'Europeans' in the late period of the mummies, from Spring & Autumn IIRC. This does not have to mean 'Zhou' peoples, but Asian populations, in contact & mingling. 'Mummies' (of uncertain race) date as late as the East Han period.


There is nothing in the material culture of the mummies which has suggested to me 'contact' with central plains China in the formulative period of history, i.e Shang-Zhou.
Even the weave of their twill cloth is linked to Europe, and their styles of dress to the steppe but nothing connects them to 'China' as it existed at that time, & visa versa.
There is no artefact that I have seen they possesed that would revolutionise 'China'. It has not been suggested these prehistoric people were literate so no script would come with them first of all.
They were geographically remote to ancient China of the time (Xinjiang being a 'new' province of the late Imperial China).
The only thing that travelled between in periods like the Shang appears to be jade from Xinjiang province, but given my experience with neolithic trade networks and comments on the Yunnan & central silk road, such items can change hands many times so the destination need not know where they came from, or 'buyers' have contact across hundreds, or thousands, of kilometres between.
Basically there is no real issue with the mummies. That's the sad thing about how it is misused by a small element, and this is the context it keeps appearing in on CHF.
It is an amazing distant community of 'Europeans' who lived in the broad sense, and died, without having left much impact untill their bodies were examined in the 20th century.
Modern people should simply be appreciating the human drama of reaching and surviving in such a distant region.




edit; I should expand a little about the only notable movement traced from Xinjiang.
About iron coming from Xinjiang or the 'West' (i.e central asia/steppes) it seems pretty solid at the moment but it would be true to say Chinese 'revolutionised' iron working rather than the earliest iron revolutionised China.
While the earliest worked iron in the larger region seems connected to the steppes or Xinjiang and dates from the early Spring & Autumn period (see Wagner/Earliest Iron in China) this is not surprising given the movement of people via the steppe and the much earlier use of wrought iron elsewhere. In the early period it was an exotic item for Chinese and never displaced bronze untill many factors had changed.
When iron came to be used widespread it had been adapted in unique ways by Chinese by the use of casting iron in moulds (late Spring & Autumn/south of China) and heat decarburising of iron into steel (first low carbon steel, then true steel was possible by the Han period).
Iron did not revolutionise China in a way that would affect 'civilisation' since the Qin conquered the other states with weapons of bronze. The only iron which did have a measurable impact was the cheap casting of iron for tools (which was not done in the West at this early time) and the production of quality steel after this (which also used methods and produced results unknown in the West). In this way the iron that mattered was uniquely Chinese in its application.
While iron may have worked its way from the West and the new material introduced to Chinese it really is what happens after the fact that is more important.

Edited by Kenneth, 19 June 2007 - 05:14 PM.

[wuTao]

I'm very aware of the American academic scene. Complaints about PCness and Afrocentrism are basically by fear-mongers who would be angry anyway (at something else). What is the Afrocentric equivalent of Ph.D. Brooks at the University of Massachussetts Warring States Project, who claims the Shang elite were Indo-European or Mair at University of Pennsyvania who claims the Dao De Jing's essence is derived from ultimately, I quote him, "Europoids"?

What are you specifically referencing when you claim that the Warring States Project claims the Shang elite were Indo-European?

[fcharton]

What are you specifically referencing when you claim that the Warring States Project claims the Shang elite were Indo-European?

I believe it is another claim by Brook, who is known for his "big" claims.

This said, I would encourage all members interested in Warring States and Springs and Autumns to have a look at the Warring States Projet website. Apart from the (slightly) sensationalist presentation, it is a very informative website.

François

[DaMo]

Response posts are on moderation. c**p.

The claims of Chinese censorship on this subject are vastly overblown. So many stories on new finds of Caucasian remains in Chinese territory are reported in depth by Xinhua all the time. Chinese archaeology sites are closely guarded by the state in general, but not specifically with regard to Caucasian-related finds.

[8 Banners Bootboy]

Tocharic was found in the mountaineous area between altai and lake baikal, tocharic mummies had blond hair.

Tocharic moved and settled in todays urumqi area around 3,500 years ago, and by around 3,000 in years, they were gone?
anyone know how/why they disapeared? or did they mixed in with the locals.

Is there a gene specific to tocharic lineage?

Is there anyone still carry tocharic gene today? if so who are they?

what are the extent of contact between the tocharic and ancient chinese in yellow river basin cultures?

what technology or ideals from tocharic influenced ancient chinese, if it did ?

----

if any tocharic archaeologist out there.. answer these and add some thoughts as well.

it is thought modern day Uighurs are descended from a combination of the original Uighur Turks(racially "Mongoloid) and the Indo European inhabitants of the Tarim Basin (which itself had all sorts of different people living there). Whether or not thats true, it is clear modern day Uighurs have some European-esque looks to them

The "Tocharians" didn't vanish 3000 years ago.

the sensationalism regarding them is very anachronistic. The Tarim Basin is far outside the North China Plain. Just because its considered an integral part of China NOW by the PRC doesn't mean it was the case thousands of years ago. since the day Han dynasty armies established military contact with the area, its well known the cities of the Tarim were diverse and was considered by ancient Chinese as the "western world"

contact between this area and Chinese civilization before the Han dynasty is speculative. we know for certain the chariot came from central asia but that doesn't mean much regarding the Tocharians cause they sure as hell didn't invent it either nor is there proof they introduced it to Chinese