147 replies to this topic

[Dagvadorj]

Of course, Sun Yat-Sen is father of new era, not only China i think but for Taiwan and Mongolia (as for ideally) too. Dr. Sun surely is father of people's rule with his powerful doctrine's like People's Three Principles and Five Nations Under One Union which was perfectly fit to traditional Eastern doctrines with the colors and such things.

Although Dr. Sun was very successful, after him the traditional Qing jiang was in conflict. There was foreign attempts and civil wars. Of course Mao was the one who overthrew all these and pleased the nations very well.

So for me father of new people's ruling era is Dr. Sun Yat-Sen, father of PRC is Mao, and father of ROC is Chang Kai-She.

[Optimus]

Dr. Sun was a symbol for nationalism like how Yuan Shikai signify Warlordism.

anyway. Mao Zedong achieved an incomplete victory over Chiang Kai Shek. The latter retreated to Taiwan, set up a rival govt and virtually gave it nation-state status, free from the mainland in 1949. 58 years later, The flag of the Republic of China is still flying free on the island province and have existed together with the People Republic of China ( no matter what some might say )

For Chiang Kai Shek, his legacy will be anonymous with the "nation he lost".

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Sun Yet Sun is at best the father for the ROC. He was never even the president of the whole country. He never had as much power as Mao, or even Yuan Shi Kai and Chiang Kai Shek. Stricly speaking, Yuan is the "father" of modern China, but he was hardly a father figure.

The more I dig into the Xin Hai revolution, the more I consider it a failure based on vanity. The ROC was founded largely on the basis of Han Chauvinism. The Republic was only an excuse for the Han Chauvinists to overthrow Manchu rule. It bothers me why both the ROC and even the PRC still praise people such as Zou Rong as revolutionarie martyr, when his comments reflects a genocidal racism little different from the Nazis. He is more of a racist than a revolutionist, of the 19 points he wrote on Revolutionary independence, the first 6 were anti-Manchu conmments that hs nothing to do with a Republic. Number 5 and 6 were especially disturbing:
5) Drive out Manchus who live in China or kill them to take revenge.
6)Kill the emperor set up by the Manchus in order to asure that in perpetuity there will never be another despotic monarch.

A good half of his revolutionary writings are about why he hates the Manchus and how the ten days of Yang Zhou and three massacres of Jiading should be avenged.

The very first proclamation of the Tongmeng hui was also aimed at the expulsion of the Manchus.
The second was the restoration of china to the Han.
only the last two was about the Republic and equalization of landownership.

However, I do think that Sun is one of the few revolutionaries who actually put the importance of the revolution over those of anti-Manchu sentiment, afterall, he did try to write to the Qing prior to the Sino-Japanese war. But he had no far sight.

None of the three principles which Sun proclaimed went into affect. They all failed. On the contrast, all the fears which the anti-Republicans wrote about the Republic became true: anarchy, warlordism, the lost of territory, and further foreign encraochment(such as Japan's 21 demands). The Republic was simply put a failure because the leaders were vain instead of rational.

Only people such as Liang Qi Chao was rational, he disliked Manchus as well, but he could clearly see how a constitutional monarch was alot better than the Republic. Even the loyalists were more rational. People like Kang You Wei and other mandarins asked what is exactly wrong with the present monarch, all past rebellions were due to excessive exploitation, the Qing government of the time did none of these. The constitution could guanrantee everything that the Republic aimed for, even the equality between the Han and Manchus, which already went into affect after 1900, without taking the risk of anarchy.
Of all the documents written on the Republic, I've only found very few on why a Republic is better than a constitutional monoarch. Many of the revolutionists simply ignore the comments of the constitutional monarchy promoters on why the consitutional monarchy was better.

The American constitutional adviser to Yuan Shi Kai, Dr. Goodnow clearly saw this point. He wrote:

"The change from autocratic to republican government made four years ago was too violent to permit the entertainment of any verty strong hopes of its immediate success. Had the Tsing dynasty not been an alien rule which it had long been the wish of the Chinese people to overthrow, there can be little doubt that it would have been better to retain the dynasty in poewr and gradually to introduce constitutional goverment in accordance with the plans outlined by the commission appointed for this purpose."

Edited by warhead, 08 August 2007 - 12:27 PM.

[Wan Ren aka Danny]

Sun Yet Sun is at best the father for the ROC. He was never even the president of the whole country. He never had as much power as Mao, or even Yuan Shi Kai and Chiang Kai Shek. Stricly speaking, Yuan is the "father" of modern China, but he was hardly a father figure.

The more I dig into the Xin Hai revolution, the more I consider it a failure based on vanity. The ROC was founded largely on the basis of Han Chauvinism. The Republic was only an excuse for the Han Chauvinists to overthrow Manchu rule. It bothers me why both the ROC and even the PRC still praise people such as Zou Rong as revolutionarie martyr, when his comments reflects a genocidal racism little different from the Nazis. He is more of a racist than a revolutionist, of the 19 points he wrote on Revolutionary independence, the first 6 were anti-Manchu conmments that hs nothing to do with a Republic. Number 5 and 6 were especially disturbing:
5) Drive out Manchus who live in China or kill them to take revenge.
6)Kill the emperor set up by the Manchus in order to asure that in perpetuity there will never be another despotic monarch.

A good half of his revolutionary writings are about why he hates the Manchus and how the ten days of Yang Zhou and three massacres of Jiading should be avenged.

The very first proclamation of the Tongmeng hui was also aimed at the expulsion of the Manchus.
The second was the restoration of china to the Han.
only the last two was about the Republic and equalization of landownership.

However, I do think that Sun is one of the few revolutionaries who actually put the importance of the revolution over those of anti-Manchu sentiment, afterall, he did try to write to the Qing prior to the Sino-Japanese war. But he had no far sight.

None of the three principles which Sun proclaimed went into affect. They all failed. On the contrast, all the fears which the anti-Republicans wrote about the Republic became true: anarchy, warlordism, the lost of territory, and further foreign encraochment(such as Japan's 21 demands). The Republic was simply put a failure because the leaders were vain instead of rational.

Only people such as Liang Qi Chao was rational, he disliked Manchus as well, but he could clearly see how a constitutional monarch was alot better than the Republic. Even the loyalists were more rational. People like Kang You Wei and other mandarins asked what is exactly wrong with the present monarch, all past rebellions were due to excessive exploitation, the Qing government of the time did none of these. The constitution could guanrantee everything that the Republic aimed for, even the equality between the Han and Manchus, which already went into affect after 1900, without taking the risk of anarchy.
Of all the documents written on the Republic, I've only found very few on why a Republic is better than a constitutional monoarch. Many of the revolutionists simply ignore the comments of the constitutional monarchy promoters on why the consitutional monarchy was better.

The American constitutional adviser to Yuan Shi Kai, Dr. Goodnow clearly saw this point. He wrote:

"The change from autocratic to republican government made four years ago was too violent to permit the entertainment of any verty strong hopes of its immediate success. Had the Tsing dynasty not been an alien rule which it had long been the wish of the Chinese people to overthrow, there can be little doubt that it would have been better to retain the dynasty in poewr and gradually to introduce constitutional goverment in accordance with the plans outlined by the commission appointed for this purpose."

Maybe the atrocities and brutallity of the Qing was just too much for many Hans to bare and for many years many attempts of rebellion have failed with the Qing slaugthering entire rebel groups combatants and none combatants were just too much to over look. It really had to take a great leader with strong fortitude and will to rationally lead China into the modern world and at that time the only candidate was Dr. Sun Yet Sen, yes he was not perfect but he was the light or the guiding stick that the new China will be base on.

Edited by Wan Ren aka Danny, 08 August 2007 - 12:57 PM.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Maybe the atrocities and brutallity of the Qing was just too much for many Hans to bare and for many years many attempts of rebellion have failed with the Qing slaugthering entire rebel groups combatants and none combatants were just too much to over look.

Your views reflects the typical modern propaganda. What atrocities and brutalities? Lots of Chinese were perfectly loyal to the Qing until some Republican gave them a book on the ten days of Yang Zhou to incite hatred. That is what I call vanity and the misuse of history. The past is the past, the present rulers of Qing had no similarity with their atrocious ancestors. The Qing emperors were unlike any despotic emperors of past regimes which were overthrown because the rulers indulges upon their pleasure by imposing ridiculous amount of unbearable taxation. One could argue about Ci Xi's building of the Yi He Yuan, but thats actually alot less expensive than the building projects of past rulers who were considered great. Ci Xi used the national treasury to built her project, she didn't impose upon additional burdensome tax for the project. Even Tang Tai Zong built projects that were even more extravagant than Ci Xi. Furthermore, after the Sino-Japanese war, there was no large building projects, so the oppression simply doesn't exist.

It really had to take a great leader with strong fortitude and will to rationally lead China into the modern world and at that time the only candidate was Dr. Sun Yet Sen, yes he was not perfect but he was the light or the guiding stick that the new China will be base on.

And unfortunately, Sun was neither strong nor smart. It was proven by the fact that he neither became the president nor did his Republican principles were successfully enforced.

Edited by warhead, 08 August 2007 - 01:40 PM.

[Wan Ren aka Danny]

Your views reflects the typical modern propaganda. What atrocities and brutalities? Lots of Chinese were perfectly loyal to the Qing until some Republican gave them a book on the ten days of Yang Zhou to incite hatred. That is what I call vanity and the misuse of history. The past is the past, the present rulers of Qing had no similarity with their atrocious ancestors. The Qing emperors were unlike any despotic emperors of past regimes which were overthrown because the rulers indulges upon their pleasure by imposing ridiculous amount of unbearable taxation. One could argue about Ci Xi's building of the Yi He Yuan, but thats actually alot less expensive than the building projects of past rulers who were considered great. Ci Xi used the national treasury to built her project, she didn't impose upon additional burdensome tax for the project. Even Tang Tai Zong built projects that were even more extravagant than Ci Xi. Furthermore, after the Sino-Japanese war, there was no large building projects, so the oppression simply doesn't exist.




And unfortunately, Sun was neither strong nor smart. It was proven by the fact that he neither became the president nor did his Republican principles were successfully enforced.

I agree, China did progress well under the Qing but it was also under the Qing that China failed to modernize and stop the Europeans and Japan from slicing China apart, especially with the introduction of opium.

Under the difficult circumstances Sun Yet Sen tried hard to balance all the forces that is needed to unite China and move China forward to progression and he was willing to give up power for China but China was not willing to give him up he was the only Chinese out of a billion who have the reputation, and virtue that both Chinese and the international community respect to led China out of the abyss.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

I agree, China did progress well under the Qing but it was also under the Qing that China failed to modernize and stop the Europeans and Japan from slicing China apart, especially with the introduction of opium.

The ROC did even less brilliant of a job, the Bei Yang fleet of the Qing at least rank 7th in the world. The ROC navy doesn't even rank top 10.

Under the difficult circumstances Sun Yet Sen tried hard to balance all the forces that is needed to unite China and move China forward to progression and he was willing to give up power for China but China was not willing to give him up he was the only Chinese out of a billion who have the reputation, and virtue that both Chinese and the international community respect to led China out of the abyss.

He didn't try to unite China, it was already united during the Qing, if anything, he was indirectly responsible for the warlordism that followed, as well as the broke away of Mongolia and Tibet as well.

[Mr_Monyet]

As someone mentioned, there is no officially designated "father of China", in the same manner that, for example, Kermal Ataturk is officially designated "father of the Turks" - which is conferred by an act of the Turkish National Assembly.

So who holds the title "father of China" is really a matter of sentiment and some controversy.

So taking a cue from the beauty contests, we have multiple titles - there are 'father of Republican China", "father of PRC China", "father of ROC China"etc etc, just as there are "Miss Universe", "Miss World" etc etc...just to accommodate all our heroes.

[Dagvadorj]

As someone mentioned, there is no officially designated "father of China", in the same manner that, for example, Kermal Ataturk is officially designated "father of the Turks" - which is conferred by an act of the Turkish National Assembly.

So who holds the title "father of China" is really a matter of sentiment and some controversy.

So taking a cue from the beauty contests, we have multiple titles - there are 'father of Republican China", "father of PRC China", "father of ROC China"etc etc, just as there are "Miss Universe", "Miss World" etc etc...just to accommodate all our heroes.

Nice decision actually!

[mineki]

I hear some people saying that Sun is considered as the father of china as he was the 1 who started a republic..whereas some people say that Mao is regarded as the father of china while Sun is the father of taiwan..

So which is true?

if Sun or Mao is the father of China...who would the Grandfather be?...Confucius?

[Wan Ren aka Danny]

if Sun or Mao is the father of China...who would the Grandfather be?...Confucius?

One thing for sure, Mao is not consider the father of modern China not in any history book, Mao is consider the man who succeeded in uniting the red army and gaining control of mainland China. I don't think he is even consider the father of the CCP or is he?

[General_Zhaoyun]

Sun Yat Sen is always considered the father of Republican China.

[Dagvadorj]

if Sun or Mao is the father of China...who would the Grandfather be?...Confucius?

If we talk about multi-national China, it would be Khubilay Khan.

[大学语文12345]

Bloody nerd! Genghis Khan is my national father! Keep your ******* mind clear that Mongolia is a country! Our God is Tengri and Genghis Khan!

Of course, Sun Yat-Sen is father of new era, not only China i think but for Taiwan and Mongolia (as for ideally) too. Dr. Sun surely is father of people's rule with his powerful doctrine's like People's Three Principles and Five Nations Under One Union which was perfectly fit to traditional Eastern doctrines with the colors and such things.

Although Dr. Sun was very successful, after him the traditional Qing jiang was in conflict. There was foreign attempts and civil wars. Of course Mao was the one who overthrew all these and pleased the nations very well.

So for me father of new people's ruling era is Dr. Sun Yat-Sen, father of PRC is Mao, and father of ROC is Chang Kai-She.

[Richard Lim]

Please refrain from (even bleeped) expletives in the future. Insulting language is not allowed and appropriate action has been taken in this case already.