44 replies to this topic

[mohistManiac]

FOR THE LAST TIME, I DID NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT CERTAIN ETHNIC BEING PURE OR NOT!!!!!!!!You are wasting people time by getting offtopic.Shared contimuum of northern people definitely happen but Qing never claim themselves to be Korean or Han and they are separate clan from Wan Yan clan of Jin.

I don't accuse you of anything. I am saying that the notion exists which is probably why there is the whole argument about whether Korea for the most part acted side by side with Qing and other Chinese dynasties. The Koreans like to think that they are because like any other peoples which like to pick up on prestige and use it to their advantage. Their argument is given a heightened sense of importance in the face of the counter argument that Qing was pure by itself and bestowed final legacy only upon Manchus on the basis that it was separate from both Hans and Koreans.

[Hou Yi]

I don't accuse you of anything. I am saying that the notion exists which is probably why there is the whole argument about whether Korea for the most part acted side by side with Qing and other Chinese dynasties. The Koreans like to think that they are because like any other peoples which like to pick up on prestige and use it to their advantage. Their argument is given a heightened sense of importance in the face of the counter argument that Qing was pure by itself and bestowed final legacy only upon Manchus on the basis that it was separate from both Hans and Koreans.

Ok, that's good. Obviously, Korean nationalists claim on Qing royal family and Aisin Gioro are wrong.

Edited by Hou Yi, 14 July 2012 - 12:18 AM.

[mohistManiac]

Ok, that's good. Obviously, Korean nationalists claim on Qing royal family and Aisin Gioro are wrong.

Koreans are only exercising their own judgement about how closely they are related to Manchus by stating that they have coexisted alongside Manchus. They say it is Silla but I would say their coexistence with Manchus occurs in the more likely context of a quasi state called Manchuria.

[Hou Yi]

Koreans are only exercising their own judgement about how closely they are related to Manchus by stating that they have coexisted alongside Manchus. They say it is Silla but I would say their coexistence with Manchus occurs in the more likely context of a quasi state called Manchuria.

Manchu and Korean definitely closely related as they live close to each other. Nobody deny that but then again, all Asians related with each other. Manchu and Korean are still two different tribes/ethnics. Just because they came from same region,Manchuria and closely related to each other that does not mean they are the same ethnic/tribe.Actually, if you read what OP said, their argument actually focus on the ancestry of royal family of Qing dynasty. Of course, they are wrong as royal family of Qing are separate clan from Wan Yan clan.

Edited by Hou Yi, 14 July 2012 - 02:11 AM.

[mohistManiac]

Manchu and Korean definitely closely related as they live close to each other, but then again, all Asians related with each other. Manchu and Korean are still two different tribes/ethnics. Just because they came from same region,Manchuria that does not mean they are the same ethnic/tribe.Actually, if you read what OP said, their argument actually focus on the ancestry of royal family of Qing dynasty. Of course, they are wrong as royal family of Qing are separate clan from Wan Yan clan.

Claim to former ethnic identities of royal families can come off as desperate attempts to secure the prestige of the elite knowledge and experience belonging to certain peoples. However it is also my belief that this kind of mentality has been enhanced by Hans that try to renegotiate the identity as a pure one in order to shake off any mention that Han could be mixed with anything else. This identity reduction invites the backlash argument where everyone can be related but that some are simply more pure which make assigning oneself elite status not such an extremist viewpoint. I think many have become quite familiar with the Korean arguments that Qing had importance to ancient Korean groups insofar as they were all northern so somehow Qing superiority was connected to Silla but it is presented in conjunction with the first argument that Hans were entirely separate from any of the groups which came to reside in northern China such as the Xianbei Khitans Jurchens etc. Then it comes full circle when you get the occasional argument which says that northern Chinese are basically not Han at all and that they are basically just the equivalents of Xianbei Khitans Jurchens etc and that real Hans are pushed further and further down. It's just a stupid game that has no end.

Edited by mohistManiac, 14 July 2012 - 03:57 AM.

[Hou Yi]

Claim to former ethnic identities of royal families can come off as desperate attempts to secure the prestige of the elite knowledge and experience belonging to certain peoples. However it is also my belief that this kind of mentality has been enhanced by Hans that try to renegotiate the identity as a pure one in order to shake off any mention that Han could be mixed with anything else. This identity reduction invites the backlash argument where everyone can be related but that some are simply more pure which make assigning oneself elite status not such an extremist viewpoint. I think many have become quite familiar with the Korean arguments that Qing had importance to ancient Korean groups insofar as they were all northern so somehow Qing superiority was connected to Silla but it is presented in conjunction with the first argument that Hans were entirely separate from any of the groups which came to reside in northern China such as the Xianbei Khitans Jurchens etc. Then it comes full circle when you get the occasional argument which says that northern Chinese are basically not Han at all and that they are basically just the equivalents of Xianbei Khitans Jurchens etc and that real Hans are pushed further and further down. It's just a stupid game that has no end.

Do me a favor.No offense but please don't keep bringing up this Han is not pure argument again and again. I never say Han is pure in the first place and it pointless to quote me and say something totally irrelevant. If you read my post 34 again which you quoted, you won't find the word Chinese or Han so I don't understand why have habit of bringing this up. This thread is not about Han Chinese nationalists mentality or how non Han/Korean view Han Chinese racial purity. Whether Han is pure or not, the fact remain there are Korean people who try to relate Qing royal family to Korean people for the sake of picking up on prestige and use it to their advantage. Han Chinese racial origin purity is not my subject of interest and I don't really care how other people view it. Perhaps, you should create your own thread and talk about it somewhere else.

As far as this Korean nationalists misinterpretation goes and origin of Qing royal family, which is what this thread is all about, all I know is that despite Manchu and Korean live close to each other, Manchu and Korean are two different ethnics/tribes and Qing dynasty royal family are separate clan from Wan Yan clan of Jin.

Just curious, may I ask what is your ethnicity?You seem to be very sensitive about all this Han racial origin thing and like to brought this subject everytime you have the opportunity to do so even if it's totally irrelevant. Sorry if I'm being too harsh. However, I agree with you about the whole argument about northern Chinese being not Han but Xianbei, Khitan and so on and the real Hans are pushed down. Like you said, it just a stupid game. Again, I apologize if I'm too harsh.

Edited by Hou Yi, 14 July 2012 - 06:13 AM.

[mohistManiac]

Do me a favor.No offence but please don't keep brining up this Han is not pure argument again and again. I never say Han is pure in the first place and it pointless to quote me and say something totally irrelevant. This thread is not about Han Chinese nationalists mentality or how non Han/Korean view Han Chinese racial purity. Han Chinese racial origin purity is not my subject of interest and I don't really care how other people view it. Perhaps, you should create your own thread and talk about it somewhere else.

As far as this Korean nationalists misinterpretation goes and origin of Qing royal family, all I know is that despite Manchu and Korean live close to each other, Manchu and Korean are two different ethnics/tribes and Qing dynasty royal family are separate clan from Wan Yan clan of Jin.

Just curious, may I ask what is your ethnicity?You seem very sensitive about all this Han racial origin thing. Sorry if I'm being too harsh.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You need not reply! I am simply producing explanatory passages to illustrate something someone like yourself overlooks or could never hope to see because he highlights the wrong issues. Why do you get to pretend to act all calm about the things that you repeat verbatim like Manchu and Korean are not the same because Wan Yan clan of JIn. I don't have beef with that and I don't accuse you of anything. What a way to act cool and calm about all this and yet be able to still have beef with what I actually say. BTW I'm a complete mixture of the subsets of the Hans, hope this helps.

[Hou Yi]

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You need not reply! I am simply producing explanatory passages to illustrate something someone like yourself overlooks or could never hope to see because he highlights the wrong issues. Why do you get to pretend to act all calm about the things that you repeat verbatim like Manchu and Korean are not the same because Wan Yan clan of JIn. I don't have beef with that and I don't accuse you of anything. What a way to act cool and calm about all this and yet be able to still have beef with what I actually say. BTW I'm a complete mixture of the subsets of the Hans, hope this helps.

The main reason I keep repeat this 'verbatim like Manchu and Korean are not the same because Wan Yan clan of JIn' is because this is what this thread is all about and I was trying to go back to the main subject of this thread again. That's all. If you don't have beef with that then that's cool with me but I'm not interested at all in all those 'Han racial purity thing' you keep bringing up. 'You need not reply!' should be directed to you as the one who keep getting off topic and highlight wrong issues that is totally unrelated here is you, not me.No one in this thread felt Han racial purity is really the issues here. except for you.

Edited by Hou Yi, 14 July 2012 - 06:33 AM.

[mohistManiac]

The main reason I keep repeat this 'verbatim like Manchu and Korean are not the same because Wan Yan clan of JIn' is because this is what this thread is all about and I was trying to go back to the main subject of this thread again. If you don't have beef with that then that's cool with me but I'm not interested at all in all those 'Han racial purity thing' you keep bringing up. 'You need not reply!' should be directed to you as the one who keep getting off topic and highlight wrong issues that is totally unrelated here is you, not me.No one in this thread felt Han racial purity is really the issues here.

I disagree and you give me perfect reason to do so. First the reason you repeat verbatim is because of someone else's post and you had nothing to add except act like a little child and pretend this is a nationalistic board. It's good to exercise expression but that's not all this forum is about. And don't look back and repeat it and act all smug about it. Second, I make replies or quote because I raise a point which others might like to add upon. It is their discretion whether to continue adding but when I am confronted by a post which prompts me with my knowledge and experience to add then it is my discretion to do so. I request that you give consideration to others so that they may offer you the same in return.

[Hou Yi]

I disagree and you give me perfect reason to do so. First the reason you repeat verbatim is because of someone else's post and you had nothing to add except act like a little child and pretend this is a nationalistic board. It's good to exercise expression but that's not all this forum is about. And don't look back and repeat it and act all smug about it. Second, I make replies or quote because I raise a point which others might like to add upon. It is their discretion whether to continue adding but when I am confronted by a post which prompts me with my knowledge and experience to add then it is my discretion to do so. I request that you give consideration to others so that they may offer you the same in return.

Nationalistic board? Yeah right. You think too much. I got nothing to add because Borjigin Ayurbarwada already explain everything. Like I said, I don't see the need to repeat the same thing that other people already address. In case you haven't notice, you yourself also did not add anything new at all but just keep getting off topic.I repeat it not to act all smug about it but for the purpose of getting back to the topic of this thread.

Secondly, your point that you raise is totally irrelevant and should be mention in other thread or maybe create your own thread for that purpose.It's not appropriate to discuss it in this thread. It's good to exercise expression but that's not all this THREAD is about.Thread are created for SPECIFIC discussions. This forum is created to discuss about Chinese history with different thread for different kind of discussion.

I understand you are feeling lonely as there hardly anyone is here to talk about the issue you raise and I'm aware that this forum is no longer active as it used to be but I request you create your own thread for your own discussion that you want as you might cause some unnecessary confusion and misunderstanding.

Isn't there already this thread 'Chinese identity amongst overseas chinese?' which are related to the issues you raise.
http://www.chinahist...erseas-chinese/

Edited by Hou Yi, 14 July 2012 - 07:05 AM.

[mohistManiac]

Nationalistic board? Yeah right. You think too much. I got nothing to add because Borjigin Ayurbarwada already explain everything. Like I said, I don't see the need to repeat the same thing that other people already address. In case you haven't notice, you yourself also did not add anything new at all but just keep getting off topic.I repeat it not to act all smug about it but for the purpose of getting back to the topic of this thread.

Secondly, your point that you raise is totally irrelevant and should be mention in other thread or maybe create your own thread for that purpose.It's not appropriate to discuss it in this thread. It's good to exercise expression but that's not all this THREAD is about.Thread are created for SPECIFIC discussions. This forum is created to discuss about Chinese history with different thread for different kind of discussion.

I understand you are feeling lonely as there hardly anyone is here to talk about the issue you raise and I'm aware that this forum is no longer active as it used to be but I request you create your own thread for your own discussion that you want as you might cause some unnecessary confusion and misunderstanding.

Isn't there already this thread 'Chinese identity amongst overseas chinese?' which are related to the issues you raise.
http://www.chinahist...erseas-chinese/

It's off topic to someone who has nothing to add because he makes highlights without even choosing to comment on why such a highlight was made. That's childish behavior. Oooh wait, did you see that? sort of thing. It's not off topic for someone that might wish to contribute to discussion. I apologize for making mockery but you basically leave people no choice.

[Hou Yi]

It's off topic to someone who has nothing to add because he makes highlights without even choosing to comment on why such a highlight was made. That's childish behavior. Oooh wait, did you see that? sort of thing. It's not off topic for someone that might wish to contribute to discussion. I apologize for making mockery but you basically leave people no choice.

Problem here is that you didn't contribute to the topic of this discussion at all. The highlights that I make already been explain and comment by other members. Don't pretend to be innocent when you did not contribute anything to this thread and keep twist and turn the real objective of this thread.

Edited by Hou Yi, 16 July 2012 - 10:43 PM.

[YuenKamSiu]

Even if the Manchus were "Related" to the Koreans, so what? What does it matter? Are they the same people? If they are then going by such logic, Germans and English are also the same since they share DNA and speak similar languages. I guess that would mean people from Germany can claim Shakespeare and likewise, everyone can blame the Holocaust on the British. Rather absurd thinking.

[mohistManiac]

Even if the Manchus were "Related" to the Koreans, so what? What does it matter? Are they the same people? If they are then going by such logic, Germans and English are also the same since they share DNA and speak similar languages. I guess that would mean people from Germany can claim Shakespeare and likewise, everyone can blame the Holocaust on the British. Rather absurd thinking.

What does it matter becomes really twisted if you think about it. Of course not many will because they don't pursue extremist ideologies and believe they are superior to everyone around them. In a way it is absurd thinking and yet in a way the thinking is rational. If Manchus were related to Koreans then it means that Manchus aren't all that pure as they have been assimilating with Hans as well as with Koreans. This by itself doesn't pose a problem unless you were a Manchu which have just formerly lost your claim to Qing and are wondering what it might have been that caused the downfall. What might have been the case if your forefathers didn't assimilate so much with the Hans? What might have been the case had your forefathers considered instead to remain more closely connected with Manchurian type tribes in northeast of China and to remain more closely unified with Koreans? When the Qing fell all these options were continued left open for consideration. Of course such drastic thinking would be multiplied in effect when there were movements of Hans which tried to demonstrate against the Manchus claiming them to be outcasts and such.

[liberte333]

Hi,
few interesting things to support the claim of Qing being originated from Silla.
During the time of Qianlong emperor, and under order of the emperor, the Qing dynasty have wrote a book called 滿洲源流考 or a book of history and origin of Manchus.
It has total of 20 volumes.
Interesting thing about this book is that...
according to 滿洲源流考...

• 
  Silla was in Jilin(吉林) and the Name Jilin is derived from the name 鷄林 (this is old name of Silla)
  (I don't know how to read this in Chinese, but I presume it to sound similar to Jilin. Although I did find the way it is pronounced in Korean, Jilin(吉林) = gil-rim, 鷄林 = gyu-rim. )
  the knowledge of Silla's location being at Jilin was not kept well by people of old time, thus it was lost.

my comment on this part about the book...
the city of Jilin never existed until Qing dynasty, I believe it was founded during the time of KangXi Emperor, which means this passage doesn't really make sense.
However, from this we can recognize that the Qing dynasty or Manchus took high value in being Silla root.
Moreover, location of Silla is in south Eastern part of Korean peninsula. Qing dynasty has even altered the location of Silla to Jilin which is Manchuria to show that they are direct descendent of Silla.

• 
  
  • 
    The jin empire the letter origin of letter jin(金 ) is originated from jin (金 ) or Kim last name of Silla dynasty, according to 滿洲源流考 volume 7. Moreover the book says that all other arguments are false and not true. The volume 7 continues to mention that the Jin dynasty has been originated from Silla.
    
  • 
    In 滿洲源流考 there is no mention of Old Chosun, Koguryo, Koryo, Chosun, Liao nor Yuan, but there is mention of Mohe, Baek-Jae, Silla, BalHae. Moreover the book describes the history of Silla and BalHae to be a history of a same nation or ethnic background.

Overall the book really tries to align manchus to be Silla origin and Silla is the nucleus of Qing, jin, and manchus ( according to 滿洲源流考 at least)
Take this book into a consideration, for it was written by Qing dynasty under QianLong Emperor.
At least from 滿洲源流考 I can say that Qing dynasty is of Silla origin or is trying to portray themselves to be of Silla origin, which ever it is Silla seems to have a vital role in identity of manchus.