83 replies to this topic

[mariusj]

Listen to this logic.So just because every nation, empire, kingdom are NOT of a single ethnicity means you can just claim their achievements as chinese? If there was an tibetan king who ruled all of china, would that be chinese achievements or tibetan achievements?

Well, your argument against that Mughals were Indians or that Yuan was Chinese IS that they are not the same ethnicity.

Since not every nation on this world is a single ethnicity, your argument is invalid; there could be empires that span over several ethnicity and can claim several lineage. Austrian Hungarian Empire, for example, can claim two distinctive heritage - Austrian, and Hungarian. England, on the other hand, can claim several - Walsh, Scottish, Anglo-Saxon, etc. The great conqueror, William, who is French, landed on England, conquered England, and was proclaimed the king of England. Is William, and thus his heir, English? Cato the Censor, perhaps one of the more famous bonni, was not Roman in his youth, but became one of the greatest Roman in history, is Cato not Roman because of his birth, or his Italian background? When the Macedonian Pharaohs ruled over Egypt, can you say that these are Greeks, and not Egyptians?

Just because in your narrow mind, that one must be either or, does not make it so in history. Numerous man can claim several lineage, just because you cannot accept such an idea does not make them invalid.

Mughals can be BOTH Persians and Indians, and Yuan can be both Mongols and Chinese.

And according to the laws of PRC, yes, the Tibetans can claim the achievement of China, as they are citizen of China, making your points further ignorant.

[bloodmerchant]

So than what does that mean? even in many nations of africa, there are the superior ethnic group and the inferior ethnic groups who are still being enslaved in this modern time and age by the superior ethnic.Are you trying to say an non-chinese ethncity should be considered the same as chinese achievements? You do realize that mongols or manchus were never originally chinese ethnicity? let's say the manchus conquerors happened to be an group of white people, would it make sense to claim white emperor as chinese emperor?

What's wrong with that, then? Why do I have to pursue your Han nationalist agenda? If you are talking about white people, then aren't Russians considered to be an ethnic group of China? Even Iranic ethnic groups live in China. There is no such thing as 'chinese ethnicity'. You are confusing Han ethnicity with Chinese nationality. Please read the thread before you go off into Han nationalist rhetoric.

[TaishanLOVE]

What's wrong with that, then? Why do I have to pursue your Han nationalist agenda? If you are talking about white people, then aren't Russians considered to be an ethnic group of China? Even Iranic ethnic groups live in China. There is no such thing as 'chinese ethnicity'. You are confusing Han ethnicity with Chinese nationality. Please read the thread before you go off into Han nationalist rhetoric.

Han = Chinese
Han = Majority of china

How can anyone say there is no such thing as chinese ethnicity, if there is no such thing as chinese than why are we called chinese for? why do we have our own culture,writing system,family names,traditions that are different from other ethnic groups in china? why are people from hong kong,singapore,taiwan ethnically admits being han chinese? because only han chinese identifies with being chinese.Do any of the other 56 ethnic group identifies with being chinese? they are only chinese nationality but ethnically they will never and NEVER be chinese unlest they see themselves as chinese. And we know d**** well that the tibetans,uyghurs,mongolians,miao ect don't identify with being chinese.

[mariusj]

Han = Chinese
Han = Majority of china

How can anyone say there is no such thing as chinese ethnicity, if there is no such thing as chinese than why are we called chinese for? why do we have our own culture,writing system,family names,traditions that are different from other ethnic groups in china? why are people from hong kong,singapore,taiwan ethnically admits being han chinese? because only han chinese identifies with being chinese.Do any of the other 56 ethnic group identifies with being chinese? they are only chinese nationality but ethnically they will never and NEVER be chinese unlest they see themselves as chinese. And we know d**** well that the tibetans,uyghurs,mongolians,miao ect don't identify with being chinese.

You are entitled to your own opinion.

[TaishanLOVE]

Well, your argument against that Mughals were Indians or that Yuan was Chinese IS that they are not the same ethnicity.

Since not every nation on this world is a single ethnicity, your argument is invalid; there could be empires that span over several ethnicity and can claim several lineage. Austrian Hungarian Empire, for example, can claim two distinctive heritage - Austrian, and Hungarian. England, on the other hand, can claim several - Walsh, Scottish, Anglo-Saxon, etc. The great conqueror, William, who is French, landed on England, conquered England, and was proclaimed the king of England. Is William, and thus his heir, English? Cato the Censor, perhaps one of the more famous bonni, was not Roman in his youth, but became one of the greatest Roman in history, is Cato not Roman because of his birth, or his Italian background? When the Macedonian Pharaohs ruled over Egypt, can you say that these are Greeks, and not Egyptians?

Just because in your narrow mind, that one must be either or, does not make it so in history. Numerous man can claim several lineage, just because you cannot accept such an idea does not make them invalid.

Mughals can be BOTH Persians and Indians, and Yuan can be both Mongols and Chinese.

And according to the laws of PRC, yes, the Tibetans can claim the achievement of China, as they are citizen of China, making your points further ignorant.

Here is the difference.When mongol rulers conquered chinese, they not only had anti-han policies but treated the han chinese majority in the bottom class during the yuan dynasty,while mongols were at top class,before their rule and subjugation they killed an large number of chinese people.Also if chinese really accepted yuan as chinese dynasties why did they revolted against the mongols yuan dynasties so many times?

Did the great conqueror William treated the english as slaves when they conquered them? did they killed large numbers of brits when they conquered them? did they treated them into bottom class? And yes, an french can definitely claim as an french achievements because not many countries have manage to become kings of other countries.

[TaishanLOVE]

Take the uyghurs for example.They are under the han rule right now,but reality is they have not much freedom to practice their own religion,their population and lands are currently controlled by republic of china.And they can't do anything because among all the 56 ethnic groups we all know that the han chinese are top class are the ones in controlled of everything in china and chinese occupied countries,because reality is han chinese are the ones with the power.Simply because the leaders of china are all han chinese ethnicity,had it been uyghurs in power of china's 56 ethnic groups,we properly would have been forced to convert to islam or else our heads will roll.

[mariusj]

Here is the difference.When mongol rulers conquered chinese, they not only had anti-han policies but treated the han chinese majority in the bottom class during the yuan dynasty,while mongols were at top class,before their rule and subjugation they killed an large number of chinese people.Also if chinese really accepted yuan as chinese dynasties why did they revolted against the mongols yuan dynasties so many times?

Nan-ren is at the bottom.

And using the logic of 'Chinese' revolted against other dynasty because they don't accept 'foreign' people, then Chinese hated Chinese rules. Every new dynasty is overthrow because obviously how much Chinese really accepted Chinese rule.

Did the great conqueror William treated the english as slaves when they conquered them? did they killed large numbers of brits when they conquered them? did they treated them into bottom class? And yes, an french can definitely claim as an french achievements because not many countries have manage to become kings of other countries.

He striped them of their lands and holdings, treated them like serfs, and killed enough of them to put them in obedience. So, yes, yes, yes.

But you are side stepping, my claim is not EVERYONE or MANY can claim several heritage, but some that could. For example, the King of England rule over a diverse population of Wales Scots Irish Saxons Picts, he is their sovereign. The Emperor of Austro-Hungarian Empire ruled over numerous minority population and Austrians and Hungarians. The people of Austria, and the people of Hungry, can claim the achievement of Austro-Hungarian Empire. Despite the fact that the Macedonian Pharaohs are mostly Greek, they are Egyptians.

[TaishanLOVE]

Nan-ren is at the bottom.And using the logic of 'Chinese' revolted against other dynasty because they don't accept 'foreign' people, then Chinese hated Chinese rules. Every new dynasty is overthrow because obviously how much Chinese really accepted Chinese rule.

Do you even know why the reason ming dynasty came into existence? it was to restore the han chinese rule governed by han chinese majority.

He striped them of their lands and holdings, treated them like serfs, and killed enough of them to put them in obedience. So, yes, yes, yes.

To what extend? did he killed millions like the mongols have done to chinese?

But you are side stepping, my claim is not EVERYONE or MANY can claim several heritage, but some that could. For example, the King of England rule over a diverse population of Wales Scots Irish Saxons Picts, he is their sovereign. The Emperor of Austro-Hungarian Empire ruled over numerous minority population and Austrians and Hungarians. The people of Austria, and the people of Hungry, can claim the achievement of Austro-Hungarian Empire. Despite the fact that the Macedonian Pharaohs are mostly Greek, they are Egyptians.

Yeah and that's why Scots don't like british, and the irish hates the brits because they still have northern ireland.Neither of them liked their times of being under the british empire.I don't get your point of your austro-Hungarian empire, how's that any different to the mongol-turkic empires? are you saying yuan dynasty is an mongol-chinese empire? I don't think so.Keep in mind that the chinese were conquered, they were not in the confederation of the empire, the turkic tribes were but NOT the chinese because wereCONQUERED.

Edited by TaishanLOVE, 20 May 2011 - 04:49 AM.

[YuenKamSiu]

I thought it was the Bubonic Plague that caused the huge population drop in China during the Mongol era? We shouldn't be hating the Mongols, we should be hating those d**** rats. I say let's build concentration camps for those rodent pests.

[bloodmerchant]

I honestly don't believe Mongols themselves killed Han Chinese as a genocidal act. Most deaths during that era were actually attributed to the bubonic plague that was spread through fleas and rats the Mongols left in their wake. I think the origins of the bubonic plague were in Mongolia, but quickly spread west and south as the Mongols advanced. At some point in the West, the Mongols stopped but the rats and fleas eventually reached places like Iberian peninsula or Iceland.

The Scots once ruled a diverse population of Picts, Gaels, Saxons and Britons, as well as some Norse and Norman/French populations later on. The Britons and Picts eventually assimilated. The Saxons and the Britons formed the bulk of the Lowland Scot population. The Gaels and the Picts formed the bulk of the Highland Scot population. William Wallace was of Briton/Cumbric descent because of his surname.

In 1305 Edward I of England prohibited the laws of the Scots and the Brets[46] The term Brets or Britons refers to the native, traditionally Cumbric speaking people of southern Scotland.

Edited by bloodmerchant, 20 May 2011 - 12:12 PM.

[TaishanLOVE]

I honestly don't believe Mongols themselves killed Han Chinese as a genocidal act. Most deaths during that era were actually attributed to the bubonic plague that was spread through fleas and rats the Mongols left in their wake. I think the origins of the bubonic plague were in Mongolia, but quickly spread west and south as the Mongols advanced. At some point in the West, the Mongols stopped but the rats and fleas eventually reached places like Iberian peninsula or Iceland.

The Scots once ruled a diverse population of Picts, Gaels, Saxons and Britons, as well as some Norse and Norman/French populations later on. The Britons and Picts eventually assimilated. The Saxons and the Britons formed the bulk of the Lowland Scot population. The Gaels and the Picts formed the bulk of the Highland Scot population. William Wallace was of Briton/Cumbric descent because of his surname.

Is there any evidence to SUPPORT your claim? according to wikipedia mongols massacred many cities population in north of china.In Beijing the death toll was at least over some 300,000 massacred.Some scholars attributed the 30 million chinese who deaths during the mongol invasion.Although scholars attributed most of deaths due to famine and census break down,they don't deny that an few millions were killed due to mongol military warfare.

[TaishanLOVE]

It's really simple to understand.You only have to ask who are the top class ethnicity in china among all the 56 ethnic groups.We all know han chinese are the ones with the power in china.If the uyghurs,mongols or tibetans were in power, do you think they would EVER let han chinese armies to occupy and control their lands? or even allow to have an majority of foreign population to settle on their lands? why do chinese have inner mongolia,east turkistan,tibet under it's controlled? why do you think they are forced to learning han chinese culture,traditions,writings.To them it's all by FORCED,not matter of choice or willing too,they can't do nothing because han chinese are the ones in power.I know an tibetan who would rather ripped his chinese passports than to live in china as one of their ethnicity.Give them the power and they will revolt against han chinese like there's no end this is why china is strengthening it's armies.So bottom line,the top ethnicity are always the ones in power.

The leaders of Republic of china are han chinese this is why they can decide what they want with other ethnicities.The same logic applies to with yuan dynasty,the top ethnicity are mongols who occupied china,controlled everything of china,and their onces who decided to heavily tax on han chinese and had many anti-han polocies, and treated them in lower class,which untilmately led to ming dynasty to revolt and restore the han chinese rule.The manchus of qing also controlled chinese,in fact the ugly hairstyle that chinese had to adopt during the qing dynasty as an sign of submission to ethnic manchu qing emperors.Also,manchu banned the chinese from marrying mongols or manchus.It is ironic that manchus treated khalka mongols with respect and admiration while the han chinese were at the bottom class.

[YuenKamSiu]

Is there any evidence to SUPPORT your claim?

Here's a scholarly source (One among many)

"The combination of war and pestilence wreaked havoc on China's population. The best estimates show a decrease from 123 million about 1200 (before the Mongol invasions began) to a mere 65 million in 1393, a generation after the final expulsion of the Mongols from China. Even Mongol ferocity cannot account for such a drastic decrease. Disease assuredly played a big part in cutting Chinese numbers in half; and bubonic plague recurring after its initial ravages at relatively frequent intervals, just as Europe, is by all odds the most likely candidate for such a role."
-Plagues and People, William McNeill pg 174

McNeill of course does not deny that the Mongols were ferocious warriors. He himself even admitted it but he is asserting that epidemics is the main reason why the population declined so greatly.

according to wikipedia mongols massacred many cities population in north of china.

Here's what wikipedia says on the topic verbatim:

"Before the Mongol invasion, Chinese dynasties reportedly had approximately 120 million inhabitants; after the conquest was completed in 1279, the 1300 census reported roughly 60 million people.[20] While it is tempting to attribute this major decline solely to Mongol ferocity, scholars today have mixed sentiments regarding this subject. Scholars such as Frederick W. Mote argue that the wide drop in numbers reflects an administrative failure to record rather than a de facto decrease whilst others such as Timothy Brook argue that the Mongols created a system of enserfment among a huge portion of the Chinese populace causing many to disappear from the census altogether. Other historians like William McNeill and David Morgan argue that the Bubonic Plague was the main factor behind the demographic decline during this period. The 14th century epidemics of plague (Black Death) is estimated to have killed 30% of the population of China.[21][22]"

http://en.wikipedia....istory_of_China

As you can see, there are number of factors to be considered.

In Beijing the death toll was at least over some 300,000 massacred.Some scholars attributed the 30 million chinese who deaths during the mongol invasion.Although scholars attributed most of deaths due to famine and census break down,they don't deny that an few millions were killed due to mongol military warfare.

Nobody is denying that the Mongols killed alot of people during their invasions (To do so is just plain absurd) however deaths from massacres isn't the only factor and many scholars agree that epidemics (Bubonic plague or not) played a bigger role during this time period.

Edited by YuenKamSiu, 20 May 2011 - 03:58 PM.

[mohistManiac]

It's really simple to understand.You only have to ask who are the top class ethnicity in china among all the 56 ethnic groups.We all know han chinese are the ones with the power in china.If the uyghurs,mongols or tibetans were in power, do you think they would EVER let han chinese armies to occupy and control their lands? or even allow to have an majority of foreign population to settle on their lands? why do chinese have inner mongolia,east turkistan,tibet under it's controlled? why do you think they are forced to learning han chinese culture,traditions,writings.To them it's all by FORCED,not matter of choice or willing too,they can't do nothing because han chinese are the ones in power.I know an tibetan who would rather ripped his chinese passports than to live in china as one of their ethnicity.Give them the power and they will revolt against han chinese like there's no end this is why china is strengthening it's armies.So bottom line,the top ethnicity are always the ones in power.

The leaders of Republic of china are han chinese this is why they can decide what they want with other ethnicities.The same logic applies to with yuan dynasty,the top ethnicity are mongols who occupied china,controlled everything of china,and their onces who decided to heavily tax on han chinese and had many anti-han polocies, and treated them in lower class,which untilmately led to ming dynasty to revolt and restore the han chinese rule.The manchus of qing also controlled chinese,in fact the ugly hairstyle that chinese had to adopt during the qing dynasty as an sign of submission to ethnic manchu qing emperors.Also,manchu banned the chinese from marrying mongols or manchus.It is ironic that manchus treated khalka mongols with respect and admiration while the han chinese were at the bottom class.

Top class ethnicity needs explanation. If you mean to say the most numerated why don't you just say that? In China the most numerated is Han Chinese but it really depends on how you look at Han. Do you realize the futility of saying Han Chinese ever existed before the dawn of the dynasty itself? Quite simply people of China which you thought of simply having had Han ancestry were themselves at stalemate in declaring any sort of single ethnity with each other. I'm talking about the warring states period where there were boundary claims most notably that of Qin to the west Chu to the south, the states of the far east like Yan and Qi and then the middle grouping of Han Zhao Wei. The whole Huaxia concept is nothing more than Zhou dynasty showroom concept of aggrandizement to themselves. Shang had no ties. In fact they were the original preexisting underlying society which got screwed over and the Zhou in doing so created this new hybrid society of Zhou clans and Shang clans. During that time the Huaxia must have been seen as a radical new concept designed to end bloodshed. Yet bloodshed arose again. In defense of the original neolithic traditions there may have been many more ethnicities but we can safely say that there ought to have been at least 2 groupings, 3 if you count Xia. The fact that everyone shared an ad hoc leadership in the Zhou elite and were forced to obey some wider notional value system of deities or heroes like Huang Di etc. was due to fear. No one wanted to disobey Zhou but later on in fact overturning the traditions was secondary to incorporating one's ethnicity through state defense. Sharing the same traditions such as military culture, burial culture, etc simply doesn't guarentee enough closely affiliated developments required in discovering the new ethnic grouping. In any case when the so called Han ethnicity arose during the Han dynasty it was probably created in reaction against the invasion of the Xiongnu to the destruction of all sorts of kinds of people. And to that effect it ought to be the case that people distinguish that the Han is more of a social milieu designed to create the single united war front in a time when there still existed demand for it. Other times the Han could just as easily remain separated as its cultural practioners evolved the language and traditions in all sorts of ways. If you know what I'm talking about then you would know that your outlook of Han identity really only dramatizes the past frame of reference in exoticizing against minority groups for the sole purpose of outnumbering them. It's surely a taboo subject because ethnicity is usually created through the shaping of a group's identity in relation to all the interstate interactivity going on. If even one area doesn't agree to your political discourse it's tantamount to social speciation and causing a new shift in ethnogenesis. I'm sure you'll agree that it's quite odd that there could be such a homogenous ethnicity living in such a vast territory as China.

As for the issue with Singapore and other places you mentioned, I'm not sure what you had meant when you said that Han Chinese identify with Chinese but that other ethnicities in China don't? They don't identify with being a Han Chinese people but wouldn't the homelands they refer to still be within China? So why wouldn't they identify with their home now all of a sudden? Do you imply that they are not home and should move elsewhere? What about the Singapore people and others you mentioned? Are the Han Chinese people there to dominate and are thus not home? similar in situation to the way the Mongols arrived in China? I think the unspoken rule about all this is that there is a kind of stigmatism for people to be viewed as increasingly orienting away from the identity of the region. If they try to grow and spread outwards all of a sudden they aren't seen as serving the cause of the state but rather become seen as giving rise to revolt.

[TaishanLOVE]

Here's a scholarly source (One among many)

Nobody is denying that the Mongols killed alot of people during their invasions (To do so is just plain absurd) however deaths from massacres isn't the only factor and many scholars agree that epidemics (Bubonic plague or not) played a bigger role during this time period.

That still doesn't change the fact it was caused by mongol invasion.None of this would have ever happened to begin with if they didn't tried to invade and conquer china on the first place.So to treat an foreign invader as an chinese emperor is just plain absurd,especially after massacring and bringing disease to another nation.I argued many times before,during the yuan dynasties chinese were at the bottom class of this dynasty that alone makes it even more absurd to treat him as an chinese emperor.

Japanese killed millions of chinese people, and many chinese still hate them for it.