130 replies to this topic

[mohistManiac]

I am amazed as to the type of unnecessary complexity that some forummers here give.

To simplify the answer.

Yes, the Han ethnicity refer to the majority ethnic group ruled under the Han dynasty.

But the southerners usually refer to themselves as the Tang dynasty people rather than the Han dynasty.

Tang dynasty was grander and larger than the Han dynasty.

Southerners still refer to china as '唐山' ie. land of the tang.


It has nothing to do with the 3 kingdoms which was just a country broken up into 3 pieces after the Han dynasty.

The Chinese 3 Kingdoms period was after the fact. The kingdoms were avoiding being considered separate ethnic groups because they had linked themselves to a Han dynasty identity. Wei Wu and Shu are not divided along the previous lines of the warring states period. The lines became blurred and expanded to new frontiers. It's just like Persians call themselves a group but were originally Babylonians Assyrians Canaanites etc. Qin Han Wei Zhao Chu Qi Yan were the same situation. I also mention the 3 Kingdoms because it differes from 3 Kingdoms in Korea. Korea 3 Kingdoms period was really their warring states period and their north and south Korea today is really their 3 Kingdoms period. it would be preposterous to conclude that everyone that was under control of the Han dynasty was actually politically Han let alone ethnically Han in the supraethnic sense. Goguryeo was such a case and when the Han dynasty ended those people that had ties to Lelang commandery had legitimate reason to self determine for their people. Goguryeans would have had no ambition for the Han dynasty because they obviously had in mind something different in trying to create a secondary state in the area of modern day Korea. Now if all these Chinese "Han" could move themselves up in mentality to understand that Han is not just derived from the Yellow river of Shanxi everything would be settled.

Calling oneself a Tang person is not inaccurate although using Han is somehow more beloved due to the writing that emerged from the period as well as Confucianism. The north was occupied by nomadic conquerors which continually reshaped the politics of China so that in later periods, upheaval and splittism continued to exist because newcomers were trying to form secondary states like Xi Xia and Liao. This was all completely remade over by the Tang people and then by the Song people. However the Mongolians came and tried to reset everything into the Mongolian scheme which didn't work out so well so now maybe the Ming title is up for use or the Qing title China.

Edited by mohistManiac, 14 September 2012 - 01:24 PM.

[Telperien]

Now if all these Chinese "Han" could move themselves up in mentality to understand that Han is not just derived from the Yellow river of Shanxi everything would be settled.

No one ever said that entire Han is derived from Yellow River, I thought we made that clear in the beginning. But the core of the people that came into dominance and then later called themselves Han originated from Yellow River. If that wasn't the case, the cultural and economic center would be at another place instead of in ShanXi for 1000 years untill Song Dynasty retreated to the South. The term "Han" would never come into existance. In fact, you just said that Han is not JUST from the Yellow River, so you agree with me that the core of the Han did originate from provinces along the Yellow River. That's what I have been saying all along to the op thread is that if you want to trace the roots of Han go to ShanXi.

Now

But the southerners usually refer to themselves as the Tang dynasty people rather than the Han dynasty.

This reference that somehow southerners had something to do with Tang dynasty couldn't be anymore misleading. Tang followed Sui dynasty which came from North of the "North and South Dynasties" period. Tang's origin couldn't be any less further away from the South. Li Yuan the founder was a governor in Taiyuan, ShanXi, the heartland of the North... Tang led China as the only superpower in the world at the time centered in Chang An, and brought the Silk Road to its peak. South was far far behind the Northn in every aspect of life untill Southern Song dynasty retreated from the North 500 years later forcing China to shift focus to the South.

[mohistManiac]

No one ever said that entire Han is derived from Yellow River, I thought we made that clear in the beginning. But the core of the people that came into dominance and then later called themselves Han originated from Yellow River. If that wasn't the case, the cultural and economic center would be at another place instead of in ShanXi for 1000 years untill Song Dynasty retreated to the South. The term "Han" would never come into existance. In fact, you just said that Han is not JUST from the Yellow River, so you agree with me that the core of the Han did originate from provinces along the Yellow River. That's what I have been saying all along to the op thread is that if you want to trace the roots of Han go to ShanXi.

Now

I wonder if you subscribe to the marxist archaeology school which tries to show how the early cultural beginnings of a civilization has ultimately to do with its patriarchal ties to the politicization/militarization of the state. If you do I suggest you read K.C. Chang's Art, Myth, and Ritual The Path to Political Authority in Ancient China in which he paints a very realisitc picture of the Shang that departs from the marxist viewpoint. In other words I only mentioned Yellow river of Shanxi in hopes that you would catch on to the misinformed nature of the psuedoscience you so strongly defend, not that I was defending your misinformed view. You can see that you are still promoting some Yellow river identity or tracking some Shanxi identity while I've told you that this is only buying into the idea that unified China was conveniently composed of only one ingredient which it clearly was not.

(I'm not suggesting the early period of Qin dynasty and Han dynasty was the modern PRC and its 56 ethnic groups either. That's the modern era where the marxist approach to ethnicity reigns supreme where even if you are ancestrally from somewhere else in China, that somehow the moment you receive your hukou pass you are considered a local of where you received it. And in this way many legitimate additions into the Chinese family have undergone modernist marxist revisioning of identity where groups that were together were purposefully separated based on one attribute such as the Islamic Han to become Hui and groups that were originally separate became confined to one such as the Manchus that ultimately became considered Han because they lost their will to maintain their original culture.)

People themselves have to sort out the mess. Modern day experiments have conclusively shown that ancient people which you think were from the Yellow river have derived from other rivers altogether. Even the Qins which struggled to unify China explicitly tell in their writings they were not children of Xia. If this is so hard for you to imagine try noticing the differences between Uyghurs and people in Shaanxi. Would you dare to call them the same? The only thing same about them are the Mandarin Chinese words uttered from their mouths by which they use to understand one another. That does not make them all Mandarin or Manchu. Modern day collective Han identity psuedoscience does nothing to help us understand the situations as they had existed some 2000 years ago or earlier.

This reference that somehow southerners had something to do with Tang dynasty couldn't be anymore misleading. Tang followed Sui dynasty which came from North of the "North and South Dynasties" period. Tang's origin couldn't be any less further away from the South. Li Yuan the founder was a governor in Taiyuan, ShanXi, the heartland of the North... Tang led China as the only superpower in the world at the time centered in Chang An, and brought the Silk Road to its peak. South was far far behind the Northn in every aspect of life untill Southern Song dynasty retreated from the North 500 years later forcing China to shift focus to the South.

It's not any more misleading than the assumption that Yellow river people created the start of civilization in China or that Yellow river people created the Han core.

One should look for beginnings of Chinese civilization with sericulture which leads into Hanfu a dress which divides man from beast and agriculture which leads into surplus and which further develops man from beast. Both of these were initially located in the south with clear evidence for earliest rice cultivation on the Yangtze which is itself the precursor component for developing the use of earth works,water works, canals, and mechanically driven pumps which spread like wildfire throughout what we call China. Is it any wonder why groups like Khitan of Liao, Jurchen of Jin, Mongol of Yuan eyed the southern territories with fear and envy? Technically motivated they found themselves emulating the southern historical achievements up to including the architecture but the burial schemes were different. Socially motivated they adopted might is right so they could conquer the south and impose their will, including dialect. Biologically motivated they sought to interbreed by encouraging quantities of people from the south to move towards the north through grand schemes like Pax Mongolica and others.

Edited by mohistManiac, 15 September 2012 - 03:53 PM.

[Telperien]

Your whole argument is bent on that somehow groups of people in every corner of China all suddenly risen up together and called themselve Chinese at the sametime, contributed equally to a big melting pot, therefore no one could identify where China came from. This itself is a pretty ridiculous ideology and scientifically impossible. There was always a point of origin where Chinese culture started, the spark that led to the founding of a civilization in the central plains of China, not elsewhere, not on the Yangtze river, not in the Mongolian desert, not in Xinjiang, not on the East Coast and certainlly not everywhere at the sametime. People surely existed elsewhere but those people certainlly wouldn't later call themselves Chinese, if Chinese culture didn't start somehwere first. If Qin state was an isolated group, and completely unrelated, then they are not the people that originated Chinese civilization. Qin was a late comer that joined and assemulated into the Chinese culture. I didn't ask you to trace the roots of China into Qin land did I?

unified China was conveniently composed of only one ingredient which it clearly was not

Again you accuse me something I clearly did not say.

Of course other groups of people non-native to the central plains and the Yellow River contributed their unique elements to the Chinese culture, technologies, art, language, and writing whatever, but they all had their kingdoms, and did not consider themselves to be Chinese untill they were conqueored. Therefore none of them can be considered the original HuanXia people.

And again, I have never remotely tried to argue that Han is a pure ethnicity that covered entire China today, stop accusing me that. Ancient Greek was divided up among 5 city states, and Macedonia, but none-the-less, the Greek people was one people that originated from the Balkans during the neolithic period.

[mohistManiac]

Your whole argument is bent on that somehow groups of people in every corner of China all suddenly risen up together and called themselve Chinese at the sametime, contributed equally to a big melting pot, therefore no one could identify where China came from. This itself is a pretty ridiculous ideology and scientifically impossible. There was always a point of origin where Chinese culture started, the spark that led to the founding of a civilization in the central plains of China, not elsewhere, not on the Yangtze river, not in the Mongolian desert, not in Xinjiang, not on the East Coast and certainlly not everywhere at the sametime. People surely existed elsewhere but those people certainlly wouldn't later call themselves Chinese, if Chinese culture didn't start somehwere first. If Qin state was an isolated group, and completely unrelated, then they are not the people that originated Chinese civilization. Qin was a late comer that joined and assemulated into the Chinese culture. I didn't ask you to trace the roots of China into Qin land did I?

You realize the more you write the more you make me scoff at your ignorance. When did I ever propose a theory that everyone in China just stood up together and declared Chinese? I've already told you that Chinese civilization followed a path from individualistic self serving needs to the issuing of ideas of community and being steeped into civilization which fuels growth for entire communities. People far off that are unrelated could perhaps arrive and come to appreciate what someone has started making them want to join the family. That's why there is a physical China and even groups like the Five Hu's who have had doubts of assimilating can also become Chinese. You think the Huns and Mongols came to China just so that they can instigate and endure the slaughter of their own people? No! they came for the blossoming civilization! I have already introduced sericulture and agriculture at the Yangtze but it is not clear to you just what it is you want when you keep pointing back to the yellow river.

Again you accuse me something I clearly did not say.

You can certainly open your intellect to what I said instead of transposing it all into negative accusations. I simply meant that when you talk about Shanxi and tracing something to that area it is not the equivalent to talking about Chinese culture. It is talking about the militarization and strategization effect on China performed by myriad peoples that were power hungry and which unfortunately represented their people. Certainly these events can serve eventually to promote for the classification of Chinese culture because things that have existed and accumulated can now be standardized and benchmarked for the improvement of the state such as Han official script and Confucianism and Legalism but these items of Chinese worth and value did not simply arise out from Shanxi. Confucius was born from Shandong and he even considered himself quite a raw man from those closer to what he certainly thought was the land of Xia but he was misguided to think that. Many a scholar came from his place of birth and were schooled either in the state of Qi or Chu meaning what became taught were only concepts which had experienced their distillation from elsewhere until it reached central plains territory. Shanxi may be a distillation point for desiring absolute power sort of like Rome which had no real western culture but that which got imported from the Greeks or Egyptians while places like Zhejiang may be a distillation point for the actual substance of eastern culture like the Egyptians but which got taken over repeatedly.

Of course other groups of people non-native to the central plains and the Yellow River contributed their unique elements to the Chinese culture, technologies, art, language, and writing whatever, but they all had their kingdoms, and did not consider themselves to be Chinese untill they were conqueored. Therefore none of them can be considered the original HuanXia people.

People non native to the HuaXia area of central plains had the option of keeping with their local heritage and so if you all of a sudden told everyone that they were Huaxia they wouldn't take you seriously. The Qins obviously didn't take it very seriously. They went about conquering everyone to set up their new government. They believed in the legitimacy of the Zhou kings in so far as they existed to provide a backdrop that everyone was on the same page and could conquer in the name of the Zhou kings but everyone soon grew tired of that game. The only ones who took it seriously were the Zhou inhabiting Zhao Wei Han because they were the richest due to their enfeoffment of their own family members and had everything to lose.

And again, I have never remotely tried to argue that Han is a pure ethnicity that covered entire China today, stop accusing me that. Ancient Greek was divided up among 5 city states, and Macedonia, but none-the-less, the Greek people was one people that originated from the Balkans during the neolithic period.

Why are you getting started on the Balkans? Do you realize that area is one of the most ethnically charged politicized areas on earth?

Edited by mohistManiac, 15 September 2012 - 08:19 PM.

[Telperien]

People far off that are unrelated could perhaps arrive and come to appreciate what someone has started making them want to join the family.

Thank you for agreeing to that unrelated people wanted to join the family, but whose family, where did it start, who fueld the growth? Where did that individualistic path start?? That's right, there was an origin. I rest my case. All you need to do is to roll back the clock. You can be as philosophical and subjective as you want but you cannot avoid the fact that you can trace the start of China back to a single point.

People non native to the HuaXia area of central plains had the option of keeping with their local heritage and so if you all of a sudden told everyone that they were Huaxia they wouldn't take you seriously. The Qins obviously didn't take it very seriously. They went about conquering everyone to set up their new government.

You are arguing an imaginary argument I didn't start. I never included the non-natives into HuaXia area or wrongfully acknowledged those people as HuaXia children. HuaXia area is where Chinese civilization started without these non-native people. This is why I said you don't trace the roots of China to the homeland of these unrelated people. Chinese civilization certainlly did not start in Fujian, Sichuan, Yunan, Guizhou etc you name it. But It did start somewhere first, then these people joind the family using your terms. But these places would have stay fragmented, perhaps became territories another country if the original Chinese civilizations didn't start and came into dominance along the Yellow River.

Han official script and Confucianism and Legalism but these items of Chinese worth and value did not simply arise out from Shanxi

Also I never went down that path of debating where, when and who created these Chinese values later on. But if the original group of people along the Yellow River didn't start a civilization, all these Chinese values later on may as well went on to serve as values of another civlization and people

I feel like we are a constantly debating two whole different arguments. For example, English is a mixed language derived from Latin, it is not Latin but came from Latin none-the-less. You keep thinking that I believe English is Latin itself, and provide all these evidences that English is not. Here English is equavilent to China that included the non-natives that is no-where near a pure culture as the language itself also borrowing elements from other languages other than Latin. I'm not disagreeing with you, all I'm saying is that the core of English did come from Latin originally just like the core of China only originated from a few places. If you want to trace where Latin came from, it certainlly didn't come from England but came from Rome.

Again, if China as a civilization didn't start somewhere, all these wonderfaul diversity, worth and values you mentioned wouldn't be called Chinese anyway today.

Edited by Telperien, 15 September 2012 - 11:22 PM.

[mohistManiac]

Thank you for agreeing to that unrelated people wanted to join the family, but whose family, where did it start, who fueld the growth? Where did that individualistic path start?? That's right, there was an origin. I rest my case. All you need to do is to roll back the clock. You can be as philosophical and subjective as you want but you cannot avoid the fact that you can trace the start of China back to a single point.

I just told you who fueled the early Chinese civilizational growth without getting all cynical. Nor did I talk about ownership as though people from the Yangtze slapped copyright protection on what they did. It began in the Yangtze. There I said it again. If you don't agree then why don't you hurry up and show that big bright intellect of yours and tell me what family it is. If no then stop wasting my time by chastizing me about my perspective on history which I would argue is simply about not being naive.

You are arguing an imaginary argument I didn't start. I never included the non-natives into HuaXia area or wrongfully acknowledged those people as HuaXia children. HuaXia area is where Chinese civilization started without these non-native people. This is why I said you don't trace the roots of China to the homeland of these unrelated people. Chinese civilization certainlly did not start in Fujian, Sichuan, Yunan, Guizhou etc you name it. But It did start somewhere first, then these people joind the family using your terms. But these places would have stay fragmented, perhaps became territories another country if the original Chinese civilizations didn't start and came into dominance along the Yellow River.

What imaginary argument? The naive one you started about how Huaxia was the originator of Chinese because they all stood up grasped each other's armpits tickled each other silly until they all fell down and cried Chinese or China? Will you be wasting much more of my time with this?

Also I never went down that path of debating where, when and who created these Chinese values later on. But if the original group of people along the Yellow River didn't start a civilization, all these Chinese values later on may as well went on to serve as values of another civlization and people

A distinct Yellow river folk called the Qin started a continental wide international crackdown to eliminate different authorities but in the stratagemical sense they were doing it for themselves. This is already in the sense that Chinese values were being used for the express purposes of someone else especially because that someone else tried to do something revolutionary within all of Chinese history which was to create a continental empire. But because the Qin state was made to standard to the Zhou who made standard to the Shang who made standard to the Xia who made standard to the Yangtze we have no trouble saying the Qin were Chinese in their endeavors because it all happened within the context of China. You cannot prescribe something as innately Chinese such as the civilization being held to standard at the Yangtze and then say somehow it lacks Chinese ownership without having the thing be an oxymoron. As values being designated of another civilization it would be impossible. I think you've gotten mixed up how importance gets placed into things. Importance gets placed in things when you have something of substance and then it is branded with a name. We don't simply declare things Chinese and then fathom the possibility of different things being placed inside which have statistically no reference to what history has actually given us. This is why Japan was not able to just Japonize China. If it did it would make absolutely no sense. Japan could not just declare whatever it wanted when something was already held to a different standard from itself which had clearly established its own sense of identity. The integration of Japan with China would likely be titled as something else had it been a true success story but the Chinese elements would remain just the same. Just like when Qin conquered everyone every standard was not a Qin standard but obviously got to become known as Chinese. It wasn't the other way around where there was something "Chinese" out there only because anyone who had a brain could declare ownership. If that was truly the case then the whole world would have been declared under the ownership of Qin based on their say so. Would it still be Chinese then? Hence the Koreans and their clearly sarcastic remark "Mars belongs to us too."

I feel like we are a constantly debating two whole different arguments. For example, the English language is derived from Latin, it is not Latin but came from Latin none-the-less. You keep thinking that I believe English is Latin itself, and provide all these evidences that English is not. I'm not disagreeing with you, all I'm saying is that English came from Latin originally, and if you want to race where Latin came from, it certainlly didn't come from England but came from Rome.

Again, if China as a civilization didn't start somewhere, all these wonderfaul diversity, worth and values you mentioned wouldn't be called Chinese anyway today.

You feel like you are constantly debating on a different page than me because you have a severly limited understanding or negligence on what to understand in world history. I think you might have selective understanding. Just like when you present a map that clearly shows 14 15 different groups you call them by a single yellow river designation.

And your analogy breaks apart because Latin wasn't the only western input. There was Germanic or Teutonic. The different territories spoke different languages widely classified into IndoEuropean. You fail to understand why I brought Rome into the discussion. It was to highlight that it didn't have anything to say that it was it's own except for Rome and everything under its rule became eventually known as GrecoRoman or western civilization. With that being the case everyone is now obsessed with Sumerian and Egyptian civilization which laid the foundations for all the west. It doesn't make everyone Egyptian it makes everyone western and Egyptian is clearly western. What I also did say was just because everyone in the north of China speaks Mandarin doesn't make everyone an Altaic Manchu.

[Telperien]

Do you even understand what I wrote? You said people near Yangtze fueled the growth of Chinese civilization. And I asked, without the people along the Yellow River that started the Chinese civilization, there is nothing to fuel on is there? You are indeed cynical with all your fancy modern analogies. Copyright? Did I ever dispute the contributions that other people brought? You are the one with the navie perspective on history that is frozen on everything that happend after Qin, after people had already began settling through Chinese maindland. Your perspective did not go back far enough to truely where first people decided to leave the caves and started to cultivate and make permanent settlements along the river. There were early people along the Yangtze, but they never risen to dominance and competed with the Yellow River region and only joined up with the already expanding Chinese civilization later on.

It began in the Yangtze,........................... But because the Qin state was made to standard to the Zhou who made standard to the Shang who made standard to the Xia who made standard to the Yangtze

WoW, finally we have the truth here after a page plus of non-sense. I have exposed your true agenda. You are a person, who single handley have distorted the entire birthplace of Chinese culture 500 kilometers South. At least I realize I am talking to a mad man. I knew there was that some kind of extreme ideology hiding there somewhere you dared not to say at first for the sake of your argument. Xia who made strandard to the Yangtze? This is one of the biggest lie I have read for quite sometime, it made me laugh. From the dawn of human settlement in 7500BC to Southern Song dynasty 1127 AD, Yangtze was always behind Yellow River region economically, politically, and culturally. The only exception was that Yangtze had a warmer climate more suitable for farming. Then the South surpassed the North during Southern Song dynasty. From Spring and Autumn period to Warring State period, the southern kindgoms were some of the most backward States. Even Chu with its gigantic territory barely extended over the Yangtze river. You have lost all your credibility to argue with me. Revisionist.

Edited by Telperien, 16 September 2012 - 02:04 AM.

[mohistManiac]

Do you even understand what I wrote? You said people near Yangtze fueled the growth of Chinese civilization. And I asked, without the people along the Yellow River that started the Chinese civilization, there is nothing to fuel on is there? You are indeed cynical with all your fancy modern analogies. Copyright? Did I ever dispute the contributions that other people brought? You are the one with the navie perspective on history that is frozen on everything that happend after Qin, after people had already began settling through entire Chinese maindland and only after that did they began to diversify into various sub-cultures. Your perspective did not go back far enough to truely where first people decided to leave the caves and started to cultivate and make permanent settlements along the river.



WoW, finally we have the truth here after a page plus of non-sense. I have exposed your true agenda. You are a person, who single handley have distorted the entire birthplace of Chinese culture 500 kilometers South. At least I realize I am talking to a mad man. I knew there was that some kind of extreme ideology hiding there somewhere you dared not to say at first for the sake of your argument. Xia who made strandard to the Yangtze? This is one of the biggest lie I have read for quite sometime, it made me laugh. From the dawn of human settlement in 7500BC to Southern Song dynasty 1127 AD, Yangtze was always behind Yellow River region economically, politically, and culturally. The only exception was that Yangtze had a warmer climate more suitable for farming. Then the South surpassed the North during Southern Song dynasty. From Spring and Autumn period to Warring State period, the southern kindgoms were some of the most backward States. Even Chu with its gigantic territory barely extended over the Yangtze river. You have lost all your credibility to argue with me. Revisionist.

I was going to end with saying that you can stop bugging people with your claims that Chinese civilization was only possible simply because someone with an massive army caused things to standardize all over China but you went far beyond that. You've went on to characterize Chinese cultures as not being Chinese simply because they didn't pioneer going to other frontiers and claim land outside of their cultural domain and had less economic viability because of it. Are we now going to say there isn't Chinese civilization in more backwards areas of China in modern times? There is no revision going on of China when someone points out all those things which caused civilization to appear in China. Where do you think Chinese got their idea to place walls around their citiies? And the archaeological findings on earliest silk fabric and rice agriculture and architectural styles which used no brick and mortar? From Martians? It's like I said your agenda is a supremacist one and takes reference from sleeping with too many tales of Xia mythical heroes. Tell me where are Huang Di's four eyed children now? Did or didn't he alone with his wife invent clothing, agriculture, hunting, domestication of animals, tools, carts, and music?

[Telperien]

double posts

Edited by Telperien, 16 September 2012 - 03:24 AM.

[Telperien]

From Martians? It's like I said your agenda is a supremacist one and takes reference from sleeping with too many tales of Xia mythical heroes. Tell me where are Huang Di's four eyed children now? Did or didn't he alone with his wife invent clothing, agriculture, hunting, domestication of animals, tools, carts, and music?

ahah good try accussing me something am not again. I have no interest in the mythological tales of the 3 sovereigns and 5 emperors, I have never even mentioned them once and I don't sleep and get stuck with a particular period of China and base all my argument from that like you. Also unlike you, I have never wrote anything based on someone's claim, who said what, what people thought about themselves, which are just like today's propaganda. Actually, the Yellow River people did invent clothing, agriculture, hunting, domestication of animals, tools, carts, and music. Plus they did a lot faster than the Southerners did and moved on to do other more interesting things like founding a Kingdom, spread across the country, assimilate other people. If ancient China was distored into your way, the capital may as well be in Nanjing all the way from the start and build the Great Wall along Yangtze river. Plus you have revealed your bogus claims about Yangtze region leading to Xia. Why bother?

Are we now going to say there isn't Chinese civilization in more backwards areas of China in modern times?

There were a lot of backward areas 2500 years ago and the backwardness is exactly contributed by the fact that they did not develop as quickly as early Chinese civilization did, so they either voluntarily joined up with Huaxia people or were forced to and contribute. And if Huaxia people didn't spread, maybe Southern China would belong to Vietnam and the local ethnic groups would all be Vietnamese today, who knows. Xinjiang, Tibet, the Northeast and the Southwest are relatively under-developed because Chinese civilization didn't have its roots and place importance there throughout history, and that's exactly the reason. So your question is invalid.

Where do you think Chinese got their idea to place walls around their citiies?

First rammed earth wall appeared in Shang's capital in Anyang, Henan. You are not gonna contribute that to the Southerners are you? You make it sound like indeed the Martians were on earth in Southern China, tought everything to the North and all of sudden left. Because the only significant innovation from the early South was agriculture based and even that was much later on.


**sorry about the double post

Edited by Telperien, 16 September 2012 - 03:36 AM.

[mohistManiac]

ahah good try accussing me something am not again. I have no interest in the mythological tales of the 3 sovereigns and 5 emperors, I have never even mentioned them once and I don't sleep and get stuck with a particular period of China and base all my argument from that like you. Also unlike you, I have never wrote anything based on someone's claim, who said what, what people thought about themselves, which are just like today's propaganda. Actually, the Yellow River people did invent clothing, agriculture, hunting, domestication of animals, tools, carts, and music. Plus they did a lot faster than the Southerners did and moved on to do other more interesting things like founding a Kingdom, spread across the country, assimilate other people. If ancient China was distored into your way, the capital may as well be in Nanjing all the way from the start and build the Great Wall along Yangtze river. Plus you have revealed your bogus claims about Yangtze region leading to Xia. Why bother?

I'm not accusing I'm asking. Instead of answering directly what's gets me confused is why you are trying to ascertain civilization in the north by explaining it in a strictly strategical sense for achievements of the Yangtze area that had occurred there before they had ever gotten underway elsewhere. All you mentioned was the rate at which they took the developments further but it never implies anything more than sheer speed. What would a faster chariot be like in China had it never gotten access to wheel technology? Or a surplus driven economy had it not familiarized itself with great agricultural surplus of the south. Would the Qin even know which southern areas to subjugate and command for its benefit? What would its larger capitals be like had it never gotten to know just how well defended a capital can be without having to constantly move it? What set the yellow river apart was the competition that arose between the myriad groups that faced each other that drove them to domination over the other while the south had no overbearing competition along the river Yangtze and its former developments became rustic as others took those in and superceded them. This isn't about civilization at all this is about groups finding trajectory into the construction of empire and secondary state formation. If that is the standard for benchmarking civilization's existence then every area that has had issues with new competition would in essence be directed towards the start of a new civilization due to newer accelerated developments. The yellow river area developed in sequence following things which had already occured in completion elsewhere. The evidence is in the archaeology. That's why it matters whether Xia exists as myth or not because all those legendary myths could otherwise never be assessed to be anything more than people hurtling achievements towards themselves.

There were a lot of backward areas 2500 years ago and the backwardness is exactly contributed by the fact that they did not develop as quickly as early Chinese civilization did, so they either voluntarily joined up with Huaxia people or were forced to and contribute. And if Huaxia people didn't spread, maybe Southern China would belong to Vietnam and the local ethnic groups would all be Vietnamese today, who knows. Xinjiang, Tibet, the Northeast and the Southwest are relatively under-developed because Chinese civilization didn't have its roots and place importance there throughout history, and that's exactly the reason. So your question is invalid.

This is a whole bunch of hypothetical thinking. It is as though Chinese civilization never existed until there was something fast growing and strong enough to serve everyone values of standardization and would even suffer from the risk of not being Chinese had its civilizational output be taken in elsewhere near itself. That is in fact why there is dispute over civilization between the Chinese and Koreans. Both sides are totally convinced that sharing similar values is somehow stripping from the identity of original achievements and paranoia of being construed as the underdeveloped weakling culture compared to the other. That one had no means to develop everything on his own is a shame and so everyone quickly hurtle all possible achievements towards themselves without acknowledging which events happened in which sequence. Instead of determing what kinds of things and how they come to be developed into Chinese things or Korean things, both are caught up in the debate of ownership.

First rammed earth wall appeared in Shang's capital in Anyang, Henan. You are not gonna contribute that to the Southerners are you? You make it sound like indeed the Martians were on earth in Southern China, tought everything to the North and all of sudden left. Because the only significant innovation from the early South was agriculture based and even that was much later on.


**sorry about the double post

You are mistakened. Neolithic walls did indeed feature within the sites of the southern cultures along the Yangtze. Pengtoushan for example. They found a Liangzhu capital with walls and believe the site to have facilitated China's first dynasty. These happened concurrently with the rise of agricultural rice surplus.

[Cao Huan]

Forgive me for butting in but from my observations each of you are arguing about two distinct concepts, one being the origin of a central Han/Huaxia identity, the other the origin of cultural markers of those who eventually became the Han.

Like how what it meant to be Roman changed over time, originating from people from the city state of Rome, then the Roman Empire, then the Byzantines, after which Romans became Greek speaking, and now Greek speaking descendants of the Greek speaking Byzantines still call themselves Roman, though Greek as well.
Yet it can be argued Rome got their civilization from the Etruscans, who became civilized unser Greek influence, who in turn became civilized under Egyptian influence. So just like Roman civilzed culture can be traced to Egypt, Chinese civilized culture can be attributed to the Yangtze River Valley. But just like how Roman identity, however changing, originated from the city state of Rome in Italy, the people who created the foundations of a unified Chinese identity came from the Yellow River Valley.

[Telperien]

So just like Roman civilzed culture can be traced to Egypt, Chinese civilized culture can be attributed to the Yangtze River Valley. But just like how Roman identity, however changing, originated from the city state of Rome in Italy, the people who created the foundations of a unified Chinese identity came from the Yellow River Valley.

That's exactly what I been saying. I don't refute the significant roles and the contribution the South in shaping up the Chinese culture, but if you trace the roots of the start of the Chinese civillization, it was never there to begin with. The South had their separate identities first.

Edited by Telperien, 17 September 2012 - 01:02 AM.

[mohistManiac]

Forgive me for butting in but from my observations each of you are arguing about two distinct concepts, one being the origin of a central Han/Huaxia identity, the other the origin of cultural markers of those who eventually became the Han.

Like how what it meant to be Roman changed over time, originating from people from the city state of Rome, then the Roman Empire, then the Byzantines, after which Romans became Greek speaking, and now Greek speaking descendants of the Greek speaking Byzantines still call themselves Roman, though Greek as well.
Yet it can be argued Rome got their civilization from the Etruscans, who became civilized unser Greek influence, who in turn became civilized under Egyptian influence. So just like Roman civilzed culture can be traced to Egypt, Chinese civilized culture can be attributed to the Yangtze River Valley. But just like how Roman identity, however changing, originated from the city state of Rome in Italy, the people who created the foundations of a unified Chinese identity came from the Yellow River Valley.

It may seem that way to someone who doesn't break into his arguments but not to me. He's not really making clear cases about centrality or absolute power focus like you are. He's trying to show what Chinese is by jogging us through the political might of northern Chinese dynasties and comparing them in a strong against weak context to southern Chinese dynasties. Hence his denigration of the relatively slower progress made in the south after China was unified by the Qins. Then with the addition of race bending supremacism claims that we can track Chinese civilization only to the virtue of domination born of those governors of Shanxi like LI Yuan whom he associates irrefutably as being Chinese by virtue of his role in purveying dynastic rule. He has the mindset that if China remained fragmented or even if China had no rulership that only people in Shanxi would remain as civilized Chinese.