[somechineseperson]

I have translated the first two sections of Zhao Fengnian's article. To read the entire original article in Chinese, please go to

http://www.chinahist...?showtopic=9171

-----

A reflection of China's millennia-old history

Original text by Zhao Fengnian (Da Song Yi Min) of the Haanen Forum
English translation by me

In recent decades our nation has experienced numerous humiliations and sufferings. At present in every aspect of civilisation there is a gap between our country and the advanced nations of the world. It is true that at the moment we are not in any immediate danger, but this is because we are living in a relatively peaceful epoch of world history, in which our nation does not have powerful enemies. But if one looks back on the rises and falls of our four thousand year old history, we could see that this world is not always a peaceful paradise. Every nation on this planet has with no exception experienced risks of destruction and experiences of setbacks. How many times have our own nation came back from the brink of total extermination in our long history? Due to the evil aspects of human nature, every once in a while there will be darwinian-style wars and conflicts between the nations of the world. Only the strong nations among them could stand up among the myriad nations of the world. We as Chinese do not want to see a scenario in which when our descendants are forced to fight with a powerful enemy, like in the case of the US-Iraqi war, we give up our hopes of survival into the hands of our opponents.

We can also clearly see from history that the happiness or suffering, glory or shame of every generation of the Han nation are not completely determined by that generation alone. As a Chinese proverb says: When those who come before plant trees, those who come after will enjoy their shade, When those who come before cut down trees, those who come after will suffer the consequences. A lot of successes and failures in our history had already been determined by events that happened hundreds of years before. Therefore our actions today will similarly either pave the road for our descendants' happiness, or dig the trap for our descendants' disasters. If we really hope for our descendants to be happy, then we must examine the heritage that has been left to us by our own ancestors, and to what extent are our ancestors responsible for the problems and pains we face today. Also we must examine whether or not we are doing anything stupid today, which would cause our nation to slide down a path of danger. Are we? As a matter of fact we are to a certain extent. Today there is a very dangerous world-view and way of thinking among our people, which is gradually destroying the basis of civilisation which our ancestors have built up over a period of millennia, and breaking apart the ethnic and national cohesiveness of our people, so that the next time our nation faces a challenge on the level of survival, our people will once again suffer greatly. Thus one of the objectives of writing this article, is to allow us to summarise the benefit from the experiences and lesson learnt by the ancients, so that we could, before the next grave challenge comes to face our nation, eliminate this dangerous style of thinking.

So what could we learn from the experiences and lessons learnt by our ancestors?

1. When one reflects and learns our historical experiences and lessons, one must not employ a linear style of thinking

A person can learn from the gains and losses of his or her past, a nation can do the same. But when we reflect on our history, we must not think in a simplistic and linear fashion, in which one only focuses on one particular aspect and ignores the rest. Instead we must look at the entire picture and evaluate postive and negative points in every aspect. If one uses a simplistic and linear way of thinking, one cannot think of the problem in an integral way. Not only would this not improve our current situation, but it would also cause people to abandon the preciously designed and constructed civilisation of the ancients solely on the basis of a single flaw, and to replace this civilisation with more stupid ways. In the end this would lead to more disasters rather than improvements and progress.

In fact, such examples of linear thinking are abundant in the long history of the Chinese people. The security of every nation in the world is dependant on both the degree of civilisational development and whether or not the nation has enough military power to safeguard the progress of civilisation. Yet often there is a conflict between these two basic factors. If one only considers one of the factors and totally ignore the other one, the result would be a great disaster.

From the period of the Sixteen Kingdoms to the period of the Northern and Southern Dynasties (317 - 581 AD, this was a time during which nomadic tribes overran large parts of Northern China and caused immensed sufferings among the people), the people of China suffered great pains from the pillage and plunder of the nomadic invaders. Thus back then whether or not a country could survive primarily depended on the strength of its military power. As a result after the establishment of the Tang Dynasty, the Tang emperor Li Shimin cared the most about the military power of the country, and became obsessed with territorial expansion. He went against the ancient teaching that there is a fundamental distinction between Chinese people and the barbarians and the advice of his ministers, and allowed a large amount of nomadic tribes who have submitted to Chinese power to migrate to China Proper, and many of them were given important posts with military powers. This eventually caused the divisions and civil wars during the later years of the Tang. Later in the late Tang period those who held military power among these barbarians who migrated into China Proper, due to the fact that they have never been truly influenced by Chinese civilisation and therefore lacked care for the Chinese people, rebelled constantly and pillaged and plundered many areas of China Proper. This caused a lot of suffering to the people of Tang China, in which tens of millions lost their lives. In the end an ethnic Turk named Shi Jingtang sold the eighteen districts of Yan-Yun (in today's northern Hebei province, including Beijing) to the Khitan nomads, and thus during the Song Dynasty China lost an important buffer zone againse nomadic invaders.

When the Song and later the Ming emperors looked back on this period of history, they recognised that the divisions and civil wars caused by local warlords with military power were the biggest causes for the problems that occurred. Thus when they designed the official systems for China, they cared too much about limiting the military power of the local generals, but forgot about the danger of nomadic invaders from the north, and the fact that greater amounts of military power in the hands of the local generals would be more effective against foreign invaders. So during the Song Dynasty, before the nomadic people of the north became powerful enough to overran China, kept a very peaceful and harmonious social environment as the risks of division and civil war that occurred during the late Tang were eliminated. During the Song the Chinese economy developed greatly and the GDP of China were several times greater than that of the Tang Dynasty. Many new technologies developed that were centuries ahead of the rest of the world. Yet due to fundamental weaknesses in the military, nomadic peoples such as Khitans, Yurchens and Mongols kept eating away at the territories of China. In the end as Song China was unable to defend against the Mongol invaders, the people of China suffered the greatest disaster in history. Ultimately these occurred due to the failure to consider the whole picture, and the fact that only one particular flaw was identified and solved, but other problems were ignored and forgotten about. Of course, we must not criticise the ancients too strongly, as everything should be placed in a historical context.

A secondary problem is that the political systems of our nation's ancient dynasties were relatively inflexible. These systems emphasise the importance of following the rules set out by the first emperor of a particular dynasty, rather than learn from the systems used by dynasties of the past. During the early Tang, Song and Ming Dynasties, the official systems designed were very effective at that time with very few problems. But in later years of the dynasties the situations had changed, and the flaws in the political systems became increasingly significant. But rather than take up the opportunity to adapt the system in order to fit into the new conditions, the later emperors believed stubbornly that the ways of the first emperor cannot be changed, and therefore lost the chances to improve. In the end this failure to adapt and improve meant the end of the dynasty and often the loss of China to foreign invaders. Indeed had the emperors considered the situation in a more integral way, it is perfectly possible to both avoid civil division and protect China effectively against the barbarians. The generals could be given great military power, as long as they never held permanent posts, or as long as their families lived in places outside the control zone of their armies, and there was an effective supervisory system, so that they could both win battles against China's enemies, and unable to cause problems within the country. During the Han Dynasty for example this problem was not significant. But during the Tang China went to one extreme, and the Song and Ming Dynasties went to the other extreme. This caused immense sufferings among the Chinese people due to civil conflicts and foreign invasions and brutal massacres.

We must be clear about all the successes and failures of the ancients, so that when we reflect on history now and learn lessons from it, we must not think in a simplistic and linear fashion. When we recognise a particular flaw in an old system, we must not only think about how to correct this flaw, and forget about the other flaws which this system was designed to tackle. Otherwise we will shift from one extreme to another: If those who came before over-emphasised on the military, and thus caused suffering among the people and civil wars in the country, then those who came after only recognised that emphasising on the military was not good, and as a result lead to numerous invasions by the nomads from the north, huge amounts of loss and the danger of getting conquered. Yet the government still did not recognise this problem, as they worried too much about generals getting too much power. Even later others recognised that if the country does not focus on the military then it would get bullied, and again they would over-emphasise the military. The cycle would just go on.

This way of simplistic and linear thinking, in which as soon as one recognises a single flaw, one loses all confidence in the cultural heritage of one's ancestors, is particularly problematic in more recent times. After the Opium War of 1840, China was humiliated and bullied by the imperialist powers. In the beginning people thought that the imperalist powers were like the barbaric nomads, and therefore it was not worth it to learn from them. But eventually Chinese people realised that the civilisation of the West indeed does have some advantages, which we should learn from. This should in theory be a positive thing. Yet due to the humiliating defeats of the Sino-Japanese War in 1894-1895 and the War in 1900 in which eight countries invaded China (known as the "boxer rebellion" in the West), the intellectual elite of China lost confidence in the traditional culture of China, and thought that as long as people see their own heritage as complete rubbish and see everything western as good, then the country of China would be saved once people learn the ways of the West. So when fascism was fashionable in the West people in China learnt fascism. When Nazism became fashionable in the West people in China learnt Nazism. The same went for other ideologies such as communism and anarchism, as people thought that even the moon is rounder in the west than it is in China. In actuality Western culture has both positive and negative aspects. Some of the positive and advanced aspects of course deserve to be learnt from, but in those days people did not investigate deeply into Western culture, rather they simply absorbed everything from the West, regardless of whether or not it was positive or negative, as long as it was different from China's old way. This was the result of a simplistic and partial style of thinking. This flawed manner of thought should have been avoided in a culture with great intelligence and a four-thousand year long history such as the Chinese nation.

During the May Fourth Movement, there are people who criticised the problems in traditional Chinese culture and encouraged people to learn from the positive aspects of Western culture. But they are also many people who criticised Chinese Civilisation with a simplistic and linear style of thinking and refused to acknowledge the achievements of Chinese culture in history. And this simplistic way of evaluating Chinese culture is more emotionally based and more intense. Very few people among the cultural elite of that period recognised that the development of civilisation is a very complex matter consisting of a large number of elements, the most difficult among which is the creation of new things, and not criticising the consequences of past culture. To do so would be like after seeing an old computer with poor functions, one simply swears against the person who made the old computer, and this would not make the old computer better. To make the computer better, one must design a new chip. In other words, to develop a civilisation one needs creations, not criticisms. But after our nation has been subjugated by the Manchus, our society lack cohesiveness. There is too much internal conflicts among our people. The ability to both be confident about one's own culture and to humbly learn positive aspects of other cultures which was abundant in the ancient Chinese civilisation has been replaced with an unhealthy habit of looking down on others to make oneself rise up.

A typical example of this unhealthy way of thinking is to view the millennia-old Chinese culture simply as a culture of "man eating man", which is an extreme point of view introduced by the famous 20th century Chinese scholar Lu Xun. One cannot deny the talents of Lu Xun and the great contributions he has made in the field of Chinese literature. It is understandable that Chinese intellectuals often went into a simplistic and erroreous mode of thinking as they felt extremely bad about China's fate and thought about why China was so often bullied, during a period of time when China was humiliated greatly by imperialist powers and the social conflicts within China was unusually intensive. We cannot always blame those who went before us. But today we should realise that Lu Xun's method of trying to solve China's problems via extreme criticisms under an intense emotion of anger is not constructive and will not work. In fact, his extreme view of seeing traditional Chinese culture in a completely negative way is extremely dangerous for the future of our nation if it is not viewed in a clearly way and corrected.

Our cultural heritage, which the ancients have established through countless experiences, cannot be simply represented by phrases such as "man eating man" and words such as "rubbish". Otherwise how could our nation have stood proudly in the world for thousands of years? How could our nation have been the most advanced country in the world for the longest time? Of course, our national culture has flaws and problems, and we should not religiously follow the ancients. But we should know that if we simply criticise our culture in a simplistic and linear manner, not only would we not be able to correct its flaws, but we would also lose its positive aspects. Because our nation has been constantly massacred, plundered, pillaged and controlled by the barbarians, our society has been "barbarianised" to a certain degree and there lacks a kind of compassion for the weak within our society, there lacks a kind of respect for the lives of our compatriots. Our society is not a friendly and harmonious one, there is a lot of internal conflicts and wastage. These are truly the biggest problems in modern Chinese culture. These are truly the fundamental reasons for our civilisation to develop at a slower pace compared with others. The way to correct this should be to restore the values of love and empathy within our traditional culture, so that our social structure can care for the needs of its various classes. If one looks at other advanced nations, even though those nations are not directed by Confucian thoughts, but they are all directed by similar values which establish a rational social structure, constructive internal competition, where everyone could fulfill their potential and their needs. Unfortunately many of China's intellectuals have seen an opposite conclusion. These people think the reason for the advancement of western nations is because they follow the principle of social darwinism, where the weak die and the strong live, and the fittest survive. They think that if one is to be strong then one must always be in conflict. But this means that the way in which society distributes profits among the various classes can only be settled by class conflict. Thus after the fall of the Manchus China had always been in civil war and turmoil. The only people who have benefited from this are the Japanese invaders and the various traitors who served them.

We cannot blame everything on the ancients, but today we have much more information than the ancients ever did, so we must not indulge ourselves in this matter. This type of simplistic and linear thinking can only mean the continuing decline of our nation into a state that can never be restored. Now, under the pressure of some so-called scholars in mainland China who represent the interests of the elite classes of the nomadic ethnicities (e.g. Mongols, Manchus), this situation has become worse. Under the disguise of "criticising Han chauvinism", they intend to totally negate the values of Chinese Civilisation. They throw away the treasures of our culture and worship barbarians such as Genghis Khan and Nurhaci. Yet these "scholars" hid away a truth from the Chinese people: If it wasn't for the great prosperous civilisation created by the Han people, these robbers wouldn't even have enough to fill their stomachs, let alone riches for them to plunder. It is sad that in the 21st century of today, so many people still worship and look up at the Mongol, Tujue and Yurchen (Manchu) ethnicities who have created so much suffering and disaster for countless nations around the world, and look down upon the Chinese Civilisation, which even though is not perfect has nevertheless made great contributions to the world. Such a way of thinking is in the opposite direction of the development of world civilisation, and this is indeed the biggest danger for China.

Under the influence of the barbaric style of thinking of the nomadic ethnicities, many of our people today think about things in a simplistic and linear manner. They do not understand the balance between various positive and negative factors, and do not know the art of deference and moderation. People do not know how to co-ordinate the profit distribution among the various classes in society, so that people can work in a co-operative manner via the division of labour. This does not seem to be the habit of a people who once had an advanced and ancient culture and the ability in think in a very sophisticated manner. It seems more like the way of thinking among barbarians without any culture and sophistication. Even Japan only modernised and became powerful after establishing countless universities, after many years of steady industrial development, after constructing a strong military industry. Yet many modern Chinese simply think Japan's success is completely due to the so-called "Samuarai spirit". During the Second World War many Chinese people thought that as long as people become fearless of death like the Boxer rebels of 1900, China could restore the north-eastern provinces from the hands of the Japanese. This style of thinking might win a few civil wars and internal conflicts, but against foreign aggression it would no doubt be a loss. And if someone learnt lessons from this history using the simplistic style of thinking again, people would once again be trapped inside the endless feedback loop of simplistic thinking.

2. Ultimately, the constantly strong nations in the world are those that possess civilisation

In today's world, there are both people who work diligently to creat wealth, and parasites who plunder wealth from others. Of these two types of people, who is the truly stronger? Under the negative influences of barbaric nomads and imperialist countries in recent centuries, many of our people today have lost confidence in traditional Chinese culture, and mistakenly believe that all the profits of the strong in the world come from military aggression, and that plundering others is the only way to become wealthy. They think that the fundamental reason for our country to experience humiliation in recent times is because traditional Chinese culture does not emphasis on the "martial spirit", does not encourage hegemony, and is not cruel and ruthless enough. These people take for granted that all of the powerful imperialist nations in recent times were robbers and plunderers like the Mongols, and the reason for their power is that they forcefully took wealth and properties from other nations.

We can say that people who hold this type of view neither understand Chinese history nor the history of the world. In this article we cannot discuss in detail the complex and diverse history of the world, but we should recognise that the historical development of every nation in the world follows the same pattern as the development of China, that is wealth is created by labour. Every strong and powerful nation in the world today is backed up by civilisation, and only a civilised society can safeguard the inventions and creations of its people and guarantee the development of science and technology. When there are conflicts between different nations, cruelty and ruthlessness do not guarantee victory. The US can defeat Iraq and the latter cannot fight back at all, not because Americans are more cruel and ruthless than the Iraqis. Nor is it because Americans are intrinsically more intelligent and courageous than the Iraqis. America can defeat Iraq because it has a relatively speaking more rational society, with better systems and rules, so that its people can work in countless universities and research centres to develop science, and its countless companies can develop new technologies as private property can be properly protected. In the end this leads to the combination of the fruits of various subjects, and changes them into planes, missiles, satellites and computers, so that the Iraqis cannot resist. In order for such a rational society to exist, there must also be a certain cultural ethos, which would include moral values that encourage the society to have compassion towards the weak and protect labourers and workers, so that people can co-operate and work together rather than fight each other. The people of Iraq do not lack intelligence, but they lack such a society. No one knows how many highly intelligent Iraqi scientists were executed in secret and buried into mass graves. In Iraq, in order to survive, people must use all their intelligence and talents to prevent themselves from being harmed and killed by others in the constant internal conflicts that ravage the country, rather than to creat and to invent.

Is this world "black" or "white"? Does the wealth of the world comes from creating or plundering? We should say that the world is a mixture of "black" and "white". But we should also recognise which is more advantageous for ourselves, whether to see the world as "black" or as "white". If we see some examples where America and other western nations use military force to plunder the resources of others, and thus say that all the wealth of the west comes from plundering, and when we see people in their societies who encourage people to do righteous and benevolent things, we interpret this as a form of deception in order to get other peoples' wealth, then we are only seeing an incomplete picture of the US and other western nations. The various moral values within western societies that do not encourage plundering but rather encourage righteousness and benevolence are the key conditions that keep their societies from having excessive internal conflicts and internal wastage of energy, so that their societies can keep on inventing and creating. And it is precisely because they are free to constantly develop that they have emerged as the most powerful nations in the world. It is because of their civilisational developments that they have become powerful nations, so that now they have what it takes to bully other countries. This is fundamentally different from the way of the barbaric nomadic tribes such as Mongols and Tujue, who only know how to plunder the wealth of others using brutal violence.

In ancient times where the victory of a war is determined by the number of horses available, there were indeed successful examples of nations that did not develop civilisation but solely rely on violence to plunder others. But after these barbarians used up the wealth they have robbed in a short time, they would once again return to a state of complete poverty. Once upon a time the invincible Mongol empire plunder huge amounts of wealth, they evened brutally opened the bodies of women in order to get the pearls that have been swallowed. But now Outer Mongolia has become an internal beggar, and depends on the aid provided by the descendants of its Chinese victims for survival. As Mr. Wen Zhengyuan has clearly discussed in his article "The fall of barbarism - The lesson of the Mongols", those nations that solely rely on violence and barbarism to have hegemony in the world, will in the end fall into a pathetic state, and be abandoned by history. Those nations who once had brilliant civilisations, but due to the lack of military strength have endured the massacres and destructions done by barbaric invaders, will either be totally exterminated like the Tanguts in Western Xia (An ancient nation is northwestern China that has been genocidally massacred by the Mongols), or completely lose the light of their civilisation, and become the poorest nations in the world like Afghanistan.

Looking back at the millennia-old history of China we can see that the Han people are the most important bearers of civilisations who have created inventions and contributed to the development of science and technology. Han people are the primary drive behind the development of civilisation. Yet historians in mainland China today have a very twisted view of Chinese history. They see the active assimilation of countless ethnic minorities into the Han nation due to their attraction towards the Chinese Civilisation, as evidence for the barbaric expansion of Han chauvinism. This is as stupid as saying the active assimilation of certain elements of western culture by non-western peoples today as the evidence for the barbaric expansion of western imperialism.

At the same time we must remember that the nomadic peoples of northern China are mostly to blame for the stagnation, setbacks and sometimes even reverses in the development of Chinese civilisation over its long history, due to the nomadic peoples' constant plundering, pillaging, massacring and sometimes even genocidal killings of Han people in China Proper. In just the three dynasties of Tang Song and Yuan, around 100 million Han people had been massacred by the nomads of the north. As a Japanese scholar has once estimated, during the era of "Five Barbarians disrupting China" (The Sixteen Kingdoms Era, 317 - 420 AD), up to 200 million Han people had been victims of the barbarian invasions across China. Thus we can safely say that over the entire 2000-year history of the Chinese imperial era, hundreds of millions died under the brutal swords of the barbarians. It is not just lives that were tragically lost under the iron hoofs of the nomads, but also the culture, technology and the humanistic consciousness to strive for civilisation that those lives had forever taken away with them.

Similarly, it is also true that in history there have been some examples of Han people bullying the ethnic minorities. There is no need for us to hide away from this fact. But, whether in ancient times or today, the mainstream culture of the Han nation has for a long time clearly recognised that in a society, a few people could afford to not contribute towards production, and survive solely on the basis of stealing and robbing, but if everyone in the nation does this, then no one can survive since there will not be any wealth to rob. The Han nation is completely differently from the nomadic peoples of the north, who do not contribute towards production and specialise in plundering. The Han people survive through contributing towards production, creating wealth, develop technology and culture. To bully and plunder other nations can only satisfy the selfish desires of a few people in power, but cannot provide any advantages for the survival and development of Han people at large. Thus historically the Han nation have only respected heroes who had protected the lives and wealth of the Han people and resisted barbarians who massacred and plundered, but have never respected the so-called "heroes" who bullied other nations and plundered others' wealth. This is in sharp contrast to the mentality of some nomadic nations, which have constantly worshipped criminals who had massacred tens of millions of Han people and other peoples around the world.

In ancient times, the Han people is the nation that has been the most advanced culture in the world for the longest time. And among all the nations of the world who had once been powerful in their history, the frequency and scale of the Han nation bullying other peoples are among the smallest. And our ancestors have never had theories which promote racism and Han chauvinism and encourage the bullying of other nations. Among the cultural theories that direct the behaviour of Han people, there is only the desire and responsibility to help other nations to abandon barbarism and accept civilisation, and there is never racial bullying and discrimination. Today as we look back on the crimes of the nomadic peoples in the north, we are not doing so in order to bully and destroy their descendants, but only to let China learn from its past experiences, so that it can return to the path of civilisational development in a better way.

It is sad that the mainstream historical view of mainland China today is based on the opposition towards the so-called "Han chauvinism" which has in fact never existed in history. In actual fact this historical view is only using "Han chauvinism" as an excuse, in order to justify the crimes of the nomadic peoples, their acts of plundering and massacring the various ethnic groups of China, and their oppression of the Han people. If we simply allow this trend to continue, we will continue to follow in the wrong direction of the civilisational development during the last few thousand years, and therefore become increasing further away and alienated from the modern civilisation of the world.

Our conclusion is a simple one: If we wish to guarantee the happiness of our descendants, we need two essential factors, none of which must be lacking. Firstly, we must stand resolutely on the path of civilisational development. Secondly we must have enough military power to protect ourselves. Because unfortunately the conflict between countries and nations in this world often follows the darwinian way and is ruthless and merciless. But if within our own nation, within our own society, we strive towards social darwinian ideals, and do not have any care or sense of compassion for our compatriots, do not have the feelings of love and patience, then the energy of every member in our society will be lost in endless internal conflicts, and therefore we would not achieve civilisational development, and not possess the most advanced weapons of the world. When we fight against other nations, we will not be able to stand united and act co-operatively.

If we look back at the golden ages of Chinese history, we can ask this question: Have they guaranteed the two aspects of civilisation and self-defense? Ancient China was similar to today's America, it had a very powerful culture, so that creations and inventions came about constantly. But in our past there were both times when foreigners like Tujue were allowed to hold military power, and thus resulted in large amounts of internal conflicts and great sufferings among the people like the Tang Dynasty, and when people cared excessively about civilisational development and thus created a huge amount of material wealth, but too little about self-defense and therefore got conquered by barbarians like the Song Dynasty. There is also periods such as the Ming Dynasty, in which people cared excessively about resisting barbarians, but not enough about creating a co-operative and harmonious internal society, and thus first lost the nation to roaming bandits, and then to barbaric nomads.

Today, the element that causes the most dangerous risk to our nation, is not the fact that other nations desire to use violence to plunder and enslave us, but that under the negative influence of the barbarian-style thinking of the nomads, the Chinese nation's desire for civilisation has been weakened, even lost to an extent. Our environment today is different from that of ancient times, the factors that determine victory or defeat in conflicts between nations today are the degrees of development of science, technology and weapons. In fact, we can say that victory or defeat is completely determined by the degree of civilisational development. During the war of resistance against Japan half a century ago, our opponents could produce planes, aircraft carriers, artillery, tanks and other modern weapons. Even the United States did not have absolute advantage over the level of advancement of these weapons. Yet in China, every soldier only had four bullets as our factories could not produce enough. China had declined from a place that has once invented gunpowder and the most advanced weapons in the world, to where our soldiers could only use swords to fight against the machine guns of the enemy, and use rifles and hand grenades to fight against their tanks. After the enemy had conquered us, we also no longer had the economic capital to entice our enemy to abandon the policy of genocide and enslavement, and co-exist peacefully with us.

What is even more frightening though, is that many of our people today do not recognise the true reason for our disadvantaged position in that war of resistance. When our soldiers, under such disadvantageous and harsh conditions, protected our survival, freedom and dignity with their tireless fighting, and lost their lives in the process, these people accuse them of being useless and cowardly, criticise them because their casualties were greater than that of the Japanese. They even criticise them because they did not have the "samuari spirit" to commit suicide. They mock those soldiers, saying that without the help of the Soviet Union and the United States, they could not have won the war. But how could they have had less casualties than the Japanese, when they charged into enemies' machine guns only with swords because they had no bullets? The most frightening thing is that these people do not realise that industrial backwardness is the true reason for our disadvantaged position during the war of resistance against Japan. The most frightening thing is that such attitudes would make many of our people feel that to sacrifice themselves for such a nation is meaningless. This is why people say China today is like a plate of scattered sand, and that among our people there is not enough understanding, there is not enough care and compassion between each other. Every Chinese person is thinking of how to take advantage of other Chinese people, as the saying goes, "One Chinese is like a dragon, three Chinese are like worms." The excessive amounts of internal conflicts, the disdain many feel towards the dignity and sufferings of their compatriots, and the degree of lack of cohesiveness among our people, are indeed very unusual among all the nations of the world.

[General_Zhaoyun]

A typical "han-chauvanistic" article...the han-chinese actually learnt various cavalry warfare from the northern nomads, which contributed actively to chinese art of war..

[fcharton]

A well written piece of propaganda (and a nice translation, scp!).

Am I the only one to have noticed these two interesting trends which seem to develop as the article progresses:

1- in the beginning, the author speaks of "our people", "our nation", "china", "the chinese people", but as it proceeds, the word "han people", "han nation", begins to replace it, and appears everywhere. This gradual build up summons unpleasant images of a short guy on a tribune getting more and more excited in front of a huge audience whichs shouts "Han, Han, Han..."...
2- the author begins with a long description of how peaceful chinese are, compared to the violent nomads (probably the newspeak version for the old word barbarian, note that the japanese seem to belong to the nomadic people, here). But again (lo and behold), the military examples tend to become more and more frequent at the end of the article, economic development is put on par with the development of weapon, the good old notion of a "powerful defensive army" begins to pop its head... Again, one can almost hear the leader shouting, "we were stabbed in the back, we must defend ourselves, we must rearm" (to the shouts of the massive crowd, under the light of torches).

Yet, we are just at the middle of the speech (this is obviously a speech), I fear the worst for the next part...

Not my cup of tea, as you probably have guessed (well, that it normal, as I belong to the nomadic republic of France, the French Horde?).

Somechineseperson, you don't buy this, do you? Can't really imagine you in that black uniform, on the tribune, just under the red and black banners...

Francois

This post has been edited by fcharton: 04 January 2006 - 07:56 AM

[urofpersia]

fcharton, on Jan 4 2006, 08:55 PM, said:

A well written piece of propaganda (and a nice translation, scp!).

Am I the only one to have noticed these two interesting trends which seem to develop as the article progresses:

Assuredly you are not the only one. I applaud the effort in translation but fail to see the value of it. It is something only an ultra-nationalist or facist will take to.

[somechineseperson]

urofpersia, on Jan 4 2006, 01:43 PM, said:

Assuredly you are not the only one. I applaud the effort in translation but fail to see the value of it. It is something only an ultra-nationalist or facist will take to.

Actually this article is not ultra-nationalist. Zhao Fengnian is quite old (his profession is a lawyer, if I'm not mistaken), he is not one of those fanatical ultra-nationalist youths. (I should also add Zhao is a Christian) On the Han nationalist forum he is considered to be a moderate and rational Han nationalist. The real ultra-nationalists would consider this article to be "too moderate" and "not aggressive enough".

General_Zhaoyun, on Jan 4 2006, 03:59 AM, said:

A typical "han-chauvanistic" article...the han-chinese actually learnt various cavalry warfare from the northern nomads, which contributed actively to chinese art of war..

He is not saying the Han people should not learn positive things from other peoples. In fact, he is a Christian himself. He is not so much against the "barbarians" themselves as the values they represent: "might over right", "use of violence to settle differences", "lack of compassion towards the weak" etc.

This article is against barbarism, (and he includes the ideology of social darwinism in this category) not necessarily the "barbarians" themselves.

One should read the entire original Chinese article to get a better idea of his points.

This post has been edited by somechineseperson: 04 January 2006 - 10:52 AM

[urofpersia]

somechineseperson, on Jan 4 2006, 10:08 PM, said:

Actually this article is not ultra-nationalist. Zhao Fengnian is quite old (his profession is a lawyer, if I'm not mistaken), he is not one of those fanatical ultra-nationalist youths. (I should also add Zhao is a Christian) On on Han nationalist forum he is considered to be a moderate and rational Han nationalist. The real ultra-nationalists would consider this article to be "too moderate" and "not aggressive enough".

In this I think you are right, he is certainly more moderate compared to the Ultra-nationalists.

[somechineseperson]

fcharton, on Jan 4 2006, 12:55 PM, said:

A well written piece of propaganda (and a nice translation, scp!).

Am I the only one to have noticed these two interesting trends which seem to develop as the article progresses:

1- in the beginning, the author speaks of "our people", "our nation", "china", "the chinese people", but as it proceeds, the word "han people", "han nation", begins to replace it, and appears everywhere. This gradual build up summons unpleasant images of a short guy on a tribune getting more and more excited in front of a huge audience whichs shouts "Han, Han, Han..."...
2- the author begins with a long description of how peaceful chinese are, compared to the violent nomads (probably the newspeak version for the old word barbarian, note that the japanese seem to belong to the nomadic people, here). But again (lo and behold), the military examples tend to become more and more frequent at the end of the article, economic development is put on par with the development of weapon, the good old notion of a "powerful defensive army" begins to pop its head... Again, one can almost hear the leader shouting, "we were stabbed in the back, we must defend ourselves, we must rearm" (to the shouts of the massive crowd, under the light of torches).

Yet, we are just at the middle of the speech (this is obviously a speech), I fear the worst for the next part...

Not my cup of tea, as you probably have guessed (well, that it normal, as I belong to the nomadic republic of France, the French Horde?).

Somechineseperson, you don't buy this, do you? Can't really imagine you in that black uniform, on the tribune, just under the red and black banners...

Francois

Well the French people may have been nomadic barbarians once upon a time, more than 1500 years ago, (so has the Hua Xia people been before about 2000 BC - even the Han Chinese was once upon a time no better than the "barbarians") but your people have long ago accepted the civilising effects of the Christian Civilisation. (You yourself is a Catholic, no?) Thus the French people are no longer "barbarians", but indeed have become one of the most civilised nations in this world.

[fcharton]

somechineseperson, on Jan 4 2006, 03:56 PM, said:

Well the French people may have been nomadic barbarians once upon a time, more than 1500 years ago, (so has the Hua Xia people been before about 2000 BC - even the Han Chinese was once upon a time no better than the "barbarians") but your people have long ago accepted the civilising effects of the Christian Civilisation. (You yourself is a Catholic, no?) Thus the French people are no longer "barbarians", but indeed have become one of the most civilised nations in this world.

I intended this as a joke... What puzzled me is that his point on sedentary chinese vs nomadic plunderers, which has a validity of sorts, tended to corrupt as the story develops, and get to include the Japanese and the western powers of the 19th century. Yet, he still does use this civilised vs nomad analogy, which is then stretched beyond credibility, and just becomes a way to assert the "us against them" motto. (This is usually the point when I begin to be very suspicious of the author's motives).

And yes, I am a catholic, not of the most devout and observant sort, though...
Francois

[Kenneth]

Scp; you seemed unfazed when an earlier Christian site claimed Christianity was in China when 'Europe was barbarian'. The paradox is that hardly seems a Christian notion to me. False pride. Elitism. Belittlement.
Any past distinction with barbarians is subjective, and today totally irrelevent, yet this article keeps rallying against 'nomads' and 'barbarians' like they still exist.
Believe what you like but it is fascism. Sieg Heil!

here are a few select pieces, but the essay basically dwells on outdated ideas of military strength = mighty nation which is negelcting the role of economics in global positioning in the world today.
To call America a great civilisation as an example to match up to is debatable! Building a big army is not a solution, economic strength, properity and standards of living come first!
All the other stuff about 'nomads' and such....bizzare. Is this guy mentaly ill?

Funny how some people dont see this as 'Han chauvanism' & he denys it ever existed! {despite the clear distinctions btwn 'Chinese' & 'non-Chinese' in the past.}
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it probably is a duck. Han Chauvanism.

Quote

Looking back at the millennia-old history of China we can see that the Han people are the most important bearers of civilisations who have created inventions and contributed to the development of science and technology {really? case closed?}. Han people are the primary drive behind the development of civilisation.
{huh? I thought Afroids invented world 'civilisation'! (just kidding).}

In ancient times, the Han people is the nation that has been the most advanced culture in the world for the longest time.
{although in truth Chinese were in the Neolithic while others were already true 'civilisations, but never let broader truth interfere with 'feel good'. Petty claims of past glories without qualification are more useful}
And among all the nations of the world who had once been powerful in their history, the frequency and scale of the Han nation bullying other peoples are among the smallest.
{how do you figure that? Did China militarally expand by throwing flowers at the 'barbarians'? Do people just turn Chinese without a few swords being stabbed into their bellies?}

And our ancestors have never had theories which promote racism and Han chauvinism and encourage the bullying of other nations. Among the cultural theories that direct the behaviour of Han people, there is only the desire and responsibility to help other nations to abandon barbarism and accept civilisation,
{Sieg Heil! Yay Chinese culture! Boo & Raspberries to 'barbarians!'}

Today, the element that causes the most dangerous risk to our nation, is not the fact that other nations desire to use violence to plunder and enslave us, but that under the negative influence of the barbarian-style thinking of the nomads {huh? ***? violence & plunder? barbarian style nomads? Genghis who?}, the Chinese nation's desire for civilisation has been weakened.....

It is sad that the mainstream historical view of mainland China today is based on the opposition towards the so-called "Han chauvinism" which has in fact never existed in history.

....and you fail to see any distortions in the above world view?
Forget the concept of 'barbarians'. That smug self view in itself is what caused China to fall into decay.
As I read last night there is a tendancy amongst some that if Chinese civilisation is/was not 100% unique and independently creative then China loses prestige. Is that really so?
To be able to share with and learn from the outside should be more admirable and lead to a better ability to compete. No society is an island or should be seen as insular and 'civilising' others. Societies should adapt and appropriate what is needed.
This central kingdom idea is a throw back and his views (as well as talking about todays 'nomadic' threat) seem to be failing to note how times changed in the last 2,000 years.
Sieg Heil!

[Yang Zongbao]

Almost too rude there with Sieg Heil. I don't think SCP is a Nazi.

But, yes. Propoganda at its best, everyone?

Han Nationalist Forum? Bleh. As if we needed a Chinese Version of Stormfront. I thought Shenzhou was pretty bad. Unless Shenzhou/CNA and Han Nationalist Forum are the same.

[Kenneth]

Sieg Heil is contreversial but it makes a point. I dont think Scp is a Nazi either, but it is an odd sort of article he submits for CHF.
I salute Zhao Fengnian, on his soapbox! He has opened my eyes! {clicks heels together, puffs out chest, raises arm in salute!}
"S--g H--l!"
Nazism was my initial fascination to study history, and after reading plenty of the Aryan style rubbish, (even a paper from the Nazis called 'Jesus was an Aryan') I can see the risks in taking the logic the 'WE' (Nordic/Han/Afroids etc) alone invented all that was beautiful and noble in the world. All noble acts stem from the hand of the creative (Aryan/Hanren/Nubians). The outside people are untermenshen, 'barbarians', inferior, etc.
If I see Chinese going down that road in literature, or our beloved new Nubain member (that melanin thing was a hoot!) then I dont find it any more admirible than when a white bigot blames decline in civilisation on Jews or a Chinese blames...what did he say? Nomads?


Edit;
''your people have long ago accepted the civilising effects of the Christian Civilisation.'' says Scp. Roman Britian was pagan. Christianity comes later after 'civilisation'. The idea Celts needed 'civilising' has more to do with the Roman written histories and the fixation on human sacrifice. I dont especically admire one or the other.
Prehistoric Britian did quite well without either Romans or Christianity. Barbarian is quite a subjective idea, and a throwback to the language of conquerors.

This post has been edited by Kenneth: 04 January 2006 - 05:50 PM

[fcharton]

Yang Zongbao, on Jan 4 2006, 11:08 PM, said:

Almost too rude there with Sieg Heil. I don't think SCP is a Nazi.

But, yes. Propoganda at its best, everyone?

Han Nationalist Forum? Bleh. As if we needed a Chinese Version of Stormfront. I thought Shenzhou was pretty bad. Unless Shenzhou/CNA and Han Nationalist Forum are the same.

They are not... Intrigued by SCP's reference to this forum, I google the forum, it is apparently a separate one. As it is all in chinese (quite logically) and as I was doing this from work (shame on me!), I just had a brief look, but SCP is right, this stuff is pretty tame compared to a couple of others I have seen there, and Shenzhou, for all its racial rambling, looks a bit like kintergarden stuff in comparison... Yuck!!!

Francois

[somechineseperson]

Kenneth, on Jan 4 2006, 08:31 PM, said:

Scp; you seemed unfazed when an earlier Christian site claimed Christianity was in China when 'Europe was barbarian'. The paradox is that hardly seems a Christian notion to me. False pride. Elitism. Belittlement.
Any past distinction with barbarians is subjective, and today totally irrelevent, yet this article keeps rallying against 'nomads' and 'barbarians' like they still exist.
Believe what you like but it is fascism. Sieg Heil!

The author is not a Nazi. He is against barbarism and the values it represents, not necessarily against the "barbarians" themselves. (Or for that matter any concrete group of people) This is very unlike the Nazis, who are always against some concrete group (or groups) of people. (E.g. the Jews)

The "barbarians" may be no more, but their influences remain in present-day Chinese culture and mentality. It is these cultural/psychological elements that the author is against.

Quote

here are a few select pieces, but the essay basically dwells on outdated ideas of military strength = mighty nation which is negelcting the role of economics in global positioning in the world today.
To call America a great civilisation as an example to match up to is debatable! Building a big army is not a solution, economic strength, properity and standards of living come first!
All the other stuff about 'nomads' and such....bizzare. Is this guy mentaly ill?

Economics is certainly very important, but ultimately it is still military strength that guarantees essential survival. Money is not much use when someone points a gun at your head.

Quote

Funny how some people dont see this as 'Han chauvanism' & he denys it ever existed! {despite the clear distinctions btwn 'Chinese' & 'non-Chinese' in the past.}
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it probably is a duck. Han Chauvanism.

To appreciate his point on this, one needs to have some basic knowledge of certain ethnic policies of the PRC and their origins.

Quote

....and you fail to see any distortions in the above world view?
Forget the concept of 'barbarians'. That smug self view in itself is what caused China to fall into decay.
As I read last night there is a tendancy amongst some that if Chinese civilisation is/was not 100% unique and independently creative then China loses prestige. Is that really so?
To be able to share with and learn from the outside should be more admirable and lead to a better ability to compete. No society is an island or should be seen as insular and 'civilising' others. Societies should adapt and appropriate what is needed.
This central kingdom idea is a throw back and his views (as well as talking about todays 'nomadic' threat) seem to be failing to note how times changed in the last 2,000 years.
Sieg Heil!

No the author is not promoting the "we are superior, everyone else is inferior" kind of Sinocentrism. Indeed, he emphasises that during the heydays of the ancient Chinese civilisation (such as the Tang Dynasty), the Chinese people had both the confidence in one's own cultural heritage and the humility to learn from others. I think you probably misunderstood his points.

[somechineseperson]

Quote

Looking back at the millennia-old history of China we can see that the Han people are the most important bearers of civilisations who have created inventions and contributed to the development of science and technology {really? case closed?}. Han people are the primary drive behind the development of civilisation.
{huh? I thought Afroids invented world 'civilisation'! (just kidding).}

He means in the context of China, that is to say, within China the Han people are the primary drive behind the development of civilisation. I don't think this can be refuted.

He is not saying world civilisation all came from the Han Chinese.

Quote

In ancient times, the Han people is the nation that has been the most advanced culture in the world for the longest time.
{although in truth Chinese were in the Neolithic while others were already true 'civilisations, but never let broader truth interfere with 'feel good'. Petty claims of past glories without qualification are more useful}
And among all the nations of the world who had once been powerful in their history, the frequency and scale of the Han nation bullying other peoples are among the smallest.
{how do you figure that? Did China militarally expand by throwing flowers at the 'barbarians'? Do people just turn Chinese without a few swords being stabbed into their bellies?}

He is not saying the Chinese Civilisation is the oldest. He says "the Han people is the nation that has been the most advanced culture in the world for the longest time", although this claim itself is strictly speaking debatable, it is not semantically equivalent to the claim that "China is the oldest civilisation".

He is not denying that the Han people did bad things to other peoples in history. He is saying among powerful nations, the Han people did the least amount of bad things. Although it is debatable as well, he is not denying any obvious facts.

Quote

And our ancestors have never had theories which promote racism and Han chauvinism and encourage the bullying of other nations. Among the cultural theories that direct the behaviour of Han people, there is only the desire and responsibility to help other nations to abandon barbarism and accept civilisation,
{Sieg Heil! Yay Chinese culture! Boo & Raspberries to 'barbarians!'}

He means in principle. Ancient China discriminates people based primarily on culture, not on race.

Quote

Today, the element that causes the most dangerous risk to our nation, is not the fact that other nations desire to use violence to plunder and enslave us, but that under the negative influence of the barbarian-style thinking of the nomads {huh? ***? violence & plunder? barbarian style nomads? Genghis who?}, the Chinese nation's desire for civilisation has been weakened.....

He means to some extent present-day China is a "barbarianised" China, in the sense that values associated with barbarism, such as the tendency for violence and other non-legal means to settle dispute, the lack of moral concerns, the lack of concern for the dignity of our compatriots and of human life in general, and the lack of compassion towards the weak, are quite prevalent in contemporary Chinese society. He argues that these tendencies, which are contrary to the direction of civilisational development, is, culturally and socially, a big danger for the Chinese nation today.

Quote

It is sad that the mainstream historical view of mainland China today is based on the opposition towards the so-called "Han chauvinism" which has in fact never existed in history.

Again, to understand this point, one needs to have some basic knowledge of previous PRC politics. Essentially, the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) was told by the Soviet Russians (Stalin) to criticise "Han chauvinism" in China. The Russians themselves promote Russian chauvinism in the Soviet Union, but asks all of its communist allies to criticise chauvinism in their own countries.

The official position of the Chinese Communist Party and the PRC government has therefore always been against "Han chauvinism".

The author argues that this is no more than a political tool used by the Russians to stop other communist countries, such as China, become nationalistic, in order to avoid strategic problems for Russia itself.

This post has been edited by somechineseperson: 05 January 2006 - 06:05 PM

[somechineseperson]

fcharton, on Jan 4 2006, 11:54 PM, said:

They are not... Intrigued by SCP's reference to this forum, I google the forum, it is apparently a separate one. As it is all in chinese (quite logically) and as I was doing this from work (shame on me!), I just had a brief look, but SCP is right, this stuff is pretty tame compared to a couple of others I have seen there, and Shenzhou, for all its racial rambling, looks a bit like kintergarden stuff in comparison... Yuck!!!

Francois

I used to go to Haanen a lot, but now I rarely visit it. There are many reasons for this:

1. I am more of a culturally-oriented "nationalist", I find Haanen to be often too militaristic.

2. There are too many extremists, ultra-nationalists and fanatical youths (though I am certainly not that old myself, but I would like to think I am not a fanatic) on Haanen. I consider ultra-nationalism to be false nationalism because it is not good either for our nation or for the individuals involved.

3. Some Haanen members are Nazi-inclined.

4. Although there are a number of Christians and Confucians on Haanen, many Haanen members are against Christianity and Confucianism.

5. Despite Zhao Fengnian's article against barbarism and associated values such as social darwinism, there are still too many people influenced strongly by social darwinism on Haanen. Some people talks about how the Han nation is too pacifist, how it needs more "martial spirit" and even "wolf nature", and so on.

In addition to these, a recent post of mine on Haanen seems to have been deleted.

I think there are better nationalist forums out there.