Recently there has been some controversy in the Chinese-language section regarding this bestselling book in China. I have heard of it, but have never read it and don't intend to, but I know that some members here have.

Does it really glorify nomadic culture as strong and agrarian culture as weak? Does it really credit all military conquests and imperial expansion in Chinese history to the infusion of nomadic 'blood' into the Han ethnicity?

Somechineseperson vehemently despises the Mongol and other steppe-nomad empires as no more than mass murderers and rapists who destroyed societies. This, however, runs counter to present trends in both Western and Chinese historiography, which emphasize the role of the Mongols in building contacts between east and west, and which also avoid making value judgments on nomadic conquests. Indeed, there has been a strong current of sympathy and romanticization for the steppe nomad, perhaps partly because of our own disenchantment with urban life.

Let me introduce an earlier debate in Communist historiography, in the early 1950s. At that time, the Soviet historians were portraying Chinggis Khan as a wholly negative destroyer of civilized societies, partly also because of Russia's own experience of being under Mongol rule. The ROC historians had been doing the same before 1949, for Han nationalistic reasons. The PRC historians, however, began trying to integrate the Mongol minority into Chinese history by emphasizing their positive contributions and describing Chinggis Khan as a great Chinese leader. This was politically necessary for creating a sense of inter-ethnic unity and harmony, but the Soviets were outraged by the 'revisionism'. Of course, it got worse as the Sino-Soviet split began on the political front.

I personally try not to either demonize or romanticize nomads. I see them on their own terms, as products of a different culture and a different environment who were driven by economic neccessity to raid settled communities for the resources they could not get through herding. A "trade or raid" continuum has been postulated by scholars, in which the nomads raided when the Chinese state cut off trading links with them. But others have argued that even when there was trade, raiding was always more attractive. Of course, when it comes to the building of huge empires by nomadic groups, rather than pure raiding, greed and ambition were clearly major driving forces. But are we to think that nomad leaders are greedier and more ambitious than sedentary leaders?

What does "Wolf Totem" say about this issue? Does it just romanticize nomads, or does it look at economics as well?

I think if we were to study historical civilisations around the world, many of the earlier empires were created by expansions of rulers from nomadic tribes having gotten (conquered) a strong supporting base of agrarian people, who unfortunately serve very much like slaves in deed if not in name.

Nomads had developed strong expertise in horsemanship which aided them greatly in warfare, and also nurtured a kind of perspective which made them look beyond the next hilltop with curiousity if not hunger.

As for the other side of the coin: the question is does agrarian society breed complacency and a sedentary outlook?

Personally, I always thought the weakness lie not in the Central Chinese dynasties being agrarian, but rather the restriction on trading.

I once posted that I thought the ruling elites and the bureaucrats found it easier to keep peasant farmers under control rather than the merchants who were not rooted to the land.

The reason why China had periods of vibrancy under the nomadic rulers was because of the free trade which boosted the interaction of people from within and without the empire.

Nomadic rulers who were only interested to razing cities into pastures would not contribute to development and growth and certainly not vibrancy.

Case in point: the region of Guangzhou could hardly claim to have been infused with a large influx of nomads from the north, but the opening of the ports to traders from as far as Arabia made the region one of the most vibrant in Chinese history, when the ports were opened.

There might be some truth that nomadic people might be more open to new ideas than agrarian people or the bureaucrats who lived off the fats of the land.

But if we were to really examine the roots of vibrancy and development, it is not an issue whether one is a nomad or a farmer, though the latter is more at risk to suffer stagnation.

The Italian peninsula suffered some of the darkest period in its history after the fall of Rome to the barbarians.

However, its revival was primarily due to the merchant class, in Venice, Genoa, Florence etc.
Rome was one of the last to experience rebirth.

However, Guangzhou was already open to trade in the Han dynasty after Nan Yue was conquered by Han Wudi. It's likely that it was even a trading port under Nan Yue. It's just that the Arabs were not a major sea trading power until after the Islamic conquests. Before the Arabs, the Yue and Malays dominated the South China Sea trade.

Actually I don't think they were completely evil either for the simple philosophical reason that nothing in our world can be completely good or evil. Perfect goodness only exists in the realm of religion and meta-ethics. I am not "demonising" them so to speak.

However, I don't see why anyone should deliberately try to dampen down the amount of destruction caused due to either ideological or other reasons, if they did indeed happen in history, which as far as I know did happen since many primary sources from China, West Asia and Eastern Europe testify to this.

Historiographical trends are ok as long as the basic facts are not deliberately neglected as in the case of many mainland Chinese history books.

True all wars are destructive to some extent (even modern warfare like the US-Iraq War) but there is still a significant difference in the level of destruction. In fact, even the level of destruction due to nomadic (actually not all nomadic as the Qiang and Di were settled peoples) invasions during the Age of Fragmentation was significantly less than that of the Mongol invasions, due to the fact that the "five barbarians" were either settled peoples or were more sinised than the Mongols. See for example A History of Chinese Civilisation by Jacques Gernet.

I realise that sometimes my opinions may seem somewhat extreme to many people, and if that is really the case, then I apologise. In fact, I must admit there is an ethical problem here as well which is why I don't find criticising the Mongols as easily as Zhao Fengnian does. Zhao Fengnian really is a Christian and he really seems to think Christianity is perfectly compatible with his brand of Han nationalism. I have emailed him about this before. I am not going to judge him in anyway regarding his belief that Christianity is compatible with Han nationalism, I think in principle they are compatible but Zhao is still a bit too extreme for my taste. (But he is still much more moderate than many people on Haanen) The ethical problem is this: I believe it is factually true that Mongols have commited more evil than Han people did in general, however, I still find it hard to directly criticise the Mongols as a people (which is why I usually either just criticise an individual like Genghis Khan - which I think is ethically more justifiable since we seem to have no problems with criticising Hitler harshly, or post Zhao's criticism of them instead of voicing my own) because both Christian and Confucian ethics are against what Mencius called 五十步笑百步 (The one who has ran away from the battlefield 50 steps laughing at the one who has ran away 100 steps), essentially even though I've sinned less than the other person, both of us still all sinned, so it doesn't seem right for me to explicitly criticise him as if I am free of sin. For this ethical reason I do not agree with criticisms against the Mongol ethnicity as a whole, I think criticism should be reserved for individuals (in this case the criticism will be almost in the "legal" sense as a "crime against humanity") and individual events (again, criticism in the legal sense), however, it is impossible to criticise an entire nation in any legal sense so I try to refrain from that. (If I am guilty of this anyway then I apologise for it)

Even better is to criticise cultural values instead of peoples. Jesus said we should be forgiving even towards evil people, however he never said we should forgive evil ideas. (There is a Christian saying "I love you but I hate your sin") It may be wrong to judge people explicitly, but no one ever said anything is wrong with judging ideas. So I think it is wiser and ethically more justifiable to voice criticisms at the cultural level instead of the level of people. I do not believe the cultural values of certain nomadic groups before their contact with civilisation and civilised ethics such as Confucianism, Christianity and Buddhism are good ones. Many people might argue well the nomads had a "warrior ethic" and had superior strength, surely there is some good in that. I think this is true only to a very slight extent though because the so-called "warrior ethic" and strength is certainly not in any way restricted to nomadic groups. There are many examples of such ethics (and indeed much more developed and morally sound ones) from civilised societies too, for example, both Christianity and Confucianism have their own "warrior ethic". So the nomadic "warrior ethic" does not really have much value in my opinion. Many mainland Chinese people (including many Han nationalists) believe that Han culture lack the "warrior ethic" and does not have enough "martial spirit" and they tend to look up to the nomadic cultures for that. However, I think this view is mistaken. It's partly due to a very unfortunate stereotype that has developed which picture the Han people as useless weaklings, which is far from the truth. In fact, the Southern Song Dynasty resisted the Mongol invasion for the longest time in all of the civilised areas they conquered. It's just that the Han warrior ethic is a more morally responsible one based on moral principles as well as martial strength which many people nowadays do not like.

At any rate, even if you think any criticism is really not justifiable, then at least one can simply lay out the historical facts themselves. It is a historical fact (as far as I know) that the Mongol invasion was significantly more destructive than usual inter-dynastic warfare in ancient China (even more so than warfare during the Age of Fragmentation), and I see no reason to deliberate hide this fact for any ideological reason. (Yet currently mainland China does hide this) Indeed, we should all have a respect for the Truth, and historical facts should ideally never be deliberately hidden in any circumstance.



The problem with the book "Wolf Totem" is much deeper than this. This book explicitly features anti-Han racism (it's a case of "self-racism" since the author is Han Chinese - unfortunately many Han people nowadays seem to have some degree of inferiority complex it seems), that the Han people are intrinsically weak by blood and require the blood of the nomads before they can gain strength to do great things. It also includes some religious element stating that somehow the Mongol invasions and such were ordained by the Supreme God of Heaven (what the Altaic peoples call Tengri, we Han people call Him Shangdi). Ok, theologically it is true that since God is the Ground of Being for everything, everything that has happened must have been ultimately allowed by God. However, this does not mean God approves everything that happens. I do not believe Shangdi would approve of the genocidal killings of innocent civilians caused by the Mongol invasions, much less than to actually ordain it, which is what the book is trying to suggest. I mean think about it: imagine someone makes a similar statement about a certain Islamic nation, what do you think would happen? Suppose someone said that the Mongols were ordained by Allah to slaughter innocent Muslim Persians and rape Persian women and such is the all merciful will of Allah. How would Muslims react? In mainland China, Hui Muslims have threatened to kill authors of books that are much more mild than this one. Yet in China today where the Han people forms the majority of the population, this book is actually quite popular. Is this not perplexing? Something is going wrong with contemporary Chinese culture, perhaps.

This is not to say the book is totally without any value, however. In fact from the literary perspective some of its contents are quite well-written, especially the detailed descriptions of the author's experiences with the ethnic Mongol peoples he encountered. I agree with the author actually that the vast majority of ethnic Mongols today are quite decent people, there are some anti-Han ultranationalists but they are the small minority. Indeed, one could say the Mongol people today is very different from the Mongols under Genghis Khan, they have been reformed by Buddhist ethics over the centuries. The author also talks about environmental issues, how he thinks the native nomads protect the environment in Inner Mongolia better than the Han settlers, again this is not totally without value. However, the positive things in this book does not and cannot compensate for the explicit anti-Han racist contents there. Nor is there any good logical connection between these positive points and the "nomadic warrior culture" that the author attempts to glorify at the expense of historical facts. Most modern Mongols are decent precisely because they have been civilised by the ethical values of civilisation (e.g. Buddhism), not because of their ancient pre-civilisational "warrior ethic", indeed, let's imagine the Mongols todays were still behaving according to the ancient "ethic", then this author probably would not have been able to write any books since he would have been robbed and then killed! Genghis Khan killed his own brother for a mere fish, how well do you think a Han outsider would have fared? There is no connection in my opinion between ecological environmental protection and nomadic warrior ethic either, for most ecological ethics are found in civilised cultures such as Buddhism, unless one want to make the stretched argument that the massacring of innocent people is good for the environment as it makes more room for the animals (this is the possibility Zhao Fengnian's article suggested), I don't think (I hope not in any case) the author is trying to argue in this way.

So the racist elements in this book certainly outweighs all of its positive point. If a book makes racist elements like this, then it's just plain bad, no amount of literary brilliance will be able to compensate for it.

Imagine if a white person wrote this book, then many Chinese people here would probably be outraged, but why should we respond so differently simply because the author is also Han Chinese?

So do you mean to say until the Arabs came, it was traditionally considered a cultural backwater because the main participants of the trade were not the ethnic Hans who left many records behind?

I actually found a Chinese website which seemed to carry the entire text of the book - the reflection on the respect of copyright laws in China.

I have not read the whole thing, but from the first chapter and last chapter, I noted the author Jiang Rong (姜戎) was recounting the experiences of a man named Chen Zhen (陈阵) being posted to the steppes until circa 1975.

While many of the criticisms were derived from real-life anecdotes, postulating a social science theory on the basis of personal experiences would present a very skewed point-of-view.

The changing landscape of the Inner Mongolia couched in destructive terms could probably mirrored by the transformation of the American mid west in the 19th-20th century. It was not without reason there existed the Dust Bowls in in Oklahoma in the 1930s. Environmentalists had existed in the US since the 19th century, but the US only took action when it felt was rich enough.

I do not see the justification in singling out ethnic Hans China for a blame-game in this instance.

When a person becomes equipped to handle a particular tool, e.g., a hammer, every problem would appear like a nail to him, to be hammered down.

BTW, why is the thread about the book "Wolf Totem" in the folder for "Five Dynasties, Song, Liao, Jin and Yuan"?


Perhaps it might be of interest to you to know that beginning from the 18th century, as a reaction to the increasingly urbanised life in Europe/America, there arose a notion of the "Noble Savage".

You can find more info at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage
The most recognisable icon today of the Noble Savage is the fictional character, created by Edgar Rice Burroughs, named Tarzan.

Because the book is primarily about the reasons for the rise of the Mongols, and has implications for assessing the history of the Yuan dynasty.



But Buddhism didn't make the Mongols pacifists any more than it did for other societies. Have you heard of Mahakala? He's a fearsome guardian deity in Buddhism that became the Mongols' patron deity and war god after they adopted Tibetan Buddhism: http://www.asianart.com/exhibitions/nies/15.html

http://www.exoticindiaart.com/article/wrathful

http://www.npm.gov.tw/english/exhbition/ea...ainframe1_6.htm


(from http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/grimsl...waley_cohen.htm )

More on the Mongol adoption of Tantric Buddhism: http://www.asiasociety.org/arts/mongolia/buddha.html

I never read the book so I can't comment. In regards to the above paragraph, one point that occurred to me is that when it comes to expansion by military means, nomadic people have one big advantage over more stationary societies. War expenses.

Whereeas typically for any society to go to war, there are frequently large sums to be raised for everything from raising an army, feeding the army etc. The nomadic don't have to 'train' or arm any warriors, every adult male is a warrior. (In a harsh nomadic environments, weaklings would not have been tolerated except in special circumstances, you either grew up tough or you don't grow up at all. The weapons of war are things they carry with them in their normal times of their lives.

Thus it is easier for a nomad leader to say, let's go to war then say his counterpart living in a walled city.

I am not sure if I would agree with that.
I think the author meant the book for the modern audience, a sort of a reflection from life at the frontier and how it changed the way he looked at urban dwellers.



Perhaps the above passage was where the most objection arises.

I have not found the part which call for a re-assessment of the Yuan Dynasty. I don't plan to read the entire thing either, but I might just browsed a little here and there.

A quick internet search found numerous discussions in Chinese on the book 《狼图腾》, many condemning the author, with a few others praising him.

Personally, I think the reaction has been blown out of proportion, and those who condemn most viciously are taking things too personally.

While some of the terms are quite insulting to the ethnic Hans, I think most people have rather misplaced values.

Many of the so-called Great Achievements of Chinese dynasties were gained at the expense of the blood and misery of countless people - both ethnic Han and non ethnic Han.

The so-called great things achieved by the infusion of wolf's blood mentioned by the author was accomplished at no less a cost to those in the lower strata of society.

The only difference between the achivements of the wolf pack and the dragon might be the "wolves' society" have a flatter hierarchy compared to the "dragon's society" - there is a more even distribution of the spoils among the wolves than with a dragon.

But at the end of the day, the most significant price are still paid by those at the bottom.

The author forgot to mention that in the Mongol society which went on to conquer the world, there are proportionately more slaves to warriors just as there are proportionately more peasants to nobles in the agrarian societies.

Life among the ancient Mongolians was not that of total equality.
Women were still chattels. Children could and were sold into slavery.

Perhaps more egalitarian when compared to the agrarian society, but it is no paradise.

Wolves could only become strong and remain strong by devouring sheeps.
And there would always be more sheeps than wolves, or the wolves would not have prospered.

The author forgot that the achievements of the wolves also came at the expense of the sheeps.

Whether it is the dragon devouring the sheeps or the wolves devouring the sheeps, there is hardly any difference that sheeps need to be sacrificed.

A truly great culture is where they could achieve greatness without causing misery, without needing people to be sheeps.

It was considered a cultural backwater even after the Arabs came - a highly profitable outpost for tapping into the South China Sea trade, but surrounded by 'barbarians' and the sea. But for that same reason, it was very exotic to the Chinese, something like early Singapore to the British. Edward Schafer's book "The Vermillion Bird" gives a very good account of exotic Tang images of Lingnan (i.e. Guangdong). Guangdong only gradually became an integral part of Chinese culture in late imperial times, through settlement from the north.



True for the horses and the bows, but metal-working was largely dependent on sedentary resources and expertise. That's one big reason the Han tried to cut the Tarim Basin and Gansu Corridor off from the Xiongnu - it was where they got their iron from.

Seems like sophisticated agrarian societies therefore have something that the nomadic people need/want, while on the other hand, there is little that the agrarian society want of the nomads?

Sometimes they wanted horses from the nomads, since horse-raising land was limited south of the steppe. But the nomads were of course going to make sure that they got a lot in return for their horses. The Uyghurs, after the An Lushan rebellion, sold even inferior horses to the Tang for exorbitant prices (including silk and tea).

When the nomads were hostile, the Chinese state would try to match them militarily by getting horses from Central Asia - another reason why the Han held on to the Tarim Basin. See also Han Wudi's expedition to get 'Heavenly Horses' from Ferghana.

Sentiments exactly like these rose in Russia a hundred years ago. It was called "Eurasianism". This caused so much identity crises among russians that they still haven't recovered. I say chinese should stick to their story, and we to ours.

Thats not the reason why Han held on to Tarim, most of Han's import of horses came from WuSun and Da Yuan. Both of which it did not control directly, Han WuDi's campaign against Ferghana is to punish them for killing his envoy, getting horses is just secondary, Da Yuan has been trading with the Han in horses for a long time, its only the top quality horses that are not given, and their numbers are far too small to make any military difference.

as an American, I like it when Mongols are shown in a positive light

but as a Chinese, I don't like the idea of Han Chinese with such an inferiority complex.

I don't think acknowledging that infusion of nomadic blood introduces new dynamism is equivalent to having inferiority complex.

I have no issue with the notion that the agrarian society could stagnate due to complacency, and that having nomadic raiders shake things up and give the impression of refreshed vigour.

What I do caution against is to simplistically state that an agrarian society is doomed to stagnation while a nomadic society would always bring in new developments.

The author Jiang Rong wrote some rather provocative paragraphs, and his extremist views indicated he was unfamiliar with of the some fundamentals of history.

Nonetheless, given how obstuse Chinese have demonstrated they could be in history, perhaps he felt it was such provocation was necessary as a wake-up call.

One possibility is that the author might be of the opinion that too many Chinese are proud of the Chinese history when China was supposedly ahead of the rest of the world, but few Chinese could really understand why China fell behind and suffered so much as the consequences.

But didn't the Han need to have a military presence in the Tarim in order to protect trade with Wusun and Ferghana?

that's a good way of looking at it. What I was opposing was the idea of "achievements are from nomad blood" which smells too much like that kooky white supremacist argument of 'samurais descended from whites! etc.'

Only, if the Xiongnu interfere with the entire area. However, at this time, Xiongnu is not strong enough to exert its control over Tarim and block out Han envoys. Remember, Han did NOT conquer the tarim during WuDi, the northern portion of Tarim is still under Xiongnu vassalage. Han WuDi only subdued loulan and defeated Ju Shi in 108 B.C. with 800 men, general Ma Tong again defeated Ju Shi in 90 B.C., but that kingdom swung back and forth between Xiongnu and Han control, until the Han finally won in 60 B.C.
All the time since Han started the horse trading during Wudi, there was no direct control over the Tarim. There were at most a few hundred military colonies between Loulan and Karashar after Li Guan Li subdued Da Yuan but no more. Guan Wu Di and Han Zhang Di was also perfectly willing to abandon the Tarim.

http://en.chinabroadcast.cn/1857/2004-12-7/14@176589.htm

Jiang Rong and His "Wolf Totem"
2004-12-7 15:53:44 CRIENGLISH.com
'Wolf Totem' can hardly be called a novel, but rather a dedicated piece of research, in this case, research devoted to all that is Mongolian, with folk tradition, anthropology, history and philosophy binding together the book's various theories.

It has taken 30 years of Jiang Rong's life to complete the novel "Wolf Totem." In fact a work of this depth can hardly be called a novel, but rather a dedicated piece of research, in this case, research devoted to all that is Mongolian, with folk tradition, anthropology, history and philosophy binding together the book's various theories. More simply put, it tells of the lives of Mongolians on the grasslands and of their complicated feelings towards the wolf.

Despite the weight of learning behind it, "Wolf Totem" is not a purely academic undertaking, and therefore better examined alongside other sophisticated historical epics such as Tolstoy's "War and Peace." This is a book full of fascinating historical accounts and legends, yet it is the philosophical conclusions drawn from these histories which have caused the most discussion among critics.

"Wolf Totem" as a novel vividly reflects the colorful lives of the Mongolian and describes the valiant, courageous and strong characters which are formulated in the bitter natural environment they inhabit. Pertaining to this natural environment, the wolf, as the soul of the grasslands, has played a key role in the Mongolian people's development. Legendary wolves, vast grasslands and valiant herdsmen form a metaphorical triangle in Wolf Totem: Wolves represent the heaven, grasslands represent the earth, and herdsmen represent the people. Jiang Rong's descriptions of Mongolia's terrible predators are touching for their humanized observations and compliments. Although the wolf is a terrifying animal, it also has a terrible beauty.

Whilst much of the book lies with wolves and myths, this is only part of a broader philosophy. Jiang Rong's philosophical point is his concept of ethnic existence. He thinks different ethnic character depends on different ethnic existence. To expound, ethnic character refers to an ethnic group's behavior and attitude towards heaven, earth, and people, while ethnic existence refers to the original natural environment of an ethnic group and the industries which developed from this environment, industries like hunting or farming. Jiang Rong has done a great deal of historical research to explain this theory, which he uses to explain China's entire history, and even touch upon the history of the whole world.

It is obvious that the Jiang Rong has made great efforts to develop his theory, and a new interpretation is nearly always a welcome one. Meng Fanhua, a famous critic, takes a positive attitude, believing that modern people need to look at the wolf's story to reflect on the development of human society, where romanticism has replaced heroism. However for Meng Fanhua, the importance of "ethnic character" is exaggerated, with other factors also deciding an ethnicity's fate; for example politics, economy, and neighboring ethnicities.

Many are more doubtful than Meng Fanhua, and two philosophical ideas in the novel have aroused particular criticism. The first is Jiang Rong's musings on the nature of the wolf and the sheep. Issue has been taken with the summary of the Mongolian character as reflecting the wolf's nature, and the Han character as reflecting that of the sheep. In fact, there is even disagreement as to the accuracy of his definitions, with "wolf-like" in the book meaning valiant and daring, and "sheep-like" meaning tender and conservative. Clearly, Jiang Rong's theory cannot be consistently applied to history, with a number of bloody eras and events in Han history quite self evidently closer to the nature of the wolf than the sheep, but equally clearly not related to the wolf according to his criterion.

The other disputed point concerns the wolf totem and dragon totem, with the former belonging to the Mongol ethnicity, and the latter representing the Han Whether the dragon is really the totem for the nation of Cathy, the ancient Han empire, is certainly highly debatable. Historians believe that the dragon and phoenix were used by ancient China's rulers only for self-aggrandizement and to frighten their officials and citizens, rather than as a national symbol. This original use of the dragon as a symbol of the ruling elite obstructs the idea that the dragon totem represents the whole Han ethnicity, and makes any talk of Han people being the "offspring of the dragon" appear to be nothing more than a modern myth.

Maybe we should take away from "Wolf Totem" the more down-to-earth conclusions of famous journalist Bai Yansong, who feels that on the grassland, wolves are respectable opponents, but not partners. For him, the Mongolian believes in, and worships the wolf because they feel that the wolf deserves their respect as a worthy rival. More saliently, in terms of the need for the wolf's spirit in modern society, he does concede that people often recoil from the truth and the justice because of fear, but at the same time there are frequent examples of violence and irritation. So maybe the childlike conclusion that we can draw out of all this tortuous philosophical rambling is simply, that we all need something of the wolf and the sheep in us, depending on the situation.

I agree with this point. It is like if the French continued to use the Fleur-de-Lis as a state symbol after the Revolution, rather than adopting the tricolour.

theories and implications like these are just as bad as white nationalist theories that all civilizations in the world were a result of infusion of "white blood"


modern day Mongols are among the most peaceful people in the world, certainly runs contrary to the blood theories

not to mention the many instances Chinese have proven just as savage and violent as nomadic warriors (Ran Min anyone?). military incursions into Southern China(originally non-Chinese), the Tarim basin, parts of inner mongolia, southern parts of modern day Dongbei, Korea, Vietnam, the southwest and parts of central asia are Chinese military incursions and not the result of nomadic blood infusion.

it never ceases to amaze me how many people attribute Tang Taizong's military prowess to the fact that he was 1/4th Xianbei on his maternal side (while simoultaneously forgetting Kang Xi was only 1/4 Manchu)

there should be a world wide convention for white nationalists, zhong hua minzu wackos, afrocentrics and Korean Pan Altaic nationalists so they can argue their mindless revisionist theories with eachother.

You forgot the Pan-Baiyueists....

their invitation to the convention in the mail, much like their glorious civilization, were unfortunantly lost

(sorry, that joke was in poor taste)

Well, my profession is not History-related and I am not used to discuss history in English. I just want to point out several things, hopefully to avoid misunderstanding.



If you meant the book "The Wolf Totem", yes indeed, but more than that. It glorify nomadic as superiror blood of wolf. And the author state, without input this superiror blood into han-chease week blood of sheeps by force, Han-Chinese has no way to live in this world.


More exactly, blaming the Mongol Empire runs counter to those historians who do not care the lives at least 60 millions Chinese victims who were murdered or the pain of the rest Chinese who found their property were rubbed and sold to the middle east and Europe. When the Mongols rubbed Chinese property were sold to Middle east or Europe, they do not care how much work Chinese has done and would like to sell in any cheap price. When the Europeans found they were able to buy cheaper Chinese products from the Mongols, they regarded the Mongols Empire as positive contribution to their development. It is like a person who bought a rubbed car from a rubbers with a cheaper price and he does care about the victim, he would regard the rubbers as positive contributions to economic of the society.

I would also point out, some western historians take double stands to nomad society. Most western counties were not the victims of the Mongol empires and some of the historians indeed regard their rubber to other nations as positive contributions. However, when they encountered Turks who did very similar things to their own neighbors as the Mongols did to Chinese and Middle east, their comments turns completely negative, more negative than the comments from Mr. Somechinesesperson about the Mongol Empire.

Furthermore, I would like to point not, it is too far from all the western historians and Chinese historian regard the Mongol Empire as positive contributions and regard their victims, including at least 60 millions Chinese victims as nothing. I have plenty document to prove this and would like to present here any time. Before that, let me just quote one of them, i.e. what the British Historian J. Saunders has written in his book “The history of the Mongol Conquests” (University of Pennsylvania Press page)

As exponents of ngenocide, the Mongols were the most notorious since the ancient Assyrians, who exterminated or deported whole nations, and their loathsome record in killings was unsurpassed till the Nazi massacres of our own day. Christian and Muslim choniclers agree in this bloody tale of savagery….….

So I would like to point out, whether regarding Mongol Empire as positive or negative are decided by the view of values. If I understand correctly, Mr. Yun, or more exactly, the historian's view that he presented, agrees with the value that 60 millions murdered Chinese costs nothing or little comparing to the cheaper price that the western countries has benefit from. So he agrees the Mongol Empire ‘s contribution are positive. I have no way to change the view of value of anyone and I do not intend to. But I just want to every Chinese make clear what kind of values the other people took, hopefully before they become the next victims. In fact the author of the book “the wolf totem” present their value in a very clear way.

At last, excuse me for my poor English, even I tried my best. Considering the discussion are more concerned by Chinese speaking people, so excuse me in the future if I do not reply to the discussions in English when I find myself not able to do it easily.

Not at all. Western historians got over their anti-Turk bias generations ago, and are now very objective and baggage-free when writing about the Seljuks and Ottomans. There are many scholars who are very positive about how the Turks ran their empires, and recognize that the 'plundering barbarian' image is an unfair stereotype.

As I have stated on other threads, I am against all offensive wars in principle and believe they are evil. But I also recognize that much of what is considered as 'progress' in history comes as a by-product of war. This includes the things that the Mongols are credited for (see for example this book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/060980964...5Fencoding=UTF8 ). Whether changes that come at the cost of so many human lives can really be considered progress is a tough question that again depends on values. I personally don't accept such a definition of progress, but many Chinese seem to as long as they were the ones doing the conquering and killing.

Thus I wish to point out that I am by no means pro-Mongol. In my opinion it would have been better if the Mongol conquests did not happen. I am, however, against sinocentric/nationalistic double standards that condemn the Mongols and yet seem to believe that the Song Chinese would have been much more benevolent if they had the chance to conquer the Khitan, Jurchen, Mongols, Tanguts, and Vietnamese and restore the Tang empire to its original size. The Chinese cannot always have been either the heroes or the victims in history.

When the chance comes, any race can be a mass murderer. It just happens that the chance fell to the Mongols that time.

Various famous universities has already proven "inherited cultural traits" as nothing but ridiculous nonsense. Much less inherited racial traits. Its a psychological superstition that uneducated people hold due to the categorizing nature of the human mind. Its illogical and has no scientific evidence whatsoever. Whatever lacks scientific data does not hold. The fact is, moderners has far more in common with each other than their more primitive barbaric ancestors.

There are differences between writing one's own story and having others write for you. We tend to be more flattering to ourselves if we have to write our own resume. Not saying that the Mongols did not destroy, but the fact is that nomads and other "uncivilised" people often don't write their own stories. I think we should keep that in mind.

I am ignorant because I have never read any research papers, but only a (very) few books which is orientated to general public, but most of them were written in the past 50 years, and I found the comment are negative, almost as negative as I commented Mongol Empire. So if Yun said the majority is positive of course I should trust you.

However, I won’t call the negative comments as bias. I would you to consider that there could a historical and political background behind. When Turks threaten Europe, they saw the negative effect as a possible victim, so blame with value of the victims, which I promote very much in fact. But when the threaten disappeared and they engage in making new colony, sometimes they do similar thing as Turks did (but I won’t say in the same extent). This time they are not victim any more, so some of them need a new value to justify themselves. I feel quite troubled if it is called removing of bias for not discriminating other people, but rather than some politic factors involved in history study. However, I just say some of them, but not all because from a number of books I read, this so called bias, which I promote very much, still exists so that I never know the bias disappears.

Chinese professional historian do very similar things. Several years ago, I read their research paper with data to prove how Mongol become more advanced after Gengiskhan’s conquest, with example that they started to build house and make better weapons. I fully trust the data of these professional guys and respect their professional skills, however, I do not respect them as honest person. Because they deliberately forget the the picture of enslaving, which implies they deliberately forget the contribution does not come from people who plunder but from the people who was plundered. In mafia society, if a thief rub some money, he thinik he made himself, however, without people who are rubbed, they can never make the money. Without maifa the money can still be made.


I even disrespect those prefessional historians more to their view attribute. They attribute the positive effort to Gengiskhan but I simply attribute to those captured slaves from civilized regions (who were not necessarily Han-china).

The contribution are from somewhere else.


Without Gengiskhan, mongol can introduce this industry andy way, but without any civiliazation society mongol can never get them no matter how great Gengiskhan is. Look at this picture, they are still using the same way to make cart as 1 thousand year ago. By the way, have you ever heard that, when they conquire other tribe like tartar, they kill every male whose body is taller the cart wheel? In that case, this small boy will be killed too.



In a society with this value, how can you expect them to develope techology? Each person's life,no matter what ethic should respect each other, but the culture that kill the small boy should certainly not be respected in my opion. And excately, this culture is promoted by the book "the Wolf totem".

Yun said we should not trust history written by han-chinese, because the other did not write history. But have you ever think why they did not write history? simply because in a soceity which glorify kililing, without help from civlized society, can you expect any one can ever develope writting system? If all the workers are kidnapped but not trained themselves, can they expect them to make better cart wheel? If you insist on resect all the value or culture equally, why do not you respect nazi's value or culture equally with others, which in my opinion exctatly that you demand people to respect this kind of nomadic culture by ignoring the pain from victms and common people and slaves in their own society. In my opinion, the value in nomadic society is even worse than nazi simply they make more victims. When people critise me as natzi-like racists because I do not respect nomadic culture, they simply take double stand to themselves, becasuse they do not respect nazi culture in the first place. I take one standard, human life, so I do not nazi and I do not respect nomadic culture. and when people blame nazi culture, they do not mean they blame german. But when I blame nomadic culture, they always assume me disgrace the common people. which sometimes make me feel very troubled the the double stand.

Yes, this kind critsm might offend some people. why? why swedish never mind someone blame viking?
they do not think the muder is good and they do not want to be. why some people felt by my article? because they already accept those nomadic culture and feel pround for it. This imples they are ready to do it whenever possible without caring about the victims. It is simply like German feel proud for nazi culture, which is a very dangous sign. But they forgotten, if han-chinese accept their value, the victims would more likely be themselves, considering the size of popluation of han. So franking, if someone critized me as racist, he tought he is protecting minority, I think he might be doing the opposite, or might be not, instead han becomes victims. BUt he is simply more helping to make more victims rather than what he claims he is protecting them, in his beatiful word such as "treat all huamn being equally"

So if western historian find similar thing in Turs society, and blame them, Yun can call it bias, but I won't. I call them simply sympothy to vicmts. I don't really felt heartfelted to say I love all the Muslim, however, when I found read their book about masscacre from the Mongols, I feel pain for them. I also don't feel heartfelt to so say I love japaness, god forgive me. however, when I read Hublie's army killed every jappaness civlians they meet in a island, I felt pain for them too instead of feeling happy, although I have family members killed by japaness.

Those professional historian just take their attribution exactely same as mafia society, under a beatiful name equal to all culture. In the same time they blame others "bias" as rasist, pretty much like I encoutered here:) They simply is leading China to a very dangous direction.

I am a not qualified person to critics professional historian, however, in my opinion, they are professional politician rather than historian. Usually I respect expect and professional people. But history study often are stired up with politics. i have some solid evidences that this is also the case in western coutries sometimes, but in a considerably less extent.

Chickens said it, not me. But I would like to point out that nomadic societies like the Tujue, Uyghurs, Khitan, Jurchen, Mongols and Manchus all developed writing systems in the end. In every case they modelled their writing system after existing sedentary writing systems like Sogdian, Han, and Tibetan. This does not mean that the new native writing system was more popular than Chinese writing among these people. Often Chinese writing was still more popular and widely used.

Zhao Fengnian, you may say that this proves that "help from civilized society" is essential for nomads to develop writing systems. But in each case, the nomads did not get "help" but only used Chinese as a starting point to invent a writing script of their own.

That is quite a corruption on what I said. What I basically said was that nomads did not write their own accounts of what happened during historic moments. It is not Han specific. You might not have realised it but historic accounts of nomads were written by many other societies other than the Far Eastern ones. It was not the nomad's accounts of the stories. I am not disputing whether things happened or not. However, much like reading a newspaper account of the same event from different sources will give you different impressions, the same can happen with stories written in the past history. You can get different opinions depending on how you write the same story without fabricating anything. Therefore we should be careful on forming such strong views based upon distant history because that history could be incomplete.

All I am saying is be careful. That is it.

The author has a inferiority complex.

Its the enviroment that shaped the Mongol/Jurchens into 'wolf like' and Han 'sheepish' not blood.

Or more to the point, it was more important for a nomad to go to war than an agraian. Nomads leaders could not give their followers the rewards they expected unless through trade, tribute or raiding a 'civilized' country for its excess riches.

If you look closely that cart is made from machine cut lumber which I would say is quite a improvement in technology. Plus there only ways to make a cart I would bet you probably see this type cart along a few roads in China.

"o if western historian find similar thing in Turs society, and blame them, Yun can call it bias, but I won't. I call them simply sympothy to vicmts."

You must have alot of sympathy in your heart to carry that view on human history.

One of the reasons I have a positive view of the mongols is generally I see western history glorify their conquests, but then call it slaughter when somebody else does it. This is hardly the case anymore though. But in general it's like... Alexander sacks Persia, it's glorious. Mongols sack parts of Europe, it's a slaughter.

another thing I appreciate is the honesty in it. No weanie reasons of "Spreading God's word" or "bringing peace through killing you" or anything like that, just simply "We are going to conquor because we can".

Hey! IF there's ONE better way of making a wooden camel cart that is cheaper and better suited for life on steppes, than I'll accept we're technologically primitive.

Look at chinese, they're still using chopsticks like 5000 years ago, they must be primitive!

Off the horse
Mongols: They were not merely blood-thirsty savages

By Frank Wong
November 6, 2002
The Iranian
http://www.iranian.com/History/2002/November/Mongol/

When people conjure up images of Mongols (Mogul) and their role in human history, it is always less than a rosy picture. But, few know that they were no better and no worse compared to many of our many world conquerors and leaders. Even few know that many of the Mongol khans were patrons of the art, ruled cunningly and with wisdom.

The Mongols were not merely blood-thirsty savages as we know them to be. There is a still a saying among the Chinese that we inherited from the Mongols and Turkic people in farther Asia: "You can conquer an empire on horseback, but you cannot rule from it."

While numerous foreigners (ie. Marco Polo) came to China in the Mongol era, there was also a movement in the opposite direction. This has obviously attracted less interest in the West.

Some of those who went from North China to the Middle East or even to Europe are known to us. Such is the case with the Taoist monk Chang-chun (lay name, Chiu Chu-chi-1148 to 1227), pratriach of the Chuan-chen sect. Already in favour with the Jurchen Chin Emperor, Chih-tsung, who had called him to Beijing, he was later summoned by Genghis Khan to Afghanistan in 1219.

Starting from Shantung, whither he had retired, Chang-chun set off in 1220 with 18 of his disciples, crossed Outer Mongolia and the Altai, passed through Samarkand where he found Chinese laborers and migratory workers who moved there from Xinjiang during the Karakhitai (remnants of the Liao Khitans in Xinjiang), and went around the south of the Hindu Kush and arrived in 1222 at Genghis Khan's encampment in the Kabul area. Returning to Beijing in 1224, after leaving Genghis Khan near Tashkent in 1223, Chang-chun left an account of this journey, the "Chang-chun chen-jen hsi-yu lu."

Another Chinese, called Chang Te, was sent on a mission to Iran in 1259 by the Khan Mongke. He set out from Karakorum, travelled via the north of the Tianshan mountains, Samarkand and Tabriz in Iran. He visited Hulagu Khan's camp and returned in 1263. The account of his journey, entitled "Record of a Mission to the West (Hsi-shih-chi) was written down by one Liu Yu.

About 1275, the Chinese Nestorian monk Rabban Bar Sauma (?-1294), born in Beijing, and his disciple Mark decided to set out for the Holy Land. He was appointed "Patriarch" by the Hulagu Khan of all Christians in his Ilkhan domain. They paid a visit to the Nestorian pope in the main city of northwestern Iran, to the south of Tabriz. From there, Sauma was sent on a mission to Rome and the kings of France and England by the Khan Argun.

After visiting Constantinople and Rome in 1287-88, he saw the king of England in Gascony and Philip the Fair in Paris. He was to leave a description of the Abbey of Saint-Denis and of the Sainte-Chapelle. It was his visit to Rome which was to cause Pope Clement III to send Giovanni di Monte Corvino to Beijing.

But, besides these famous personages, a host of many unknown Chinese people travelled as far as Iran and Russia and settled down far from their native country. When travelling from Beijing to Kabul in 1221-22, the monk Chang-chun had noted the presence of Chinese craftsmen in Outer Mongolia, Xinjiang (Uygurstan) and in the Samarkand area. He had also learned that Chinese weavers had settled in the upper Yenisei valley.

It is documented that in the 14th century AD, there were Chinese living quarters in Tabriz, Iran and even in Moscow and Novgorod, Russia. They along with Muslims, dominated the trade and tax business in Russia. Even now, in Russia, the Chinese abacus calculator is much in use.

The right hand minister of the Hulagu Khan was a Chinese by the name of Bolad Ching Sang. He helped introduce paper currency (chao) to Iran during the Ilkhan as a more feasible mean of collecting tax compared to the native metal currency. Chap (from the Chinese "chao") is still a word used by Iranian people today for "printing".

A Chinese general, Kuo Kan was in command of the Khan Hulagu's armies at the siege of Iran, Damascus and Baghdad in 1258. His Chinese siege tactics and artillery proved the deciding factor in the breaking of the Ismaili and Hashashin (Assassin) walled castles in Iran. It was not uncommon to see Mongol and Turkish cavalry/horsemen fighting alongside Chinese footsoldiery and siege technicians in many of the Hulagu Khan's military campaigns.

Over one thousand Chinese foot soldiers and hydraulic engineers were employed on the irrigation of the Tigris and Euphrates basins. The Mongol policy was to transfer the best qualified technicians from one end of the Eurasian continent to the other.

Thus, the Mongol domination ensured the diffusion of certain Chinese techniques in the empires of the Ilkhan in Iran and the Golden Horde in Russia. Chinese influence is perceptible in Persian miniatures, and also in Iranian ceramics, and architecture of the Mongol epoch. Chinese influences in Iranian and Turkish art is apparent even to this day. It can be dated to Ilkhan era.

Some people have even thought that they could see traces of Chinese influence in Italian painting of the 14th cent., and more particularly in Lorenzetti's "Massacre of the Franciscans at Ceuta" (c. 1340). But, it is above all in connection with the 2 great inventions of modern times in Europe that the question of stimuli and contributions from China arises.

The introduction in the 14th cent. in both the Ilkhan and Golden Horde Mongol empires of Iran and Russia of Chinese influences: playing cards, printed fabrics, and paper money was obviously connected with the appearance of wood engraving in Europe and consequently of printing with movable type. Paper money was printed at Tabriz, a great cosmopolitan centre in Iran during the Mongol era where Greek, Italian, Armenian, Jewish, Arab, Uygurs, Mongols and Chinese all met and exchanged ideas.

The Iranian historian, Rashid al-Din (c. 1247-1318), who had made Chinese medicine known in his "Treasure of the Ilkhan on the Sciences of Cathay" (1313), is the first to mention the Chinese invention of wood engraving. Wood engraving, known in Europe 30 or 40 years before the knowledge of printing, was immensely successful there. Holy pictures, playing cards, and little books with text and illustrations were printed. As for the idea of using movable type, it is to be supposed to have spread into Europe also during this time via Russia or Iran.

As for the other great invention of modern times, the firearm, we know that Mongols had employed Chinese siege engineers with firearm weaponry during the campaigns in Iran, Caucasus and Arabia. In Europe, they were used for the first time at the Battle of Sajo in Hungary in 1241.

It was also at this time, that the Hulagu Khan invited Chinese, Uygur and Tibetan Buddhist monks to his domain. Being rabidly anti-Muslim, the Hulagu Khan had allowed these Chinese and Central Asian guests to build numerous Buddhist monasteries and temples in Tabriz and other parts of northern Iran.

Later, when Guyuk Khan converted to Islam, they were all buried under the sand and the Chinese/Central Asia monks were either obliged to convert to Islam or return to the Yuan Mogul domains in China from whence they had came.

Hulagu Khan had a grand vision and was not simply epileptic murderer or a barbarian nomadic conqueror as depicted in the conventional wisdom of world history. As a boy, he was not only well trained in horsemanship, wrestling and archery, but he also had Chinese tutors at his side teaching him poetry and the stroke of the brush. Like his brother, Kublai Khan, they came to realize that coexistence with the civilization of their conquered subjects is necessary in order to rule with legitimacy. Kublai had done it well in China.

Hulagu Khan's main achievement lie in the realm of being able to bridge East and West with an opportunity and resources few had. However, his vestiges of Chinese culture introduced into Iran and Middle East was never able to reconcile with a completely different frame of reference of his subjects. It turned the tide when his grandsons decided to fully embrace Islam and make the Ilkhan empire into a Muslim one.

This is a past few know about and a pity if we don't. China and Iran intersected many times in our long history. Ilkhan was one of those time eras we got closer.

Jieming, I wouldn't quote Frank Wong as an authority if I were you. He was the perpetrator of the "Narseh's diary" hoax, which was an article written by him for The Iranian in 2000 that falsely claimed that a Tang emperor had married a Persian princess. It misled many people, and was only exposed by me in April last year.

See this: http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=3914



This advice was actually given to Liu Bang, founder of the Han, by one of his advisers. It is often misrepresented as something that was said to a nomadic ruler.

I'm not sure how much press its recieved, but one of the widely - to my knowledge credible - sources ot emerge in recent years is 'The Secret History of the Mongols' (I have an english translation from 1982 on order as we speak) supposedly written by Mongol scholars that sought to take down Mongol oral traditions, as well as recountings of the rise of the Mongols through Chenggis Khan. It is written in the fashion of a Chinese epic in many respects, and was certainly written after his death.

I've read a number of secondary sources that refer to it, and the image they paint of the Mongol leader is largely one that was uneducated but greatly pragmatic, and eventually driven to war not so much by any personal desire for it, but by the fact that his initial successes had made those under him grow to expect a more lavish lifestyle, with luxuries the Mongols could not themselves manufacture. Once the steppe peoples under Chenggis had been shown and realized how easily they could overcome other nations, they saw no reason not to use that force to get what they desired and fully expected Chenggis to lead them.

Someone mentioned Temujin killing his brother... over a fish no less...

The Mongol account of Chenggis' killing his brother - unless he did more brother killing than I'm aware of, and he did not have many - had everything to do with Temujin's personality and steppe tradition. The brother was his elder half brother, his father's by another wife. After his father died, the family lived rather destitute as the boys were just that, boys unable to provide for their family(the tiny Mongol tribe was, at the time relatively insignificant, a hunter gatherer society, surrounded by pastoralists). It was, however, the eldest brother that would eventually be leading the family as soon as he was old enough to do so.

The account is, while melodramatic in ways, quite unapologetic in declaring that Temujin killed his brother in order to prevent his ascension to the head of the family - and states moreover that Chenggis most despised the idea that steppe tradition would bequeath his mother to his half-brother as a wife, and resented the favourable treatment his mother gave in expectation of becoming the family matriarch. In addition, Chenggis also stood to be condemned to live his life, not as a brother, but as his brother's son and therefore even more subordinate to his brother than he would otherwise be. Conspiring with his full brother, Chenggis then plotted to kill his brother. I recall no mention of a fish.

In any event a great deal of steppe 'savagery' appears, upon further examination, to have been the result of very reasonable pressures of economics and personal interests that were simply never translated into civilized societies, and have only begun to come to light recently with the discovery and translation of obscure texts like the Secret Histories.

[Yang Zongbao:
Intent on coming back yet again? Ban.

Barsbolod's IP: 130.149.156.19
***'s IP: 130.149.156.19

Dude, seriously. Why do you insist on coming back? You don't want to talk history, and you're here to fight Chinese because you think they're enemies of Mongols. Take that nationalist trash somewhere else please.]

Specualtion from the amateur historian...let me boil down some clues and observations so I understand it...

The name "Wolf Totem" and their relation to "Mohi".


Is that merely the title of a book, or an actual theologic expression as to their beliefs, or an actual group who called themselves Wolf Tribe?

Because.... because... there are Amerindian parallels...

Among the Amerindian tribes is a common misinterpreted name... Mohican, Mohegan, Mohawk, Mohunk... not necessarily the same group, or maybe they are... twisted and spun over the last 5000 years.

I know for a fact that "Mohawk" could have many meanings, depending on the translation and translator, but could have been... "Eater of Men" or "Wolf Tribe", and certainly included a "wolf clan"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Mohawk_Kings

Does any of the following language translations sound familiar to anyone who knows languages and linguistics in the Mongolian area, or ??? North China area?... with regards to the Mohi and the "Wolf Totem" theologies?

A contribution on a western website, from a "Cro-Magnon"

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum2/viewtop...2778&highlight=

"A sample of Mohegan spirituality and language:

http://www.mohegan.nsn.us/tribe/c230.html

Our Tribal animal is the wolf.

Mohegan spiritual beliefs respect all creatures and spirit beings.

Expressions:
Good evening - "Wigun dupkwa"
Good morning - "Wigwásun"
Good-bye - "Nahánuxag"
Hello - "Aquay"
How are you? - "Nugu táyanu?"
I'm fine - "Tayanu"
My goodness - "Waykojomunk"
OK - "Báwisá"
Thanks - "Tábudnianawayin"
Welcome - "Wigwomun

Numbers:
1 - "nikwut"
2 - "nis"
3 - "ciwi"
4 - "yáw"
5 - "nipaw"
6 - "kudusk"
7 - "nizux"
8 - "ciwiask"
9 - "bazokokwang"
10 - "bayag"

Any and all responses on this speculation is appreciated. I am not claiming facts, just ... ideas.

Its a coincidence, just a book title.

I theink the first steepe empire were the XiongNu, who initially used an Eagle/Condor emblem but later(around 100BC) a more fierce Chanyu changed it to the wolf after killing his father to get the throne.

A complete annotated English translation (in two volumes) of the Secret History has recently been published by Igor de Rachewiltz of the Australian National University. He spent 15 years on this project (1971-1985), and it was previously published only in 11 installments in a journal. See http://www.brill.nl/m_catalogue_sub6_id11381.htm

And the review at http://www.deremilitari.org/REVIEWS/Rachewiltz_Mongols.htm

Also Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_History_of_the_Mongols

Perhaps you might want to cancel your order for Cleaves' 1982 translation and get Rachewiltz's instead, if you can afford it (there is a copy selling for US$89.99 on Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/900413596...glance&n=283155 ).

Another recent, and just as pricey, Secret History translation into English (2001) is by Urgunge Onon, a Mongolian: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/070071335...glance&n=283155

It's a shame these books are always so d**** expensive. There's a book about Khara Khitai that came out recently too. But it's also close to a hundered bucks.

Well, I also have very negative view to the double standards adopted in by some people in Western countries. However, my criticism is in a different way. When they suffered from some murders and became victims themselves, they blamed the murder. However when Chinese encountered worst massacre and victims blamed in a similar way, they call it “Han Chavanists”. In their opinion, the value of Chinese people’s life are worth nothing. They do not regard Chinese people as human being.

It is true the imperialists in western countries glorify their crimes never care about the pain of their victims, but that should not a reason all the similar crimes from others should be glorified, especially, when the victims are Chinese.

The following is a record who the Mongol killed 1.4 million Chinese in ChengDu. Since the lives of Chinese people are so worthless to them, no one bother to translated it into English.

明杨慎《全蜀艺文志》辑明赵枋（左木水旁代）《史母程氏传》：“呜呼！余尝得《三卯录》读之，蜀民就死，率五十人为一聚，以刀悉刺之，乃积其尸，至莫（暮），疑不死，复刺之。（示旁，以下同）异孙尸积于下，暮刺者偶不及，尸血淋漓入异孙口，夜半始苏，匍匐入林，薄匿他所。后出蜀为枢密使。尝坦视人，未尝不泣下。贺靖权成都，录城中骸骨一百四十万，城外者不计。”

This is one of the most horrible calamities in the worlds. However, the authors of “Cambridge History of China” even comment the Mongol rulers are best in Chinese history. They even implied Zhu Yuan Zhang expel the cruel rulers because he is a racists. This kind of “western historian” is really not respectable.

I have not read the book, but it was published in 1986.
Wait, the one I saw in Amazon covered from "the establishment of the Ch'in empire in 221 BC and ends with the abdication of the last Han emperor in AD 220. Spanning four centuries ..."

Volume 7 (1988) dealt with the Ming, so are you referring to Alien Regimes and Border States, 907-1368 (The Cambridge History of China: Vol. 6) (Hardcover)?

Perhaps you can post relevant sections, in a new thread, please?


In any case, do you think Sima Qian or Sima Guang (hmm, never noticed it but they got the same family name!) were respectable historians by your standards?

Yes, Vol.6 is what I reffered to.

En.....I have to know the rules of CHF first.

I can reach the English version that book from libaray, but it is too much work to type in. I have the translated version in Chinese in my CD that can be easily pasted here, however, that is something I take from internet. I am not sure the one who release that version is completely legal. If the administrators of CHF do not worry about troubles of copy right, and if they do not mind to copy the text in Chinese, I can certainly do it.



It is so famous that, right before ZhuYuanZhang and other uprising of Han-Chinese, the Mongol regime were considering and discussing whether they should kill all the innocent Han people with 5 most popular family names and turn all the farms in China into their pastures, that could result tens of millions Han Chinese death.

The American historians (I forgot their names) gave such comments
元末的各届政府都尽了最大努力试图从这些灾难中解脱出来，他们并没有忽视这些问题。从各方面来看，元朝在医药和食物的赈济上所作的努力都是认真负责的、富有经验的。事实上，妥欢贴睦尔朝的历史提出了这样一个问题：面临这样反反复复的大规模的灾难时，还有哪一个朝代能比元朝做得更好？如此反复的自然灾害长期积累的后果，很有可能使任何一个政府都束手无策。如果中国正常的年景多一些，元朝有可能比它实际存在的时间要长得多。
对于元朝垮台的主要因素及一系列原因，将来肯定还要有长时间的研究与争论。但我们也要记住，从任何意义上说，元朝在历史上都不是盲目力量的牺牲者。1368年，元朝是被一个意识上极端、道德上激进的革命运动赶出中国的。反抗者们以坚定不移的决心，进行了艰苦的斗争，付出了不懈的努力。他们利用14世纪五六十年代元政府一切明显的弱点，从而使自己看到了一个和平安定的中国的前景。元朝政府本身也曾有机会去获得这种远见，但它却令人不解地没有这么做。如此看来，元朝的最终倒台是因为明朝的开创者决意要它如此。
I am not able to translate the whole paragraph. But just stress the 2 points from the American historians: 1) They claim no one else in Chinese history can do better than those Mongol rulers (who were imposed worst race discrimination system in the world and discussing whether they should immediately undertake ethic cleaning ). 2 He think the Mongol regime was overthrown by a group of revolutionary activists with extremist ideology and radical morality. This was pretty much like the comments to Soviet Communists that most Americans dislike quite much.

However, these American “professional historians” forgot to compare the law between Yuan and Ming dynesty. Right after “the radical extreamists” Zhu Yuan Zhang get into power, he issued a law that treat all the Mongol and Forgein equally as Han-Chiense. 　
“如蒙古、色目，虽非华夏族类，然同生天地之间，有能知礼义，愿为臣民者，与中夏之人抚养无异。故兹告谕，想宜知悉.”

But in Yuan dynasty ruled by the Mongols, It was written the clearly as that Han-Chinese should be treated a lower class. If a Han kill a Mongol, he would be certainly killed. If a Mongol kill a Han, the maximum penalty is an animal as compensation to the victims family. In their law, it was also clear written that when Mongol slave-master raped han-slave’s wife, it is perfectly legal. It is too hard for me to believe those American historians did not know the laws and the differences. One can easily find professional skills in history research from some other parts in their books, however, they are simply racists who do not consider the human life of Chinese are as valuable as others, and pretended they did not find the differences of those laws.

Do not distort me this time, I did not say all the American or Western historians are racists. In fact, there are many western historians who realiaze Chinese people are valuable ealier than morden Chinese history. One of these respectable people is Ms. Lynn Struve edited a book “voice from the Ming-Qing Catalysm” who published about 10 years ago..

I do not know whether Sima Qian or Sima Guang hided the fact a certain murder killed 60 million people and paint the murder as greatest Chinese manager as the American Historian did. If yes, I would be very interested to see the evidence.

If it turn out that they indeed do that, I would certainly consider them not respectable.

I wonder why some people in the international historic research world, as well as CHF always sound like to a defense lawyer of Mongol Empire. They always try to hide the differences between the most terrible calamity with something much much smaller. For anyone who has reasonable ability to think, it is so obvious that history is influenced by number of victims and degree destruction. If you kill 0.1% Chinese population, the country can recover after 1 generation, if you kill half Chinese population as Mongol Empire did, the country simply decline and many techonoly that have been accumulated for hundred years would be brought away with those killed victims. If you kill the whole population, the country simply disappeared forever. It is well documented that the Mongol empire killed more than 90% people in “northern Han-China”(华北)(at least 30 millions people) and SiChuan province(at least 10 millions people). Some "professional historian", I hope not included in CHF, pretend they do not know these differences. In my opinion, they should be called professional lawyer or politician rather than historian. Are their any more terrible disaster even happen in Human history? Is it demonizing to call this kind of regime more evil than Nazi?

In fact, those kind of "professional historians" think Han-Chinese have only one right option i.e. being killed at their homeland by foreign invaders. If they organize resistance in their homeland, they should be labeled as "Han Chauvinism".

In Chinese history, there was indeed Han-Chinese authority who engaged in ethinic cleaning. When a Pesian related ethnic group (竭族) was kidnapped as slaves by the Huns into China. After the slave master declined, they engaged rubbery as their profession and all their resource come from plundering Han-Chinese. And they turned to become slave-master above Han-Chinese in certain place of China. General Ran Min (冉敏) organized a resistance to overthrown the forgein authority, than organize a cruel ethnic cleaning, by simply killing all the people in that ethnic group, including innocent women and Children. Today many “professional historian” use this story to prove how cruel and evil Han-Chinese Chauvinism are, but they never bother to explain, why all the massacre always happened in the homeland of China, not in Mongolian steep or Persia? Did those “Han-Chauvinists” invaded Persian to kill women and children or they are doing it for self-defence in their homeland? Those “professional historians” never considered Chinese are same human being as others who have right to do self-defense. If Han-Chinese did not defend and were killed, they were derided and despised as coward and weak sheeps, as exactly claimed in the book of “the wolf totem”. If they did resist, than they must be evil “Han-Chauvinists”. In any case, Han-Chinese should be certainly plundered and eliminated from this world. Are there any worse race discrimination theory in the world like such a historic view? It is too polite to call those “Professional Historians” as professional lawyers or politicians. In my opinion, they are simply racists.

Is Major stream of Chinese historic value racism or “Han-Chauvinism”? NO. General Ran Min undertook ethnic cleaning when organizing self-defence for Han-Chinese people, he was not regarded as a hero by any Han-Chinese historian, neither in by Sima Guang’s book. Even General Ran-Min did this for self-defence of Han-Chinese
he was criticized for killing innocent women and children who came into China with the invaders. There are some foreign rulers such as 符坚and 石勒who were originally invaders but adopted Chinese civilization and did something good to avoid innocent people’s death, they were praised. The major stream of traditional Chinese view praise or criticize any authority, not because they belonged to certain ethic group or not, but because they killed or protect innocent people. However, the traditional Han-Chinese-historian were labeled as “Han-Chauvinists” by so many “professional historian” in the international society because they blame the forigen invader who kill innocent Han-Chinese. In their view, Han-Chinese should born as sheep and should be killed any time by any invaders. The construction of Han-Chinese and production should certainly be plundered. If any Han-Chinese oppose this view like what I did, they should be labeled as evil “Nazi-Facst-Han-Chauvinists” and be eliminated from this world. Are there any worse race discrimination than such anti-Han-Chauvinism? It would be less ridiculer if any Singapornian was labede as “Nazi” or “Singapore Chauvinists” because he blamed the crime that Japaness did in Singapore

Zhao Fengnian, you have to study the history more carefully and not just write based on hearsay. I happen to be a specialist on the Age of Fragmentation (魏晋南北朝), and the record about Ran Min in the Jin Shu 晋书 is quite different from your version. We have a thread on Ran Min in the Age of Fragmentation section of this forum where you can read more about him.

1) Ran Min was not 冉敏, but 冉闵.
2) The Jie 羯 people were not closely related to Persians, but more to either Tocharians (Yuezhi 月氏) or Sogdians (粟特). The Sogdian language is Indo-Iranian (i.e. it has similarities to Persian/Iranian), and the Sogdians and Jie followed the Zoroastrian religion which has spread into Central Asia from Persia, but that's as close as the Persian link gets.
3) Shi Le, the Jie who later founded the Later Zhao 后赵 state, was not enslaved by the Xiongnu ('Huns'). He was actually captured and sold as a slave by Sima Teng 司马腾, a Western Jin imperial prince who was the Governor of Bingzhou. Sima Teng was what you would now call a Han.
4) Shi Le was bought by a Han but this man later set him free. Another Han named Ji Sang was a horse breeder but had turned to banditry because of the poverty of the time, and Shi Le joined him in forming a group of 18 bandits called the 18 Riders. Most of these 18 were Han.
5) Shi Le later joined the Xiongnu who had rebelled against the Western Jin, and became one of their best generals. He contributed greatly to their conquest of north China from the Jin dynasty. But in 319 he broke away to found his own state.
6) Ran Min's father Ran Liang had been captured by Shi Le as a 12-year-old boy. Shi Le's nephew Shi Hu adopted Ran Liang as a son and renamed him Shi Zhan. Shi Zhan grew up to be a very brave and loyal general for the Later Zhao state, and died in battle. Shi Min (i.e. Ran Min) was also a brave general and fought loyally for the Later Zhao from 338 to Shi Hu's death in 349. Shi Hu treated him like a son.
7) After Shi Hu died, his sons began fighting among themselves. Shi Min used political manipulation to become the most powerful man in the Later Zhao, and made the Later Zhao ruler his puppet. The Jie and Xiongnu people refused to support him because he was a Han by descent. Shi Min then ordered his Han generals to massacre all the Jie and Xiongnu they could find, including their own Jie and Xiongnu troops.
8) Shi Min usurped the Zhao throne and founded his own Wei dynasty, and changed his name first to Li Min 李闵 (because Li was considered an auspicious surname) and then to Ran Min 冉闵, following his father's original surname.

You say that Ran Min was massacring the Jie out of self-defence for the Han. The record does not show this - it shows him being motivated by political ambition. If he felt the Han should resist the Jie, he would not have served the Jie loyally for 10 years as a general.



It may be famous, but that doesn't mean it is true. John Dardess, a very well-known historian studying the Yuan dynasty, tells of the various rumours spreading among the Han population about the Yuan prime minister Bayan during the rebellions of the late 1330s:

1) a rumour that Bayan especially hated the south Chinese because his fortune teller had said he would die at the hands of one
2) that he was prohibiting the use of iron farm tools in south China to prevent them from being used by rebels
3) that he was forbidding all opera and storytelling perfomances in order to stop any propagandizing against the Mongols
4) that the government was going to seize all unmarried boys and girls in the empire
5) "wildest of all", that Bayan was intending to kill everyone with the surnames of Zhang, Wang, Liu, Li and Zhao.

None of the first four rumours were true, and Dardess certainly doesn't believe that the 5th one was true either.