By the way, I read from a number of un-serious second hand source which said Xianbei soldier stabed small babies onto their spears and show arround for funs. Can anyone tell me if this is a rumor made by Han-Chauvinsits?

In fact, one of the articles was not written for Han-Chauvinsists for sure. The young author from intenet tell this story because he think Han-Chinese are too weak, recreance and corward, and he urge Han-Chinese learn spirit from namad people like this. If anyone suspect that I made up this story myself, I think I can find the web via google because it was quite a popular article, but in Chinese of course.

However, I have to say the reliability of this story is very low, so I wonder if anyone read this story from a reliable source. You know, as a Han-nationalist or Han-Chauninist, I am interested to collect this kind of information.

Anyway, it might be just a lie, however, I did read from reliable source and conclude that the major thing that those Xiabei region were imposing wars and plundering Han-Chinese. However, they did have some contributions. There are Xianbei rulers which promote Han-Chinese culture in northern China and brought some property. Also they help Han-Chinese to resist plundering from other nomadic tribes.

However, I think prosperity can cerntainly be obtained in China without their destory and recovering. It can NOT be obtained without productions from Han-chinese and without Han-Chinese culture and techology (including Confucious).

I also know that, the major stream in Chinese historians that support attribution to Nomadic group for the prosperity in China, are not originally from scholars, but from politicians in some former-nomadic minority. THey want to get more privillage in China so they try all their political means to force Chinese scholars claming Chinese culture are rubbish and all the prosperity should be attribute Nomadic groups. I just don't understand how they managed the academic world in western countries to buy this rudicular idea. There are simply too many oroginal materials which prove the idea is rudicular. In China it is much easier for them to threaten their opponnent with a crimainal name "Han-Chauvinism"

Fengnian, I recommend that you read more about the history of the Northern Wei and Northern Zhou dynasties. The Sui dynasty did not 'suddenly' bring prosperity to China. Most of the foundation for the Sui economy was laid by the earlier two dynasties, especially Yuwen Yong of the Northern Zhou. However, Yuwen Yong's son was incapable and died young, allowing Yang Jian (who was his father-in-law) to usurp the throne.

Yang Jian claimed to be a Han Chinese from the famous Hongnong Yang clan, but many scholars now find it likely that his lineage was false and he was actually at least partly Xianbei.

The Southern Dynasties did develop south China economically, but the equal-fields 均田 land system developed by the Xianbei-ruled Northern Wei and continued by the Northern Zhou was more important in the economic recovery of north China. The Xianbei didn't bring this south from Mongolia (although it may have been partly influenced by tribal property systems) - they developed it in north China through their own reforms. When the Sui conquered the south and reunified China, it was able to rely on both military and economic strength. The foundation for both these strengths was laid by the Northern Zhou of the Yuwen.

Besides, the so-called 'nomadic ideology' that you refer to was no longer the dominant ideology by the time of the late Northern Wei and Northern Zhou. The ideology of these dynasties was a combination of Buddhism, Daoism, and Confucianism. It was different from the ideology of the Han dynasty, and also different from the original culture of the nomads. In fact, it was the ideology that the Sui and Tang used in ruling their empire.

Again, I am not saying that the Xianbei alone brought prosperity to Sui and Tang. I am saying that the Xianbei and Han together brought prosperity. Respected Chinese scholars, starting from Chen Yinque 陈寅恪 in the ROC period, have recognized this. Read his 《隋唐制度渊源略论稿》. It is not so easy to lump the Xianbei with the Mongols (and Manchus) and say that nomads have always only brought disaster to China. The Xianbei, Mongols and Manchus each established and carried out their rule quite differently, and with different effects.

Yes, it did happen, in 451 during a famous war between the Northern Wei and Liu-Song dynasties, along the Huai River. It is in Sima Guang's Zizhi Tongjian. The Northern Wei troops also killed any adult male civilian that they came across, in order to prevent the people from rebelling against them. It didn't work because they ran out of supplies, suffered heavy casualties in the battles, and had to withdraw despite reaching the north bank of the Yangzi River.

On the other hand, there were also incidents like the one in 495, when Northern Wei general Tuoba Ying was attacking the Southern Qi at Hanzhong. He ordered his soldiers not to rape, loot and kill, and the people actually were so happy about this that they provided supplies to the Northern Wei army. Again, this is in the Zizhi Tongjian.

So it is hard to say that the Xianbei were always like this, or the Xianbei were always like that.

I think the writer you were quoting is very sick to say that Chinese should learn to kill babies in order to be strong. How brave does a person need to be to kill a baby? I think he is also wrong to say that the Han Chinese need to learn to do it. In fact, it has probably been done by looting Chinese troops at other times in history, just that it was not recorded in the official histories. Bai Yang 柏杨 mentions in his 《中国人史纲》 that rebels commonly did this to Mongol and Jurchen babies at the fall of the Yuan dynasty, but I have not yet found a source for this (Bai Yang argues that the rebels were motivated by hatred of the Mongols for the atrocities that the Mongols once committed against them).

Should I understand this way: you are denying that a big contrast can be found between regime of YuWen regime and regime of Yang? Or you are denying northern China is much prosper under Yang’s government? If you are, I think you are in the opposite side of most of distinguished historians. If you are not denying, does this matter of fact support your idea that China can not obtain prosper without Xianbei?

I know some history of Northern even I did not spend too much time to read. While I agree to you that there are some degree of less prosperity Xianbei Regime, with a complementary note that it is significantly less prosper comparing to the Yang’s regime in Sui dynasty, I would like to emphysis, the prosperity does not come from superor blood of Xianbei as many Mongol nationalist suggested, it comes from the ministers of Han-Chinese who introduce traditional style of administration. This prosperity did not come from the violence that brought by Xianbei as you suggested, but come from the Chinese culture that was not completely destroyed. If Xianbei did not completely destroy everything in Chinese culture, that does not mean they have contribution to develop culture. This is completely opposite to your attributions.

And if never answer the question, without the “so-called contribution” from Xianbei, can Han-Chinese bring the prosperity alone? Without contribution from Han-Chinese, can Xianbei bring it along? When they lived together, we find destroy and recovery, who contribute to destroy and who really contribute to recovery?

If you still do not understand how rudicular you attribution is, let us assume I will burn down Paris tomorrow, then caputure some French slaves to rebuild it. In that case, it is me who bring back the prosperity to Paris or it is those French slaves? I guess French people would feel more upset than I am, if you claim to them Paris can never get its prosperity without me.

Believe me or not, I am so familiar with this kind of story when I receive education from Mongol nationalist. They claim the blood of Han-Chinese is so dirty and stupid there it is impossible to build China without blood from Nomadic people. Then they take examples such as Yang Jian is a XianBei, Li Shimin (李世民)，the second emperor of Tang, is a Hun (胡人). Without their super blood from nomadic group, China can never get prosperity. I know quite well why they are so keen on studying whose carry on whose blood. It is not difficult if you read the book “wolf totem”, that they try every mean to prove the nomadic blood is superior in China.

However, it is very difficult for me to understand you, as a historian and even as Christian, try to prove certain blood is necessary for the prosperity in China. I thought that is idea only come from Nazi-like racists.

Is Yang Jian is Han Chinese? Is Li ShiMin a Han-Chinese. If he think he is and other Han-Chinese around him think he is, isn’t that enough to say he is a Chinese? Hilter said people with certain Jewish blood are not German. Only his Nazi party put so much attention to superior and dirty blood. Who give right to those pro-nomadic fans to decide what blood is Han-Chinese and what blood is not Han-Chinese? Is it God or Han Chinese people to authorize them to cancel Yan Jian’s nationality of Han even it is against his own will?

I have never wasted my time to study what blood Yang Jian really is, but he think himself as a Han-Chinese and predominately other Han-Chinese think accept him as a Han-follow. So for Han-Chinese and himself, he is Han-chinese. We Han-Chinese have never invite any Nazi-like party to help us to decide what blood can not be distinguished as Han or not. Han-chinese have never have a tradition to see whose blood is too dirty to be Han-chinese or to be Chinese. Any one who consider himself as a Han-Chinese, who recognize other Han-Chinese as his fellow Han-Chinese is Han-Chinese and recognized by other Han-chinese as fellow, is Han-Chinese. We do not have many black or white people would like to consider that way. But if any black or white consider that way and accepted, he is a Han. That is how Han nationalities formed in history.

In history there are many ethnic group including alta-language speaking nomadic group become Han-Chinese in that way. After the nomad origin people became Han, and their close nomadic relative raid China, the nomadic murder always kill them as they kill other Han-Chinese and never spare them because their blood is closer. For same reason, the integrated Han-chinese always fight together with Han to resist. They never side with those nomadic group, because they think they have same “super blood”.

It is only today when some nomadic-origin want to prove their blood is superer than Han-Chiense, they suddenly treat those who have same blood with them as their fellow. When the ancestors of this type of historians invade China under Mongol empire and excuteing genocide, they never bother to ask if the victims have close blood with them. They killed more 90% population in Mongols age in Northern China, where people are supposed to have more nomadic blood with them. But they killed much less in Southern China. At that moment they are the winner so they do not worry people don’t think them having super blood. However, today, when the outer Mongolia become one of the poorest country in the world, they have problem to prove their blood is better than others, their historians suddenly feel fellowship and comradeship to their relatives in Han populations. He really took great efforts to prove all the best Chinese leaders such as Yang Jian and Li ShiMin are not Han, therefore without super blood from Mongol related Xianbei, China can never get any prosperity in Sui-Tang.

Well, Yun can accept this value without problem, however, other Han-Chinese do not have to buy this shits for identifying who is Han and who is not. When I said China can not obtain prosperity without construction of Han-Chinse people, I did not mean China can not obtain prosperity without Han-Chinese blood. When I say Han-chinese, I mean those who consider themselves as Han, accept traditional Chinese value but not tradiction Mongol, Xianbei or whatever nomadic values. I know Yun do not think he is a racists, but he is trying to prove China can not get prosperity without XianBei blood, for me, that is nonsense. Even if Yang Jian is 100% Xianbei blood, if he did not consider him as a Han-Chinese, but a Xianbei, he won’t use Chinese name, (he had a Xianbei surname but he abandoned it); he won’t admit Han-Chinese culture is better then nomadic warrior culture, he would not impose abundant the traditional XianBei method for administration; he would not adopt traditional Han-Chinese style for goverment; then China would never get prosperity under Yang’s regime in Sui.

For the same argument, if Li ShiMin did not consider himself as Han-Chinese, China would not have prosperity in Tang. The actual contribution for the prosperity did not come from super blood of Mongol-related Xianbei, but from Han culture and construction of Han people. Those Xianbei brought only destroy. Some of them might should be praized for not destroying more or help to recover, but this is not because their super blood, this is positive influence from Han-Chinese culture. The nazi-like theory, which suggests China can not obtain prosperity in Sui-Tang simply is wrong, not because it is politically correct or incorrect, but because it contradicted to what really happened in history.


First, all your argument can only prove XianBei destroy less when they adopt Han-Chinese culture, but did not prove Xianbei brought the prosperity from their home.

Secondly, what is more important for economic recovery? It is stopping destroy. Without destroying China can not become more prosper.

Thirdly, if Xianbei succeed to conquer southern China and sweep out all the Han-Chinese culture in China, if they turn the entire China as it is in Xianbei’s original homeland, it is impossible for China to get recoverty as prosper as in Sui-Tang. If Chinese culture is completely destroyed, what China would become as poor as outer Mongolia today. Afhanistan today is a typical example to show what kind of prosperity that Xianbei-like group can bring to. That region might be even more developed than China 3000 years ago, but with constant Hun-style “contribution” from Huns, turks and Mongols, and after so many years those nomadic groups “constructing together” with them, they are simply not as good as when they were constructing alone themselves. Thank God Chinese did not go that far.

Yet you do not attribute the smaller prosperity to less donmination of Hun-style culture. That is very confusing for me.


If you read one of my article in Chinese text that SCP posted in CHF, I did achnowledge contribution for the Buddhism civilization. I am the stupid guy who think Chinese culture is the most superior culture in the world.


It would be more accurate if you said, after Xianbei become more Han-like, they joined Han who brought the prosperity in Sui-Tang. In that case, you would be also less suspected to support a Nazi-racist like theory such as super blood of Mongol-related Xianbei is absolutely necessary for prosperity in Sui-Tang.



陈寅恪is also a historian in PRC, in fact, a close friend of my close relative. He died in cultural revolution period.

In this paragraph, I realized that I might be misunderstood. I have never claim the re-construction of China has no contribution from any one who have the Xianbei blood. I claim more Xianbei become Han-chinese like, more constructive they are. So the re-construction should not attribute to Xianbei’s invasion, but to the Han-Chinese civilization. When Xianbei join the reconstruction, they join as Han-Chinese even most of their blood or origin might not Han at that moment.

To expand a little bit, if Xianbei follow the instruction of current Mongol-Manchu nationalist, who think Nomadic blood are superior than the Han coward, if they consider han-Chinese can only be their slaves and all the traditional Chinese culture are rubbish, they can never join the reconstruction. Today in China, many Mongol-Manchu nationalists actively promote this kind of idea, and unfortunately, I found the idea that Yun supports is acturally in their side.


If you decide to attack my idea, please attack the exact idea, but not any distorted one. Any correct idea must be described accurately, if it is distort a little in a very small part, of course it will become rudicular.

I blame the thief for their killings but there are many ways the school can be recovered quickly. The School can always hire new teachers from other schools or other countries. In fact, one of my English professors was born in France. So, continue to blame all on the thief for causing the bad quality of the school in the next 700 years is not a good excuse. The thief causes temporary disruption; it is up to the school to revive the good quality of training.

As I said, the Ming never follow the Song policy and system. Industry and Commence was never their focus area and it results in bad industrial products being produced. I am not saying all the products are inferior.
The Mongols should be blamed for their massacre and disruption but to says they are the causes of China decline in the next 700 years is incorrect.




Many records and documents will still survive, it is up to the later generations to revive it. Infact, many of Song technology like Shipbuiding, gunpowder, Printing, movable type, Improved compass continue to be inherited by Later dynasties. However, these later dynasties did little to improve these magnificient invention which causes the decline of China in term of technological progress.

China was already in total chaos before the Qing come to conquer China with the Rebels captures Beijing and bring down the Ming dynasty. Many Han Chinese is already dying from hunger, natural disasters, and soldiers abuse. The Ming army which was supposed to protect the peasants are even more crueler with they commit themselves to mass looting, raping, killings. The Sourthern Ming also faces problem with princes and generals fight against each other rather than focus on their common enemy. It is Han Chinese killing Han Chinese first which give the Qing opportunity to conquer China. Many of the han chinese has already be killed before the Qing even came.



As I said, the Ming economy is already bankrupt and almost facing total collaspe around 1600s. Do you think the Li Zi cheng which capture Beijing is any better than the Qing ? The decline of China already started in Yuan dynasty and continue through most of Ming and Qing. In early Qing, taxes were keep at low level compare to later Ming and many granaries was set up to provide relief to the people when there are natural disasters or bad haversts.

I think you should compre it to the Ming Emperors which almost all of them except Hong Wu and Chong Zhen live in much greater extent than the Qing Emperors at the costs of the people. During Ming dynasty, rebellion happen all the time and normally was crushed quickly by the Ming army. Why the Manchu kills Han Chinese is different than Han chinese killing Han chinese ? I think you should apply special treatment here.



Before you blame the Qing Emperors, you might as well compare it to the Ming Emperors.

Again, all of them seem murderer to me. The Ming army send to put down rebellion was commiting serious crime like raping, looting, and killing. Some of the Ming officals even take some of the women with them and sell it for prostitution. This problem was so serious in the Late Ming that many peasants join the rebel or hire their own personal guard.



As I said, the Ming was in total chaos before the Qing come. Do you think the Qing able to conquer China if the Ming dynasty did not fall ? Mass killings is already began long time ago before the Qing even come.


I can not accept this idea, Ming become bankrupt because of constant robbery from Jurgen and Mongol tribes. It is not Ming government who make Ming bankcrupt. Qing was one of the guilty guys who made Ming bankrupt. Peace was recovered after Qing massracred tens of millions Chinese people, because they can obtain more wealth from Chinese people than robbery. It is like after a thief becomes the owner of the bank by violence, he dooes not have to kill in employee in the bank. However, this does not mean it is good thing that the thief become the owner of the bank.

Piracy ? Throughout the Ming period up until 1567, piracy was a serious problem which lead to wars. Furthermore, during the late Qing dynasty...Western power could had stolen these too.



You point is only partly ture. The mongols threat dissappear in 1571 after the Ming had a trade agreement with them. Zhang Ju Cheng the capable minister manage to revive the nation. After he died, the Imperial reserves was full of gold bullion and it make Wan Li Emperor "three Greastest Campaign" possible. It is Wan li mismanagement that bring the nation to bankrupcty. Look at the Song dynasty, the nation still growing rapidly eventhough there were constant of warfare.



You Should read the history of Ming dynasty especially Wan li Emperor. The Ming reach its peak in 1571 with Imperial reserves reach all time high. However, Wan li Emperor mismanagment causes all these reserves to be wasted which finally lead to the bankrucpty of Ming.

False, actually. There have been people here blamed for being a Nazi before you. I believe that these views were made before you joined this forum to defend yourself and express some of your views about Nomad culture.

It might be not as hard as you suggested. The northern Wei was not a purely Xianbei country but a mixture between Chinese culture and Nomadic culture. The behaviors of their army might belong to different types that decided by which culture influnece more.

If you want to know what havbovour is from the tradition Nomad side, you can easily find out from what was most often done by a pure nomadic group. If you want to know what influnece were from Chinese culture, then you should do the same statistcis to those who followed Chinese system. By comparing the results, you would easily to find out. But apparently you are trying to mix them together to avoid any conclusion.

Oh, believe me, if I don't feel sick for his statement, I would not write so many articles that are considered as "Han-nationalism-chauvinism" by many others.



I hate to say the same thing so many times repeatly, but let me repeat once again in another way.

Are there any one from those Jews/Christians who believe God and read bible who engaged crimes? Yes, of course there are. Even bible recorded such crimnals. However, as a Christian, if some one say Bible do nothing to decrease crimes. Do you agree? I don't know if you agree or not, but I do not. Bible helped most Jews/Christans, who believe God, restrain them self not to do anything like murding, stealing or other things similar? I also think this is because Bible blame but not praize those who undertake criminal behavior.

If anyone who want to devalue bible, he can follow exactly what Yun has done for devaluing Chinese culture. He can certainly say this guy or that guy who undertakesome very sick crimes but police was baptitized before. In fact there are even some pastors who are criminals. At least I know from a American newspaper that a pastor made a very bad traffic accidents becuase he was too drunk. If anyone say Bible never help people to drink too much or never prevent crimes, I will strongly protest and Yun would do the same. You simply can not use individual examples to prove Bible is good or bad. Bible asks the believers not to be drunk, but some one who read them perhaps do not that believe Bibile is from God in the first place, and some one, who even believe God, might does not follow what Bible tells them to do. I think one can find many Christians who are drunk, perhaps more than one hundred in the world, but it is different if this 100 drunk christans are among 200 or among 200 millions. If one find some drunk Christains, it simply can not override the fact that Bible help Christians, who follow Bible, to avoid being drunk, becauswe it is not the fact. However, If some one insist the number is not an issue, it is simply impossible to find out Bible encourage or discourage people who commite crimes.

Your way of studying history is not any better than those who took behavor of individual christians to prove Bible is useless. You always use behavoir of individual against the theory that is supposed to be applied to statistices. You refused to admit the fact that Han society is productive and construtive than nomadic society, with some individual examples of destroying hehavior from han-Chinese. You never bother to look at statistics how much Han-society produced and how much the Nomad did.

More rudicularly, you alwyas refuse to analyse what culture element encourage the crimes and what culture encourage constructions. You are exactly like those guys who said Bible do nothing to prevent people underataking crimes while refusing to read what bible exactly tell the believerrs. Yes, there are christians who commited crimes such plundering others as crusader. But this is not what Bible encourage them to do. If some one really follow Bible, they will never undertake such crimes. It is exactly the same case in Chinese culture. You never bother to read what Chinese culture encourage and what discurage, exactly like those who never bother to read bible before they bound Bible and crimianl christians. If you have friend, who consider to send him/her to school that teach children with value from Bible, do you use same style of attribution in your history studies to analyse and tell him: "It is useless to teach Bible to children. Look there are these and those Chritains who are crminals and there this and that person from mafia society who denoted money to School. So Christian school does not let the children to behave better". You might do this to your friend, would you use the same way to evaluate Bible and attribute for your own child? Apparently, you do not consider Chinese children as your own children. What culture is better for them is not your concern. What culture in history helped China become more or less productive seems not to be your cerncern too. Your concern is only politically right or wrong, but not the fact. Your only concern is to prevent people to find which better in history, because it is only politically correct to say to two culture is equally good.

In Han-culture the major value come from Confucious and Tao. At least from my own investigation, when Han-Chinese people followed the value they undertake less crimes. When not they undertook more. But in the nomadic culture, it was competely differnt. Among mongolians nationalists, it is very popular to call a book as their own bible, that is "the secrete history of mongols". You really should have read it to see value illustrated in that book. Then I suggest you to compare it to Bible, to Confucious theory, and to Islamic Koran. I have found many similar in the latter three system but completely different in the Mongolian Bible. My conclusion that the value system in Nomadic groups support genocide is not from my imagination, but from their own document. If the book is just a beautiful story it really does not matter, Howver, it is not, we found so many historic records to prove they are excuting such value all over the two thousand years. There are several hudnreds millions Chinese who were killed under this value. There are also large number of victims from Moslims and European historians that I do not have time to do the statistics. You find very similar behavior from Mongol, Xianbei before integrate with Chinese, and turks. When Xianbei kille baby for fun, I associate the the famous sentence from Mongolian God Geniskhan "The most pleasant fun is ......". When Xianbei did something good, I am sure there are Han-Chinese behind it. Did you ever find any Xianbei, who were not influenced by Han-Chinese. did the same good thing as you presented above? If yes, I am completely wrong. SO give me one example, and only one is enough to prove I am wrong.

When you are trying to mix those murders with those who have better behaviors under influence from Han-culture, moslim or Christians, you are simply stiring up the facts in history to prevent people learning lessons from it.


First I would not quote 柏杨's book as a reliable source, because I found he often wrote something according to his imagination and even I as some one who is not a professional historian, found too many sutpid mistakes in his book that completely controdict to oroginal records seversly.

Conerning whether there were tragety like killing mongol civilians from Han-Chinese, I think usually in this kind of revenge, it is probabaly unavoidable even I have never read anthing. When Russians Christains and Saracen Moslims overthrow Mongol regimes, there were also similar things happened. When Japaness lost the WWII, there were also individual news that some Japaness civlians were plundered or killed. At least I read a book in which author describe how her family protect Japaness civlians when some other Chinese wanted to rob and kill them.

However, you guys have a tendence not to use statistics. As I said many times before, in present european countries there are crimes that some nazi-like eupreans raid innocent moslims. However, there are law against this behavoir so the number of victims is far less, simply too far less than the number of vcimts under Nazi regimes. It is same in China. I quoted following Chinese records.

：“逾日，达陈兵齐化门，填濠登城。监国淮王 帖木儿不花，....等不降，斩之，其余不戮一人。封府库，籍图书宝物，令指挥张胜以兵千人守宫 殿门，使宦者护视诸宫人、妃、主，禁士卒毋所侵暴。吏民安居，市不易肆。”(摘自明史)
And this is the law in Ming dyansty.
　　“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.”
Now some second hard descript from a French historians about how Mongol did 150 years ago

看看“草原帝国”的描述　“蒙军占领北京，屠杀 居民、夺民房，最后纵火焚城（1215年）。劫掠持续了一个月之久。”宋、金时代，北京那样规模的大城市在战时加上避难人人口，总数往往超过百万，蒙古军队用了一个月时间才杀完、烧完，这不是种族灭绝是什么，

There are some historians never bother to compare laws under Mongol empire and under Ming. They also never bother to compare number of victims and insist on saying number of victims is not an issue. If there is one murder from Han-Chinese kill one vicimts, the whole group is barbaric.

Well I can only say this way, if number of vicimts is not an issue, there is no difference between Nomadic and Han-Chinese society. There is also no difference between Nazi regime and present western contries. All are barbaric society.

However, if number of vicimts is an issue, there is dramatic difference between Nazi regime and present Western coutries in Europe. There is also dramatic difference between nomadic society and Han-Chinese society. There is also dramatic difference in the aspect of productions

Does this in this statement make everyone happy now? You keep your political view correct while I keep my histroical view and tell my fellow Chinese which type value should be adopted to let our children and decedant to avoid tragedy. Before I risk my life under ruling of nomad goverment, I do not really have to care if my view is politically correct or not for those nomad-centric politians, as some "historians" did.

After a few days I will post my Chinese translation of the book "the secret history of Mongols", if I am not prohaptied. One can get very much idea what the leaders of Nomadic tribes disscuss during their meetings.

then compare something in 元史 as follow to see if there is any consistance.
”《元史》, 本纪第三十九 顺帝二

是岁，诏赐孝子靳昺碑。伯颜请杀张、王、刘、李、赵
五姓汉人，帝不从。征西域僧伽剌麻至京师，号灌顶国师，赐玉印。
the above is discussion inside the Yuan goverment

To make an compareson to what are discussing in Song goverment, I post the following text from the book 《续资治通鉴》
As one can see, it is not far from perfect in Song dynasty. In fact there were simply too many problems. Also the empiro is quite selfish, not willing to pay enough money for those are encounter disasters. However, if one do not have bais, I think he can easily get idea about what kind of influnece from traditional culture is. It is helping people to prevent the problem or it simply increase the problem. I would be surprised, but with great respect if some one can present any reliable document to prove similar influence can also come from Namadic groups. When Yun and his friend insist on there is no actural difference between the two types of society, there idea seems to be very controdictive to these kind of document.

壬子，录行在系囚。
江、浙、福建旱、蝗。诏曰：“亢阳为害，日事祷祈，邈无报应。且闻飞蝗为
孽，朕心惕然。自七月一日，避正殿，减常膳，应中外臣僚，并许直言朝廷阙失。”
知宁国府杜范召还都，首言：“旱荐臻，人无粒食，楮券猥轻，物价腾踊，
行都之内，气象萧条。左浙近辅，殍死盈道，流民充斥，剽掠成风，是内忧已迫矣。
新兴北兵，乘胜而善斗，中原群盗，假名而崛起，捣我马蜀，据我荆襄，扰我淮
耎，疆场之臣，肆为欺蔽，是外患既深矣。人主上所恃者天，下所恃者民。近者天
文示变，妖彗吐芒，方冬而雷，既春而雪，海潮冲突乎都城，赤地几遍于畿甸，是
不得乎天而天已怒矣。人死于干戈，死于饥馑，父子相弃，夫妇不相保，怨气盈腹，
谤言载道，是不得乎民而民已怨矣。陛下能与二三大臣安居于天下之上乎？陛下亦
尝思所以致此否乎？盖自曩者权相阳进妾妇之小忠，阴窃君人之大柄，以声色玩好
内蛊陛下之心术，而废置生杀，一切惟其意之欲为，以致纪纲陵迟，风俗颓靡，军
政不修，边备废缺，凡今日之内忧外患，皆权相三十年酿成之，如养痈疽，待时而
决耳。端平号为更化，而居相位者非其人，败坏污秽，殆有甚焉。自是圣意皇惑，
莫知所倚，方且不以彼为仇而少为德，不以彼为罪而以为功，于是天之望于陛下者
孤，而变怪见矣，人之望于陛下者觖，而怨叛形矣。陛下敬天有图，旨酒有箴，缉
熙有记，持此一念，振起倾颓，宜无难者。然闻之道路，谓警惧之意，只见于外朝
视政之顷，而好乐之私，多纵于内庭狎亵之际；名为任贤，而左右近习或得而潜间，
政出于中书，而御笔特奏或从而中出。左道之蛊惑，私亲之请托，皆足以蒙蔽陛下
之聪明，转移陛下之心术。”于是范去国四载矣，帝抚劳备至，迁权吏部侍郎兼侍
讲。
秋，七月，甲子，出封桩库缗钱二十万贯赈临安贫民。
杜范复上疏曰：“天灾旱，昔固有之。而仓廪匮竭，月支不继，斗粟一千，
其增未已，富户沧落，十室九空，此又昔之所无也。甚而阖门饥死，相率投江，里
巷聚首以议执政，军伍谇语所赤地千里。淮民流离，襁负相属，欲归无所，奄奄待
尽。使边尘不起，尚可苟活万一。敌骑冲突，彼必奔迸南来，或相携从敌，因为之
乡导，巴蜀之覆辙可鉴也。窃意陛下宵旰忧惧，宁处弗遑。然宫中宴赐，未闻有所
贬损；左右嫱嬖，未闻有所放遣；貂珰近习，未闻有所斥逐；女冠请谒，未闻有所
屏绝；朝廷政事，未闻有所修饬；庶府积蠹，未闻有所搜革。秉国钧者惟私情之徇，
主道揆者惟法守之侵。国家大政，则相持而不决；司存细物，则出意而辄行。命令
朝更而夕变，纲纪荡废而不存。陛下盍亦震惧自省？”诏：“中外臣庶，各悉力尽
思，以陈持危制变之策。”范旋授吏部侍郎兼中书舍人。
乙丑，下诏罪已，复求直言。
The authors of "Cambridge history of China" claimed there are no leader in chinese history who can do better than Yuan goverment.

However, by comparing many of this discussions in Yuan and Song, I think those authors did not tell the truth. If their professonal skill is enough for them to read and compare these documents but still they claim in that way without bothering to explain why contrictions between their idea and the docutments does not matter, I think it is quite fair to call them liars.

I also quote some part from the secret history of Mongols in constrast. If any one suspect that my last quatation from 《三国志》might be a denomization from Han-chauvinsits historians, it is the word from the nomadic group this time. I do not find any inconstent from those records by Han-chauvinsits historians

《蒙古秘史》同时也可以看成一部文学作品。由于蒙古过去没有文字。对于所发生的事情，依靠语言记忆保存是很困难的事情。所以当时的蒙古人习惯于用押韵诗歌的形式代替文字，以便於记忆。这样使得《蒙古秘史》写作时期，蒙古部落已经借用字母创立了文字，但是这种用诗歌记述的风格没有改变。这使得所记述的事迹可靠性、尤其是对话的可靠性降低，对于了解蒙古帝国贵族的价值和美感倾向，却有很大帮助。例如，我们不难从类似下列的反复出现的诗句中，了解蒙古帝国贵族具有什么样的价值观念，他们在世界各地所进行的屠杀，是迫不得已，还是洋洋得意；

　　　撞毁他帐房的支架，
让他的帐房倒塌，
　　　糟蹋他所有的妻子女儿。
　　　撞断他帐房的门框，
让神灵从此不再祝福他兴隆，
把他的属民杀掠一空。

类似的还有

把(他们)家里的上上下下
儿子的儿子
都杀成了灰扬在空中，
都灭绝的干干净净。
对所剩下妻子和女儿们，
能搂在怀里糟蹋的，都搂在怀里糟蹋了，

能在门里当奴婢的，都赶进门当奴婢了。
书中所揭示的以屠杀他人为能事，强奸他人家妻子儿女为自豪的观念，对于理解了解蒙古帝国征服文明地区后，所采取的暴行后果的前因后果，有着极大的帮助。

下列在蒙古贵族下级想上级邀封时反复出现的诗句，也可以让人们看成，游牧民族贵族的本性不是建立文明社会，而是要靠不劳而获，掠夺他人。这既是他们的谋生手段，也是他们的理想和乐趣：

　　　我们愿做先锋冲上阵去，
　　　把姿色姣好的闺女贵妇，
　　　把的宫帐房屋
　　　夺来给你。
　　　把异族的漂亮女人，
　　　臀部完好的良驹骏马，
夺来给你。

下列多次出现的诗歌还可以看到蒙古社会没有文明社会所具备的人格尊严，即使是在贵族上下级之间，也是主子和奴才的关系。自己和儿女的性命可以随时被丢掉，妻子也可以随时被强奸。

　　　如果违背了你的旨意，
　　　把我们老婆们、家奴们拿去，
　　　把我们的头颅扔在地上！
　　　闲暇的时候，
　　　如果破坏了你的协议，
　　　把我们老婆们、家奴们拿去，
　 把我们仍在无人野地！

实际上，这些赌咒发誓的方式及背后的价值观念、心理状态，和文明社会穷凶极恶的土匪强盗没有任何分别。蒙古帝国的征服，如果一个规模巨大的犯罪团伙抢劫得手一样，造成了遭受灾难的国家和民族发展停止不前，实在不是什么不可理解的事情。

To see the difference between Mongol and Huaxia cultural values, compare those "poems" with the poems in Shi Jing (诗经). Remember also the Shi Jing was written 2000 years before the rise of Genghis Khan.

A few poems from Shi Jing:

皇矣上帝、臨下有赫。
監觀四方、求民之莫。
維此二國、其政不獲。
維彼四國、爰究爰度。
上帝耆之、憎其式廓。
乃眷西顧、止維與宅。

作之屏之、其菑其翳。
脩之平之、其灌其栵。
啟之辟之、其檉其椐。
攘之剔之、其 yan 其柘。
帝遷明德、串夷載路。
天立厥配、受命既固。

帝省其山、柞棫斯拔、松柏斯兌。
帝作邦作對、自大伯王季。
維此王季、因心則友。
則友其兄、則篤其慶。
載錫之光、受祿無喪、奄有四方。

維此王季、帝度其心、貊其德音。
其德克明、克明克類、克長克君。
王此大邦、克順克比。
比于文王、其德靡悔。
既受帝祉、施于孫子。

帝謂文王、無然畔援、無然歆羨、誕先登于岸。
密人不恭、敢距大邦、侵阮徂共。
王赫斯怒、爰整其旅、以按徂旅、以篤于周祜、以對于天下。

依其在京、侵自阮疆、陟我高岡。
無矢我陵、我陵我阿。
無飲我泉、我泉我池。
度其鮮原、居歧之陽、在渭之將。
萬邦之方、下民之王。

帝謂文王、予懷明德、不大聲以色、不長夏以革。
不識不知、順帝之則。
帝謂文王、詢爾仇方、同爾兄弟、以爾鉤援、與爾臨衝、以我崇墉。

臨衝閑閑、崇墉言言。
執訊連連、攸馘安安。
是類是禡、是致是附。
四方以無悔。
臨衝茀茀、崇墉仡仡。
是伐是肆、是絕是忽。
四方以無拂。

Great is God ,
Beholding this lower world in majesty .
He surveyed the four quarters [of the kingdom] ,
Seeking for someone to give settlement to the people .
Those two [earlier] dynasties ,
Had failed to satisfy Him with their government ;
So throughout the various States ,
He sought and considered ,
For one on which he might confer the rule .
Hating all the great [States] ,
He turned His kind regards on the west ,
And there gave a settlement [to king Da] .

[King Da] raised up and removed ,
The dead trunks , and the fallen trees .
He dressed and regulated ,
The bushy clumps , and the [tangled] rows .
He opened up and cleared ,
The tamarix trees , and the stave-trees .
He hewed and thinned ,
The mountain-mulberry trees .
God having brought about the removal thither of this intelligent ruler ,
The Guan hordes fled away .
Heaven raised up a helpmeet for him .
And the appointment he had received was made sure .

God surveyed the hills ,
Where the oaks and yu were thinned ,
And paths made through the firs and cypresses .
God , who had raised the State , raised up a proper ruler for it ; --
From the time of Da-bo and king Ju [this was done] .
Now this king Ju ,
In his heart was full of brotherly duty .
Full of duty to his elder brother ,
He gave himself the more to promote the prosperity [of the country] ,
And secured to him the glory [of his act] .
He accepted his dignity , and did not lose it ,
And [ere long his family] possessed the whole kingdom .

The king Ju ,
Was gifted by God with the power of judgement ,
So that the fame of his virtue silently grew .
His virtue was highly intelligent ; --
Highly intelligent and of rare discrimination ;
Able to lead , able to rule , --
To rule over this great country ;
Rendering a cordial submission , effecting a cordial union .
When [the sway] came to king Wen ,
His virtue left nothing to be dissatisfied with .
He received the blessing of God ,
And it was extended to his descendants .

God said to king Wen ,
' Be not like those who reject this and cling to that ;
Be not like those who are ruled by their likings and desires ; '
So he grandly ascended before others to the height [of virtue] .
The people of Mi were disobedient ,
Daring to oppose our great country ,
And invaded Yuan , marching to Gung .
The king rose majestic in his wrath ;
He marshalled his troops ,
To stop the invading foes ;
To consolidate the prosperity of Zhou ;
To meet [the expectations of ] all under heaven .

He remained quietly in the capital ;
But [his troops] went on from the borders of Yuan .
They ascended our lofty ridges ,
And [the enemy] arrayed no forces on our hills ,
On our hills , small or large ,
Nor drank at our springs ,
Our springs or our pools .
He then determined the finest of the plains ,
And settled on the south of Ju ,
On the side of the Wei ;
The centre of all the States ,
The resort of the lower people .

God said to king Wen ,
'I am pleased with your intelligent virtue ,
Not loudly proclaimed nor pourtrayed ,
Without extravagance or changeableness ,
Without consciousness of effort on your part ,
In accordance with the pattern of God . '
God said to king Wen ,
' Take measures against the country of your foes .
Along with your brethren ,
Get ready your scaling ladders ,
And yoru engines of onfall and assault ,
To attack the walls of Chong . '

The engines of onfall and assault were gently plied ,
Against the walls of Chong high and great ;
Captives for the question were brought in one after another ;
' The left ears [of the slain] were taken leisurely .
He sacrificed to God , and to the Father of War ,
Thus seeking to induce submission ;
And throughout the kingdom none dared to insult him .
The engines of onfall and assault were vigorously plied ,
Against the walls of Chong very strong ;
He attacked it , and let loose all his forces ;
He extinguished [its sacrifices] , and made an end of its existence ;
And throughout the kingdom none dared to oppose him .'

- 《诗经/皇矣》

桃之夭夭、灼灼其華。
之子于歸、宜其家室。

桃之夭夭、有蕡其實。
之子于歸、宜其室家。

桃之夭夭、其葉蓁蓁。
之子于歸、宜其家人。

The peach tree is young and elegant ;
Brilliant are its flowers .
This young lady is going to her future home ,
And will order well her chamber and house .

The peach tree is young and elegant ;
Abundant will be its fruits .
This young lady is going to her future home ,
And will order well her chamber and house .

The peach tree is young and elegant ;
Luxuriant are its leaves .
This young lady is going to her future home ,
And will order well her family .

- 《诗经/桃夭》

肅肅兔罝、椓之丁丁。
赳赳武夫、公侯干城。

肅肅兔罝、施于中逵。
赳赳武夫、公侯好仇。

肅肅兔罝、施于中林。
赳赳武夫、公侯腹心。

Carefully adjusted are the rabbit nets ;
Clang clang go the blows on the pegs .
That stalwart , martial man
Might be shield and wall to his prince .

Carefully adjusted are the rabbit nets ,
And placed where many ways meet .
That stalwart , martial man
Would be a good companion for his prince .

Carefully adjusted are the rabbit nets ,
And placed in the midst of the forest .
That stalwart , martial man
Might be head and heart to his prince .

- 《诗经/兔罝》

瞻彼淇奧、綠竹猗猗。
有匪君子、如切如磋、如琢如磨。
瑟兮僩兮、赫兮咺兮。
有匪君子、終不可諼兮。

瞻彼淇奧、綠竹青青。
有匪君子、充耳琇瑩、會弁如星。
瑟兮僩兮、赫兮咺兮。
有匪君子、終不可諼兮。

瞻彼淇奧、綠竹如簀。
有匪君子、如切如錫、如圭如璧。
寬兮綽兮、猗重較兮。
善戲謔兮、不為虐兮。

Look at those recesses in the banks of the Qi ,
With their green bamboos , so fresh and luxuriant !
There is our elegant and accomplished prince , --
As from the knife and the file ,
As from the chisel and the polisher !
How grave is he and dignified !
How commanding and distinguished !
Our elegant and accomplished prince , --
Never can he be forgotten !

Look at those recesses in the banks of the Qi ,
With their green bamboos , so strong and luxuriant !
There is our elegant and accomplished prince , --
With his ear-stoppers of beautiful pebbles ,
And his cap , glittering as with stars between the seams !
How grave is he and dignified !
How commanding and distinguished !
Our elegant and accomplished prince , --
Never can he be forgotten !

Look at those recesses in the banks of the Qi ,
With their green bamboos , so dense together !
There is our elegant and accomplished prince , --
[Pure] as gold and as tin ,
[Soft and rich] as a sceptre of jade !
How magnanimous is he and gentle !
There he is in his chariot with its two high sides !
Skilful is he at quips and jokes ,
But how does he keep from rudeness from them !

- 《诗经/淇奧》

彼黍離離、彼稷之苗。
行邁靡靡、中心搖搖。
知我者、謂我心憂、不知我者、謂我何求。
悠悠蒼天、此何人哉。

彼黍離離、彼稷之穗。
行邁靡靡、中心如醉。
知我者、謂我心憂、不知我者、謂我何求。
悠悠蒼天、此何人哉。

彼黍離離、彼稷之實。
行邁靡靡、中心如噎。
知我者、謂我心憂、不知我者、謂我何求。
悠悠蒼天、此何人哉。

There was the millet with its drooping heads ;
There was the sacrificial millet into blade .
Slowly I moved about ,
In my heart all-agitated .
Those who knew me ,
Said I was sad at heart .
Those who did not know me ,
Said I was seeking for something .
O distant and azure Heaven !
By what man was this [brought about] ?

There was the millet with its drooping heads ;
There was the sacrificial millet in the ear .
Slowly I moved about ,
My heart intoxicated , as it were , [with grief] .
Those who knew me ,
Said I was sad at heart .
Those who did not know me ,
Said I was seeking for something .
O thou distant and azure Heaven !
By what man was this [brought about] ?

There was the millet with its drooping heads ;
There was the sacrificial millet in grain .
Slowly I moved about ,
As if there were a stoppage at my heart .
Those who knew me ,
Said I was sad at heart .
Those who did not know me ,
Said I was seeking for something .
O thou distant and azure Heaven !
By what man was this [brought about] ?

- 《诗经/黍離》

青青子衿、悠悠我心。
縱我不往、子寧不嗣音。

青青子佩、悠悠我思。
縱我不往、子寧不來。

挑兮達兮、在城闕兮。
一日不見、如三月兮。

O you , with the blue collar ,
Prolonged is the anxiety of my heart .
Although I do not go [to you] ,
Why do you not continue your messages [to me] ?

O you with the blue [strings to your] girdle-gems ,
Long , long do I think of you .
Although I do not go [to you] ,
Why do you not come [to me] ?

How volatile are you and dissipated ,
By the look-out tower on the wall !
One day without the sight of you ,
Is like three months .

- 《诗经/子衿》

蒹葭蒼蒼、白露為霜。
所謂伊人、在水一方。
溯洄從之、道阻且長。
溯游從之、宛在水中央。

蒹葭淒淒、白露未晞。
所謂伊人、在水之湄。
溯洄從之、道阻且躋。
溯游從之、宛在水中坻。

蒹葭采采、白露未已。
所謂伊人、在水之涘。
溯洄從之、道阻且右。
溯游從之、宛在水中沚。

The reeds and rushes are deeply green ,
And the white dew is turned into hoarfrost .
The handsome man of whom I think ,
Is somewhere about the water .
I go up the stream in quest of him ,
But the way is difficult and long .
I go down the stream in quest of him ,
And lo ! he is right in the midst of the water .

The reeds and rushes are luxuriant ,
And the white dew is not yet dry .
The handsome man of whom I think ,
Is on the margin of the water .
I go up the stream in quest of him ,
But the way is difficult and steep .
I go down the stream in quest of him ,
And lo ! he is on the islet in the midst of the water .

The reeds and rushes are abundant ,
And the white dew is not yet ceased .
The handsome man of whom I think ,
Is on the bank of the river .
I go up the stream in quest of him ,
But the way is difficult and turns to the right .
I go down the stream in quest of him ,
And lo ! he is on the island in the midst of the water .

- 《诗经/蒹葭》

《蒙古秘史》 is depicting the habitual domain of a race.
These type of words endorse the act of barbarian.
When these words is implanted into the sub-conscious of the people, it becomes gospel truth. It becomes the commonly accepted practice among the people. In fact, it becomes the "best practice" recommended for the survival of the tribe and the race.

Civilization is rooted in the collective refinement of the instinct/habit dichotomy of her people.
IOW, the habitual domain of her people must be able to check and balance her own drive of species instinct (e.g. food, sex and power) and further refines the skill and practices for the fulfillment of basic needs and worldly wealth and power. From the words of 《蒙古秘史》, it shows the other way round. The book encourages the instant gratification of own's desires via the act of violence and brutality. (Bear in mind that the written record is rare in nomads. A book like 《蒙古秘史》 is obviously originated from the higher echelon of the people in this race?)

If the Mongol in PRC and Mongolia do not draw a line that separate them from their past, the habitual domain will be passed down generation upon generations, waiting for the right time to explode. Because deep inside the sub-conscious mind of the people is a place the devil resides ...

The advancement of civilization is rooted in the collective refinement of the instinct/habit dichotomy of her people,and hence contribute to both spiritual and material construction of the people. However, some observation also shows that this refinement process is cyclic. IOW, it always get stagnant after some time of accelerated advancement.

From Yin/Yang perspective, and looking from the context of our world, the Chinese Civilization is a classic collective of AND-oriented dynamics. IOW, the policies thru out the dynasties are always context sensitive. That said, it is lacking in the perpetual support of critical mass of her people in promoting the social and technological change. From time to time, we need catalysts either from foreign or interior sources. So, as witnessed thru out 2000 years, any social, economy and technological progress is always preceded by revolutions, foreign invasions and social upheavals in the Middle Kingdom.

If one is ploting a profile across the Chinese from PRC/ROC to overseas Chinese (South East Asia/ Europe and US), we will notice a general swing of AND-dynamics from PRC Chinese to XOR-dynamics in the US Chinese.

赵丰年 is obviously a rare breed in PRC (and the Chinese world), characterized by his "high energy" profile to dig in the dark side of the civilization, against a huge pool of conformist under the traditional banner of "racial harmony". For the past 2000 years, judging from the records of history (and statisitics), the Chinese people (particularly Han ethnic) is very much a benign people compared to other surrounding cultures across the world.

What is more prominent in the Chinese history is her resilience to withstand the foreign invasions. Don't we have an ICON - the Great Wall of China? One may easily take this icon as a symbol of pride - the longest man made icon visible on the Moon. Others says it is an allegiance of the Chinese to the soil and earth with respect to the change of four seasons. Transcending what ever nostalgic ideas we have with the Wall, it is a living proof of the AND-dynamics, a living agent in the flow of time to tell that the Chinese have been in this Yellow soil for thousands years ... in the name of "harmony".

It was interesting to read all posts and comments. I guess whole discussions is reflection of mentality of highly civilized so-called Han brothers. Thx anyway

The Wise should never argue for long with a Fool...
After a while it becomes impossible to differentiate between
Who is the Wise, and Who is the Fool...

--Old Mongolian saying
A man about to speak the truth
should keep one foot in the stirrup

I visited the libary and had a quick look at the book "Cambridge History of China". The author of the following text is Prof. John W Dardess, Kansas Univerty, who was reffered as the famous expert of Yuan History by Yun. I did not find any distortion in the Chinese translation in this paragraph.

It seems there are not so many expert in the area who develope the new theory other than Prof. Dardess and Prof. Xiao

I wonder who is the author of the following article. Is he Prof. Dardess too?

the Uighurs had longer tradition of WOLF TOTEM than Mongols. It can be seen in ancient Uighur epic OGHUZNAMEH.
By the way,Rabban Bar Sauma was Uighur by ethnicity, please surf in and check http://www.answers.com/topic/rabban-bar-sauma

Excellent link! His name is very Jewish, though. Are we sure that he was truly Uighur origin because I have read that a lot of times ancient Chinese could not separate Jews from Uighurs. A lot of so-call Uighurs or Uighur's tombs are/were actually Jews or Jewish. If someone in the records mentioned a person who was of Uighur origin and wore the blue hat, this Uighur person was actually most likely a Jew, not an Uighur. For the tombs, if the tomb had no pictures of any kind (like animals, etc.), the tomb was definitely an Uighur's tomb. Otherwise, it might be a Jewish tomb. I read this from one of the books about Jews in China.

Also, thanks to bring this thread up again. I read the book and thinking of reviewing it for the modern Chinese literature sometimes. Now that I know there is already a thread, I could use this thread for it.

Anyway, shouldn't this be in the Chinese Literature area because this is about the book, right?

accualy the oghuzname or oguz khan destani in Turkic is of the southwestern Turks and not uygurs

I don't think his name was particularly Jewish, just generally Semitic. Neither Islam nor Judaism is idol worshiping religion. I doubt any orthodox Jewish tomb will have any idolatrous pictures.


Yes, only Salars is the Chinese Turkic group close linked to Oghuz.

Some of them do have the sign of star of David and other pictures. Don't forget ancient Jews followed a few idolatrous religions other than the orthodox Judaism. The ancient Jews in China might not necessarily following the strict Judaism either, and they might just feel the need to continue their Jewish ethnic tradition like the modern day American Jews. Many American Jews are now Buddhists or Atheists or various New Age Religious practitioners, but they would still go to Passover dinners and major Jewish celebrations and call themselves Jews. Just like many modern Chinese who were born in U.S. or other countries other than China or Taiwan do not know how to speak or write Chinese but still follow certain Chinese traditions and continue the Chinese bloodlines.



Thanks for the information.

Star of David is fine, a symbol not an idol. The ancient Jews you called aboved should better be called as ancient Israelites or Hebrews.


This is an interesting topic related to Jewish identity. Years ago, the famous Rabbi Arthur Schneier came to my university in China and gave a talk about the Jewish Identity and Chinese Jews. He asserted Jewish was a cultural concept: you will be a Jewish as long as you practise Judaism, no matter what bloodline you are from; you will not be a Jewish if you give up. He said Kaifeng Jews were assimilated into local Chinese population especially the Muslims and they wouldn't considered as Jewish anymore because there was no Jewish teaching anymore. In brief, "No rabbi, no Jewish" (His original words, I still remember). He convinced me and I still think he is right. Just like that I celecrate Christmas does not make me a Christian.

We have mostly been discussing the Afterword or Postscript of the book, which is a long historical discourse on how the 'cultural characteristics' of nomads are strong and aggressive while those of agrarian peoples are weak and submissive, and how the great achievements of Chinese empires all owe to infusions of nomadic 'wolf-nature' whether biologically (intermarriage) or politically (rule by emperors of nomad origin, supposedly including Sui and Tang). The semi-fictional part of the book by itself is alright (I heard it even won the Man Booker Prize), but this historical theory is a big problem. It's simplistic, essentialist, pseudo-scientific, and worrying in that it's telling its many readers that China needs to be more aggressive and 'wolf-like' in order to succeed on the world stage. As a historian I see no merit in it whatsoever.

That is why I consider this book more of a literature and not in the history area and not even in the Chinese Ethnic Groups and Peoples section. Personally, I like its style of writing more than the rest. The story is interesting. The aspects of the nomadic life and the agrarian peoples are views of some people and somewhat controversial. I think it would be interesting to discuss about the writer's literary techniques to present his point of view and how successful it is.

Certain historical books (fictions or not) also had its literary values, like Shi Ji 史記. Some enhanced the history they were talking about, like my favorite history book, Qin Han Shi Hua 秦漢史話 -- And it is better than a fiction! Some distracted from the history itself. Some were actually successful in distorting the real history (like Romance of the Three Kingdoms 三國演義). I am wondering what do the CHF members thought of the way it presents its premise?

I believe the book I read the information from was called "Jews in China".



Ha ha! That is the ideal situation for most of the religious Jewish people. However, I can tell you that there would be millions of modern day Jews very much disagreeing with that particular sentiment! ;) I consider Jews is sort of like Chinese: You either have the blood line or you are culturally associated with the group; i.e. you practice the customs of the people and think of yourself as one of the people. At this point, according to the current Orthodox Jewish law, if your mother is a Jew, you are a Jew. You might be a Buddhist, do not speak Hebrew, and do not practice any Jewish customs, but you can still call yourself a Jew -- for example, my sister-in-law. God save any rabbi who would tell her otherwise!