Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

How Han Chinese view non-Han and Vice Versa


  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

#61 brightness

brightness

    Executive State Secretary (Shangshu Puye 尚书仆射)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 795 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History

Posted 25 July 2009 - 01:01 AM

Please. 1/3rd of Native women report being raped by non-Native men... they are race-mixing into extinction since America desecrates their culture, their languages are going extinct. If the Chinese did that in Tibet every European and American would be screaming bloody murder.

http://www.washingto...7042502778.html


Where did you get the "1/3 . . . raped by non-Native men" part? What the article says is that 1/3 of native American women report in surveys as having been raped, double the average for non-Native women. There is no mention of that many by non-Native men at all. Do you just make things up on the fly? The majority of survey report cases (as opposed to police report) are statutory rapes by relatives and family members.

I'm amazed how America's brainwashing apparatus is so glib that the people ignore the facts collected by their own media. Selective ignorance... I've always suspected the whole Tibet thing was just Anglo-American projection. No amount of sloganeering is going to save their guilty souls.


Projection is something people are prone to do. For example, your attributing all native American women rape cases to non-Native men as some kind of government race-mixing policy above.. For what it's worth, the recognized Native tribes in the US are considered "nations" nowadays; they are outside the jurisdiction of American state governments. As for "race-mixing," so long as it's voluntary, what's the harm in that? It's silly to assume any race is "pure" anyway. My wife claims 1/16 native American blood; I often joke about how did she know her great great grandparent had been "pure"? LOL. As for desecrating their culture, are you sure you are up to date? If anything, the "desecration" comes from tribal initiatives nowadays, in opening casinoes, funding tribal history museums that tell a Disney-version of its own history, and importing trinkets from China to sell as tribal artifacts to unsuspecting tourists. But hey, if that's how the tribal councils would like to market themselves, who am I to argue.

They obviously know this, which is why Han dominated courts have almost never invaded non-Chinese peoples.


Sure, the ZhouKouDian cave measured 9,600,000 square kilometers. LOL.

#62 brightness

brightness

    Executive State Secretary (Shangshu Puye 尚书仆射)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 795 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History

Posted 26 July 2009 - 01:27 AM

I am crying, Americans are so great. Hawaii can secede now that white people are 41% there(and increasing), and natives are 22%(and decreasing).


You may want to check your facts again. Whites account for about 25% of Hawaiin population, and decreasing. Asians account for over 40%. Native Hawaiins have been running around 10% or below for decades now. It seems to me that that any fair, equitable and least violent solution would have to deal with equal representation of self-determination by current populations, not reverting back hundreds of years in time. Otherwise, we'd end up with repeated genocide as more and more evidence is found about even earlier occupants.

#63 brightness

brightness

    Executive State Secretary (Shangshu Puye 尚书仆射)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 795 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History

Posted 26 July 2009 - 06:26 PM

http://en.wikipedia....aii#Ethnicities
Like I said, whites are 41% and increasing.


Yet here is what's in the official census data:

http://www.infopleas...emographic.html

Care to tell us where the wacked data that you are attrituting to Wikipedia come from? If you grind the numbers through, you'd see that the Census estimate has white population at 26.8%. In order to get 40%, you'd have to count both Whites, and mixed race people who claim "white" to be one of two or more of their ethnic identifications. That's not exactly "white" to anyone with a passing knowledge of American racial history/tensions, is it? It's preposterous to take the numbers from a healthy voluntary intermingling population, then assign some kind of sinister racial design to it.

Anyway, I think that American civil war can tell us that secession in the US is de facto forbidden!


The American Civil war is nearly 150 years old! What's next? That it is still legal conduct to carry on a war by burning down entire cities, a la Sherman's March from Atlanta to the sea? That it's still legal to exterminate Indians? (like about 120 years ago?) That the federal government would still enforce slave return laws in slave states that did not secede? Come on, attitudes change. Both the American Independece and the Phillipino Independence showed that secession is quite do-able. The American Civil War was more of an abberation in history than the norm. BTW, if China's aspiration is to repeat every single mistake other powers have ever made, in a new global context that is far less accommodating to those mistakes, well then there would certainly be a very painful future for Chinese.

Also, this is how other American politicians react when someone talks about secession:


(Big snip on the clueless wikipedia cut-and-paste). Many American politicians have no clue. If the Texans want to secede, not a single one of those quote politicians would want to carry a rifle to suppress Texans. They just wish someone else would be talked into being sacrificed as cannon fodder in order to guard the previleges of the politicians themselves. In any case, the issue is not Texas, but Puerto Rico and Hawaii, and potentially Alaska too. The Philipines used to be a territory, just like the three of them before the last two became states. BTW, Wikipedia probably is not the best place to look up on topics like secession.

#64 SNK_1408

SNK_1408

    Chief State Secretary (Shangshu Ling 尚书令)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Busan, LA, Sydney
  • Languages spoken:English, Korean, Japanese, Farci
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:South Korean
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese, Korea, Japanese, Human evolution and migration

Posted 27 July 2009 - 10:21 PM

I don't know much about Korea's past culture? You are assuming too much. Of course I knew about the Wangs of Korea having to change their last name to "Jeon" and "Ohk" etc. in fear of persecution, but that doesn't change the fact that the last name of Koryo's royal family was Wang. Actually "Wang-seobang " speaks to this tragedy (that people were forced to change their last name) with a tad of irony and bitterness, doesn't it?

According to wikipedia South Korea still had about 23,000 Wangs left as late as 2000. I suppose only a tiny minority of those were hwagyo, correct?


These Wang clan tragedy is nothing do with Wang-seobang.
Btw, Wang clan did changed their name to Jeon, Ok, Kim etc.. and other various popular names. There is even thread created just for this, you can do the search.

23,000 of Wang is very small number, even my surname "Ma" is bigger than this but considered to be one of rare surname.

I remember reading some Korean comic, and author repeatedly used "Wang-seobang" when referring to Chinese. Yes, you know bit about of past Korean culture but still lack deep knowledge.
역사를 보면 결국 힘있는 자가 힘없는 자를 정복하고 약탈하는 것입니다.
역사를 왜곡하는 민족은 반드시 멸망한다.
Posted Image

#65 Juchechosunmanse

Juchechosunmanse

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 486 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Korean history

Posted 28 July 2009 - 10:59 AM

Yes, you know bit about of past Korean culture but still lack deep knowledge.



How laughable. Who are you to pass that judgement?
Posted Image

위대한 조선민주주의인민공화국만세! 일심딘결, 강성대국
위대한 령도자 김정일동지께 끝없이 충직한 근위대, 결사대가 되자!

#66 brightness

brightness

    Executive State Secretary (Shangshu Puye 尚书仆射)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 795 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History

Posted 28 July 2009 - 08:31 PM

At least we can agree that Native Hawaiian population is at 6.6%.


Not sure what your point is. People of Japanese descent have out-numbered Native Hawaiians since before the state joined the union.

More recent example: Kohlhaas v. State, Supreme Court ruled any attempt at secession to be unconstitutional.
http://touchngo.com/...tml/sp-6072.htm


That's a decision by the Alaskan State Supreme Court, not the United States Supreme Court.

Nothing is different, for example you can attack another country and cause over 1,000,000 citizens to die.
http://www.opinion.c....aspx?NewsId=88


You are dreaming if you think the bad behavior of a dominant power sets a precedence legalizes similar bad behavior of others. For one thing, the parameters of other powers face is different from the parameters faced by the dominant power: the most obvious being the existence of more powerful powers that are capable of and potentially willing to challeng the bad behavior.


But you elected them, they are representatives of the people.


They are elected by a small electorate to represent local districts in an existing governmental structure. They are not representatives elected to a constitutional convention.

#67 R6Guy

R6Guy

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 10 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    None

Posted 28 July 2009 - 09:56 PM

Not sure what your point is. People of Japanese descent have out-numbered Native Hawaiians since before the state joined the union.


I think his point is; how can you democratically secede when you are nowhere near the majority of the population?

I don't claim to know many Natives from Hawai'i and it's really not any of my business, but alot that I talk to are pro Hawaiian Sovereignty.

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image


Edited by R6Guy, 28 July 2009 - 10:00 PM.


#68 brightness

brightness

    Executive State Secretary (Shangshu Puye 尚书仆射)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 795 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History

Posted 29 July 2009 - 01:57 PM

I think his point is; how can you democratically secede when you are nowhere near the majority of the population?


I'm not a big fan of identity politics . . . because identity politics essentially comes down to "ethnic cleansing" as the ultimate solution. Secession can take place if the majority of a geographic location hold that opinion, regarldess what ethnic group they belong to. If the majority do not hold that opinion, the minority should not have the right to decide for the whole region to secede. Otherwise, what results from such a secession/reorganization would be an ehtnicly based aristocracy. Seceding on their own as sovereign individuals or groups of like-minded individuals would be a different story.

I don't claim to know many Natives from Hawai'i and it's really not any of my business, but alot that I talk to are pro Hawaiian Sovereignty.


I'm pro Hawaiian Sovereignty too, and I'm not even a Native Hawaiian (and I live in the continental USA, not Hawaii). The rationales are thus:

(1) Hawaii would become a more prosperous place if the place is ruled by locals (not just local Native Hawaiians, but all people currently residing in Hawaii), without politicians from DC messing around with Hawaiian politics; HI tax rate would be lower if money is not collected to be wasted thousands of miles away.

(2) If continental USA goes to hell in a hand basket, an independent Hawaii would provide a decent English-speaking and multi-cultural refuge for escapees who can make it.

#69 Tibet Libre

Tibet Libre

    Grand Marshal (Da Sima/Taiwei 大司马/太尉)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 1,428 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History

Posted 01 August 2009 - 03:56 PM

How one can compare the Hawaiian independence movement with the Tibetan and Uigur quest for true autonomy (or independence) is beyond me. Hawaiians can publicly express their political opinions, freely rally and try to win people over to their cause. For the very same actions, people are thrown to jail, shot or beaten to death in Tibet and East Turkestan / Xinjiang.

#70 animerlot

animerlot

    General of the Guard (Hujun Zhongwei/Jinjun Tongshuai 护军中尉/禁军统帅)

  • Supreme Scholar (Jinshi)
  • 106 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Beijing China
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    General Chinese Culture
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Con, Bud, Tao

Posted 02 August 2009 - 11:35 PM

How one can compare the Hawaiian independence movement with the Tibetan and Uigur quest for true autonomy (or independence) is beyond me. Hawaiians can publicly express their political opinions, freely rally and try to win people over to their cause. For the very same actions, people are thrown to jail, shot or beaten to death in Tibet and East Turkestan / Xinjiang.


So you can suggest the president of US to attack China, cause they are so evil and primitive?
Remember, when the master do not need his dog to bark, they may slap them in the first place, that's the dogs fate.
一日不作,一日不食

#71 Yizheng

Yizheng

    State Undersecretary (Shangshu Lang 尚书郎)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 591 posts
  • Location:Moscow
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 03 August 2009 - 12:49 AM

I'm not a big fan of identity politics . . . because identity politics essentially comes down to "ethnic cleansing" as the ultimate solution. Secession can take place if the majority of a geographic location hold that opinion, regarldess what ethnic group they belong to. If the majority do not hold that opinion, the minority should not have the right to decide for the whole region to secede. Otherwise, what results from such a secession/reorganization would be an ehtnicly based aristocracy. Seceding on their own as sovereign individuals or groups of like-minded individuals would be a different story.

I agree very much with this view. Sadly, in reality it seldom happens this way, but best thing in a secession situation if the majority has made their decision, is to try to keep as open and free relations as possible between the seceding territory and the state it is seceding from, so as not to end up like post-USSR, where people are suddenly cut off by border formalities, visa rules etc from family and friends, not to mention all the cultural and economic ties built up over time. It would be same in China with Tibet and Xinjiang, where big numbers of Han Chinese now live.
I agree too, it's one thing when the majority of the region support secession whatever their own ethnic background, but it is a disaster when it all comes down to ethnic identity as the main criteria. Russia and former Yugoslavia provide vivid examples of what kind of violence and ethnic cleansing result.


So you can suggest the president of US to attack China, cause they are so evil and primitive?
Remember, when the master do not need his dog to bark, they may slap them in the first place, that's the dogs fate.

I do not see anyone is suggesting to attack China or saying Chinese are evil and primitive. It is unfortunately the problem that issues like ethnic relations, autonomy/independence etc almost always become hostage to emotions and extremism, when what is needed is calm, openness, and moderation on all sides.

#72 YuenKamSiu

YuenKamSiu

    Imperial Inspector (Jianyushi 监御使)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 194 posts

Posted 04 August 2009 - 06:19 PM

Hawaiians can publicly express their political opinions, freely rally and try to win people over to their cause. For the very same actions, people are thrown to jail, shot or beaten to death in Tibet and East Turkestan / Xinjiang.


Right but would it ever be possible for these Hawaiian separatists to get what they want and this secession from the US? Would Washington ever allow that? Would it be okay for these separatists to attack and even kill innocent civilians in their rioting?
Ngor hai Guangdong yan. Ngor chut sai hai san fan see, mei gwok. Ngor sik gong Guangdong wah don hai mmsik gong gwok yu. Ngor hai UCLA but yeep. Yee ga ngor hai Ngon Hong joe goong.

#73 Karakhan

Karakhan

    Chief State Secretary (Shangshu Ling 尚书令)

  • Admin
  • 907 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Ethnicities,Peoples
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese Ethnic Minorities, Central Asian Ethnicities

Posted 10 August 2009 - 02:04 PM

i've travelled back and forth to Hawaii and currently there now for research related interests.

as far as the population goes, that 40% Caucasian figure is grossly inaccurate. You can get demographic figures directly from the state.
http://hawaii.gov/db...able7_share.pdf
pure Caucasians are closer to 1/4th of the population. However most people in Hawaii are mixed and if you include those who are mixed white, then yes they surely do reach 40%. However many people are mixes of more than two ethnic backgrounds. Barack Obama after all is also mixed white and born in Hawaii, and Kelly Hu is another one who is White, Hawaiian and Chinese. Many of the ethnic Hawaiians are usually mixed of something, only in Niihau island is where there are many pure blooded ones as the community there is preserved.

However identity is a totally different issue.. mixed or non mixed, Hawaiian or non Hawaiian, most of the population there identify themselves as "Local" first and definitely distinguish themselves from the rest of the mainland. As whites are a minority and most of the non-Hawaiian ethnicity existed in Hawaii for generations (many of the Chinese, Japanese, Okinawan, and Portuguese groups are already 4th - 6th generation), their identity is more with the island than their place of origin or the US mainland. Within the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, there are many non-Hawaiians as well.

As to why Hawaii became so diverse, the Kingdom was an independent entity before the US came in. One of the reasons why many Hawaiian sovereignty supporters are wary of being classified together with Native American tribes as the Hawaiian Kingdom was in a more advanced stage of development as it already had developed a written language, minted its own currency, had an organized government structure, and developed foreign relations with major countries such as France. Much of Hawaii's modernization drive came from studying British methods and influences, which is why the state flag has a union jack on it.

The Hawaiian Kingdom lasted as long as it did because the French and the British (who were expanding their South Pacific empire) were unwilling to take over Hawaii and provoke some kind of conflict with the other side (a bit similar to Siam's situation being between French Indochina and British India).

However foreigners began migrating to Hawaii, eventually weakening the power of the government and monarchy, and turned it into a giant corporate plantation (introducing pineapple, etc). Initially they used Hawaiians to do the labor, but then brought in Chinese.. who eventually left to do other jobs, Japanese and Okinawans.. who also eventually left to do other jobs, Filipinos, and Portuguese). The Portuguese were interesting case as they were European but engaged in plantation labor. However, controlling Hawaii's economy and supportive of US involvement to protect their business interests were the big 5 families which basically controlled the entire islands turning it into an oligarchy (Castle & Cooke, Alexander & Baldwin, C. Brewer & Co., Amfac and Theo H. Davies). Supporting them were many of the island's Caucasian residents and some of the Chinese residents who began participating in the industries dominated by the big 5.

This is one of the primary reasons why the island is a "Blue State" and heavily supportive of the Democratic Party even before the big political shift in the 70's and 80s which saw many states changing their general party support. Many of the other ethnicities, especially Japanese Hawaiians, ethnic Hawaiians, etc.. came back from WWII and wanted to wrest control away from the hands of a few companies (who were generally pro Republicans). They all joined Hawaii's democratic party and sought change through there.

Now going back to today's time frame, aspects of Hawaiian culture are preserved in the following ways:
Most roads in Hawaii are in Hawaiian.
All grade school students undergo at least a year in basic Hawaiian language. University students have to take a course either in Hawaiian language or something related to Hawaiian history, culture, etc in order to graduate. The courses in Hawaiian history really emphasizes the part of the Big 5 and annexation in Hawaii's history.
All grade school students are able to sing not only the pledge of allegiance, but also the state song which is in Hawaiian, particularly during certain events such as May day where nearly every school students perform the Hula.
There's a strong sense that "local" is better, none of the major US banks could survive in Hawaii, most of the banks are all Hawaii only. Many of the supermarkets are also local except for Safeway. Some of the major fast food chains are able to survive but many of them have items catered to local tastes, and there are many local ones too.

As to whether or not the state can secede from Hawaii.. The main force pushing for this is the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. They are very vocal, and for the most part tolerated as long as they don't violate certain laws. In fact, many of the professors in the Hawaiian studies department at the University of Hawaii are pro-sovereignty. However, most of the population, tends to favor economic interests first. Hawaii is one of the most isolated island chains with a population over 1 million. Honolulu itself is the world's most isolated city under 1 million. As a small isolated island, it has lots of disadvantages if trying to adapt to the global economic system. high transportation costs, limited options in economic development, etc. That's why much of the state's population is employed in the tourism industry, the state government, or directly/indirectly with the US military bases. Separating from the US would probably involve the loss of US military bases, loss of federal subsidies to the state government, and the potential of creating instability which will affect tourism (which also requires state and fed money for infrastructure). Thus, the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, while tolerated and vocal, does not have a majority of the people's support.

Of course those very same industries that employ people create problems too.. i.e. tourism contributing to high land prices, good land being used to build resorts, golf courses and military bases, etc, which could be used to develop local agriculture to offset some of the imported food, etc.

now as far as comparing it to Xinjiang or Tibet.. i believe the only reason people bring this up is because they are either more interested in justifying China's legitimacy over the region, and/or shifting the topic to the criticism of US policies.

however a few points should be made. it is questionable whether groups like the Hawaiian sovereignty movement would be tolerated in the PRC as they could easily be labeled as separatists, nor would there be tolerance to the many professors who criticize the US over their role in Hawaii's history. In fact much of the education of Hawaii's history is generally critical of many things. However there also hasn't been any bombings or mass ethnic attacks between ethnic groups either.. of course there has been some racial issues.. for example the Massie trial in the 1930s in which a white woman accused several "local" Hawaiians of rape (who were local Hawaiians, Chinese, Japanese).. and made the local Hawaiians appeared as savages to the US nation.. only to end up with the accuser being a liar in the end, and the death of one of the innocent suspects by the hands of angry white sailors.
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Massie_Trial

for those who are interested in the ability of a state to secede from the US. it should be noted that some territories administered by the US were successful in doing so. Palau, Republic of Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia for example gained independence from the US administered UN trusteeship in the 80s and 90s. Of course these are not states but territories that the US controlled.

#74 Juchechosunmanse

Juchechosunmanse

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 486 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Korean history

Posted 10 August 2009 - 05:58 PM

for those who are interested in the ability of a state to secede from the US. it should be noted that some territories administered by the US were successful in doing so. Palau, Republic of Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia for example gained independence from the US administered UN trusteeship in the 80s and 90s. Of course these are not states but territories that the US controlled.


Exactly. That is the point. None of those were states but territories that most Americans have never heard of.
Posted Image

위대한 조선민주주의인민공화국만세! 일심딘결, 강성대국
위대한 령도자 김정일동지께 끝없이 충직한 근위대, 결사대가 되자!

#75 mariusj

mariusj

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 2,061 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History

Posted 14 December 2009 - 04:20 PM

Right but would it ever be possible for these Hawaiian separatists to get what they want and this secession from the US? Would Washington ever allow that? Would it be okay for these separatists to attack and even kill innocent civilians in their rioting?


Focus buddy.

It is one thing to ask, can people openly ask and win people over to their cause and COMPLETELY another to ask whether or not they can commit violent acts.

Since the laws that define what is legal or not depends on the nation, therefore I believe you can conclude that the fate of Tibet/Xinjiang is different from the fate of Hawaii in the sense of their probable independence, and that while it is more probable that Hawaii to become independent from US it is still improbable that it does.




3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users