solarz
Brigadier
There is nothing wrong with sharing history. What is wrong is believing that history can only be "owned" by a single group of people.
China's Greatest Fear: Dead and Buried Like the Soviet Union (Closed)
- Thread starter AndrewS
- Start date
- Status
There is nothing wrong with sharing history. What is wrong is believing that history can only be "owned" by a single group of people.
Jura The idiot
General
found it
(it's from Sep 6, 2014 LOL)
but it shows Burma to be 'tributary state' which means I was wrong
solarz
Brigadier
Any definition of a state will change throughout history, China is no exception. When we look at history, we must acknowledge a frame of reference. In most cases, this is the present day. When we talk about Chinese history, we are talking about all the history that has occured on lands that make up modern day China. This means history that happened in Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia are all Chinese history.
If, however, we were to change our frame of reference to, say, the 12th century, then to the Chinese, we would no longer be talking about "Chinese" history, but rather "Song" history, or "Jin" history, or "Xixia" history, and proceed from there. If someone then comes in and just says "Chinese" history, then they are being deliberately misleading.
That is the un-mendable gap between me and Iron Man, his logic is based on the morden western defination of the word "China" which is not "中国". "中国" is the term that was used by the people in East asia to refer to various Chinese dynasties and their territoris and subjects. It literally means "Middle State". Very often Koreans and Japanese might also use the term in their own languages to refer their dynasties. You can find Japanese historical records to refer to the area around the capital (Kyoto) as 中国.
Once again, the only firm term referring territory of a state in east Asia was the name of the dynasties.
Another example is Korea, the name is one of the many dynasties on that parnisular, for most of the time, they are referred as Chaoxian (Chuson). Today's North Korea is still officially refered and self-refered as "Chuson", NOT Korea. It would be rediculous if we apply Iron Man's logic on the Koreans by stating "the Koreans strongly object to be refered as Chusonians" or vise versa.
One more example is Vietnam. For that, I leave it to you to checkout. Just a short note, Vietnam is a name of one dynasty in recent history.
To your specific sentence, what is "Chinese" in the acient time (Goguryeo times)? That word did not exist. It was not an issue for people at that time.
If you mean Han by the word Chinese, people of Korean/goguryeo heritage are surely not Han, and they are NOT referred as Han inside PRC. Not an issue for them.
If you mean citizen of PRC, then they are surely a citizen which is called "中国公民".
Remember inside 中华人民共和国 we speak Mandarin (a Han dialect), and we call every citizen 中国人. If you (or rather Iron Man) ask those people that question, you must speak Mandarian to them, they would not have any idea what you mean by "Chinese". (no intention of mocking, just give you the picture of reality).
regarding this part, I have an idea to illustrate.
IF scottland is to seceed from Britan (the whole island), there will be dispute of borders on land and sea. That is normal just like a divorce. But it would be meaningless to ask the question "are Scottish British?" or is it ONLY English being British?, or "Scottish object to be refered as British".
I was told by my English teacher in high school to not to ask the question "are you English" but "are you British" instead when talking to a person from UK.
English (langurage) = 汉语普通话 Mandarian (Chinese in western term)
Britan = 中国
Scottish = Korean (in PRC)
Welsh = Tibetan, Mongols etc. etc.
English = Han (in PRC)
United Kingdom = 中华人民共和国 (PRC)
Hope this equation can clearly illustrate my concept, not necessarily agreeable to you.
Equation
Lieutenant General
Well, come and get it back you bunch of cowards if you felt so strong about it. NO? I thought so. Next weak excuses and arguments.
I guess you've never heard of Serf Emancipation Day and the Tibetans and other Chinese citizens are celebrating it every year. They don't call them The People's Liberation Army for nothing.
So much for your over exaggeration and spin about "Tibetan commoners had any desire to not be under the thumb of the foreign power." I tell you what they sure don't want to be a serf again under the superficial guidance of the Dalai Lama rule. It's these Tibetan elite rulers that lost their oppressive power and privileges are whining about it on their exile land that are living on and supported by foreign powers trying to cause chaos and separation of the PRC.Tibet is NOT conquered land and I have stated that fact many times, you stubborn self righteous pretenders just don't want to see the truth. If you don't have a firm stance on whether Tibet province is a part of the PRC or not, than what are you arguing about? If you think every self determination groups should have their own place and space than the world would have been divided up into tens of thousands of border lines with way more competition for resources that leads to war and conflict. The chaos would have been almost impossible to get a hold of.
I am afraid, in this way you will fall victim to a logical trap from people like Iron Man. Instead of talking about Song history and Yuan history as you and I would, he will insist on referring Song as the only Chinese history and exclue the history that played out in northern "China" which falls in Yuan rule. The key that I see is that, he equate "Chinese" to Han only, therefor whatever happened in Inner Mongolia is not really "Chinese" history in his stand point, but rather history of "conquered" land.
I am not sure if my proposed approach is an effective one, but I try to get rid of the western word to get at least closer to the historical reality.
solarz
Brigadier
That's my point. If we are talking about history as seen from a 12th century point of view, as opposed to 12th century history seen from a modern point of view, then there is no such thing as "Chinese" history. There are only histories of Song, Liao, Jin, Xixia, etc.
What Iron Man is doing is taking that 12th century frame of reference and applying it to the present-day frame of reference. Sure, back in the 12th century, Jin and Song are different nations. However, in the 21st century, they are both Chinese.
For example, he claims that "China" conquered Tibet during the Qing dynasty. Can you see the problem with that statement? If we were to apply that logic to the 12th century, then we would be saying "China" conquered "China" during the Song dynasty.
Jura The idiot
General
I'll attempt to kinda summarize what I think is going on here:
- Iron Man tries to open the question of Tibet independence
- solarz and Equation don't want to hear about Tibet independence
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Well to begin with the present Korean resident in Jilin are NOT descendant of Goguryeo
They are descendant of Korean refugee fleeing the potatoes famine and other economic hardship. It is the generosity of then Qing government that allow them to settle in Yanbian area.
The controversy of Goguryeo is something else. the Korean like to graft their history to Goguryeo because it is glorious people. But they are not even closely related to Goguryo. The people of Goguryeo are extinct. The were very brave people the spartan of Asia.Every man has to be trained as warrior and they were controlling large swath of Manchuria .Under their great general Ulchi Mundok
They defy Sui and using ruse and brilliant strategy they defeated the invading 300000 Army of Sui and killed everybody only 3000 manage to return.
But the Chinese have long memory. When Tang replace Sui dynasty, they restart the campaign against Goguryeo. What they can't win on the battle field they use alliance and guile to defeat Goguryeo. So they form alliance with Silla another southern Korean kingdom.
Eventually they beat Goguyeo and as revenge for killing 300000 Chinese soldier,They carted the population of Goguryeo and moved all of them to Western China . Some of them manage to escape and run to Balhae. So Goguryeo as people or language cease to exist. What left is some Steele in North Korea and China
The present Korean are ethnically different from Goguryeo people.They are descendant of Joseon which in turn are continuation of Goryeo and Silla a Sam Han people.
Goguryeo ethnicity is Yaemek related to manchu
Goguryeo like any other Korean Dynasty are founded by A prince China precisely from Puyeo a kingdom in what is now Manchuria and for most than half of the dynasty life they are centered in Manchuria .Latter they move to what is now North Korea
So it is fit to say that Goguryeo is the share common history between China and Korea. but of course the Korean nationalist reject that idea
In the 19th century, Korean immigrants migrated en masse from the to . After the foundation of the , a second wave arrived. Of the 2 million ethnic Koreans in Manchuria at the time of the communist takeover, 1.2 million remained in the region after the end of . Many participated in the , most on the side of the Chinese communists. When the civil war was over, the new Chinese government gave Koreans their own autonomous region (区) in 1952. Yanbian was upgraded to an ethnic autonomous prefecture in 1955.
Korean (Joseon) migration into northeast China began in any significant numbers in the last quarter of the 19th century and was mainly motivated by economic hardship on the Korean side of the border. After the Japanese annexed Korea in 1910, a small but significant number of migrants also came to Manchuria for political reasons.
- Status