China's Greatest Fear: Dead and Buried Like the Soviet Union (Closed)

I can't believe this flame bait thread is still open, and has zero interest in participating in all the ideological driven back and forth.

But a point all of you seems to be missing is that the notion of a nation state is a very recent and western invention. As such, it would simply be stupid to try and retrospectively apply those standards to judge ancient historical events.

It is a common tactic used by western pundits to delegitimise Chinese historical claims and/or reinterpret historical events to be more critical of China, so I am surprised so many of you fell for it.

Back during the Chinese Dynasties' age, as far as the Chinese Emperors were concerned, tributary states were effectively part his Empire's territory.

Think of it as ancient automonous rule if that helps you process it better.

The tributary states all bent the knee to the Chinese Emperor and pledged their fealty, paid taxes in the form of tributes, and when attacked, it was the Chinese Imperial army that protected them. Much like how western kings and their lords and Nobels operated.

It was only if one of them acted up or rebelled that the Emperor felt he needed to have a firmer grip and sent in the army to take over the place and install a direct governor. Or more commonly, it was during times of changing Dynasties that the newcomer felt he needed to take over tributary states that held loyalty to the old dynasty.

Tibet was not officially brought under direct Chinese Imperial rule for so long because there wasn't really a need to.

The Lamas were mostly apolitical and the territory considered loyal and safe, so why waste the money to garrison somewhere safe from outside attack and internal rebellion?

plawolf said:

I can't believe this flame bait thread is still open, and has zero interest in participating in all the ideological driven back and forth.

But a point all of you seems to be missing is that the notion of a nation state is a very recent and western invention. As such, it would simply be stupid to try and retrospectively apply those standards to judge ancient historical events.

It is a common tactic used by western pundits to delegitimise Chinese historical claims and/or reinterpret historical events to be more critical of China, so I am surprised so many of you fell for it.

Back during the Chinese Dynasties' age, as far as the Chinese Emperors were concerned, tributary states were effectively part his Empire's territory.

Think of it as ancient automonous rule if that helps you process it better.

The tributary states all bent the knee to the Chinese Emperor and pledged their fealty, paid taxes in the form of tributes, and when attacked, it was the Chinese Imperial army that protected them. Much like how western kings and their lords and Nobels operated.

It was only if one of them acted up or rebelled that the Emperor felt he needed to have a firmer grip and sent in the army to take over the place and install a direct governor. Or more commonly, it was during times of changing Dynasties that the newcomer felt he needed to take over tributary states that held loyalty to the old dynasty.

Tibet was not officially brought under direct Chinese Imperial rule for so long because there wasn't really a need to.

The Lamas were mostly apolitical and the territory considered loyal and safe, so why waste the money to garrison somewhere safe from outside attack and internal rebellion?

Click to expand...

Flame bait thread or not it is still important to educate the public and non SDF member readers on various perspectives and at the same time calling out all those western pundit supporters out there that insist on a singular value and point of view that EVERYBODY must follow or else.

Equation said:

Territorial lines never stay the same forever.

...

Click to expand...

... and now I realized the Mongols had made it as far west as to the top-left corner of:

Jura said:

Click to expand...

like five or so thousand miles:

LOL

Lezt said:

I think, Mandarin is not a Han construct, it should be originally a Yuan construct. I think Kublai Khan ordered its creation by Drogön Chögyal Phagpa to unify the script of the Mongol empire based on the 'Phags-pa script which was based on the Tibetan script. The Phonetics of Mandarin does contain elements from the Rime tables of the Song dynasty and some integration of Mongolian, khitan and other terms.

Cantonese, originally desired by Sun Yat Sen to be the dialect of the ROC (as he is from Guangzhou, but Mao was from Hunan where Mandarin was spoken), is actually more phonetically similar to the Tang/Sung Chinese language. That is why Tang poetry sounds more natural when read in Cantonese.

It also lead to an other tibit of histroy. Yuan Chonghuan (袁崇焕) a Ming general from the Guangzhou area, his battle cry against the Manchus is 掉哪媽！頂硬上！ which means "fuck his mother! forward advance!" Ofcourse, the Manchu governors spoke Mandarin and Yuan Chonghuan and his troops spoke Cantonese. Now this slogan became popular culture in that it resists the mandarin take over of the many Cantonese regions.

Click to expand...

Mandarin literally means "官话", which is "official dialect", any dialects from the imperial capital were called "官话". Shaanxi dialect is also called "官话" because it was the capital of Han and Tang dynasties before the Yuan dynasty. Only from Yuan dynasty onwards the specific Beijing dialect became the sole "官话" till today. Once again in English world Mandarin equate to Beijing Dialect that gives you the impression that Mandarin is a Yuan construct. But in Chinese linguistics, the term is 官话 which is broader and older. Example, 西北官话 is part of Mandarin which includes any provinces from Shaanxi to the west.

Mao was from Hunan. Hunan dialect is not part of Mandarin. Hunan dialect (Gan dialect) is similar to Guandong dialect in linguistic categorization.

No, the Tang official dialect is surely around Xi'an Shaanxi, nothing to do with any dialect south of Yantz river.

Lezt said:

It also lead to an other tibit of histroy. Yuan Chonghuan (袁崇焕) a Ming general from the Guangzhou area, his battle cry against the Manchus is 掉哪媽！頂硬上！ which means "fuck his mother! forward advance!" Ofcourse, the Manchu governors spoke Mandarin and Yuan Chonghuan and his troops spoke Cantonese. Now this slogan became popular culture in that it resists the mandarin take over of the many Cantonese regions.

Click to expand...

Stop emphasizing regional division or difference. China would not have become China if people held such attitude as Guandong resisting Mandarin. What about 2000 years ago everyone outside Shaanxi refuse giving up their scripts, coins, measures etc.?

Yuan Chonghuan was a great general, BUT his emperor speaks mandarin in Beijing, Yuan surely speak Mandarin. I am sure he would not hold the same feeling as you describe. If he did he would have been a rebel of Ming rather than die for it.

taxiya said:

Stop emphasizing regional division or difference. China would not have become China if people held such attitude as Guandong resisting Mandarin. What about 2000 years ago everyone outside Shaanxi refuse giving up their scripts, coins, measures etc.?

Yuan Chonghuan was a great general, BUT his emperor speaks mandarin in Beijing, Yuan surely speak Mandarin. I am sure he would not hold the same feeling as you describe. If he did he would have been a rebel of Ming rather than die for it.

Click to expand...

The evolution of language is an interesting question. English is a particularly good example, as it uses a phonetic script.

Take for example, this passage of Beowulf written in Old English, circa 10th century:

Hwät! we Gâr-Dena in geâr-dagum
þeód-cyninga þrym gefrunon,
hû þâ äðelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scêfing sceaðena þreátum.

(Translation)
Lo! the Spear-Danes' glory through splendid achievements
The folk-kings' former fame we have heard of,
How princes displayed then their prowess-in-battle.
Oft Scyld the Scefing from scathers in numbers...

Then there's Chaucer's Canterbury Tales in Middle English, circa 15th century:

Ye seken lond and see for your wynnynges,
As wise folk ye knowen all th'estaat
Of regnes; ye been fadres of tydynges
And tales, bothe of pees and of debaat. (The Man of Law's Tale)

(Translation)
You seek land and sea for your winnings,
As wise folk you know all the estate
Of kingdoms; you be fathers of tidings,
And tales, both of peace and of debate.

The above is about 1000 years of English language evolution. For context, the Tang dynasty ended about 1000 years ago, and the 15th century would have been around the Ming dynasty.

I think it would be a pretty extraordinary claim to say that any modern Chinese dialect remotely resembles whatever dialect or official language that was used in the Tang dynasty.

I also don't believe the supposed pronounciation of Tang poems proves anything. It's a classic case of cherry-picking the few poems that support a particular position, and ignoring anything else.

solarz said:

The evolution of language is an interesting question. English is a particularly good example, as it uses a phonetic script.

Take for example, this passage of Beowulf written in Old English, circa 10th century:

Hwät! we Gâr-Dena in geâr-dagum
þeód-cyninga þrym gefrunon,
hû þâ äðelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scêfing sceaðena þreátum.

(Translation)
Lo! the Spear-Danes' glory through splendid achievements
The folk-kings' former fame we have heard of,
How princes displayed then their prowess-in-battle.
Oft Scyld the Scefing from scathers in numbers...

Then there's Chaucer's Canterbury Tales in Middle English, circa 15th century:

Ye seken lond and see for your wynnynges,
As wise folk ye knowen all th'estaat
Of regnes; ye been fadres of tydynges
And tales, bothe of pees and of debaat. (The Man of Law's Tale)

(Translation)
You seek land and sea for your winnings,
As wise folk you know all the estate
Of kingdoms; you be fathers of tidings,
And tales, both of peace and of debate.

The above is about 1000 years of English language evolution. For context, the Tang dynasty ended about 1000 years ago, and the 15th century would have been around the Ming dynasty.

I think it would be a pretty extraordinary claim to say that any modern Chinese dialect remotely resembles whatever dialect or official language that was used in the Tang dynasty.

I also don't believe the supposed pronounciation of Tang poems proves anything. It's a classic case of cherry-picking the few poems that support a particular position, and ignoring anything else.

Click to expand...

surely not resembling pronunciation, only developed from. one example is the lost of glottal stop in Beijing dialect while the NW Mandarin still kept a little such as 4 (four), Si in Beijing which would be pronounced as Sde in NW Mandarin today.

BTW, the 10th centrury English really had some old Germanic (Anglo-Saxon) word such as "gefrunon" and Norse (Scandinavian) word as ellen.

solarz said:

I think this is a bit of a myth. Chinese has always consisted of a bewildering array of local dialects. Mandarin is an artificial construct designed to bridge this gap. Before the PRC started pushing everyone to speak mandarin, most people only spoke their local dialect. Even today, in many parts of China, a lot of people can't speak mandarin. So it's a pretty extraordinary claim to say that ancient Chinese sounds like any one particular dialect.

Also, I have a hard time believing that Yuan's troops spoke Cantonese. Yuan fought against the Manchu in the north, he would have had to recruit his troops locally.

Click to expand...

I don't think the debate to use Mandarin or Cantonese was entirely a myth, The commission on the Unification of Pronunciation did occur,

The proceedings might be fictitious, but it is a common story here in the south of China. Ultimately, it is for a good laugh as Mandarin is the defacto dialect and it is water under the bridge.

Re. Did Yuan's troops speak Cantonese? He would have, his officers would have. Note that in that period of China, army groups are often along ethnic lines, even up till the Chinese civil war. the Ninghai army which retook Tibet (as a topic of this thread) was a Hui ethnic army from Gansu (i.e. marching around 2000 km),

Similarly, the Qing, raised the Chu Army which marched 1000km to Nanjing from Hunan.

I mean, think about it, the Manchu and Mongols did recruit locals to fight when they invaded, but the locals were never integrated to be Bannermans; especially since there is a dialet/language issue. Its just like Roman Auxiliaries are not integral into Legions.

Re. Chinese dialect sounds, there are Chinese phonetics dictionaries called Rime Tables, or Rhyme Tables. (I learnt of them from a music major studying ancient songs)

The oldest surviving Rhyme table is Qieyun (601AD) so just before the Tang. and the Yunjing (1161AD) to late Song. Now it is some linguist who claim that Cantonese is more similar to these rhyme tables than Mandarin. If they lie, or if the original author's work is compromised, I have no idea as it is beyond me.

taxiya said:

Mandarin literally means "官话", which is "official dialect", any dialects from the imperial capital were called "官话". Shaanxi dialect is also called "官话" because it was the capital of Han and Tang dynasties before the Yuan dynasty. Only from Yuan dynasty onwards the specific Beijing dialect became the sole "官话" till today. Once again in English world Mandarin equate to Beijing Dialect that gives you the impression that Mandarin is a Yuan construct. But in Chinese linguistics, the term is 官话 which is broader and older. Example, 西北官话 is part of Mandarin which includes any provinces from Shaanxi to the west.

Mao was from Hunan. Hunan dialect is not part of Mandarin. Hunan dialect (Gan dialect) is similar to Guandong dialect in linguistic categorization.

No, the Tang official dialect is surely around Xi'an Shaanxi, nothing to do with any dialect south of Yantz river.

Click to expand...

Well, this is where the Tang and Song Rhyme tables disagrees with you according to lingusts. But it is not my area of specialty so I will leave it as is.

Also, Mandarin is not literally 官话, it is currently technically 普通話, which when I was a kid, we called 國語; and the older generations called it 漢語

Confucius called the court language 雅言 and the Han called the common tongue 通語. 官話 only started to appear in the Ming. The pronunciation between different Mandarin such as the Nanjing Mandarin which I believe was setup by Emperor Qianlong in the 17th century and failed, the Beijing Mandarin was only standardized in 1912 by 國音詞典. The fact that 中原官话 and other families of the mandarin language exist will disprove the concept that Mandarin itself is an uniform construct, it so happened that in Canton, the Canton Mandarin is Cantonese.

This is another fun bit of history (as I was told), Qianlong set up the Orthoepy Academies 正音書院 to teach proper Nanjing style Mandarin after a tour of Guangzhou where he couldn't understand the Canton Mandarin (Cantonese).

taxiya said:

Stop emphasizing regional division or difference. China would not have become China if people held such attitude as Guandong resisting Mandarin. What about 2000 years ago everyone outside Shaanxi refuse giving up their scripts, coins, measures etc.?

Yuan Chonghuan was a great general, BUT his emperor speaks mandarin in Beijing, Yuan surely speak Mandarin. I am sure he would not hold the same feeling as you describe. If he did he would have been a rebel of Ming rather than die for it.

Click to expand...

Why is understanding your own country emphasizing regional division? it is all history. Why be a person who cannot accept the truth of the past? You are speculating what these people did or did not do when history is black and white. reread what I wrote.

Lezt said:

Well, this is where the Tang and Song Rhyme tables disagrees with you according to lingusts. But it is not my area of specialty so I will leave it as is.

Also, Mandarin is not literally 官话, it is currently technically 普通話, which when I was a kid, we called 國語; and the older generations called it 漢語

Confucius called the court language 雅言 and the Han called the common tongue 通語. 官話 only started to appear in the Ming. The pronunciation between different Mandarin such as the Nanjing Mandarin which I believe was setup by Emperor Qianlong in the 17th century and failed, the Beijing Mandarin was only standardized in 1912 by 國音詞典. The fact that 中原官话 and other families of the mandarin language exist will disprove the concept that Mandarin itself is an uniform construct, it so happened that in Canton, the Canton Mandarin is Cantonese.

This is another fun bit of history (as I was told), Qianlong set up the Orthoepy Academies 正音書院 to teach proper Nanjing style Mandarin after a tour of Guangzhou where he couldn't understand the Canton Mandarin (Cantonese).

Click to expand...

Are you sure about Mandarin is not 官话？Note, Mandarin in English (from Portuguese?) literally means Official (官). In Chinese, 官话 means the language/dialect spoken in the court in the capital.

I think you mixed an English concept Mandarin (the 官话 since Ming and Qing dynasty) to the Chinese concept since the beginning of China. Shall we use the Chinese concept than the imported one?

Mandarin is surely not equal to 汉语. Mandarin is a dialect of 汉语, just like Cantonese is another dialect of 汉语.

I know 普通话 was called 国语 before 1949 in mainland as well. Do you know what is 国语 before 1911? It is Manchurian (the Manchu's native language). 国语 is a political construct not a linguistic one.

Mandarin is collectively all north, northern-western and south-western Chinese dialect except 山西 (for some reason). Cantonese, Shanghai, Zhejiang, Fujian/Taiwan and Jiangxi dialects are not Mandarin. There is no such thing in linguistic "Canton Mandarin", there is only Cantonese (Canton dialect).

I guarantee you what I said above, because my father is a linguistic professor whose view is the commonly accepted conclusion in mainland China. I think in Taiwan's linguistic circle (not the politically charged people) the conclusion is the same because the research is continued.

Why is understanding your own country emphasizing regional division? it is all history. Why be a person who cannot accept the truth of the past? You are speculating what these people did or did not do when history is black and white. reread what I wrote.

Click to expand...

Because I saw that you made the link between the fact of General Yuan being from Guangdong and the current "Cantonese resisting Mandarin" which surely General Yuan would not have agreed. Don't you think?

It is also because it is NOT right to connect Mandarin Solely to Manchu. Mandarin as you admitted started since the Ming dynasty 300 years further before (even earlier IMO). Why single out Manchu? Why not the Ming (which is established by Han).

I have no problem with the facts that your brought in. But many of your understandings and statements are not fact nor truth, as far as the linguistic knowledge that I obtained from professionals can tell. I can not accept "fact" that is not fact.

Gone for such a short time and yet so much dross has accumulated…

solarz said:

Japan was never recognized as a ruler of China. In fact, Japan itself had to set up the puppet state of Manchuria to legitimize their rule over NW China.

There is no contradiction between ethnic Mongolians in China believing themselves to be Chinese, and Mongolian citizens in Mongolia believing they are not Chinese. Nationality and ethnicity are two different issues, and they are not mutually exclusive as you portray them to be.

Ethnic Mongolians share the same history whether they are Chinese or Mongolian citizens, but history is not in a one-to-one relationship with national identity. There is nothing wrong with both China and Mongolia sharing the same portion of history. Who are you to say that Chinese Mongolians have to choose between their Mongolian history and their Chinese identity?

Click to expand...

Never recognized by who? You? Japan certainly recognized itself as a ruler of China, Manchuria included. What, did you surreally think that Japan was somehow using Manchuria to “legitimize” its rule of Shanghai, or Taiwan, or Guangdong, or Hunan, or Hubei?? Japan controlled almost the entire eastern coast of China at the height of its occupation, and certainly didn’t need Manchuria to “legitimize” anything.

Second, I didn’t say there is a contradiction between ethnic Mongolians in China believing themselves to be Chinese and Mongolian citizens in Mongolian believing themselves to be Mongolians; you have spectacularly missed the point again. It’s not just a matter of what you perceive them to be, it’s also a matter of what they themselves perceive their own identity to be. Ethnic Mongolian Chinese like my good friend are perceived to be Chinese AND they perceive themselves to be Chinese. If one of the above is NOT true, then their actual identity is no longer certain and becomes an issue of contention. It is not a simple matter of a circle trying to call itself a square, it is a matter of a person or group of people defining themselves as they feel they should be identified. Do you somehow have a greater right to define a people than they themselves have? Please list all the reasons why you feel this is so.

solarz said:

You still don't get it. There is no "right" or "just" when it comes to security. When a state fails, people do what they need to do to survive. The entire purpose of a state is to provide the security apparatus necessary so that people can devote their energy to things beyond survival.

Click to expand...

GOOD. I am glad that you plainly recognize your absolutely indisputable lack of moral authority on this issue. You are in fact saying that if you feel your “security” depends on it, you are perfectly willing to keep another person, or an entire group of persons, in chains. By that hilariously ridiculous logic you also recognize and legitimize the Japanese invasion and occupation of China. The Imperial Japanese Army made EXACTLY this claim as they overran the eastern coast of China in the 1930s and as they invaded much of the rest of Asia in the events leading up to WWII. Most red-blooded Chinese people would not be amenable to allowing any Japanese nationalists the legitimacy of such a view, but I guess you’re different, RIGHT??

taxiya said:

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.

Click to expand...

Why would it be meaningless to ask to the question “are Scottish British”? If they want a “divorce” then this exact question becomes the raison d’etre of an independence vote. Just like asking Tibetans if they are Chinese. Again, you don’t want to ask because you probably wouldn’t like the answer is my suspicion.

Lezt said:

You do realize that there is no direct lineage between the Ming who rose up against the Qing and the Sung before the Qing? every man who considered himself a subject of Sung is long dead before the Ming rises. There are cultural differences, like the difference of costumes which Ming followed Zhao wear, and Sung followed Tang wear.

The thing is China is a cultural identity, it is like being Roman. The Holy Roman Empire thought of themselves as the heir of Rome, Constantinople and the Byzantine empire thought itself as the second Rome, Imperial Russia thought itself as the third Rome. But none of them have any direct relationship to Rome.

Similarly, China (Qin), Han, Tang, it is a cultural identity that people ascribe to. do we have any real connection to them? many of us will want to believe so, but most of us won\t be able to produce any proof.

Click to expand...

Yes, being Chinese IS a cultural identity (in significant part). But what if a group of people did NOT identify with Chinese culture and did not WANT to identify with Chinese culture? Did you ever stop to think on this possibility?

Lezt said:

Likewise, PRC and ROC is not founded on the basis of expelling the Qing, it is a continuation, the imperial household was given an allowance to live out their life as the British royalty do today and that promise is honored by the PRC till the death of Puiyi. You will also notice that the original flag of the ROC and the pin that the soldiers wore were five colored to represent the five major ethnicity of China,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

with black representing Tibetans. and the Japanese appropriated this flag to denote Japanese as one of the Chinese races for legitimacy

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Yes, many people call those men traitors, but so what? the point is they did switch side with the tide and one is Manchurian and another is Mongolian, but they are still considered Chinese traitors none the less. Thus it should dispel your believes that being Chinese excludes other ethnicity. So how is this double standard? Tibetans, Mongolians, Hui, Manchurians etc. were held in the same regards as being Chinese by the Chinese people

Click to expand...

You are missing the point entirely. If you truly believe that the “brutality of history” is the golden rule of geopolitics, you have absolutely no right to consider these people as “traitors”, to speak nothing of CHINESE traitors, as if to imply that they sold out their ‘own people’, which I could easily venture to be the common view of the average Chinese person on the street today. But in fact no matter how heavy your historical revisionism is (and there is PLENTY of this going amongst modern Chinese ultranationalist fanboys), the Chinese people back in the day, the people who actually lived in those times, certainly did NOT feel as ethnically or culturally ‘inclusive’ as you attempt to portray them. Their motivations were entirely different from the modern 21st century Chinese fanboy. And their words are recorded clearly and unambiguously for all to read (some of which I have already quoted in this very thread). Fanboys are motivated mostly or entirely by the desire to redact historical justifications for Chinese territorial possessions. On the other hand, people who actually lived in the times that we are now discussing were motivated by mostly or entirely by sovereignty concerns, by issues of self-determination. They unambiguously looked upon Mongolians and Manchurians as foreign illegitimate rulers to be expelled at the first available opportunity. They certainly did NOT accept the brutality of history as you are trying to have the Tibetans and Uyghurs accept. Manchurians and (certain) Mongolians did not become identified with (and begin to self-identify as) Chinese people until centuries afterwards. And again, these Manchurians and Mongolians importantly SELF-IDENTIFIED as Chinese. They didn’t become Chinese simply because a fanboy magnanimously claimed them to be Chinese so that their territories could become indisputably and irrevocably for all time, Chinese.