You can disagree all you want and attempt to claim your so-called "Chinese" lens here, but that is ONLY your assertion.
Again, I already told you that I have not been attempting to judge whether migration and assimilation is “right” or “wrong”. This is however NOT the same thing as talking about the past and present DIFFERENCES between ethnic groups, because they DO in fact exist whether or not you personally want to talk about them. What a complete non sequitur!
Recognizing the legitimacy of the Yuan dynasty as a Chinese dynasty is NOT the same thing as recognizing the Mongols as “Chinese”. The Mongols used Chinese institutions, practices and officials to rule China; essentially every characteristic of the Yuan dynasty was Chinese, so why wouldn’t it be a Chinese dynasty? Nonetheless, the rallying cry of the Ming rebels was in fact to expel the Mongol foreigners, which clearly tells me they did NOT view the Mongols as Chinese, contrary to your ultra-romanticized and heavily-redacted historical claims.
Oh, no respect for the White Lotus, eh? How about the subsequent Taiping Rebellion? They said the exact same things. Also too “close to bandit”? Multiple Han uprisings pretty much all said the same thing: 反清复明 LOL, ok you want the ROC. How about Sun Yatsen himself? Here is what he said: “To restore our national independence, we must first restore the Chinese nation. To restore the Chinese nation, we must drive the barbarian Manchus back to the Changbai Mountains. To get rid of the barbarians, we must first overthrow the present tyrannical, dictatorial, ugly, and corrupt Qing government. Fellow countrymen, a revolution is the only means to overthrow the Qing government!” Good enough for you or are you going to spin yourself out of this one too???
The Manchu assimilation was not exactly a “harmonious” one like you romantically try to portray it. The Manchus actually tried to explicitly (by law) prohibit Han people from migrating to Manchuria early during the Qing, but due to subsequent pressure from Russia had to send Han infantry to Manchuria to garrison strongholds there. With them followed artisans, merchants, women, children. Manchus were eventually assimilated against their wishes because of necessity due to external pressures, subsequently becoming a minority in their own land and resulting in the Manchuria that we see today.
You need to face the fact that the people who actually lived in history and who spoke words which have been passed down to us, DISAGREE with your biased historical revisionism and romanticization of Chinese history, a history which looks nothing like what you are claiming.
Nation state (noun): a sovereign state whose citizens or subjects are relatively homogeneous in factors such as language or common descent.
You: Everyone in China has a claim on every single square-centimeter of land because everyone shares the same blood with everyone else, shares the same ancestors.
This IS the definition of nation state; common descent (in your words “same blood”, “same ancestors”).
Nice try but you are making some seriously unwarranted assumptions here. First, what if the B’s daughter doesn’t even want to share your so-called “common” property with A’s family? What if B’s daughter married A’s son at gunpoint against her wishes? What if B’s daughter doesn’t even want to take A’s family name?
Look, I don’t know what “western person” you talked to, but that is the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in a while. There is such a thing as “nuclear family” (husband/wife/kids), “immediate family” (including parents/siblings) and “extended family” (including all blood relatives), but there is no general Western perception of extended or even immediate family as “not really regarded as one's family”. Sorry but that is just a massive load of BS.
ROFLMAO “ulterior motives”??? Seriously??? Like what kind of ulterior motives? Maybe you think I’m a paid CIA plant trying to foment splittism and separatism on SDF? Wow. Hey, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean I’m not out to get you, amiright?
Last edited:
