China's historical grand strategy: defensive or offensive?

solarz said:

@nlalyst pwnt

This guy thinks history books written by people who probably didn't even read Chinese is more accurate than our own family history.

Click to expand...

You are killing me. A family history book that glorifies their ancestors is more relevant than scientific work done by professionals in the field? I am adding this quote to my personal list of exemplar brain farts.

nlalyst said:

You are killing me. A family history book that glorifies their ancestors is more relevant than scientific work done by professionals in the field? I am adding this quote to my personal list of exemplar brain farts.

Click to expand...

Scientific work? ROFL!

Again, you throw around terms that you obviously have no idea what they mean. I would advise you to invest in a dictionary.

Did you even graduate from university? If you did, I can't imagine how you'd be able to confuse History, which belongs to Humanities, with Science.

Do you even know how Science works? Have you ever learned about the Scientific Method? Can you tell us what part of the scientific method is applied in the writing of history books?

LMAO!

This is pretty typical of your posts. You just throw up a bunch of claims apparently without the faintest clue how ridiculous they are. Subei people not being Han. Have you ever even met a Subei person in your life? LOL!

Well, at least you're good for a laugh.

Gatekeeper said:

Majority of Chinese would have a family ancestral book that kept records. And for you even doubting hakka is a full Han ethnic make up is laughable.

Click to expand...

From my understanding Hakka is 客家 which translates to "guest families". Based on Hakka people I know and their family records, they came from central and northern China. They migrated in different waves to Southern China mainly as a result of turmoil in their home regions. At that time many of locals in parts of Southern China were not sinicised, thus a strong sense of self identity developed to differentiate themselves from the surrounding tribes. Hakka speak han language and originated from the core han regions.

nlalyst said:

Do you have a proof? My source claims that the marriage was only legalized in mid 19th century and even then the occurrence was low.

Click to expand...

Many things were done despite laws at the time. One example is forbidding migration from those within the pass (shanhaiguan) to move to Manchuria. The Willow Palisade was built as a physical barrier. During the Qing dynasty Shandong suffered from drought and overpopulation, many settled in the North East. This was much before the chuangguandong migration of the 19th century.

nlalyst said:

I wrote that in contrast to Nationalist China. As I explained above, the Nationalists asserted that China had but one ethnic group, which was essentially the Han. No matter that the reality painted a different picture. That was just a temporary inconvenience. Take a look at what Chiang Kai-Shek wrote in his China's Destiny.


Then my English translation must be wrong? The "muslim" was in reference to the 5 races under one union from the early republic, which in turn was largely based on the Qing division of their multi-ethnic empire into five people.

As I understand it, the Manchu were really all the bannermen (of the 24 banners) in Qing era, an occupational caste and not an ethnicity in modern usage. In addition to the 8 "Manchu banners", they also included the 16 made up of Mongol and Hanjun banners. In the strict sense, the "true Manchus" would've been only the Old Manchu banners that Hong Taiji named Manju, and from whom all the emperors descended.

Click to expand...

The Manchu originally named themselves after the Jurchens. However, they are NOT entirely Jurchen, but more of a nomadic Tungusic tribe that migrated from Siberia to Manchuria and joined the Jurchens. Nurhaci's lineage was picked by the Ming dynasty as an chieftain/appointee, precisely for the reason that his lineage is NOT purely local and Jurchen (thus fitting the divide-and-rule principle of any traditional feudal empire, picking a relative "outsider" or fringe figure as their compradors). Nurhaci (and later on, the Aisin Gioro Clan) was traditionally tasked by the Ming dynasty to control and suppress the "uncivilized Jurchens".

What they Nurhaci and the later Aisin Gioro Clan did RIGHT, was to develop a far greater strategic vision. Which encompassing creating a social-military (religious) order which united the multitude of people of different ethnicity in Manchuria and organizing them into a whole with a strong unity. Giving them a unified identity unlike anything else in the History of China. This model is then promoted and followed in all of China. It is so deeply influential, that it formed the foundation of the modern (post-1911-revolution) idea of "中华民族". In fact, we Chinese own it to the Manchus to have came up with the idea of "the Manchu system", so much so, that without it, we would have served the interest of our enemies by tossing away Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet in disgust as soon as Qing dynasty falls.

We Han people have always been traditionally very arrogant, we only consider our heartlands as 神州, and treating nomad neighbor's territories as either "膻腥化外之地" or "蛮荒烟瘴之地", even if we have the power to control them, we will only really consider them as nothing but colonies or remote outposts for national security and trade route protection. This all changed as a result of Qing dynasty's cultural legacy.

One of the other thing is that the Qing court and the Manchu Caste can be best described as a Religious Order. The Manchus clan is essentially knights and protectors of Tibetan Buddhism. They Manchu Qing dynasty is actually a rather foreign existence in the history of China, because ever since the mixed-Wuhu(五胡)/Han(汉) Northern Dynasties, Chinese dynasties had started a secularist tradition of governance, and thus starting to persecute Buddhism(三武一宗）. The imperial court and the literati class of the later on Chinese dynasties has evolved into a strictly pan-religious/areligious entity. They are moderately open and tolerant of religions, but at the same time remain secularist in all senses of governance.

However, even though the Qing dynasty followed the same secularist tradition in governance. The Qing Empire is de jure a Tibetan Buddhist Empire. Their entire attires and the design of their clothing and wares have Tibetan Buddhist elements all over them. So much so that many of what people today consider as traditional Chinese design elements are actually Tibetan Buddhist in origin, all thanks to the Manchu Qing Dynasty.

Max Demian said:

Indeed, the Ming initialy intervened in name of a just and benevolent cause, supporting the Confucian Pacifism hypothesis. However, this intention was betrayed when it decided to annex Vietnam. Therefore, it acted as an aggressor.

This what the book has to say on the subject:

According to Confucianism, once the political objective of a righteous war is accomplished, the invading forces should withdraw. Before sending out the mass army, the Chinese emperor declared that he would withdraw his forces once a new ruler was installed in Vietnam. Now that the Ming had occupied the country, however, its war aim expanded from punitive expedition to conquest. At the suggestion of Ming commander Zhang Fu, who argued that Vietnam had been a part of China since ancient times and would like to become a Chinese territory again, Emperor Yongle went ahead and annexed Vietnam as a Chinese province, establishing an administrative structure akin to inland provinces such as Guangxi and Yunnan. Attempts were made to assimilate the Vietnamese. The new province was named Jiaozhi, Vietnam’s ancient name in the Tang dynasty.

The conquest of Vietnam paid off handsomely. As a result of the war, Ming China obtained 13.6 million piculs of grain, 230,590 elephants, horses and cattle, 8,677 ships, and 2.5 million military weapons. Ming records show that Vietnam had a population of about 3,120,000 and an unsinicized tribal population (manren) of 2,087,500. 39 The acquired grains were substantial, almost equal to the amount of grain (14.4 million piculs) produced by Ming military colonies in 1407.

Vietnam proved to be a hard place to administer. The Chinese conquest “ignored the strength of the historical traditions of Vietnamese independence and their hostility toward Chinese overlordship.” The Vietnamese resented Chinese rule and rebellions soon followed. At first, the Ming was able to subdue these rebellions by its preponderant military might; twice between 1408 and 1413, it sent armies to crush the insurrections. Vietnamese resistance notwithstanding, China was able to keep the territory for about two decades as a province. Nevertheless, constant rebellions developed into a financial and military burden on Ming resources. The costs of administering the new
territory soared. One commander reported in 1421 that the Chinese armies in Vietnam suffered from the problem of insufficient supplies and that the hit-and-run tactics of the Vietnamese guerrillas had made it increasingly difficult to maintain Chinese positions there. The pressure to withdraw began to build up.

Zhang Fu, the commander who conquered Vietnam in 1407, insisted on continuing the occupation: “Our officers and men have endured years of hardship to conquer [Vietnam]. This petition is a ruse by Le Loi. We should send more troops to wipe out the rebels.” Jian Yi and Xia Yuanji repeated their previous view that withdrawal would reveal Chinese weakness to the world. On the other hand, Yang Rong highlighted the strain of war and urged acceptance of Le Loi’s peace proposal: “We may turn disaster into good fortune. The suggestion to send in more troops should not be adopted.” Yang Shiqi suggested that the original plan of Emperor Yongle was not to annex Vietnam as a province, but to restore the Tran throne. The next day, the Chinese emperor announced his decision to withdraw from Vietnam.

The initial Vietnam campaign supports the just war theory of Confucian pacifism, but the subsequent conquest refutes it. Le Qui-Ly’s usurpation of the throne and his deception of the Ming court provided a just cause for China, the suzerain of the tribute system, to send an expeditionary force to restore the Tran house. But the Ming decision to annex Vietnam violated the Confucian principle. Our case study shows that the Ming war-aim expansion and the reluctant withdrawal from Vietnam support the power-based explanation of structural realism. Without military and systemic constraint, the Ming took advantage of the opportunity to increase power. However, the high cost of continuing the occupation finally compelled the Ming to withdraw from Vietnam. The Confucian precept of withdrawing after a righteous war
offered a good face-saving justification, although it was already twenty years later. Emperor Xuande and the two Yangs all cited historical precedents in accordance with this Confucian principle. The fundamental cause of withdrawal, however, was the enormous financial burden and Chinese inability to suppress Vietnamese insurgences. Ming China weighed the costs and benefits of conducting further military campaigns and concluded that the costs outweighed the benefits

Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, why do you hold this book and author's p.o.v. as the most authoratarive evidence of supposed Chinese imperialists past and when you're book's thesis is challenged and questioned by people here that are well versed into the subjects you want a discussion from you hunker down and keep citing the contents of the book like a christian preacher spreading the words to the heathens.

Are you sure you're seeking an enlightening back and forth discussion or you're here to batter us down with your supposed gospel? That's how you're coming across at least to me anyway.

Max Demian said:

Ming was justified in the intervention only. There was no justification for the annexation of Annam.

Example. After the US and Allies defeated Japan in ww2 the US established a military government over the Japanese home islands that lasted until 1952. Following the military occupation, a Japanese civilian government was established and full sovereignty restored to Japan. The US would not have been justified had it annexed Japan and renamed it into New Appalachia.

Click to expand...

You're on a crusade to find some kind of dirt against China and it's history to make some historical comparison with what the U.S. has done throughout it's foreign wars post WWII.

You can cite as many western revisionist Chinese *historians* you want but that will not move people that are well read into this topic of Chinese history. What you're doing is just creating an inevitable hardening of feelings and thoughts against your aims and methods.

Gatekeeper said:

This quote alone showed up the thinking of someone that's lacking in critical thinking.

I remember in my younger days when I pointed out to one of the English university classmate regarding Hong Kong.

He was insisting Hong Kong was obtained under British rule legally. And when I explained how the British obtained Hong Kong through selling of drugs in the form of opinium. Britain knows it's an addictive substance, and still went on to push the drug with the intention to bring the country on it's knees. Therefore extracted Hong Kong and other concessions from China in the process.

His reply:

We can't judge other people from different times through our own moral and ethical standards.

Sound familiar?

Click to expand...

It's called the ....nvm.. I don't want to come across toxic.

Max Demian said:

@PiSigma Those were different times. We cannot judge them through the lens of modern ethics and morality.

Having said that, it is important to have an objective account of history. Just like America, China has its own lie of historical exceptionalism which portrays China as a peaceful and harmonious society throughout the 5000 years of its resplendent history. A civilization which has not behaved aggressively nor has been expansionist, winning over foreign people and their land through culture (wen) rather than war (wu). Yet, a closer analysis has shown the Confucian anti-militarism to be a myth: restraint on the use of force was primarily the reflection of China's relative weakness. Once China saw itself powerful, it readily went on the offensive. The Ming’s Great Wall was not built in the early days of the dynasty when their relative power was at its peak. Knowing themselves strong, they saw no need for a wall and launched a series of offensive military campaigns against the Mongols. It was only after these campaigns failed and Ming relative power started declining, that the decision to build the Great Wall

Click to expand...

solarz said:

Yeah, and that's why you needed to cherry pick your "evidence" and present a one-sided account. Ming expeditions against the Mongols were purely defensive in nature, yet you only talk about how the Ming attacked the Mongols but never about how the Mongols would ceaselessly raid the Ming border. Laughably dishonest!

You want sources? Open up a Chinese history book sometimes. Nothing I presented isn't recorded in the official histories. You don't even have to dig, you just need to have a modicum of reading comprehension.

You want to argue about China's tradition of peaceful development? From the inception of a unified China in the Qin dynasty to the present day, the number of years China has spent fighting in foreign territory is less than 5% of its history. In comparison, from its inception in 1776 to present day, the US has been almost constantly involved in one war or another, from the genocide of the First Nations, to the colonization of the Phillipines, the invasion of Canada, the invasion of Mexico, the pillaging of Beijing, the invasion of Cuba, the invasion of Panama, the bombing of Yugoslavia, all the way up to the present day occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then there are the European countries, who have been fighting each other for over a thousand years, invading the Middle East since the First Crusade, colonizing Africa and the Americas, and starting both Worlds Wars.

Yeah, China is clearly the "aggressive" nation here!

Click to expand...

Don't forget about the most venerable "Just War theory" by St. Thomas Aquinas, another venerated theologian and one of the 4 intellectual fathers in Roman Catholic teachings if my reading of Christian history is correct.

"His reply:

We can't judge other people from different times through our own moral and ethical standards.

Sound familiar?"

E x a c t l y

The opium wars is as a paradigmatic example the walnut, the hinge, the nucleus and the crux of the dispute between the Romans and the Chinese

(I) "we had to make an Empire to defend ourselves" (said the Roman patricians... OMFG)

(II) "War is a racket" but our palace scribes and poets are very skilled at embellishing the imperial Beast

(III) and the insufferable moral relativism of the West is the icing on the cake that crowns the mountain of lies that is the Western narrative, a world of fantasies that has accelerated after the last end of the world (1914-1949)

Moral sentiments are universal: in all times and places people have had in general lines and for serious questions the same or similar feelings, what changes is to whom it is applied:

"slavery is unfair", among us, say the slave traders

"you will not kill" (one of us) say the sacred scriptures, and you will kill the men, women and children of these lands that I (large rag doll in hands of ventriloquists) give you, says the Lord your God

we can argue whether Chinese history has been embellished by palace scribes, well, but there is no comparison with the gigantic lie crowned with insufferable moral relativism that is the West empire, heirs of the Roman empire