China's historical grand strategy: defensive or offensive?

China's attitude to psychological/propaganda warfare waged by the west can be summarised as "you can say and think what you want, it doesn't make it true". I don't know if this is the best way to engage or ignore the problem but people are entitled to think and say what they believe... keeping in mind that "all the world's a stage... all the men and women actors" and people OFTEN say things they know to be false and OFTEN say things they honestly do not actually believe in cue Trump and the like of folks who actually say and believe some hilariously outrageous nonsense. There are too many examples of this sort of behaviour of people being manipulative e.g. that Joseph Watson youtube guy and the similarly autistic white nationalists etc etc list is endless and this of course include Chinese people/government.

I can argue passionately that acceleration due to gravity is 100m/s/s on earth but it isn't true. Will you be the one fooled by the deceiver? That's the question to people.

With Xinjiang, that was part of China's territory for longer than there were American interests and well documented CIA support and financing of separatism. How come China and CCP had no issue with Xinjiang and its people then? Why commit supposed genocide on a people who were fine and all part of China and still is?

Strange how it aligns with the US attempting to drag China through the mud they created that is the tricky problem of Islamic extremism (an isolated issue and by no means a systemic problem within Islam)... many sects the US themselves supported and nurtured if not entirely created.

Strange how the Americans really would like to disrupt China's relationship with Middle Eastern countries and the Shia Sunni divide. How well timed all this propaganda is and how forceful they are with shoving it down throats of Muslims and the liberals/ left of the West.

I personally don't doubt those education centres exist. I don't think they are as absolutely common and violent an issue as presented by Western media since they really only presented a few facilities and there is simply no way they can house even a fraction of the Uighur population. However they do exist and I suspect they exist to find potential "predispositions" for or actual extremism and connections to groups.

China did suffer several violent terrorist attacks. Those incidents didn't come from nowhere and coincidentally came after CIA financing of separatist groups if you believe what China says but China did suffer terrorist attacks. This method is China's way of addressing the problem that it never wanted. It's their choice to make and I don't buy into the rape allegations because the same victim was on record months before rape accusations saying there was never any violence and only emotional/mental suffering in the eduation centre. Yeah being forced to sing stupid songs would also make me suffer mentally. But those stupid "commie" practices are used in various ways to identify extremism and weed out potential terrorists as according to China. How effective who knows. Drawing patriotic drawings and singing songs for a few weeks to check for "wrong behaviour" is just not the same as being raped and tortured etc right?

As bad as that may sound (singing and drawing and just being forced into certain activities for a while) but this is China's way of dealing with an internal issue. It's still better than invading a series of nations and committing actual war crimes, genocide, hate crimes, civilian murder, and the overall destruction of peoples, cultures, and cities. It breeds resentment and continued violence in a way China's "silly" method doesn't quite match. They have to pay certain people to continue this propaganda war on China but no one needs to be paid to notice and act against the the way the US responded to terrorism... much of which it is directly responsible for creating.

supersnoop said:

While I agree with most of what you said, there are some things that I think don't fit nicely.

1. I agree that Southerners can be less open to those not part of their clan/dialect group/etc. However, at the same time they do buy into the "greater Chinese identity". Much of the foundation of modern China relied a lot of the overseas Chinese communities which were in a large part made up of Southerners. How would you reconcile this?

2. With regards to the Japanese occupation period of Taiwan (and Korea), are you basically saying Japan basically saw their experience as failures and thus gave up with this method later in Manchuria?

I don't think "Han Chinese" has a good analogy in western civilization. It cannot really be classified as an ethnic group, at least not very neatly using classic western definitions. This is why Chinese/Han Chinese are always being accused of "cultural genocide". Really it is the original "melting pot".

Diverging a bit here... it is interesting you talk about looking to the future. Many people from all over the world are settling in China now. Many people who have Chinese ancestry are returning to China to find their roots (including those who do not might not look "typically Chinese"). I hope that people are able to all find the common bond that they are looking for, the country will be stronger for it.

Click to expand...

Not too mention that much of CCP leadership come mainly from southerner Even Mao is Hunanese And so does the Peasant and worker army who is the precursor of PLA consist in large part from Hakka Chinese from Jiangxi and So do the Taiping rebellion are mostly Hakka. Deng Xiao Ping, Ye Chinying, Chen Yi, Zhu De are all Hakka.
And where would be the Chinese reform without the southerner and overseas Chinese ?
The Chinese culture originate mostly from the southern province south of Yangtze river around Nanjing


Few China scholars or Chinese citizens know one of the most basic facts about Deng Xiaoping, Hu Yaobang, Zhu De, Chen Yi, Guo Moruo or many other modern leaders: they are all Hakka. Most popular and official histories, in China and abroad, ignore this basic ethnic bond. The title of this article is used ironically, in deliberate parody of the genuine Secret History of the Mongols. The subtitle points toward an ironic but serious effort to illuminate a major facet of revolutionary history which remains almost entirely unexplored.

---

Hendrik_2000 said:

Not too mention that much of CCP leadership come mainly from southerner Even Mao is Hunanese And so does the Peasant and worker army who is the precursor of PLA consist in large part from Hakka Chinese from Jiangxi and So do the Taiping rebellion are mostly Hakka. Deng Xiao Ping, Ye Chinying, Chen Yi, Zhu De are all Hakka.
And where would be the Chinese reform without the southerner and overseas Chinese ?
The Chinese culture originate mostly from the southern province south of Yangtze river around Nanjing

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Few China scholars or Chinese citizens know one of the most basic facts about Deng Xiaoping, Hu Yaobang, Zhu De, Chen Yi, Guo Moruo or many other modern leaders: they are all Hakka. Most popular and official histories, in China and abroad, ignore this basic ethnic bond. The title of this article is used ironically, in deliberate parody of the genuine Secret History of the Mongols. The subtitle points toward an ironic but serious effort to illuminate a major facet of revolutionary history which remains almost entirely unexplored.

---

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

The Nikkei have a few articles on Xi Jinping and the Hakkas behind a soft paywall.

One thing the articles don't mention is Hakka mythology of an ancestral homeland along the Yellow River in the North, but it's in the book. It's part of the reason why a scattered Hakka minority was very involved in nation-building.

AndrewS said:

The Nikkei have a few articles on Xi Jinping and the Hakkas behind a soft paywall.

One thing the articles don't mention is Hakka mythology of an ancestral homeland along the Yellow River in the North, but it's in the book. It's part of the reason why a scattered Hakka minority was very involved in nation-building.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

I read the article yeah Ye Jianying was instrumental in the formation of PRC He lived in Singapore in his younger year but return to China when the revolution start. He was deputy to Zhang Guotao a founding member of CPC and at one time commanded bigger army than Mao faction knowing how small the Mao's army he want to kill Mao but Ye Jiangying warn Mao and he escaped and carry the day
Zhang tried to have Mao and his followers arrested and killed if needed,[

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

] but his plan was foiled by his own staff members and , who fled to Mao's headquarters to inform Mao about Zhang's plot, taking the all of the codebooks and maps with them. As a result, Mao immediately moved his troop northward and thus escaped arrest and possible death.

Sun Yat Sen's revolution was in large part financed by overseas Hokkiens and Cantos in modern day Singapore and Malaysia

supersnoop said:

I don't think "Han Chinese" has a good analogy in western civilization. It cannot really be classified as an ethnic group, at least not very neatly using classic western definitions. This is why Chinese/Han Chinese are always being accused of "cultural genocide". Really it is the original "melting pot".

Diverging a bit here... it is interesting you talk about looking to the future. Many people from all over the world are settling in China now. Many people who have Chinese ancestry are returning to China to find their roots (including those who do not might not look "typically Chinese"). I hope that people are able to all find the common bond that they are looking for, the country will be stronger for it.

Click to expand...

Well, the Han Dynasty maps pretty well with the Roman Empire time-wise in history. So consequently, I've always been favorable to analogizing Han Chinese with Roman citizen. With both terms, there's also a sense that they're distinguishing the civilized in-group from foreign barbarian hordes.

Perhaps a more modern comparison could be comparing Han Chinese to European, or "white"? China, Europe... they're melting pots, as long as you're close to the dominant phenotype. I mean, think about it, any East Asian looking individual who grew up in China could probably say he's Han Chinese and go unchallenged.

jimmyjames30x30 said:

I love watching young vtuber on Bilibili talking about games like Azure Lane. I remember an old news couple of years ago, when the direct/creator (who is Japanese) of Kantai Collection criticizing Azure Lane as a work lacking cultural depth, because it does not have the underlining pathos of the Kantai Collection.

I was deeply moved by this.

The girls in Kantai Collection encompassed the dream of greatness of the Japanese Imperial Navy, all shattered by defeat. The girls are in reality all doom to be sunk into the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. Such is the dreams of Japan, to rise above the world for greatness, only to end up like the burned up Icarus.

Click to expand...

Having read through much of the lore in Azure Lane, my impression is that it focuses more on the individual aspects of a ship's "spirit" as opposed to the cultural narrative aspect of Kantai Collection; fundamentally the focus is just different.

supersnoop said:

While I agree with most of what you said, there are some things that I think don't fit nicely.

1. I agree that Southerners can be less open to those not part of their clan/dialect group/etc. However, at the same time they do buy into the "greater Chinese identity". Much of the foundation of modern China relied a lot of the overseas Chinese communities which were in a large part made up of Southerners. How would you reconcile this?

2. With regards to the Japanese occupation period of Taiwan (and Korea), are you basically saying Japan basically saw their experience as failures and thus gave up with this method later in Manchuria?

I don't think "Han Chinese" has a good analogy in western civilization. It cannot really be classified as an ethnic group, at least not very neatly using classic western definitions. This is why Chinese/Han Chinese are always being accused of "cultural genocide". Really it is the original "melting pot".

Diverging a bit here... it is interesting you talk about looking to the future. Many people from all over the world are settling in China now. Many people who have Chinese ancestry are returning to China to find their roots (including those who do not might not look "typically Chinese"). I hope that people are able to all find the common bond that they are looking for, the country will be stronger for it.

Click to expand...

I would tell you that I have never doubted the nationalistic zealotry and the loyalty of the Maritime Southerner to the symbolic China. I don't think you actually understood what I meant.

The Maritime Southerner is as much fiercely loyal to CHINA as Continental Northerners, if not more so in many historical instances. But I do need to point out that they are first and foremost loyal to their own understanding of what "China" means.

In this regard, I would argue that the Continental Northerner and the Maritime Southerner has a very different understanding of what CHINA is.

The Southerner's understanding of China is a more ancient (Pre-Qin, 先秦), and Feudalistic(封建) version of China, in which the universal identity of the HUAXIA Central Plain (华夏中原）co-exists with the local identities of feudal kingdoms and local principalities. This is best reflected by the Chinese Classics such as Shijin (诗经）, Shangshu（尚书），the three Books of Rites（三礼：周礼、仪礼、礼记），The Spring and Autumn (春秋), as well as the large collection of ancient books written during or about the Zhou Dynasty. There were true nobilities existing in this era, in which their noble prestige were guaranteed and protected by universal recognition of their lineage. The nobility class as whole is above the peasantry, but there are no class difference between different nobles: the King of Zhou is an existence equal to even the lower ranking baron, as in they are both in the same Class. Their difference is only in their material power.

On the other hand, the Continental Northerner's understanding of CHINA is a unique Post-Qin civilization which is best described as a Centralized Imperial Meritocratic and Bureaucratic System of structure (举贤制官僚中央集权的帝制体系）. Such a system do NOT have real nobility class, as in the fact that the power and prestige of the any "nobles" under such a system were NOT guaranteed NOR protected by universal recognition of their lineage. Power and prestige were given to or taken away at the whim of the Imperial Court ( and in many cases, that meant at the whim of the Emperor Himself). The Emperor Himself attained godhood in the cultural context, making Him above humanity. This means that the Emperor himself makes the only member of his own class. Making him a different creature to any other human beings in the world, including any of his relatives.

Therefore, one could say that the Maritime Southerner's spiritual ancestor is the Kingdom of Chu, in which She is both an outcast challenger to the Central Plain Civilization(中原文明）, AND a most loyal protector and supporter of the Central Plain Civilization. But these cultural context were Destructed and reformed into an New China under the Unification by Qin (灭六合，统一中国）.

What's more important is that such a Unification Processes, echoing the very first one by Qin, has been periodically repeated again and again by people later on. This is what China really is: she looks very simple and repetitive, but the more you dig, the more complexity she reveals.

By the same token, you could look at the Chinese history from "五胡乱华" to the formation of the Sui and Tang dynasty. You will see profoundly, that the so-called “Barbarians” (胡人) contributed MUCH MORE to the formation of the historical Great Chinese Empires (like the Tang, and the Ming and Qing) than we Han Chinese people would like to admit. The reason they could accomplish such, is precisely because the Qin Kingdom and Dynasty created a revolutionary model/prototype of a New China based on the civilizational identity of the Continental Northerner.

montyp165 said:

Having read through much of the lore in Azure Lane, my impression is that it focuses more on the individual aspects of a ship's "spirit" as opposed to the cultural narrative aspect of Kantai Collection; fundamentally the focus is just different.

Click to expand...

Well, yeah, of course!
Azure Lane is made by a Country/culture is a rising naval power. Kantai Collection is a cultural memoir of a now fallen naval power that at least had a chance in history to attain global naval dominance, or at least once had an aspiration to try at become a dominant naval global naval power) .

Hendrik_2000 said:

Not too mention that much of CCP leadership come mainly from southerner Even Mao is Hunanese And so does the Peasant and worker army who is the precursor of PLA consist in large part from Hakka Chinese from Jiangxi and So do the Taiping rebellion are mostly Hakka. Deng Xiao Ping, Ye Chinying, Chen Yi, Zhu De are all Hakka.
And where would be the Chinese reform without the southerner and overseas Chinese ?
The Chinese culture originate mostly from the southern province south of Yangtze river around Nanjing

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Few China scholars or Chinese citizens know one of the most basic facts about Deng Xiaoping, Hu Yaobang, Zhu De, Chen Yi, Guo Moruo or many other modern leaders: they are all Hakka. Most popular and official histories, in China and abroad, ignore this basic ethnic bond. The title of this article is used ironically, in deliberate parody of the genuine Secret History of the Mongols. The subtitle points toward an ironic but serious effort to illuminate a major facet of revolutionary history which remains almost entirely unexplored.

---

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

True, many of these leaders are from the South. But you have to understand that the idea and vision they have for China is always an analogy of the Continental Northerner: they want a highly and deeply unified China, made up by highly homogenous individuals that based their identity upon a centralized and standardized identity of the "Universal Chinese".

This is so blatantly obvious!

Any Post-Qin great leader that envisioned their future domain as anything other than what I essentially explained above in bold font, always ended up in defeat and failure. From Xiangyu（项羽）to Duan Qirui (段祺瑞）, history has no shortage of such defeat and failure.

In fact, I would even dare to say that one cannot even guarantee one's success in forming a new powerful China if one did not try hard enough or fierce enough at what I stated above in bold font, at least if one did not outperform in such than one's competitors. I would even say that one of the main reason that Chiang Kai Shek (蒋中正) lost to Mao Zedong (毛泽东) is because he is way too tolerant of powerful local war lords retaining their power and effectively weakening the centralization of power of the KMT Central Commission.