invade and expand

[seahorse]

in chinese history even in the great TAng Dynasty,I didn't feel the chinese king wants to invade and expand for their country in some history books.and they always like contravallation.

is it because the nation's personality?

[Guest hacta]

I agree, it's because the nation's personality.

[holyman]

since the time of qin shihuang, chinese had probably invaded korea in almost all dynasties except song dynasty(they are too weak then), especially when there are internal issues too difficult to solve, the emperors will wage a war to distract the commoners attention. korea is the usual choice.

[Guest Anonymous]

There is one main difference between a "Chinese invasion" and an "European invasion".

The Chinese has a system called "Chaogong" which allows the invaded nation to have autonomy and handle its internal politics while China would handle the said nation's foreign affairs and protect it with Chinese military forces. One catch to the Chaogong system is that the invaded nation must periodically send gifts to the Chinese Imperial government.

The Europeans on the other hand, kills the natives and colonize their land for themselves. Rape the resources and destroy the culture of the aborigines. Examples can be seen in both North and South Americas, Australia, and most of Africa, which makes up of more than 2/3 of the world.

[holyman]

There is one main difference between a "Chinese invasion" and an "European invasion".

The Chinese has a system called "Chaogong" which allows the invaded nation to have autonomy and handle its internal politics while China would handle the said nation's foreign affairs and protect it with Chinese military forces. One catch to the Chaogong system is that the invaded nation must periodically send gifts to the Chinese Imperial government.

The Europeans on the other hand' date=' kills the natives and colonize their land for themselves. Rape the resources and destroy the culture of the aborigines. Examples can be seen in both North and South Americas, Australia, and most of Africa, which makes up of more than 2/3 of the world.[/quote']

not necessarily so. u mean paying tributes to get recognition from the chinese govt. yes, vietnam, korea, japan, thailand they all do this. but what about canton? canton wasnt part of china before qin shihuang. he invaded canton and took the land and people for himself. if u take western colonisation as examples, thats more to the modern era. and yes the chinese do have a different agenda then. one reason is, given the communications then, the land is too vast for them to control anyway and the chinese emperors are already satisfied. if u take the region of xinjiang for example, the qing govt took over it 200+ yrs back and i am pretty sure the locals killed were no less than the american natives. if u have a chance to look at the war diaries and strategies of those chinese generals involved.

[TSkillet]

The Europeans on the other hand, kills the natives and colonize their land for themselves. Rape the resources and destroy the culture of the aborigines.

there's a difference in being proud of being Chinese, and being blind. Ever heard of Taiwan? Tibet? Xinjiang? How are the native Tibetians, Taiwanese (and I mean aboriginals) and Ughiurs doing?

[Guest Anonymous]

there's a difference in being proud of being Chinese, and being blind. Ever heard of Taiwan? Tibet? Xinjiang? How are the native Tibetians, Taiwanese (and I mean aboriginals) and Ughiurs doing?

Last time I checked, the Tibetans no longer practice slavery since it was abolished by the Chinese (at least the former slaves got to be happy right?) and modern technologies are being imported into Tibet from other major cities in China. A newly built airport new Lhasa, the capital of Tibet, is about to be open soon which will make travelling in and out of Tibet much easier. Although I admit, I have never been to Tibet personally and this is just the information I acquired from various resources.

However, I have been to Xinjiang and I have got to say, Urumqi, the capital, is almost as prosperous as Beijing or Shanghai. All the public signs are in both Chinese Hanzi and Uighur script. There aren't any lynching or Uighurs being burned on a cross as has occured to the African-Americans in the United States until the later half of the 20th century. I didn't see any Chinese give Uighurs blankets infected with deadly diseases as the early European colonizers did to the Native-Americans. In fact, the Uighurs seem to lead a pretty decent life. Though I only spent a week in Xinjiang, but I have met a couple local Uighurs, including the bellboy who brought my luggages to my hotel room. He told me that he's in high school right now and got accepted to an university in Beijing. Like I said, I have been to Xinjiang personally and I have to admit, I was deeply surprised. I was surprised because of how much false information and lies I was fed by the U.S. media before I saw the region for myself.

I was born in Taiwan and though when the Chinese settlers first colonized the island, many aboriginies were killed, but they never completely destroy their cultures. There are nine tribes of abroiginies in Taiwan and there's even a theme park and museums dedicated to them. Most of them still live in the mountains but many young people moved to the big cities and lead very decent lives. There are some who even became stars like the famous singer, A-Mei (Zhang Huimei) and there's this baseball player whose name I can't recall at the moment.

It's true that I may be a little biased against the Europeans (mainly because they, specifically the British, imported opium into China during the Qing Dynasty and totally corrupted the whole Chinese society. When China decided to ban opium, the British attacked and started the Opium War.) However, you can't argue the fact that when compared to the Chinese, the European Imperialists have done more damage in the past 300 years than the Chinese has ever done in all 4,000 years of their history.

[Guest Anonymous]

not necessarily so. u mean paying tributes to get recognition from the chinese govt. yes, vietnam, korea, japan, thailand they all do this. but what about canton? canton wasnt part of china before qin shihuang. he invaded canton and took the land and people for himself. if u take western colonisation as examples, thats more to the modern era. and yes the chinese do have a different agenda then. one reason is, given the communications then, the land is too vast for them to control anyway and the chinese emperors are already satisfied. if u take the region of xinjiang for example, the qing govt took over it 200+ yrs back and i am pretty sure the locals killed were no less than the american natives. if u have a chance to look at the war diaries and strategies of those chinese generals involved.

OK, if you want to talk about just modern era then the European Imperialists still come out much worse. The Europeans decided to start colonizing the whole world and eliminate all non-European people and cultures sometime around the 1700's though it really started way back in the 1400's when Columbus "discovered" America. So if you want to start with the 1400's, China was in its Ming Dynasty and it was right after the Han (Chinese) took its land back from the Mongolians. Between Ming Dynasty until now, the only "new" territories were mainly Xinjiang and Tibet which were acquired during the Qing Dynasty. In the mean time, the Europeans colonized both North and South Americas, Australia, much of Africa and even parts of Asia. Wow, big difference eh?

[holyman]

OK, if you want to talk about just modern era then the European Imperialists still come out much worse. The Europeans decided to start colonizing the whole world and eliminate all non-European people and cultures sometime around the 1700's though it really started way back in the 1400's when Columbus "discovered" America. So if you want to start with the 1400's, China was in its Ming Dynasty and it was right after the Han (Chinese) took its land back from the Mongolians. Between Ming Dynasty until now, the only "new" territories were mainly Xinjiang and Tibet which were acquired during the Qing Dynasty. In the mean time, the Europeans colonized both North and South Americas, Australia, much of Africa and even parts of Asia. Wow, big difference eh?

u missed my point. what i am trying to say, is not who's the bad guy, or who's worse than who. all countries, or races, invaded others for the sake of expansion, or simply for more space for survival. probably no one is an exception in history, esp for a great country with such a long history like china. i dont think its a bright idea to cover up with beautiful words like 'a peaceful, non invasive country'. if u look at the location of the great wall and the area north of ling'nan, u would see that china is now almost 3-4 times of what it was 2000yrs back, with canton, guangxi, yun'nan, tibet, xinjiang and inner mongolia in their map. if u take qing dynasty into account, then the present republic of mongolia is also part of china. yeah, size wise, maybe not as big as the western colonists had acquired. but the nature is the same. they do invade others too. and all the lands are joined into a big country, not like those colonies that are separated. although china was weak during the 19th century, its still the countr with the highest gnp in the world before 1840. if given the fire power the west have had, do u think, china, with its past record, will not participate in the colony race?

[Guest vinzlim]

i strongly disagree. during ming dynasty, the chinese have a great fleet to invade. the admiral cheng ho's fleet was the number one at that period in terms of armory and size. given that kind of fleet, he could have invaded wherever he goes but didn't. instead the imperialist chooses diplomacy.

btw, the great wall was build on several reasons, first to defend and second to separate, no means of invasion. just to separate the civilised and the barbarians. i think chinese thinking has ego associated with it. that's why given the strength they don't invade. they defend. no point of invading barbarians territories, they're lower in civilisation. that's the chinese point.

[holyman]

btw, the great wall was build on several reasons, first to defend and second to separate, no means of invasion. just to separate the civilised and the barbarians. i think chinese thinking has ego associated with it. that's why given the strength they don't invade. they defend. no point of invading barbarians territories, they're lower in civilisation. that's the chinese point.

u didnt get it. the great wall was the border of the chinese empire 2000 yrs back, so are the ling'nan mountains(the '5 hill' separating canton/guangxi and fujian). but now, the territory of china had reached way beyond these traditional borders. how did this happen? besides conquering with military might i dun see other means. u are right about admiral chengho but thats because 1, chinese are more of a land people than seafaring people. the expenditions to other countries like those admiral chengho had taken probably happened only once in chinese history. 2, most countries admiral chengho passed by pay respects to china, acknowledging chinese sovereignty, so there are no reasons to invade them. 3, chengho probably had a different agenda other than taking lands. he was to look for the previous emperor, who was dethroned by his uncle, the emperor chengho was serving. the nephew cum ex-emperor was said to escape to other countries by sea. one of chengho's job was to look for him. anyway, a single incident doesnt speak much for the history of territorial expansion china had.

[holyman]

and fyi the greatwall is not simply an ego thing. can u tell me why the great wall was built at its present location and not anywhere else?

[TSkillet]

Last time I checked, the Tibetans no longer practice slavery since it was abolished by the Chinese (at least the former slaves got to be happy right?)

Sure. They're very happy with their burned down temples and tortured religious leaders. It's obvious that Tibet pre-1954 was not a pleasant place to be - with it's medival mindset - but I'm pretty sure they're not singing the praises of the Chinese there either. And there's another issue here - Tibet was not a part of China until China invaded and conquered the territory. Tibetian culture? It's being slowly rubbed out by moving large numbers of Han into the territory.

Remember my original contention with your post - that the Chinese have had a history of invading and colonizing places and rubbing out the culture of the aborigianls? It still holds true.

In fact, the Uighurs seem to lead a pretty decent life. I was fed by the U.S. media before I saw the region for myself.

And that would explain why there's a large seperatist movement? There's more to life than prosperity and airports and modern techology. All the Bank of China buildings and paved streets in Urumqi won't make up for a territory where you once ruled, but have become an ethinc minority.

The movie "The Firm" was on the other night (okay, it's a bad movie, but I was watching) and Tom Cruise has a moment where he's arguing with the FBI and he says "I don't need much of a life, but it has to be mine" - I think that's what people want - they don't need the moderizations of Bejing (or 3 represents) - they just want their own life - not the life of Han Chinese.

And *what* lies the US media tells about Xinjiang? I've never seen a US media report about Xinjiang.

And I'm sure the aboriginals on Taiwan are very happy with their theme park and A-Mei's stardom - despite the fact that she succeeded IN SPITE of being an aboriginal. The Taiwanese aboriginals are treated as poorly as American Indians (okay, maybe not that poorly) - but they're put up on pedestals for tourists to come and take pictures of them in native dress, like zoo animals; suffer high incidences of alcoholism and high unemployment. I don't think having a theme park, a famous singer and one unamed baseball player really make up for that.

To say that the Chinese do not move and colonize and eliminate other cultures is living with blinders on. We're not comparing the Chinese to what Americans or Europeans did (because I don't think the elimination of American Indians or Aussie Aboriginals is relevant) but I just wanted to alert you to the fact that the Chinese certainly do not have clean hands in this regard.

[/i]

[Guest Anonymous]

vinzlim is correct, another major difference between the Chinese and the Europeans is that when it comes to war, China tends to defensive side while Europeans tend to be on the offensive.

The Great Wall is a perfect example. Why do people build walls? To keep things *OUT*. Building a wall is the basic human defensive action.

While although the Chinese invented the gunpowder, the Europeans were the ones who manipulated the gunpowder's original purpose (to entertaine people with fireworks) and changed it into a destructive weapon. This trend still occurs today. Why do you think both World War I and II both started in Europe. Who invented modern destructive weapons such as tanks, bombs, gernades... etc. and not to mention "weapons of mass destruction" like nuclear warheads, biological and chemical weapons.

I'm not saying that the Europeans are the devils while the Chinese are the innocent people. However, I do find it amusing that Westerners are constantly accusing China of "invading" Tibet while they themselves "invaded" 2/3 of the world. It's like a mass murderer pointing finger at someone who accidently shot someone in the leg.

[Guest Anonymous]

Sure. They're very happy with their burned down temples and tortured religious leaders. It's obvious that Tibet pre-1954 was not a pleasant place to be - with it's medival mindset - but I'm pretty sure they're not singing the praises of the Chinese there either. And there's another issue here - Tibet was not a part of China until China invaded and conquered the territory. Tibetian culture? It's being slowly rubbed out by moving large numbers of Han into the territory.

Have you been to Tibet personally? Because if you haven't then you're just as ignorant of the truth as I am. You're obviously brainwashed by the biased anti-China Western media. As I've said before, I haven't been to Tibet myself either so I don't believe I could talk about this issue objectively. However, if what I've seen in the rest of China is true, then Tibet couldn't be too far off.

And that would explain why there's a large seperatist movement? There's more to life than prosperity and airports and modern techology. All the Bank of China buildings and paved streets in Urumqi won't make up for a territory where you once ruled, but have become an ethinc minority.

Yeah, you should know. Just ask the Native-Americans who used the rule both the North and South Americas and the aboriginies in Australia and New Zealand.

And *what* lies the US media tells about Xinjiang? I've never seen a US media report about Xinjiang.

You should've read the article about Xinjiang and the Uighurs in Time magazine a couple months back. Search for it on their website if you are really interested to see just how biased the U.S. media is.

We're not comparing the Chinese to what Americans or Europeans did (because I don't think the elimination of American Indians or Aussie Aboriginals is relevant)

The elimination of Native Americans and Australian Aboriginies is *NOT* relevant!?!?!? I certainly hope that's your personal belief and do not reflect other European-decents.

[TSkillet]

First of all, I'm not a European-decent (or descent for that matter) and not only have I been to Tibet, but I lived in China (and Hong Kong) for 7 years (1 year in 1978, then 6 years from 1997 till 2003). Not to mention the hundreds(thousands? possible) of years that my family lived in Guangdong Province.

However, I do find it amusing that Westerners are constantly accusing China of "invading" Tibet while they themselves "invaded" 2/3 of the world.

Did the Chinese invade Tibet? It's not a matter of comparisons, it's a matter of yes or no. Your original contention was that the Chinese did not invade and colonize - I disagreed and gave three examples of when they did (Xinjiang, Tibet, and Taiwan). The relevance of what other cultures did do is negliable - bringing up what other countries have done - and worse - does NOT excuse the Chinese for what they've done. Just because Portugal and Spain conquered South America does not make it right for China to forcibly enter and decimate Tibet. Sure the scale is different, but that doesn't give the Chinese government a free pass.

Yeah, you should know. Just ask the Native-Americans who used the rule both the North and South Americas and the aboriginies in Australia and New Zealand.

Exactly, like the Uyghers, I suspect they'd rather have the invaders leave and keep their McDonald's and modern airports and whatnot. Your argument was that the Uighers and Tibets should be happy because the Chinese brought the living standard to a higher level. I'm saying that that's not always the case - with the high level of movement of Han Chinese into both Xinjiang and Tibet - there is a palpable loss of native aboriginal culture.

[holyman]

for xinjiang its plain invasion, that what the name xinjiang means, new territories. for tibet its a bit complicated... the tibetian monks honoured the qing emperor as their protector and acknowledged the qing emperor as manjusri khan, a buddhist title of kingship, its more like a bilateral thing, so in a way one can say they voluntarily surrendered to the qing govt, on the other hand one can argue that they were forced to do so under military intimidation... anyway it doesnt change the fact that the chinese expanded along their history. if one would argue that the chinese built the great wall just to defend themselves, then why does the present chinese territories stretched far beyond the great wall? look at the map, the great wall is somewhere near the middle of china now.

[Guest Anonymous]

My point is, if you want to split up China and believe that independence should be given to regions such as Xinjiang and Tibet, then shouldn't North & South Americas, Australi and New Zealand given back to the natives as well?

I don't understand why you are so anti-China.

[TSkillet]

kulong - please show me where I said that China should be split up? You just made a point that the Chinese aren't invaders and colonizers - my point is that they have done so. Nothing about being pro-or-anti-China. Heck, I'm not in favor of Tibetian independance, nor Xinjiangian independance - but to declare China a purely defensive country would be blinding oneself to China's ancient and recent history

[Guest Anonymous]

kulong - please show me where I said that China should be split up? You just made a point that the Chinese aren't invaders and colonizers - my point is that they have done so. Nothing about being pro-or-anti-China. Heck, I'm not in favor of Tibetian independance, nor Xinjiangian independance - but to declare China a purely defensive country would be blinding oneself to China's ancient and recent history

I never said China is a purely defensive country. If that is true then China would be no larger then a couple square miles around the Yellow River basin. Like I've said earlier, comparing to the Europeans, China IS a more defensive nation. Also, you claimed that Tibetans and Uighurs aren't happy about being "invaded" by China and portrait the Chinese as evil colonizers without realizing that the Europeans did the exact same thing but 100 times worse. It's just so injust when people like you and the U.S. media critize China when the very land they are living on was stolen from someone else. It's like accussing someone of stealing when your own pockets are stuffed with stolen goods.