invade and expand

[TSkillet]

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.

I certainly do know that the Europeans did this. Why does this exclude the Chinese from criticism?

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

Well, actually up until December, the land I was living on was owned by Cantonese people - in fact it was the same land my family had owned since the 1940s. Before then, it was owned by other cantonese people.

So is your point that no other countries can accuse China of invading Tibet and Xinjiang - because they did it first? Does that mean that the US can't decry slavery or racism, because slavery was practiced within the US 150 years ago and racism still exists? Sorry, I don't think the "nyah nyah you did it first" arguement flies. It was wrong when the Europeans did in the 1600s and it is wrong that the Chinese are doing it today.

[Guest Anonymous]

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.

I certainly do know that the Europeans did this. Why does this exclude the Chinese from criticism?

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

Well, actually up until December, the land I was living on was owned by Cantonese people - in fact it was the same land my family had owned since the 1940s. Before then, it was owned by other cantonese people.

So is your point that no other countries can accuse China of invading Tibet and Xinjiang - because they did it first? Does that mean that the US can't decry slavery or racism, because slavery was practiced within the US 150 years ago and racism still exists? Sorry, I don't think the "nyah nyah you did it first" arguement flies. It was wrong when the Europeans did in the 1600s and it is wrong that the Chinese are doing it today.

I was in no way saying that it's "OK" for the Chinese to do what the Europeans did. All I'm saying is that the Europeans try their best to ignore their own mistakes while pointing fingers at others.

[PollyWaffle]

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

I don't understand why you are so pro-china & anti-western. Are you a yellow supremacist? LOL!

I was in no way saying that it's "OK" for the Chinese to do what the Europeans did. All I'm saying is that the Europeans try their best to ignore their own mistakes while pointing fingers at others.

You automatically assume that wersterners condone the behaviour of past & present governments. Wrong! First, you won't admit china's imperialist past, then you say this behaviour is ok because westerners were worse.

[holyman]

My point is' date=' 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.[/quote']

nobody here is claiming anything like china should split up or whatsoever. u are just being over-reacted. myself and some others are just saying that china is no exception in expansion and conquests compared to other civilisations. we accept the fact that china owns/controlled tibet or xinjiang or whatever land it has now, just like the americans controlled hawaii and the brits had falklands, but that doesnt change history. its not about colonisation or the evil deeds colonists done to the natives. its just about conquest and expansion. all these took place long before the idea of colonisation appear. if u wanna compare in terms of colonisation, then the brits had lost much of its colonies or granted them independence, and so did the rest of the ex-colonial countries, whereas china still had that land which has a size 3 times of its original territory 2000yrs back, so can u explain this? not asking the question of right or wrong here, or what should be done here, just a simple explaination.

[holyman]

I was in no way saying that it's "OK" for the Chinese to do what the Europeans did. All I'm saying is that the Europeans try their best to ignore their own mistakes while pointing fingers at others.

which european says so? i bet most of us in this thread are of chinese descend and we are just discussing history, stick to the point, i dont think there is any european here pointing finger at anyone.

[Guest vinzlim]

well, well interesting discussion here. Well, i'm still sticking to my point, i think it boils down to a different meaning at how we interpret China. there are many leaders in china u know past present and future. During the warring states how many leaders are there in china?? many, and we can't just categorise China as a generalisation. though most of the time, China is unified under one emperor, unfortunately this are also the weakest time in terms of it's army. Well, during the warrings states, warfare was rife among the Chinese unfortuntaely, but then again why the hell, Chinese be it the three kingdoms or the seven states don't invade those uncivilised territories but fight against each other??? tell me??

they could have easily controlled other minorities outisde of china but instead fight against each other. They didn't aimed to control the silk road, nor they didn't aim to conquer others too, but just stay inside the shell of the borders. Regarding the boundary of the great wall, bear in mind that these are lands for settlements. Does settlements considered invasion??Correct me if i am wrong.

[holyman]

well' date=' well interesting discussion here. Well, i'm still sticking to my point, i think it boils down to a different meaning at how we interpret China. there are many leaders in china u know past present and future. During the warring states how many leaders are there in china?? many, and we can't just categorise China as a generalisation. though most of the time, China is unified under one emperor, unfortunately this are also the weakest time in terms of it's army. Well, during the warrings states, warfare was rife among the Chinese unfortuntaely, but then again why the hell, Chinese be it the three kingdoms or the seven states don't invade those uncivilised territories but fight against each other??? tell me??

they could have easily controlled other minorities outisde of china but instead fight against each other. They didn't aimed to control the silk road, nor they didn't aim to conquer others too, but just stay inside the shell of the borders. Regarding the boundary of the great wall, bear in mind that these are lands for settlements. Does settlements considered invasion??Correct me if i am wrong.[/quote']

u missed out a large part of history. lets say, since the beginning of chinese history, the yellow emperor(huangdi) and the red emperor(chidi) chased away the dongyi preople and san miao people, and took their lands. some of the dongyi went northwards to korea and mixed around with the locals, giving us present koreans. the sanmiao went southwards and settled in yunnan, guangxi and hainan islands. during the warring states, the state of qin invaded the lands of 'ba' and 'shu', present sichuan, and unified the minorities call 'xirong', then they got stronger and beat up therest of the 6 states. the state of chu beat up the bachviets(or baiyue in chinese) and took their lands. the state of zhao defeated the northern minorities and introduced trousers to the chinese. ancient chinese wear a gown like greeks. trousers allowed them to develop calvary. when qin shihuang conquered china, he sent a 500 000 army to canton, chased away the locals and make present hainoi the capital for hainan prefecture. vietnam got independence from china only during the ming dynasty. korea was attacked too.

han dynasty, defeated the huns and secured the silk route and the 'hexi corridor'. we had the county of jiuquan, zhangye etc. again korea was attacked. look at 'shiji' or 'hanshu', the official history of han dynasty, how many times han govt wage wars to chase the huns away? during the 3 kingdoms, the state of shu defeated minorities in yunnan, the state of wei defeated the nomads to the north and sent envoys to japan, acknowledging the queen of the state of yemetai(thats how the name 'yamato' came about) as the rightful ruler. the copper(or was it gold) imperial seal given to her is exhibited in the museum now. the state of wu sent a fleet to present day taiwan, and took the place under their jurisdiction.

so how could u say that the chinese didnt invade these 'uncivilised' territories? all these are well elaborated in the history books. the fact is that they did and they definitely did it more than once.

if settlements are not considered invasions, then why pinpoint the west for setting up colonies in america or any other parts of the world? arent colonies just settlements? u keep telling me the chinese are contented within the great wall, then please, tell me, why is the present chinese border far beyond the boudaries of the great wall?

[holyman]

the fact is 'china' is a term after the qin dynasty, originally 'sina' or 'cina', meaning the country of qin(yes, therefore we got sinology and sino-american relations etc. the name goes back long way in history). but with a little mix up in pronouciation. so when we say 'chinese' and 'china' it usually refers to the unified state the chinese had for 2200+yrs. if qin is considered the weakest, i wonder if sending 500 000 troops to canton, 700 000 and 300 000 labourers respectively for building the great wall and the terra-cotta army was the sign of a weak nation. i doubt any chinese neighbour at that time can match this.

[Guest vinzlim]

i giv up. nice meeting u guys btw.

[TSkillet]

All I'm saying is that the Europeans try their best to ignore their own mistakes while pointing fingers at others.

So, every time I point out that China has historically had a history of invading and conquering neighbors - I need to say "oh, but the Europeans did it much worse and over a larger part of the globe?" That'll make for a lot of long analysis papers. Just because I don't mention the European conquests, does not mean I have ignored them - it just means they aren't relevant to the current discussion - which is about CHINESE INVASION AND EXPANSION. Not global colonlization and the evils of expansion.

[holyman]

i giv up. nice meeting u guys btw.

why give up so soon? see, u can argue things from both sides, depends on how u manupulate the 'facts'. the story goes this way.

the great wall was built on its present location and not anywhere else, simply because of the 15 inch isohyet line. the great wall lies roughly along this line. this line that joined the areas with the same annual rainfall together. north of the great wall, rainfall is less than 15 inch per year and its bad for agriculture. people have to be nomadic, practice animal grazing etc. south of it, rainfall is enough and people settle down and built farms. the natural climate decided their lifestyles. nomadic people will not go deeper southwards cos they'll have to change their lifestyle, thats what happen to the '5 barbarian tribes' when they invaded china during the north and south dynasties. and same thing vice versa, farmers will not want to venture north out of the great wall. thats why u can say that they are of a 'peaceful' nature. of course ancient chinese know nuts about rainfall but they do know that the nomads will not stay across this line for long, thus the great wall is there. furthermore the great wall is not a stand alone construction. along the walls a 3 li(chinese mile, 1 li is roughly a quarter mile, but actual conversion changes throughout history) forest is created to stop the horse riding nomads. thats why we got names of places like 'yulin' or 'liu tiao gou' along the great wall.

regarding the size of present china, it has a lot to do with the qing govt. the royal families of the qing govt are from a tribe known as the jurchens, a branch of a group of people known as the 'tungus'('donghu' in chinese). they were defeated by the mongols during the 11-12th century, and had since under mongolian rule until the 16th century. they married the mongolian nobles and are therefore at least half mongolian in their blood.

when the stength of the mongols gradually weakened after 300 yrs of internal conflict during the ming dynasty, the qing people rose in power and some of the mongols pledged loyalty to them, and allowed them to rule their lands cos the qing royals are at least half mongolian. inner mongolia surrendered first so they are considered the more loyal ones. outer mongolia only did so after some unsuccessful campaigns against the qing govt (led by galdan khan and his company. afaik galdan khan married the qing emperor's daughter). outer mongolia was later ruled by a son or grandson of emperor kangxi after galdan's defeat. these blood ties brought the land beyond the great wall under china's ruling. tibet surrendered on their own accord, so no problem here. anyway during the days of galdan khan the tibetians were not too happy with him and some had secretly wished the qing govt would get rid of him.

after the 1911 revolution, however, with the brits looking for a shortcut into the heartland of china from india, and the russians eyeing for more territories, they instigated the mongols and tibetians to rise up against the new govt. anyway some of the mongols and tibetians felt that they had pledged alliance with the qing govt, but not to the han chinese, so they had a separatists movement for their own independence. but only outer mongolia succeeded with the help of the russians.

[TSkillet]

okay, i was going to say i knew a lot about chinese history - but it's apparent i don't at least compared to some.

[Guest vinzlim]

it's nice to read chinese history from your point of view. i didn't study any really, compare to u guys.

[seahorse]

in the beginning no people replied my post,at that time,I felt upset.

but some days later suddenlly I saw such many people are talking it here and it seems like they are very excited.

but anyway,I think we never know what is true history.

peace----

[Guest Roger]

The major problem in this discussion is that kulong identifies with an ethnic group, - the Chinese - whose history books tell him what he must believe, whereas the history of the rest of the world has been discussed far longer, and thus has developed in a different direction: there is more honest contoroversy than there is in China. The Chinese are mentally uniform, brainwashed and unable to think beyond the box in their brains. Everything has to be poured into it from their own sources.

IT is so easy to see that kulong is biased and is judging things from a purely ethnocentric vantage point. That makes him unbelievable.

What exactly is supposedly '100 times worse' in European colonial expansion than, say, in CHinese imperialism? That is a pure sophism and opinionating, but it is not worthy of a scientific debate. It is like saying "whiskey kills ten times fewer people than all oceans do."

I am a Westerner, and I know that I must beware of my own superiority reflexes. My folks hail from South Africa, and by God! Am I glad we have rid our country of its former white minority regime. Not that things are better now, depending, of course, on what you want to compare. I chose to live in China, partly because for political reasons there is no hope for me in the RSA (I was not born there, so I could go somewhere else, but I do not want to go there either). I feel as an outsider I can see things that the Chinese are too well conditioned to ignore, such as their own racism and chauvinism. One example: "We have a history of 5000 years..." Implication? "You foreigners (barbarians) are an inferior stock..." In fact, I have it from the horse's mouth (some students!) that Chinese actually believe Westerners descended from more primitive forms of life only several hundred years ago!

But that does not put me off. How ignorant these people are - it is to their own disadvantage! Let me say, as a westerner I look back on a cultural history of 10'000 years, starting in earnest in Babylon. The wheel, beer, agriculture, cities, writing all were developed there, and eventually spread around the world, most of it to Europe first. How can CHinese therefore be so supremacist?

Kulong, have you been to Urumqi? There is a history museum there, with mommies that have distinct European features and said to be 4000 years old. The Chinese do not know how to account for their presence there and would rather keep quiet over it.

Incidentally, Urumqi is a very ugly town almost identical to any "modern" Chinese city that was built after 1949. Almost all architecture from the socialist period can be called 'ugly', and so is Urumqi.

Why?

Because the Chinese imperialists in Peking decided the Uyghurs needed Chinese overlords to tell them what to grow, what products to manufacture, where to build roads, where to drill for oil, and so on. I am not going to dabble in Xinjiang/Turkestan's painful history of wars, insurgencies, bloodletting - the locals are as guilty of it as the invading CHinese are. After all, this region is cutlurally dominated by much the same that AZfghanistan and Central Asia is, where similar socioeconomic realities prevail, and where the Soviet Union had to beat its retreat.

But I have some personal insights to offer.

To begin with, I travelled across Xinjiang several times. One overriding impression: The CHinese are ruthless. And cruel!

In Almaty, Kazakhstan, I met Uyghurs, displaced there by Chinese colonialism. How come? Well, there is little fertile land in Xinjiang. Where there is green grass, the Chinese see cash crop growing potential, and so they expropriate locals. Natives are discriminated against on the labour market. Finally, they emigrate. What you saw as a rapidly industrialising and modernising 'autonomous' region was in fact a country subject to a population exchange! You can see Uyghurs almost anywhere in China - always selling fruit (dried raisins and the like). Most cities do not allow them to rent accommodation - they have to stay at guesthouses!

When crossing the land border from Kazakhstan, I watched a horrifically humiliating scene between a Yughur woman maybe 70 years old and a rough and rude Chinese border guard. He deliberately dropped her passport to the floor outside a bus, while she was standing on the step of the bus. She had to get off and bend down to pick it up.

Kulong: Have you ever witnessed such overbearing and racist behaviour in the West?

I for one have, and as a Westerer, I admit to feeling ashamed of it. At least I own up on behalf of us Westerners. And that makes it so much better - we are learning from our past, whereas you CHinese are blissfully self-deluding yourselves!

I also visited Tibet - and I can safely say it is not any better.

I could complain about the attitudes of Chinese towards those of us who work here and contribute to China's current phenomenal economic growth! Yes, let's say once and for good, without us China would still be an agrarian society!

The Opium War - however much you may hate it - was but one chain link in the long series of attempts of the rest of the world to establish formal and friendly international intercourse with you. China has always been to standoffish, thinking of the rest of the world as beneath its own level. At least two thousand years of deceiving of Chinese by Chinese!

When the Brits finally (after many other more acceptable attempts) decided to introduce opium to China the drug was their last resort. It does not make the intention of the British much better, but we must keep in mind that in hindsight we are judging them a lot more harshly than their contemporaries did.

in fact, opium was but one commodity, the most lucrative one. On the other hand, China has only a couple of years ago finally been admitted into the WTO, after 14 years of stubborn pleading and bargaining on their side. The WTO is an economic order much in line with British intents in the period leading up to the mislabelled 'Opium Wars" of 1839 to 1841.

I think, kulong, for a Chinese to harbour such ethnocentric bad vibes while living in a country that according to your world view is 'enemy territory' is pretty schizophrenic!

[roddy]

This thread is now way off original topic. I'm closing it.

If you want to continue your discussion, please do it in private or on your own forum.

Roddy