|
Post by donilpark on Oct 31, 2005 8:49:02 GMT -5
And only they think all the other 50-odd minority groups are 'Chinese'. They are 'citizens of Zhonghuaminguo' no doubt, but they also want to say that they belong in the same ethnic group and same culture, concocting things like how the 'Chinese' absorbed the 'barbarians' into themselves even after being conquered. But too bad there are some western scholars who agree with a sophistry like this...
|
|
|
Post by Trespasser on Oct 31, 2005 22:17:34 GMT -5
You mean "Chinese". Well, Actors in Korean dramas weren't as decent looking as today just 10 years ago. It was the "youth" obsession of drama casting that raised the bar to present day standard.
As Chinese youth are raised on better diet and their drama market shifts to youth-oriented, Chinese too will start producing actors/actresses that approach Korean or Japanese quality that we are used.
But at least Genghis Khan actors can act, as opposed to having "OMG, I cannot tolerate that Mijin/Chohee actress who cannot act! I would punch her if she wasn't cute!".
|
|
|
Post by tim on Nov 1, 2005 20:38:45 GMT -5
... eh... no. We do not. The chinese never thought the Mongolians were part of us. but we did think the manchurians are part of our race. In fact, during the Qing dynasty (in which they ruled over the chinese) the manchurians themselves said that they were chinese! otherwise, the Qing wouldn't be considered the "last" dynasty of China; it would be the Ming dynasty. And one other thing, the minority groups do consider themselves chinese. NO, we do not think we r all ethnically the same, but we are all chinese.
|
|
|
Post by donilpark on Nov 5, 2005 1:07:42 GMT -5
Yes you do. Open up any 'Chinese' history book, and you'll see history of Yuan in there. Not to mention that Chinese government considered Outer Mongolia a Chinese territory that has to be 'restored' (while the Mogolians think that Inner Mongolia is the land that should be restored) Funny you claim how Manchus considered themselves Chinese. Sun Yat-sen, the man revered as the national father both in mainland China and Taiwan, insisted on the fall of Qing and rise of Han (ØþôèýéùÓ or ØþØ»ýéùÓ), which clearly shows the Chineses' attitude towards other peoples. The Chinese did not consider these minority groups as a part of them (i.e. Zonghua race) and yet, now they are claiming the complete opposite.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Nov 5, 2005 12:49:57 GMT -5
ok, first of, Sun Yat-sen did not overuled the Manchurians because they were "barbarians." He did it only because the Manchurians are crappy leaders. It is KMT (the nationalists that Sun started) that considers Mongolia China's. The communists never said that Mongolia was. You are talking about "Taiwanese history books". believe me, i've been to both taiwan and mainland china. Only taiwanese text say that mongolia is china (which is retarded), and the communists never said that in their textbook. they acknowledge that mongolia is another country. Many Mongolians live in China, because Inner Mongolia is in China. We still acknowledge them. Most of them have been Han-washed (dunno if that's a word), but they are still Mongolians, and if we say they r chinese, they would have rebeled a long time ago... and of course, the whole world would be beating china's ass (i can use that word here, right?) for calling them chinese. therefore, it is taiwan's problem (and taiwan's population is only about 2% of china's whole population), while the rest of them claim that mongolia is a separate race. And when did the chinese say we want outer Mongolia? you ever heard them declaring war on them? Of course they would mention Yuan! The whole china was being ruled by the mongolians. guess what? we also learned about the age of IMPERIALSM! *gasp* that must mean that all Hong Kong people are British and all Taiwanese are Japanese, right? that's what ur saying, is that just because mongolians ruled china before, they now consider them a race.
|
|
|
Post by donilpark on Nov 5, 2005 14:09:55 GMT -5
Yes. That's exactly what the Chinese do. Anyone who once occupied the present Chinese territory is all Chinese (Zhonghua). Same thing they are doing with Koguryo. If China does not consider Mongolians Chinese, why did they poroduce a drama like this? Not that you can't make a drama about a foreign historical figure, but Chinese, who were once enslaved by the Mongols, making a drama about Ghenghis Khan would be like the French making a drama about Hitler. Of course, that's provided that the Chinese considers Ghenghis Khan a foreigner. Since they are considering him a Chinese, they have no problem with this.
And pay a close attention that Sun Yat-sen did not just say 'overthrow Qing'. He clearly added 'Rise of Han' after that. If he really just wanted to overthrow Qing just because they were bad rulers, not because they were foreign conquerers, then he didn't have to say anything about the rise of Han.
The way the Chinese think about it, exactly the opposite. Since Britain occupied a part of China, the entire British history is a part of Chinese history. (of course that hasn't happened, because everyone can see the absurdity with that, but when you apply the same logic that China is applying to Tibet, Mongolia or Korea, that's what will happen) Right? Think about it. Liao of Quidan occupied what's Chinese territory today, so they are a Chinese people. Mongols conquered what's today's China, so they are also Chinese. Likewise for Manchus.
In the history book of any other country that was conquered by Mongols, they are described as foreign invaders. In Chinese history textbooks, they are a part of Chinese history.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Nov 5, 2005 15:40:10 GMT -5
of course it is part of chinese history! so what you are saying is the chinese history textbooks should leave a huge blank during the Yuan dynasty? Ok, so Sun Yat-sen said that. So what? Do you not know that his ideas are now considered obsolete? Neither the mainland nor Taiwan, Hong Kong, etc. supports his ideas. So what if one historical person said that? He is wrong, and his ideas are obsolete. Chinese call them all Chinese, but even so, there is something call ethnicity, and the Chinese sources themselves said that there are over 50 something minority ethnical groups. I've been to China, and I almost was about to receive education there (actually, I've been schooled in Taiwan before), and nothing you said about the Chinese thinking everyone else is chinese was taught in the schools.
|
|
|
Post by donilpark on Nov 5, 2005 16:47:17 GMT -5
Of course not. But it's about the perspective that I'm talking about. I thought I made this clear already? Other countries that were conquered by the Mongols treat the history of that time period form the perspective of people who got conquered, not like China, which takes the perspective of the conqueror.
Which is the reason why he is the national father, guofu (ÏÐÝ«) of China and Taiwan, right?
You don't seem to have understood the main issue at all. There's no doubt that all those 50-something minority groups are Chinese citizens. They are Chinese. In terms of nationality, that is. But not ethnicity. And not the history of each of these groups. But What Chinese government wants is to integrate all those minority groups under one title, that of Zhonghua people (ñéü¤ÚÅðé), and also devour the history and pass them off as a part of Chinese history. You see, just because the Han people control the land that belongs to People's Republic of China (ñéü¤ìÑÚÅÍìûúÏÐ), doesn't mean that all of the history and heritage that took place and were shaped on that land are all Chinese. Just like how because Britain colonized India, doesn't mean that Buddha or Ghandi are English. Likewise it also doesn't mean that Shakespeare is an Indian. The rather recent change (I think 2003) in China's evaluation of Yo Fei (ä¿Þ«) and Wen Tianxiang (Ùþô¸ßÔ) from the heroes who fought to protect Song China from invading Jin to traitors who got in the way of 'unification war' is a very interesting case of this.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Nov 5, 2005 19:38:20 GMT -5
Sun Yat-sen, the Father of China and Taiwan?? Don't make me laugh. Why would the COMMUNIST honor him as the father?? interesting... as for taiwan, you do have a point. however, more and more taiwanese are denying it (that's why they are demanding independence). Furthermore, go to any Chinese website and they WILL say that there is more than 50 ethnical groups... I am saying that the Chinese themselves admit that. I have been to school in China, even made friends with the people there, and they all admit that. (Yes, I've asked them about this, and even read their textbooks). The Chinese considered most minor tribes as part of their own citizens, but why argue with the Jin people? The Jin people are long extinct. (they were killed off by the Mongols. Besides, what exactly are you trying to prove here? You sound like you just want to slander China's reputation. I am only defending my own race. You, however, have no right to go around slandering the Chinese.
|
|
|
Post by donilpark on Nov 5, 2005 23:56:31 GMT -5
Well, as far as I know, he is considered national father both in China and Taiwan. But if you say otherwise, then let's leave it at that.
You still don't get the point, do you? What I'm saying is China is unjustly claiming history and heritage of other peoples as their own. I never said that the Chinese don't admit the existence of those minority groups. That would not just be untrue, but plain delusional of China. Fortunately, they didn't sink that low. What I'm saying is that China wants to tie them all under one title of Zhonghua race (don't make me repeat this any more please...). [img src="http://www.pressian.com/images/2004/06/03/40040603110749[1].JPG"] What about a book like this? What's your take on this? This is the kind of thing that China is doing.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Nov 6, 2005 1:54:39 GMT -5
oh, so the real arguement here is about China making Koreans as their own race? sorry, i thought you were arguing about china's own 50 ethinical groups, or that mongolian ghenkhis khan thingy. hmm... as for that book, i've never seen it before or any other books like that. I do not know what to say about that book. Perhaps you got me there... or maybe that book could've been made up by somebody else, since i've never heard of it before (if china publishes a textbook like that, surely the whole world would complain? i mean, that's what japan did, and asia sure complained.)
|
|
|
Post by tim on Nov 6, 2005 2:00:08 GMT -5
btw, can u read Chinese or something? How did you know that that book is claiming Korea is part of China (it is, btw, just so u know)? Did you find that at an English or Korean website? if it's in English, then please give me the link and i'll investigate.
|
|
|
Post by donilpark on Nov 6, 2005 11:32:38 GMT -5
Search for Northeast Asia project. I'm not just talking about Korea though. I am in fact speaking for all of the minority groups in China. The book whose cover I showed you is just an example. But even if I don't tell you what to search for, you know about Tibet and all that. A great example there.
You don't seem to share such a view as the Chinese government although you're a Chinese. That gets my respect, I have to say.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Nov 6, 2005 13:58:05 GMT -5
Haha, well, I'm not ignorant like the communists are (in fact, i am hugely against them). Well, for the minority tribes, probably. But still, most of them (except Tibet) don't really seem to be making that big of a fuss about it, tho. I mean, Tibet is the only one that's really rebelling and stuff, the other minority tribes don't really mind being called Chinese by race or something. Besides, if they go to a foreign country, and people ask them what race they are, they would have to say this really weird native land of theirs, and nobody would know where that is. If they say they are chinese, then everyone know where that is. I know that doesn't justify that they are a different race from the Chinese. I am part Manchurian (a far relative of the Qing Imperial family, actually) and from what my ancestors told me, they don't mind being called Chinese. I hope I'm making sense.
|
|
|
Post by moreshige on Nov 10, 2005 11:40:57 GMT -5
It makes sense to me because many of these minorities in China don't have a 'parent' country outside the mainland. However other minorites such as Koreans, Mongolians and Tibetians do have parent countries. These countries would have more of a problem with the Chinese government claiming these minorities and their respective histories as their 'own' so to speak. In the case with Korea, it has been established that the Koguryo kingdom was indeed part of Korea's legacy than it did with China proper both in terms of language, culture and the Koguryo leadership in relation to Puyo and Paekche. The Northeast Asia Project claims Koguryo is 'Chinese'.
But by the same measure nobody (northeast asia project people) evver questioned why Paekche is unquestionably Korean. Why is that? The only explanation i could decipher is that PRC or whoever is behind the northeast Asia project had a political objective in mind. And that is, they want to 'unify' their diversity, perhaps like the US. If they did claim Paekche as well, then it would be the same as claiming Korea itself as Chinese which would be absurd!
I know many minorities in the USA don't just want to be called Americans. They cannot deny their unique cultural heritage and histories. It would be absurd if the US government suddenly decided to claim all aztec history to be 'American' just because there are modern-day Mexican-Americans living within its borders.
|
|