|
Post by tim on Nov 11, 2005 17:35:30 GMT -5
And, moreshige, some of the minorities of China are actually the Han's ancestors. Now that I've thought about it, if u, donilpark, are so against these project and saying the only real Chinese are the Han people, then let me ask you: do you even know who the Han people are? If you think the Han ethnic is just another ethnic that rose up and conquered, enslave, etc. everyone else in the modern-day China thousands of years ago, you are wrong. The Han ethnic is a mixture of several minority tribes in China. The Han ethnic is not a pure ethniciity. So therefore, your arguments about the Koreans, Mongolians, ect. may make sense, but your arguments for some of the 50 ethnical groups in China do not, because many of them are the Han people's ancestors.
|
|
|
Post by Trespasser on Nov 12, 2005 16:38:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Trespasser on Nov 12, 2005 17:18:00 GMT -5
Han is technically a culturaly defined ethnic group and not racially defined group, much like Latinos.
Basically, anybody who has submitted to the will of majority, and live in culture and customs of majority are "Hans". Everybody else goes by their own racial identifications.
Anyhow, the problem with current Chinese history policy is that every country that existed within the boundary of present day Chinese territory are Chinese. This is where the notion of "Genghis Khan the great Chinaman" came from. This is something that homologous populations like Japanese or Koreans do not understand, but I take that as a sign of greater tolerance. The the whole racial identification is voluntary and you can pretty much call yourself in whatever you want. Suppose you are an ethnic Mongol in China and you don't want to be called a Mongol because some Han kid made a fun of you at school. Then you are free to call yourself a "Han" and register as such at anytime.
Concerning the issue of Koguryo/Gaogoguli, this issue should upset Japanese more and not Koreans, since Koguryo and Kudara(Bakjae) are technically ancestors of Japanese emperors and nobles and not Koreans. This much was proven during the linquistic analysis.
|
|
|
Post by WangKOn on Nov 12, 2005 20:29:10 GMT -5
Tim,
I can tell you that many people in Mongolia are actually resentful that China is trying to say that Gengis Khan is Han Chinese. I don't think that it's wrong to say that Gengis Khan is part of Chinese History since obviously he is. However, I believe it's not right that the Chinese are trying to say that Gengis Khan is Han Chinese by shifting definitions. It's the same thing that China is trying to do with the Korean kingdom of Koguryo.
It's kind of like using revisionist history to say that Geronomo (an Apache) is an Anglo! Or Iran saying that Alexander the Great was Persian NOT Macedonian!
Think about it.....
|
|
|
Post by WangKon on Nov 12, 2005 20:32:08 GMT -5
Another example.....
Is is right to say that William Wallace (Braveheart) was English and not Scottish?
Clearly William Wallace is a part of both Scottish AND English history.... but he is without a doubt Scottish, right?
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Nov 13, 2005 13:07:35 GMT -5
Clearly so. But I never said Genghis Khan was Chinese. I was only defending some of the 50 ethnics of China that are the Han's ancestors. I don't care who said the Mongolians are Chinese, because I do not agree with them. I am only defending the parts that are misinformed to people who are not Chinese. Yes, I know the Mongolians are resentful of the Chinese rule, but they can flee to the country of Mongolia anytime, since it's just next door. And i don't believe they hate the Chinese rule (maybe a little) that much, or else they would rebel, like the Tibetans.
|
|
|
Post by Trespasser on Nov 13, 2005 13:25:34 GMT -5
What about those who wish to do nothing with Hans???
The communist party isn't very kind to rebels, as demonstrated in Tibet and Tianamen Square.
|
|
|
Post by donilpark on Nov 13, 2005 15:17:37 GMT -5
You make it sound really simple and mundane. Why don't you just take a small step further and say anyone who doesn't like Chinese rule can just set up their own country any time they want?
|
|
|
Post by donilpark on Nov 13, 2005 15:26:50 GMT -5
Concerning the issue of Koguryo/Gaogoguli, this issue should upset Japanese more and not Koreans, since Koguryo and Kudara(Bakjae) are technically ancestors of Japanese emperors and nobles and not Koreans. This much was proven during the linquistic analysis. That's a very dangerous remark you got there. While it is true that Japan's root lies in Baekje (and also other researches show possible roots in Shilla and Gaya as well), and going further, in Koguryo and Buyo, doesn't mean these are Japan's ancestors. These are still Korean ancestors. Japan is just a collateral line of Korea. That is, Japan is just a branch off Korea, not that Japan is the main line that descended from Koguryo and Baekje. Japan doesn't have any say on this. They are not the ones who should be upset, but Korea.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Nov 13, 2005 15:33:17 GMT -5
Trespasser and donilpark, are you saying that the Chinese government should just liberate every minority tribe? Many of them do not have a parent country! Let's take a look at the Manchurians. A recent poll showed that there are less than 200 pure Manchus, and less than 50 that can speak Manchurian. I wonder how they will pull off as a country... Sure the Chinese government was cruel to them in the past, but now, they are opening up alot. I bet neither one of you two were aware that the Communist party helped many minority tribes that are settled out in remote areas recently. Most of these massacres that you two speaked of were during times of Mao's rule, not the current communist rule. A huge factor in China's rising economy is the fact that most of these tribes are working together. Trespasser, the only real group that wants nothing to do with the Hans are the Tibetans, and even the Tibetans are warming up to the communists.
|
|
|
Post by donilpark on Nov 13, 2005 16:21:37 GMT -5
Wow... you just don't get what people say, do you? By saying,
I was saying how ridiculous what you said was by comparing it to something also ridiculous. What you said was ridiculous, and if you take a small step further, you can even say something more ridiculous like people setting up their own country. Do you get it now? No one said Chinese government should liberate the minority groups. (although that should really be the case.... in the end)
You constantly get off the point.... No one here doesn't recognize that People's Republic of China has sovereign rule over its territory and people on it right now. It's when this present condition is applied to the history to claim that they are all 'Chinese' (note the quotation marks.) that the problem arises.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Nov 13, 2005 18:25:09 GMT -5
Yes, liberate them and most of them will die in a few generations. This is why the Chinese government cannot liberate them. They may be a burden to the minority tribe, but they have helped them too. Also, if you really don't wanna liberate them, then what do you want? Are you just going to complain that they are not Chinese? Not even the minority tribes are as pesky as you are. They do not complain day and night, and of course they could complain. We have people in Hong Kong and Taiwan complaining daily about how they think the communist of China should just die. But the communist didn't kill them, now did they? Also, I think it is YOU who does not get the point. You are saying that these people are not Chinese, and I said they are citizens of China. Then, you go about saying that you agree that they are! Make up your mind!
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Nov 13, 2005 18:27:54 GMT -5
Btw, there are lots of cases similar to this. What about the native American tribes in America? Do you think they should be liberated from the white men's rule? It should be the American Indians that govern America, not white settlers from Europe! Do you get how ridiculous you are being? I don't see you complaining about that... or how about the people of Quebec in Canada? huh? Apparently, you think only the Chinese do this, and you are a very rascist person. If you truly are not rascist, then how come you do not see this in other countries?
|
|
|
Post by Trespasser on Nov 13, 2005 19:48:31 GMT -5
Sure, they speak the language of Koguryo and Pakjae(Kudara), while Koreans don't.
They do, it's their ancestors, not present day Koreans.
Let those who don't want to stay in PRC go and start their own republics. Called self-determination.
They can start one.
Token gestures. The areas populated by minorities are impoverished.
I remember five ethnic groups specifically want to break away from China.
1. Tibet 2. Uighur 3. Korean 4. Russian 5. Mongols(Inner)
Tibetians were happy and doing well before Chinese came.
And I am certain Korean, Mongols, and Russians would be happier to be back to where they belong...
Are you sure about that?
So what happens when 100K students gather at Tienamen Square and demand a direct election today?
1. Taiwan is not a part of China. 2. Hong Kong people do not have to watch their mouth for the next 42 years.
I think China should be broken up into 10 independent countries, before 1910.
1. Southern Mongolia(To be returned to Mongolia) 2. Tibet 3. Kando(To be returned to Korea) 4. Manchuria 5. Uighur 7. Taiwan 8. Mandarin Belt 9. Cantonese Belt. 9. Anybody else who seek independence.
The US constitution does not apply to Indian reservation.
The chief of an Indian tribe is not a whiteman, that's for sure.
Actually Quebecies voted about a separation from Canada a decade ago. It was voted down by a narrow margin, but the rest of Canada would have respected the decision.
Any group of people who demand independence and self determination should be given so, this is why I think Iraq should be broken into three, Kurdstan, Eastern Iran, and the Sunni Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by Trespasser on Nov 13, 2005 19:50:46 GMT -5
Well, Tibets, Uighurs, Mongols, and Koreans should go.
|
|