|
Post by donilpark on Nov 15, 2005 0:46:41 GMT -5
For example, if Mongolia just take over China, then 'People's Republic of China' disappears, although the Chinese people are still there. That way, we get rid of China, but nothing happenes to the Chinese people. Don't you understand this simple concept? That's exactly the kind of thing we've been discussing.
Yes, you can love your country, but loving your country won't make a false truth.
Sh!@.... again... You don't understand the different between something I say for the sake of example, an analogy, from something that I really want to talk about.... How old are you? How long have you been in the US? Don't answer if you don't want to, but your general language skills and conprehension tells me that I may be talking with a 9th grade who's been in the US for just 1 year.
By the way, why don't you sign in? So we can talk in PM, rather than polluting the boards?
|
|
|
Post by skinz on Nov 15, 2005 8:47:26 GMT -5
Man, look what I started. I just made a simple statement but I guess there was more to it than I thought. Anyway, I think there should be more viewpoints from other chinese instead of tackling Tim. I 100% agree with Florel about Tim's statement about the "helping" of other nations. Throughout history its been shown that powerful developed countries constantly abuse less developed nations for its own gain rather than help.
And to Donilpark, I respect your desire to debate and try to crack open the truth, but debating is about giving your point of view on things with evidence so others can learn and vice er versa. When you started off, you did good and brought some good evidence ,especially with the book, and taught some people (including myself) something new but then you went away on trying to give credible evidence and began to attack Tim on his english, age, etc. The main conversation is obvious going to lose focus if you keep insulting him of his intelligence.
Okay, I'll leave this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by donilpark on Nov 15, 2005 9:08:09 GMT -5
Tim doesn't seem to get what's the point of discussion and what I said just to give him a comparison. Not to mention attacking me after I stated clearly that the fault is with China, not CHINESE PEOPLE.
You've seen the discussion, and know how narrow minded Tim is. On top of that, when he constantly misinterprets what others say and get upset on that, it just gets frustrating. I leave the discussion too. Don't wanna cause any more trouble.
|
|
|
Post by skinz UL on Nov 15, 2005 9:30:19 GMT -5
No, don't leave the discussion, I actually like it but it was just losing focus.
|
|
|
Post by moreshige on Nov 15, 2005 11:13:24 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. Well, getting back to the discussion. Tim, I didn't say anything about the Han ethnicity. I made no assumptions about the Han. I'm talking about the Chinese government and their agenda in regards to making other people's histories as their own. Please, read my post again. But from your post and to address your point, you said "*many* of them are the Han people's ancestors". So can we assume *some* are not? (This time we're excluding the Koreans, Tibetians and Mongolians). So far we established that there are minorities in PRC that have parent countries (my post). Many Han in particular which is the majority... right?...have ancestors from the 50 ethnic groups. (your post). But now from our logic, there must be a third group. *Some* of the 50 ethnic groups who do not have a parent country AND are not part of the make-up of the Han ethnicity. This disscusion is interesting because we're touching on several ideas in what makes 'a people' distinct. We have to establish the difference between ethnicity, citizenship, race, culture, country and government. It would be a mistake to assume any one element to be entirely equal to the other. For clarity, I didn't know or think Han ethnicity = Chinese government.
|
|
|
Post by florel on Nov 15, 2005 14:19:43 GMT -5
This disscusion is interesting because we're touching on several ideas in what makes 'a people' distinct. We have to establish the difference between ethnicity, citizenship, race, culture, country and government. It would be a mistake to assume any one element to be entirely equal to the other. This is a good point, moreshige. We need to define those concepts rigorously before proceeding a debate. I would like to add one more category : nation. Korea is a national country, but it's a myth to believe that Koreans are a unique pure nation. (Am I wrong?) And, as far as I know, "race" is a polemical term. In modern Western languages, it has very negative connotation because it was used by imperialists in order to justify their acts of racial discrimination. From Wikipedia, "In the face of this rejection of race by evolutionary scientists, many social scientists have replaced the word race with the word "ethnicity" to refer to self-identifying groups based on beliefs in shared religion, nationality, or race. Moreover, they understood these shared beliefs to mean that religion, nationality, and race itself are social constructs and have no objective basis in the supernatural or natural realm (Gordon 1964). See also the American Anthropological Association's Statement on Race." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RaceThis is the U.S. Race Census according to the federal government's definitions en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28U.S._Census%29[/li][li]
|
|
|
Post by florel on Nov 15, 2005 14:30:20 GMT -5
Donil, it was excessive to say that China is a cancer of the world. Can you be tolerant if a foreigner calls Korea with the same insulting vocabulary ? And, Tim, you are not courteous to Donil, either. Please try to respect each other.
|
|
|
Post by ginnycat5 on Nov 15, 2005 15:00:21 GMT -5
"So now you call me a liar and stupid?" This is frustrating for other readers, too, because you sometimes protest ideas that weren't written. Maybe you could slow down in your responses?
|
|
|
Post by TheBo on Nov 15, 2005 15:47:58 GMT -5
I've let this discussion toddle along, even though it touches the borders of courtesy, for the sake of open dialogue. We can't resolve problems if we don't talk about them. But apparently last night a couple of you lost your heads, and little Bo was sleeping soundly the whole time...thanks, Skinz and Florel, for putting a spoke out.
Donilpark, when you said you thought China was a cancer and ought to disappear, Tim had a right to feel you were asking for his personal obliteration; I thought the same thing. You are being pretty glib with your "no I meant CHINA not the CHINESE PEOPLE" argument. You didn't say Korea or Manchuria or Texas should take over China. You said China should just disappear; how can you separate that from disappearance of the people of that country? And as skinz noted, please do not attack people's English skills here. It's not germane to ANY discussion and you're just using it as a club. Not nice.
Tim, you need to remember to cool off a bit before you respond to someone you feel insults you, because you can't marshall your arguments if you get crazy, and you will alienate people who might be on your side otherwise. Calling names isn't going to get you anywhere. Also, disagreeing with Chinese government policies does not make a person racist. Be a little careful tossing that term around. Finally, just as an ancillary note, I'm sure you realize that most people find the term "retard" insufferably repulsive, and I wish you would not use it.
Bo
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Nov 15, 2005 19:23:52 GMT -5
I feel ashamed for using such vulgar languages. I was tired last night, and it was around 11 when we had this arguement (where I lived, at least) and I still had a lot to do the next day. I know it sounds like an excuse, and that's fine if you don't want to acknowledge it. But I do feel sorry for using bad words and stuff.
However, I am NOT sorry for getting pissed off. Donilpark (and Trespasser, to a certain degree) said something that I find EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE to my race, and I do not have an ounce of apology for that. I wish to stop this discussion. Who cares who wins this arguement? Nothing will come out of it. None of us here are world leaders that can make a difference in such huge political debates like this. And I doubt world leaders would care who wins a silly arguement in a discussion board on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Nov 15, 2005 23:50:32 GMT -5
Oh, btw, Bo. He is a rascist. He said the whole China should disappear, and then later, MIRACULOUSLY, he said that what he meant was that China should be conquered by Mongolia (I don't know if that was an example or if he really thinks China should). This is a total contradictory to his viewpoints, because he said one ethnicity shouldn't rule over another. Now, we are talking about two completely different race.
Donilpark, if you think I'm narrow-minded, what are you? I've always admitted that the Chinese government was wrong in many ways. You never admit any one of your faults. Instead, you try to change your words. I do find you rascist, and I was very offended not only because you attacked my race, but you also attacked me. You were the one who told me not to digress, but attacking me and my english skills is digressing from the topic.
|
|
|
Post by TheBo on Nov 16, 2005 13:03:29 GMT -5
I wasn't just referring to Donilpark, Tim, about the racist thing. It just seemed to me, reading through all the posts again yesterday, that you were tossing that term around pretty easily. I apologize if that is not true. Thanks for your apology to the board--I can certainly understand being overtired and trying to deal with things in that state. Just remember that even if the person you are mad at fully deserves everything you say to him or her, there are about 50 other people here who have to read what you say, and they don't deserve to be shouted at.
We value your presence and your point of view. I think we all "get" that you and donilpark disagree on the matters brought up here, and I hope you guys can make peace with each other, even on this local level.
Now. Is there something about the topic of the thread, the show "Genghis Kahn," that anyone was trying to put forward?
Bo
|
|
|
Post by Trespasser on Nov 17, 2005 15:35:20 GMT -5
The best thing China can do for the world is to dissolve the communist party, and break into 7~10 independent states along the ethnic/racial conflict line.
|
|
|
Post by TheBo on Nov 17, 2005 15:51:11 GMT -5
Well, Trespasser, that might be good, or it might not be. Although I don't agree with Tim about Tibet, he does have a point about the "mini states" thing. After all, are we going to split up Italy into the "original" nation states? How about Germany? I think even Poland, until the end of the 19th century, was a loose amalgam of states. Do we go back into the depths of time and break off every tribe, every ethnicity? What about all the intermarriage? What about land rights? The old USSR has had nothing but strife since it split back into its original country/states. You seem to be targeting China unfairly for this just because you don't like China. Or am I misinterpreting?
Bo
|
|
|
Post by florel on Nov 17, 2005 17:18:19 GMT -5
Bo, I agree with you. How about France ? Should the Bretons establish their independant country in Brittany, the Languedociens in Languedoc and the Provencaux in Provence ? They have their own indigenous languages apart from French ! AFAIK, Italy has had more serious problems. Until recent days, the habitants in Italian peninsula are considering themselves as Venetian, Toscan, Roman, Napolitan, etc. rather than as Italian. It seems that they have felt difficulty to live together after more than 1,000 years of separation and after serious conflicts among them during that time. But, I guess, most of Italians wouldn't want to return to the guelph/gibelin period
|
|