|
|
What does "native language" mean to you?
To XieÖ
誰說元朝，清朝是外國的朝代，不是中國的朝代？ 讓我們來看看保加利亞的保加爾人，保加爾人是蒙古種的民族，他在今天的保加利亞建立國家，後來該民族被當地多數的斯拉夫民族融合了，成為現在的保加利亞。現在，保加利亞還認為保加爾人的國家是保加利亞的朝代呢。因此，和這個例子相似的中國元朝，清朝就是中國的朝代，不是外國的朝代。
Yuan and Qing are Chinese dynasty.
It's like Bulgars who are Mongol tribes and built their empire in Bulgaria, but most Bulgarians are Slavs. Now, Bulgarians claim that the empire built by Bulgars is their dynasty.
"Xie Sat Oct 18, 2008 3:20 am GMT
I do believe, why not? The problem is just that... now, let us also think about: Shuimo, what's the nationality of your ancestors? Were they first citizens of a country called Ming if they lived in the period 1368-1644, and Qing (a Manchu-run country, when "China" could be said to be being conquered) in the period 1644-1911? Nationality, while, yes, a very convenient label for traveling, it'd be the worse fools to believe it and become obsessed with it, so that they'd want to kill some nationals of some other nationalities, just because those nations had tried to attack and conquer their own. In a way, I just think identity issues are often quite arbitrary (based on chance rather than being planned or based on reason AND using unlimited personal power without considering other people's wishes, by Cambridge's dictionary). Perhaps a good example might be what defined the Chinese language (and as your own native language now). What? Over 2000 years ago, a guy called Qin Shi Huang managed to conquered every single state of ancient China and then, you know, created the first Chinese Empire, and probably that's why foreign guys called us China (Qin) from those days onward. Who are you really? Why do you use the language of the Qin (you know, the scripts were codified by then, and used continuously until now), instead of the other Chineses of, say, Chu? " Yuan and Qing are Chinese dynasty. It's like Bulgars who are Mongol tribes and conquered the ancient Bulgaria and built their empire in Bulgaria, and most Bulgarians are Slavs. Now, Bulgarians claim that the empire built by Bulgars is their dynasty.
<<Kaohsiung citizen Sat Oct 18, 2008 12:43 pm GMT
To XieÖ 誰說元朝，清朝是外國的朝代，不是中國的朝代？ 讓我們來看看保加利亞的保加爾人，保加爾人是蒙古種的民族，他在今天的保加利亞建立國家，後來該民族被當地多數的斯拉夫民族融合了，成為現在的保加利亞。現在，保加利亞還認為保加爾人的國家是保加利亞的朝代呢。因此，和這個例子相似的中國元朝，清朝就是中國的朝代，不是外國的朝代。 >> We may well quote Mao's lines in response to such petty figures 小小寰球 有几个苍蝇碰壁 嗡嗡叫 几声凄历 几声抽泣 LOL
So, yeah, we all have our own different kinds of nationalism. I'm really glad to see some of the... most shocking comments ever on the cyberspace. What a great time it is to talk to you guys.
Shuimo, one thing that should be remembered is just that it is not necessarily useful to make claims that one cannot effectively defend, such as that Tibet was really under continuous Han Chinese rule for the last 700 years. History does not always work out the way that one would wish (as applies in many other cases, such as how the claim that the Germans were the primary perpetrators of crimes against humanity and war crimes in WW2 does not really fit what actually happened), and one must accept that rather than believing in a history that is politically expedient but not necessarily accurate.
In this kind of case, from the PRC China standpoint I think it would be better just to argue that, yes, Tibet was under Chinese rule during the Qing dynasty, which while Manchu in origin was sufficiently sinicized by its end to be called truly Chinese then, and that by the point that the Qing dynasty ended, and would have been legally considered part of China by the notions of the time; hence its breaking away from China would have been considered illegitimate at that time, where modern notions of states, international law, sovereignty, and territorial integrity would have actually applied. Yes, such ideas were invented by Europeans, but they definitely applied to that period, and have been at least nominally accepted by the PRC government today. Such an argument would be much easier to defend than actually arguing that Tibet was really truly under Chinese rule for the vast majority for the last 700 yars. As for my being a westerner and using western ideas, the matter is that government of the PRC does just that to justify its rule of Tibet, claiming to be a successor state to the Yuan dynasty, when the very notion of successor states did not exist at the time. And one need not be Chinese and to use purely Chinese ideas to analyze pre-modern Chinese history; what is special about Chinese history that requires one to use purely Chinese ideas with respect to it? And if such were really the case, then obviously historians today would not be able to analyze any history not relatively recent, as clearly the ideas that they would be used to in their time would not be applicable to any point in the non-recent past. Could western historians say anything about European Medieval history, as obviously very significant ideas were held at the time about government and the structure of society than those commonly held today? Of course, that is obviously not the case, so why is Chinese history any different from European history?
《Xie Sun Oct 19, 2008 3:14 am GMT
So, yeah, we all have our own different kinds of nationalism. I'm really glad to see some of the... most shocking comments ever on the cyberspace. What a great time it is to talk to you guys. 》 You can be well categorized into the group of splittists and separatists. 对于你这类民族分裂主义分子，没有什么好讲的，各国政府都会严厉打击。古今中外，概莫如此！ 可悲！
<<Travis Sun Oct 19, 2008 3:21 am GMT
Shuimo, one thing that should be remembered is just that it is not necessarily useful to make claims that one cannot effectively defend, such as that Tibet was really under continuous Han Chinese rule for the last 700 years. >> Haven't I made it clear that Tibet really under continuous Chinese rule for the last 700 years, not necessarily under Han Chinese rule? Please read my posts above more carefully!!
>>Haven't I made it clear that Tibet really under continuous Chinese rule for the last 700 years, not necessarily under Han Chinese rule?
Please read my posts above more carefully!!<< I know that one can legitimately say that the Yuan dynasty, which did rule Tibet without much Han Chinese involvement, was Chinese, despite not being ethnically Han Chinese and having originated in Mongolia proper, retained control over Mongolia proper over its duration, and and having ruled there after losing control over China. Such is due to the Yuan dynasty having the strongest claim to the mandate of heaven before the rise of the Ming dynasty in China, and due to there being other dynasties of foreign origin in Chinese history as well which are considered as Chinese dynasties. However, the key point of the matter is whether the Ming dynasty actually ruled Tibet at all. It is clear that Tibet was involved in a tributary relationship with the Ming dynasty, which is a distinct matter from its being ruled by the Ming dynasty; remember that other states considered to be independent from the Ming dynasty such as Vietnam and Korea also were tributaries of Ming China as well. Mind you that such tributary relationships were more often than not nominal in practice rather than actually involving anything more than a general suzerainty of China over surrounding states at most. While, yes, the Ming dynasty did give titles to various Tibetan individuals, such can be considered to be little more than part of the nominal exchanges associated with said tributary relationships. But as a whole, though, during the Ming dynasty Tibet acted as an independent state, just like Vietnam and Korea, with its own territorial integrity (to use a modern idea) and foreign policy rather than an area under actual direct Ming rule. And if one cannot claim that the Ming actually ruled Tibet, one cannot really support the idea that there has been a contiguous 700 years of Chinese rule of Tibet. But, on the other hand, I do not see any reason why the PRC needs to argue that - even if one just considers the Qing rule of Tibet (as much as it often took the form of interventions rather than consistent rule), one can still easily claim about 250 years of Chinese rule of Tibet (which is longer than the US has existed as such, mind you).
《History does not always work out the way that one would wish (as applies in many other cases, such as how the claim that the Germans were the primary perpetrators of crimes against humanity and war crimes in WW2 does not really fit what actually happened), and one must accept that rather than believing in a history that is politically expedient but not necessarily accurate.》
I can’t agree with you more there! I even wish that Mongolia hadn’t become independent of China Japanese were absolutely another primary perpetrators of crimes against humanity and war crimes in WW2. <<In this kind of case, from the PRC China standpoint I think it would be better just to argue that, yes, Tibet was under Chinese rule during the Qing dynasty, which while Manchu in origin was sufficiently sinicized by its end to be called truly Chinese then, and that by the point that the Qing dynasty ended, and would have been legally considered part of China by the notions of the time; hence its breaking away from China would have been considered illegitimate at that time, where modern notions of states, international law, sovereignty, and territorial integrity would have actually applied. Yes, such ideas were invented by Europeans, but they definitely applied to that period, and have been at least nominally accepted by the PRC government today. Such an argument would be much easier to defend than actually arguing that Tibet was really truly under Chinese rule for the vast majority for the last 700 yars.>> The real point is that we Chinese people would never apply the modern notions of states, international laws to the relationship between Tibet and any other Chinese dynasty in history. If you say the PRC government today at least NOMINALLY accepts those Western ideas, that is true up to a point. We all know what international politics is all about, don’t we? <<As for my being a westerner and using western ideas, the matter is that government of the PRC does just that to justify its rule of Tibet, claiming to be a successor state to the Yuan dynasty, when the very notion of successor states did not exist at the time. And one need not be Chinese and to use purely Chinese ideas to analyze pre-modern Chinese history; what is special about Chinese history that requires one to use purely Chinese ideas with respect to it? And if such were really the case, then obviously historians today would not be able to analyze any history not relatively recent, as clearly the ideas that they would be used to in their time would not be applicable to any point in the non-recent past. Could western historians say anything about European Medieval history, as obviously very significant ideas were held at the time about government and the structure of society than those commonly held today? Of course, that is obviously not the case, so why is Chinese history any different from European history?>> I must say it is a misunderstanding of the Westerners that <<government of the PRC does just that to justify its rule of Tibet, claiming to be a successor state to the Yuan dynasty, when the very notion of successor states did not exist at the time >>. More accurate but simple explanation should be: The PRC inherited a valuable heritage left by the Chinese ancestors, but in a way that makes the heritage better cared for. Which has courted jealousy of other states which were, unfortunately, not fortunate enough to have such a heritage, period. Actually we don’t necessarily have to make such an explanation to anyone else. How could anyone claim that one need be Chinese and to use purely Chinese ideas to analyze pre-modern Chinese history? When did I say Chinese history requires one to use purely Chinese ideas with respect to it? That is funny! But I do believe and argue that there are differences between Western perspectives and Chinese perspectives to analyze pre-modern history or just history of China, France, Russia or whichever country. Historians are, after all, historians, whose role and ability in interpreting and restoring history can be placed a big question mark on. Chinese history is any different from European history? The answer is YES and NO. Chinese history is not different from European history in that, as the collective term for all things that happened in the past, they can be studied as a discipline by all interested people. Chinese history is different from European history in one thing only: the different interpretations by different people of different backgrounds who place them upon it. <<I know that one can legitimately say that the Yuan dynasty, which did rule Tibet without much Han Chinese involvement, was Chinese, despite not being ethnically Han Chinese and having originated in Mongolia proper, retained control over Mongolia proper over its duration, and and having ruled there after losing control over China. Such is due to the Yuan dynasty having the strongest claim to the mandate of heaven before the rise of the Ming dynasty in China, and due to there being other dynasties of foreign origin in Chinese history as well which are considered as Chinese dynasties.>> Mind you today’s Mongolia was part of China until early 20th century. Again there is no such thing as dynasties of FOREIGN origin in Chinese history. Remind you!! <<However, the key point of the matter is whether the Ming dynasty actually ruled Tibet at all. It is clear that Tibet was involved in a tributary relationship with the Ming dynasty, which is a distinct matter from its being ruled by the Ming dynasty; remember that other states considered to be independent from the Ming dynasty such as Vietnam and Korea also were tributaries of Ming China as well. Mind you that such tributary relationships were more often than not nominal in practice rather than actually involving anything more than a general suzerainty of China over surrounding states at most. While, yes, the Ming dynasty did give titles to various Tibetan individuals, such can be considered to be little more than part of the nominal exchanges associated with said tributary relationships. But as a whole, though, during the Ming dynasty Tibet acted as an independent state, just like Vietnam and Korea, with its own territorial integrity (to use a modern idea) and foreign policy rather than an area under actual direct Ming rule. And if one cannot claim that the Ming actually ruled Tibet, one cannot really support the idea that there has been a contiguous 700 years of Chinese rule of Tibet. But, on the other hand, I do not see any reason why the PRC needs to argue that - even if one just considers the Qing rule of Tibet (as much as it often took the form of interventions rather than consistent rule), one can still easily claim about 250 years of Chinese rule of Tibet (which is longer than the US has existed as such, mind you).>> For such comment, see my reply to your comment on the role of historians.
>>《Xie Sun Oct 19, 2008 3:14 am GMT
So, yeah, we all have our own different kinds of nationalism. I'm really glad to see some of the... most shocking comments ever on the cyberspace. What a great time it is to talk to you guys. 》 You can be well categorized into the group of splittists and separatists. 对于你这类民族分裂主义分子，没有什么好讲的，各国政府都会严厉打击。古今中外，概莫如此！ 可悲！ HOW PATHETIC. I don't wanna talk to idiots like you. Well, China does need people like you. Again, I've witnessed the kind of stupid nationalist-minded idiots that would ruin my own country, well, I won't care. Dude, you are under the kind of 1984-esque (but wtf? does it ever exist?) kind of nationalism without yourself noticing it, and yet you're blaming me with groundless attacks. You can't understand anything. All that you can do is, well, as I said, agree exactly with the law of jungle and, pretty much like... agreeing literally to my own supposition of "America defines the world" kind of rants. Well, after all, I should blame your inability to understand hidden meanings of my prose. Go xxxx off, you tyrannt.
To Xie Mon Oct 20, 2008 2:45 pm GMT
<<HOW PATHETIC. I don't wanna talk to idiots like you. Well, China does need people like you. Again, I've witnessed the kind of stupid nationalist-minded idiots that would ruin my own country, well, I won't care. Dude, you are under the kind of 1984-esque (but wtf? does it ever exist?) kind of nationalism without yourself noticing it, and yet you're blaming me with groundless attacks. You can't understand anything. All that you can do is, well, as I said, agree exactly with the law of jungle and, pretty much like... agreeing literally to my own supposition of "America defines the world" kind of rants. Well, after all, I should blame your inability to understand hidden meanings of my prose. Go xxxx off, you tyrannt. >> I previously thought you could be assuming feigned innocence nearly flawlessly. Anyway that isn't the case, but only to remind us of the trick played by thieves crying stop thief. Funnny enough?! I didn't expect a figure like you to actually know what nationalism was about. You are almost a complete idiot knowing nothing (or stupidly unwilling to know anything) about the acutual socio-economic conditions and situations of China today as well as our nation's time-honored history. You talking about nationalism surprised me a bit indeed. 吃里爬外、蝇营狗苟地偏居一隅之徒还配谈爱国、民主、民族、民族主义的话题？Big joke! Owell 1984 is not suitable material for lifting such low petty-minds knowing nothing but merely ranting "America defines the world" . Please keep off your lips "my own country", it is simply an insuperable shame when that comes from the mouth of someone who abhors and despizes the land that gives to and sustains his life. For such fellows of Chinese origin gripped by "unknown" desires to be the running DXXS of XXXX countries, without which they would feel their life would be so much miserable, we actually are not that mentally unprepared, didn't our acestors tell us when the woods is big enough, there will surely be varied bunches of birds? Fate for in-between cowardly figures: doomed to be abandoned and distained by either of the two sides they strive to flee or embrace. Nothing can be more lamentable than that!
Actually, the "in-between" is always prosperous because the extremes tend to be ground away by the mills of history.
To Xie:
Most Taiwanese are proud of 1980s economic miracle under rule of dictatorship, and they are angry at democracy because it has brought the 20 years' political and social unrest which has totally destroyed Taiwan's economic miracle. Let me take 2 things to point out democracy has already failed in Taiwanese people's heart. A female Taiwanese student founded "Taiwan Nazist Party" for abandoning democracy and would take Taiwan back to 1980s dictatorship. A Taiwanese citizen "Dai Chung" who self-proclaimed the founding of Taiwan Province Branch of Chinese Communist Party. 反制政爭 大學生組台灣納粹黨 一名東吳政治系延畢的許姓同學，因為不滿政治惡鬥，加上崇拜希特勒，成立納粹黨，吸引不少學生參加，最近要準備向內政部登記，正式成立台灣納粹黨 點進黑色底圖網站，就有希特勒肖像，紅色黨徽上還有倒卍字符號，獨裁的納粹黨竟然在台灣出現，成立的人還只是一名大學生 bite 台灣納粹黨雖然只有20名會員，卻是個很有規模的組織，不但定期繳交會費、舉辦黨員大會，而且會員身分很多是高學歷知識份子. （中央社記者謝佳珍台北七日電）報載台北市民戴忠成立「中國共產黨台灣省工作委員會」，並在媒體刊登廣告，吸收黨員，宣揚共產主義。
Vice Chairman Zhang Mingqing of the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait, on a visit to Taiwan for academic changes, was attacked by pro-independence protesters in southern Taiwan today Oct 21.
We were dismayed at such barbarian violence. |