The manchu history

[christos200]

I found in youtube some videos:

1) This says that benjing was for 1,000 years capital of manchuria and the mongols:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhPMGn7k1D4&feature=channel_video_title

2) This one has to do with the qing dynasty:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTUUsbjq7s0&feature=relmfu

3) Here it says that Manchukuo was more than just a japan puppet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBDYSBm4y1I&feature=relmfu

4) This talks about the Three Altaic People:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjpJ0D55108&feature=relmfu

5) This says about the origins of the manchu:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvLF0KQ0yhA&feature=relmfu

So what is your opinion. First see all videos in order to understand what we are talking. Then say your opinion.

 

[Tee Kay]

The nationalist masturbation forum is over there --->

Oh wait, we don't have one? Shame...

Moderator Action: Infracted for trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[aronnax]

I found in youtube some videos:

1) This says that benjing was for 1,000 years capital of manchuria and the mongols:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhPMGn7k1D4&feature=channel_video_title

2) This one has to do with the qing dynasty:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTUUsbjq7s0&feature=relmfu

3) Here it says that Manchukuo was more than just a japan puppet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBDYSBm4y1I&feature=relmfu

4) This talks about the Three Altaic People:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjpJ0D55108&feature=relmfu

5) This says about the origins of the manchu:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvLF0KQ0yhA&feature=relmfu

So what is your opinion. First see all videos in order to understand what we are talking. Then say your opinion.

Do you know that if you open any history genre book, you'll find these tiny numbers littered throughout the entire book and a small section of corresponding numbers, indicating a source, tucked away perhaps at the bottom of the page or at the end of every chapter or given a whole section all by itself at the back of the book, usually under the title 'bibliography' or 'cited works'.

Do you know why these writers undergo such painstaking but detailed works of reference? It's because these writers want to assure the reader that what they are writing is not something they made up in whim and fancy, but rather opinions and theories that are based on some legitimate reasoning or hard evidence, primary/secondary sources and stuff like that. A diary, a Soviet Military record, a pot with decorations from 7th century India.

After all, you wouldn't trust the work of a highly Nationalistic Iranian author, if he wrote a book about how awesome Greece was after Persia conquered it and that Persia was the best thing that ever happened to it and he cannot produce any accounts that seem to back his statement up.

In this case, you are presenting the work of an unnamed person, self-referenced as 'QING IS NOT CHINA' with no research credibility with no cited sources, aside from 'Altaic Wiki' which in a funny twist, cites 'QING IS NOT CHINA' as a source.

Do you see a problem?

 

[christos200]

About benjing i think that i agree with him.

 

[Tee Kay]

About benjing i think that i agree with him.

In what way

 

[christos200]

Realy if you see his video you will see that china for 800 years didnt had control of benjing.

 

[NovaKart]

From what I remember, Beijing first became capital during the Jin Dynasty (there's more than one Jin Dynasty but this was the later one). Then it became the capital of China during the Mongol (Yuan) Dynasty. When the Ming overthrew the Yuan Dynasty Nanjing was briefly the capital but then they changed it back to Beijing. The Ming were Han Chinese. Then the Qing took over.

It would be accurate to say that Beijing has mostly been the capital of China for nearly 1000 years but not the capital of Manchuria and the Mongols. It was only ruled by the Mongols during the Yuan dynasty and only ruled by the Manchus during the Qing dynasty.

 

[aronnax]

For the love of god... BEIJING

 

[christos200]

But the jin were manchurians.

 

[NovaKart]

That's not really true because the Ming were Chinese. Also, China was ruled by the Mongols and later the Manchu and they controlled China, not some other country.

 

[Tee Kay]

Realy if you see his video you will see that china for 800 years didnt had control of benjing.

Yeah, I saw the video.

He's not wrong; Beijing was under the control of the Liao, then the Jin, then Yuan, then Ming, then Qing and finally the Republic of China, the Empire of Japan, and the People's Republic of China, in that order.

Where he's wrong is the way he frames the facts in his nationalist narrative. In the 11th century there was no Khitan or "Chinese" (ie Han) nation-state; the Khitans were non-Han who ruled over their Han population in the manner of the Han. Saying that Beijing was "not part of China" because the ruler at a given time was not Han is like saying London was not part of England because the sitting monarchs were from Normandy, Wales or Germany.

 

[NovaKart]

But the jin were manchurians.

Then that means there was a gap of a few hundred years in the Manchu's control of Beijing. It doesn't make a case for Beijing not being Chinese. At least during the Qing dynasty I believe the majority of Beijing's population was Han Chinese if the rulers were not.

 

[Kraznaya]

wooo manzu chinese

yeah they're obviously not hanren but they're most certainly zhonghua minzu and the qing chao was as "chinese" as ming chao or what have you

ethnic constructions for nation-states are pretty archaic anyway; i'd say it's mostly uncivilized people like the inhabitants of the balkans who are caught up with them

civic nationalities 4 lyfe

also yeah beiping is kind of a smog conjested wasteland
that's what you get when you have northerners in charge of stuff though

nanjing 4 lyfe

Moderator Action: Infracted for trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[aelf]

Can someone summarise his argument? I'm not going to waste time watching Youtube videos with no satisfactory provenance. Right now it seems to be an extremely nonsensical one to me.

 

[christos200]

Can someone summarise his argument? I'm not going to waste time watching Youtube videos with no satisfactory provenance. Right now it seems to be an extremely nonsensical one to me.

Thats what i believed before i watch the video.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Since this thread stems out of a discussion in your Greek history thread about how the Manchu are to the Chinese what the Macedonians are to the Greeks, I can only condone your complete 180 on the subject of whether Macedonians are Greek. Well done, old chap

 

[aronnax]

Thats what i believed before i watch the video.

I watched some of your videos and criticised your sources in a lengthy reply. Now what?

 

[Masada]

southernsong4lyfe.

 

[Lord Baal]

So, what are we saying here? That the Qing were Macedonian?

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889