Well Ghandi wasn't a military leader of course, but India is still a civ with a lot of military history.
Why is Mongolia in and not Korea
- Thread starter tifa9292
- Start date
- Status
Well Ghandi wasn't a military leader of course, but India is still a civ with a lot of military history.
eoc
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 526
I don't know how you were educated by western history lessons. I found nations and country are always mixed up by you.
In history, Manchus are considered as Chinese by Chinese(they lived in China country, just as Han, Bai, Buyi etc.). While westerners take them as non-Chinese
.It is much different from Mongols. In history, Mongols were taken as an annexed country people, and the truth is that Mongolia indeed an annexed country by China in a very much long time before Yuan Dynasty established and after Yuan collapsed.
Even Mongolia conquerred China, Mogols use China traditional Emperor Era method to name his empire----Yuan.
I think, you know Mongols conquerred China, but I don't think you know it was actually Chinese army(there were many wisdom Chinese generals and pretty large Chinese army served for Mogolia to be against Song Dynasty)who beat China finally.
I recommend you read some ancient Chinese history books, and you will know how different you have learnt from that in those books.
The Manchu people are definitely not of Chinese origin. To say that Westerners are confused is a bit odd. The point of contention here was that China was conquered by a foreign power and that is absolutely correct. The Manchu people were assimilated into becoming Chinese later but that doesn't change the previous fact at all.
Frankly, it sounds like a bit of Chinese nationalism. I suppose they also consider Tibetans to be Chinese as well?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchu
Frankly, it sounds like a bit of Chinese nationalism. I suppose they also consider Tibetans to be Chinese as well?
The Manchu people (Manchu: Manjui gisun.svg Manju; simplified Chinese: 满族; traditional Chinese: 滿族; pinyin: Mǎnzú, Mongolian: Манж, Russian: Маньчжурыare a Tungusic people who originated in Manchuria (today's northeastern China). During their rise in the 17th century, with the help of the Ming dynasty rebels (such as general Wu Sangui), they came to power in China and founded the Qing Dynasty, which ruled China until the Xinhai Revolution of 1911, which established a republican government in its place.
The Manchu ethnicity has largely been assimilated with the Han Chinese. The Manchu language is almost extinct, now spoken only among a small number of elderly people in remote rural areas of northeastern China and a few scholars; there are around ten thousand speakers of Sibe (Xibo), a Manchu dialect spoken in the Ili region of Xinjiang. In recent years, however, there has been a resurgence of interest in Manchu culture among both ethnic Manchus and Han.[citation needed] The number of Chinese today with some Manchu ancestry is quite large - with 10.68 million members (in China), Manchu is the 3rd largest ethnic group in China after the Han and the Zhuang.[4] The adoption of favorable policies towards ethnic minorities (such as preferential university admission, government employment opportunities and exemption from the one child policy) has encouraged some people with mixed Han and Manchu ancestry to re-identify themselves as Manchu.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchu
The problem is, according to the PRC, you are confusing "Chinese" and "Han." All Han are Chinese, but not all Chinese are Han. The PRC doesn't subscribe to the nation-state conception of entities as "one people, one language, one culture." They treat all the people in China's current borders as "Chinese" (zhonghua minzu).
Note that among the 56 ethnic minorities, Tibetans are considered Chinese, as well as (some) Koreans and Russians.
Yes, I agree with you. The Chinese government's way of thinking is quite different from other people's interpretation of history.
The point was that China was conquered by a foreign power twice and that is absolutely correct. There can be no argument there. First by the Mongols and then by the Manchu.
The Manchus were assimilated later into mainstream Chinese culture at a later date but that doesn't change the fact that they were conquered by a foreign power.
Retroactively trying to change them into Chinese people is not appropriate.
I suppose it's China's policy to say such things to keep ethnic minorities from breaking away.
Definitely true. Also true that it's pretty darn hard for most of us to tell if we have Manchu ancestry unless we see a genealogist or something. You will be assimilated - resistance is futile!
Most Hakkas I know are also pretty big into their Hakka-ness, but really, the percentage of ethnic minorities in China is so small that I think these are the exception more than the rule.
I'd definitely take what the government considers "Chinese" with a huge grain of salt, though. Tibet may be the best-known example, but there are some other regions they consider "China" that really seem like different countries, way more than any inter-state differences in the U.S. I've never been to Xinjiang, for example, but I've heard it's a pretty foreign place.
Kruelgor
Emperor
If you go back far enough, I suspect that the Koreans are descended from China.
no we got a lot of cultre from china, but we dont have the same ancstors
korea did not found china
I think the commonly held belief is that they descend from Mongolians.
From Wikipedia. You do have to be a little careful with Wikipedia when it comes to things Korean related though. There have been many Wikipedia wars...
As well, Korean historians generally have an agenda and try to warp the facts to fit their theories unfortunately.
This seems generally accurate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreans
Licinia Eudoxia
Empress
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 424
Saying that China is composed of a mess of 56 nation states is very disingenuous. Especially when China has one of the strongest central governments of any sizable country in the world.
Just about every country has small territories outlined within their borders, whether you call them states or provinces or counties or what not. China isn't really any more unique in that aspect than anyone else.
Just about every country has small territories outlined within their borders, whether you call them states or provinces or counties or what not. China isn't really any more unique in that aspect than anyone else.
Thormodr
You have to realize that this "Chinese" stuff springs from the imagination of Westerners. The Manchu and pretty much every ethnic group in "China" are "Chinese". No, they are not Han but they would be lumped into the foreign concept of "China" for sure.
China was no more conquered by "foreign powers" any more than England was conquered by Germany because Queen Elizabeth had a German mother. That aside neither the Mongols nor the Manchu truly "conquered China". Chinese rebels and defectors were the deciding factor in both instances, after several hundred years of decline through natural disasters, corruption and internecine conflict. The Manchu "conquest" of China is just a result of those events- it could just have easily been a rebel-led dynasty in place of the Qing. Likewise the Mongol conquests are more a continuation of events leading from the invasion of Northern Song by the Jin than sheer conquest through direct military means.
As you recall the Song Dynasty actually attacked the Jin *with* the Mongols, and a Chinese general basically allowed the Manchu in through the gate while the Ming was collapsing from internal rebellion.
It's true enough that China was ruled by non-Han dynasties (not that the officials weren't overwhelmingly Han; they were), it can be said similarly that almost all of Europe was consistently ruled by Habsburgs or other Germanic ruling castes as well as Turks and Arabs. And Romans and Greeks.
Licinia
True but just as a tangent, it's 56 "officially recognized" groups- there are many subdivisions of the Han, Miao, Tibetans, as well as groups such as the Mosuo who are lumped in with other ethnic groups. To be more realistic each major linguistic division of Han China would be at least a "country" in itself, of 60-80 million. The Miao are divided into three or so groups, Tibetans are split based on region (Amdowa, Khampas, White Horse "Tibetans") and further based on sect.
You have to realize that this "Chinese" stuff springs from the imagination of Westerners. The Manchu and pretty much every ethnic group in "China" are "Chinese". No, they are not Han but they would be lumped into the foreign concept of "China" for sure.
China was no more conquered by "foreign powers" any more than England was conquered by Germany because Queen Elizabeth had a German mother. That aside neither the Mongols nor the Manchu truly "conquered China". Chinese rebels and defectors were the deciding factor in both instances, after several hundred years of decline through natural disasters, corruption and internecine conflict. The Manchu "conquest" of China is just a result of those events- it could just have easily been a rebel-led dynasty in place of the Qing. Likewise the Mongol conquests are more a continuation of events leading from the invasion of Northern Song by the Jin than sheer conquest through direct military means.
As you recall the Song Dynasty actually attacked the Jin *with* the Mongols, and a Chinese general basically allowed the Manchu in through the gate while the Ming was collapsing from internal rebellion.
It's true enough that China was ruled by non-Han dynasties (not that the officials weren't overwhelmingly Han; they were), it can be said similarly that almost all of Europe was consistently ruled by Habsburgs or other Germanic ruling castes as well as Turks and Arabs. And Romans and Greeks.
Licinia
True but just as a tangent, it's 56 "officially recognized" groups- there are many subdivisions of the Han, Miao, Tibetans, as well as groups such as the Mosuo who are lumped in with other ethnic groups. To be more realistic each major linguistic division of Han China would be at least a "country" in itself, of 60-80 million. The Miao are divided into three or so groups, Tibetans are split based on region (Amdowa, Khampas, White Horse "Tibetans") and further based on sect.
Many prominent Korean historians disagree. According to them, there is ample historical evidence that Korea founded many of the world's most prominent civilizations including China.
Around 5:30 of the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIhoBy6a0BY
Pretty sure that the Jurchen Jin(?) started out as foreign as well and they briefly conquered China.
Pretty weak argument. Using that logic, I suppose if Russia or India conquered China tomorrow then they would then be considered Chinese? Could China then claim they weren't conquered by a foreign power?
China was conquered by the Mongols and the Chinese people were subservient to the Mongol Emperor. It's highly nationalistic, wishful thinking and ahistorical to think otherwise.
andrew
It didn't "start out" as foreign. They always were- and they conquered Northern Song, not "China". Then they had their entire ruling class exterminated, brutally, by the Mongols. It's ironic, lots of nationalists preaching "Altaic brotherhood" but the most vicious conflicts of East Asia are generally between "Altaics" and their so-called brothers- like Khitan Liao/Jurchen Jin vs. Mongols and each other, Korea vs. Japan (x2), Dzungars vs. rest of Mongols (pure genocide here) and it was only the so-called "Altaic" dynasties of China that invaded Korea.
Thormodr
If the Russians and Indians then called themselves Chinese, devoted themselves entirely to "Chinese" interests, became heavily Sinicized linguistically and culturally, yes. Otherwise no. In that same vein are the late Ottomans and Mughals "Turks" (meaning actual Turks, not people who live in Turkey) and "Mongols" respectively? No.
No, China was never "conquered" by any one single power- Chinese rebels permitted Mongols and Manchus to displace a previous dynasty, and they were sinicized as a result. There is only nationalism on the part of anti-Han revisionists who have a racial obsession.
It didn't "start out" as foreign. They always were- and they conquered Northern Song, not "China". Then they had their entire ruling class exterminated, brutally, by the Mongols. It's ironic, lots of nationalists preaching "Altaic brotherhood" but the most vicious conflicts of East Asia are generally between "Altaics" and their so-called brothers- like Khitan Liao/Jurchen Jin vs. Mongols and each other, Korea vs. Japan (x2), Dzungars vs. rest of Mongols (pure genocide here) and it was only the so-called "Altaic" dynasties of China that invaded Korea.
Thormodr
If the Russians and Indians then called themselves Chinese, devoted themselves entirely to "Chinese" interests, became heavily Sinicized linguistically and culturally, yes. Otherwise no. In that same vein are the late Ottomans and Mughals "Turks" (meaning actual Turks, not people who live in Turkey) and "Mongols" respectively? No.
No, China was never "conquered" by any one single power- Chinese rebels permitted Mongols and Manchus to displace a previous dynasty, and they were sinicized as a result. There is only nationalism on the part of anti-Han revisionists who have a racial obsession.
Again:
Did the British call themselves Indian, specifically to legitimize their rule?
Did the British subscribe to, and legitimize, an ideology of "Indian-ness" and conquer specifically in the name of this idea?
Do the British speak Hindi today?
Did the British hand their territories off to the Hindus, under central control from Delhi?
Did the British exhort millions to migrate from the Raj into the Isles to shore up against an encroaching power?
I think the answer is self-explanatory, Manchus are Sinicized- and Chinese does not mean Han.
Did the British call themselves Indian, specifically to legitimize their rule?
Did the British subscribe to, and legitimize, an ideology of "Indian-ness" and conquer specifically in the name of this idea?
Do the British speak Hindi today?
Did the British hand their territories off to the Hindus, under central control from Delhi?
Did the British exhort millions to migrate from the Raj into the Isles to shore up against an encroaching power?
I think the answer is self-explanatory, Manchus are Sinicized- and Chinese does not mean Han.
- Status
Similar threads
