Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

China’s "foreign land"

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234
Author
Beijingguy View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 15-Oct-2005
Location: China
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 100
  Quote Beijingguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: China’s "foreign land"
    Posted: 22-Oct-2005 at 16:01
Originally posted by Yungsiyebu_Uriankhai

Exactly, The so called east Turkestan was "the west regions" during the Han dynasty, there were many oasis kingdoms in the region,  not to mention the same area was under Tang dynasty's control, the Uyghurs were but late comers.

However, East Turkestan was not Uyghur territory until around the 8th century A.D. , and China claimed the region 800 years previously, during the Han Dynasty.  Thus, the whole "we Uyghurs were there first and always" argument falls apart. 

If your read Chinese official history documents about E.Turkistan, Inner Mongolia, or other area, you would find out similar opinions to those statements above. Who are the Uighurs? A group of steppes nomads migrated from Mongolia to Xinjiang where Chinese ever ruled since ancient times. Who are the Mongols? A group of forest Hunters named Shiwei migrated from Manchuria's borders to Mongolia where Chinese ever ruled since ancient times... Chinese have been always attempting to minimize the history of the ethnic groups to give themselves reasons to claim those land populated by non-chinese people.  

Did the Uighurs from Mongolia steppes replace those natives of E.Turkistan? No! they absorbed these non-Turkic groups to form a new nation which is far different from the ancient Uighurs in Mongolia.  so, Modern Uighurs are the descendants of both the natives of E.Turkistan and the ancient Uighurs from Mongolia. On the other hand, Chinggis Khaan also didn't replace all tribes of Mongolia steppes, such as Naiman, Keriet, Ongut, Khitans, etc, with his own tribe, but unified all of them to form a nation named Mongolian. Even if Chinggis Khaan's ancestors were actually originated from shiwei like that most chinese scholars argue about, Modern Mongols as a nation are also the descendants of many ancient steppe nations such Hsiung-nu, Sian-pei, Juan-Juan, Turuk, Uighur, ect.

Replacing a naion's history with a tribe's, is one of the most popular ways for Chinese to achieve their aims of minimizing a nomadic nation's history.

 

 

Beside political claims, i agree with some of your opinions on  the cultural and ethnic formation of these people or nations.

Though number of nomadic groups also sinicized within Chinese society.

Xianbei tried to learn from the Chinese during the 3 kingdoms of China, the prince of Xianbei studied in Wei kingdom, he was heavily influenced by Chinese culture, he became fluent in confucian classics, and dressed like a Chinese. But when he got back to the steppe, the chieftains fear he could destroy their own tradition, had him executed. But XianBei as a group nevertheless destined to became part  of Chinese culture in later time. When the WestJin dynasty collapsed, thus began the "era of division", many nomads were previously subjects of the Jin, but now they grab whats left of Jin in Northern China, and established various Chinese-style dynasties, and fought each others for power. The Xianbei had already set up several dynasty previously, but it was the Northern Wei dynasty which was ruled by Tuoba-clan that was the most successful one. After militarily consolidating the empire in its early period, the 7th emperor YuanHong put more his focus on civil matters, in which he moved the Capital from border-area to "heart-land of Chinese culture"-LuoYang(capital of former Chinese dynasties). He immediately began  series of reforms, politically he copied the style of government from his counter-part, the southern Chinese dynasty, he did this so well, that there were many examples  of Han Chinese from south are willing to serve the Northern Wei dynasty. Culturally, he urge all Xianbei from nobility to commoner  wear Chinese dress,and he personally monitored how good this is carried out, once upon seeing a Xianbei woman still wearing Xianbei traditional dress, the emperor was angry, and reprimanded the offical in charge of the matter. He also encouraged inter-marriages between Xianbei and Han ppl, he personally married with several daughters of Han officials, while at the same time married his own daughters to Han-Chinese nobles as well. And it became common practice between the 2 ppls. His determination was so strong he even ordered that when a Xianbei dies, the body will remain buried outside of LuoYang than carry it back to the "old place"(which at the time many Xianbei considered their real Homeplace)  , so there was a saying"  born, you are a LuoYang citizen, die, you will be buried beside it". Although at the time there were many discontents about his reforms among the Xianbei nobilities,nevertheless, later, the majority of the Xianbei assimilated into the "Chinese"ppl, (in the case of LuoYang city of Northern Wei , during YuanHong's reign, there were about a milion Xianbei became sinicized,later they became indistinguishable from Han-Chinese). And its no wonder, both the founders of Sui and Tang dynasty had some "Xianbei" blood, while both the empress's names were derived from Xianbei nobilities, also, Sui emperor can trace their family line to a Han-Chinese nobility of the Han-jin dynasties, while Tang emperors can trace their line to the Han-general LiGuang, who's famous in battles against the XiongNu.Twisted as it seems, the "era of division" is often considered an age of great ethnic and cultural fusion in Chinese history.

For the steppe history which also concerning China, there were 3 largest and most powerful nomadic nations appearred on the steppe during the long history, from first the XiongNu, to the Turks, then came the Mongols, but just in a way like that of China at it's begining stage of development, actually many different factions contributed to the forming of the nation.

These 3 largest nomadic groups were all not single tribes or specific ethnic group, they were a confederation which has been united under the most powerful tribe's banner througn military or other means. But ultimately included many of the steppe tribes or groups.

While the previous 2, the XiongNus and the Turks didnt manage to maintain their grasp on the vast empire to later period in history, due to either internal rivalry or/and external pressures. Whereas the Mongols has achieved more success than their 2 predecessors and also survived till these days as an independent nation.

the Mongols were sub-faction of the ShiWei, just before the rise of Genghiskhan, Mongolia was a land occupied by various nomadic tribes or groups, some had some relations, while others are quite different. The tribe Genghis came from is called Qiyan, and there tribes that related or allied with his were the Kelie,Hongjila(both the brides[He elun, Boertie] of Genghis's father Yesugai and his are from this tribe as it is said girls of Hongjila are the most beautiful of the grasslands, culturally, its probably 1 of nomadic tribes which was mostly infulenced by the "Chinese")Techiyiu, Zhadalan, Zhuerqi,etc whereas the Mieerqi and Tartars were the enemy.Naiman is considered by the Mongols a "big country" west of them.

The political situation in  continental East Asia then was, that the Jurchens first overthrew their Khitan Liao overlords, established their own Chinese-style dynasty the Jin, then it further projected its military power into the central plain of China, end the rule of Northern Song dynasty of China, it inherited almost all of the former Song's northern territory border just the Yangtz river. Song Chinese survived in the south as Southern Song dynasty, they unavoidably resisted several assaults of  Jin dynasty's attempted complete conquest of China, which somewhat maintained  their sphere of influence afterwards.

The Jin also made the Tangut's WestXia dynasty to became its subject(though in essence they were more like rivals). The Jurchens also influenced the steppe(later Manchus would just had done the same but with much more measures and success) nomads, they played "Nomads against nomads" ,  tribes like Mierqi and Tartar were  sometimes under service of the Jin court, even Genghis himself once served(though Genghis had his own strategical calculations) for the Jurchens(as Genghis's power has not yet been strong enough). But some of the harsh treatments of the Jin, not only angered the Chinese and  Khitans under their rule. The Mongols too suffered, because they were talented archers and skilled horsemen, which makes the Jin worry about that 1 day same story could be retold on themselves like that of what they had done to their formal overlords the Khitan-Liao dynasty. So there was a practice by the Jurchens, in which they would send military force to "depopulate" the steppe nomads for every 3 years or so.

One of the the Qiyan's previous  chief(Genghis's ancester) was said to have been cruelly executed by the Jin dynasty. So in the light of revenge, Genghis began his life-long military actions, first to conquered the rival tribes of the steppe and unite them under Mongol banner, then attack the Jin, which was as Genghis himself said "my biggest goal". Though he never complete the conquest of Jin, since he "fell from his horse, later died" just after he finished  a negotiation(demandingly) with the Tanguts of WestXia dynasty.

All those 3 strongest nomadic confederations,  had more or less influenced China, and arguably vice versa. It was the  contest between hard and soft aspects of culture, while inevitably contributed to the shape and reshape of the land.

Exactly, The so called east Turkestan was "the west regions" during the Han dynasty, there were many oasis kingdoms in the region,  not to mention the same area was under Tang dynasty's control, the Uyghurs were but late comers

"officially Chinese"? perhaps, but refute me if anything said in this is wrong.

 

 

 



Edited by Beijingguy
Back to Top
poirot View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 21-May-2005
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1838
  Quote poirot Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Oct-2005 at 17:34
Beijing guy, your english is excellent!  Thanks for posting the arguments, because now I do not need to waste my time arguing in a seemingly endless tug of war.  And I am happy to see that both sides have tried to refrain from flaming language.  Good job both sides!!!
AAAAAAAAAA
"The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.�   ~ HG Wells
           
Back to Top
Beijingguy View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 15-Oct-2005
Location: China
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 100
  Quote Beijingguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Oct-2005 at 12:34

Originally posted by poirot

Beijing guy, your english is excellent!  Thanks for posting the arguments, because now I do not need to waste my time arguing in a seemingly endless tug of war.  And I am happy to see that both sides have tried to refrain from flaming language.  Good job both sides!!!

No, you are quite wrong, that

my English is not excellent, i'm sure  those with it as their first language would agree.

and i post for no one in particular besides my own needs

Wrong again, both were not trying to be flaming with each other, therefore, its not proper to use the  word "refrain"



Edited by Beijingguy
Back to Top
Beijingguy View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 15-Oct-2005
Location: China
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 100
  Quote Beijingguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Oct-2005 at 14:01

Originally posted by Seko

Beijinguy, nice philosophy - mutual understanding. Now if we could only implement it?

which i already had

Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
  Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Oct-2005 at 01:21
Originally posted by Beijingguy

If you ever been to Australia, then did you ever try to find the answer to the sharp contrast of between the whites and the Abrogines rather than just seeing the fact and relating it to the policy? Have you ever studied the social structure, life style and the attitude of these people towards the modernization? If not, don't try to make comparison.

Again you are making  your assumption, do you even believe i really have the obligation to answer such questions? Or you have the right to tell a specific forumer to be what about what? I will reserve all that rights for myself, thats when i feel  like or need to express or not. As for your demanding manner, i only gotta  say, i am interested more in the parliament debates or TV programs  concerning such issues, or i dont know why i feel the need to know what and why the  leader of ALP Mr Beazley  weeped during such circumstance, than to bother with you for understanding of the country which my famlily have been spending in more than 15 years.

It seems You learned well about the language, less about the logic. It is not assumption at all. It's just a suggestion. It is far from being a demanding manner. It's surely up to you to answer it or not. This is forum, we ask questions and answer for questions. If you think you have no obligation to answer, just skip it. Noone is gonna force you. Anyway, I respect your honesty to admit that you get the informations through the Parliamental debates and TV shows.  Seriously, if you ever want to make theoretical comparison you need some other sources and real efforts to know the two societies well.  If you bother with this, then keep on sitting on your chair watching them, and don't make yourself look like a guy who knows everything.

Well this is the real different between these two groups. One has the right to say something about their situation openly, while the other is never allowed, if they are allowed, I bet there will be thousands of professors to say the same thing. Oh wait, there was the permit during Mao period,  after they were encouraged to criticize the policies openly, what happened to them, all of them were Pipaned (under the public criticism) or went to jail, and many of them died there.

Such confusing yet unconvincing view just makes one eat ones own stands, which i mean the "questions" in the first of your paragraphs that i quoted. I dont want to go on again with the difference between 2 governmets ethnic policy, and the concerned well-being etc, i just ask the same sort of question you are trying to do here, its true aborigines of Australia can atleast protest, while Tibetans cant, besides again notifying the "contrasts" which i stated previously, that do the very Chinese themselves have that kind of rights? As for mis-treatments of ppl of Tibet by the Communist government, as you stated it was during Mao era, heck yes, my father was branded "anti-revolutionist" after he expressed discontent about the governmental policy, and hes punished, while our family was also affected, even though both my grandparents actually fought for the communist in the War against Japan. As for the statement " I bet there will be thousands of professors to say the same thing", again you contribute nothing more than that of assumptions. Theoretically betting does not neccessarily euqual to practically happening. Be more realistic than assumptive.

Sorry for your families' sad history. But this type of example can never support your hint that every people are being suffered, not only the ethnic groups.  They are suffering in different manner. One group has life burden, while the others are facing discrimination, less oppotunities, cultural loss etc.  Actually, you are being assumptive in refuting my claim. I can bet, because I'm one hundred percent sure. I'm here to see everything.  I'm here to talk with the people from academic circle (myself being one of them).  

Sadly, another difference. There are no ppl there who sympathize with and support these ppl's struggle.

The aborigines never claimed independence, they only asks to compensate their history and improve their treatments, by reconcile with the government. Even though few angry individuals had emotively exclaimed such " if i ever got weapons i will fight whites", but just as apparent as of his emotion, there were aboriginal soldiers served in the Australian army during WW2, even though back then these ppl were not even recognized by the government as "Australian" citizens. Not quite precise there, there probably are no ppl in China support formal independence of Tibet, but there are plenty of ppl in China whether hes ethnic Tibetan or not, are putting efforts on the preservation of Tibetan culture, institutes has been established quite standardizedly in China to study, preserve and promote ethnic cultures to a less or more extend. The difference there is aborigines in Australia have the strongest voice for improving their rights, while only outside China there are strongest voice urge independence for Tibet. The former focus on improving with government, while the later on spliting with. such is the difference, and you know it very well.

Again, this shows your less knowledge about these societies. Some things can be done openly to show for the outsiders, while many other things are being done secretly. What you have seen is just the surface. Go to see some forums in your language, you will see the ppl's attitude towards these groups. All they talk about is distorting their history (as you did) and the way to assimilate them.     

You seem to have forgotten to mention another difference, one was happended in emperial period, the other is still happening.

And with the same unconvincing manner of yours, i must say the same, that you too forgot to mention, that the improving in well-being and living standard in Tibet is indeed still happening, while the aborigines of Australia have to keep still fighting the discriminations and injustice that Australia has inherited from her imperialist past. No wonder, once on TV a white refuted when asking should Australians say sorry to Aborigines, by saying" what ihas it got anything  to do with me? its history". And no wonder, like it or not, the programs  concerning native issues have low audience rating. The Aussies are more concerned about sports, movies, than their own ppl. I personally met ppl who sympathize them while others criticizing them as been "useless" and "burden" of the society.

Are you so sure the most of the people's living standards are improving? Wishful thinking. Have you ever been to Tibet? Oh, you are going to say you are being mandatory again. Sorry, You don't need to answer this question if you don't like.  

I think i've wasted enough time on this, untill you can soundly and objectively prove to me that Australian aboriginines are enjoying more rights and live a better life than the Tibetans in China which you seem to suggest, then i will just as speechless as i will now trying to be. Or i would seriously question myself, have i wasted my time on English study that i totally mis-interpreted what i have watched on Tv and learned from classroom or elsewhere while i was in Australia for the 4plus years?

I also think I've wasted enough time on this, but for the last time.

Yes, I think you should question yourself. For many of us people who are living in this world ( I don't know if you are one of us), the most important thing is the mental freedom than material well being. Still, you should prove me about the people's well being using solid statistics or first hand materials, not the propaganda.

 

Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
  Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Oct-2005 at 01:48

Originally posted by Beijingguy

Exactly, The so called east Turkestan was "the west regions" during the Han dynasty, there were many oasis kingdoms in the region,  not to mention the same area was under Tang dynasty's control, the Uyghurs were but late comers

"officially Chinese"? perhaps, but refute me if anything said in this is wrong.

You are a good writer, but do you have any problem in reading and understanding? He/she has already refuted it. You and poirot are avoiding answering my questions. Oh yes, you said you are not interested. Now you are raising this debate.

Well, it is wrong. Because the mordern Uyghurs are the mixture of the Uyghurs who ruled the steppe and the local people who had been lived in this region from the ancient history. When you are saying The Uyghurs are late comers, then you are mixing up the terms. Who are you talking about, the mordern Uyghurs or the ruling class from the steppe?

 Still, before this ruling class migration, that region was well Turkified. According to Zhangqian's record (first Han contact with this region), Hun people were living there, and the names of the oasis cities Suli, Barchuq, Yanqi, Qojo ... etc were pure Turkic names.  Do you need more proofs, tell me then.

Just to remind you, the mixing of the people is different for these two cases. one is one larger group assimilates the other insignificant groups, which almost doesn't leave any significant cultural trace, while another one is several or two significant groups' mixing together, and all have quite significant cultural contribution.  This should be the comment for your loooong writing.  

 

Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
  Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Oct-2005 at 01:52
Originally posted by Beijingguy

Originally posted by Seko

Beijinguy, nice philosophy - mutual understanding. Now if we could only implement it?

which i already had

Oh really? We haven't seen that mutual understanding from         &n bsp;      your posts.

 

Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
Beijingguy View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 15-Oct-2005
Location: China
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 100
  Quote Beijingguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Oct-2005 at 02:15
Originally posted by barbar

Originally posted by Beijingguy

Originally posted by Seko

Beijinguy, nice philosophy - mutual understanding. Now if we could only implement it?

which i already had

Oh really? We haven't seen that mutual understanding from         &a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;n bsp;      your posts.

 

then you are blind

both were not trying to be flaming with each other, therefore, its not proper to use the  word "refrain"

"mutual understanding", doesnt mean they must share same ground on  particular concerns, but rather focus on the manner and attitude when interacting with each other.

that needs effort from both the participants,so since you dont respect my suggestion  "rule of conduct", argue about the opinion not the person, and "we"? do you represent more than yourself?but seems seko is not one of "we"? such language is way of academics?

then i will leave the discussion to the "academic circle", while try to stop making myself look like "a guy knows everything"



Edited by Beijingguy
Back to Top
Beijingguy View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 15-Oct-2005
Location: China
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 100
  Quote Beijingguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Oct-2005 at 03:31
Originally posted by barbar

Originally posted by Beijingguy

Exactly, The so called east Turkestan was "the west regions" during the Han dynasty, there were many oasis kingdoms in the region,  not to mention the same area was under Tang dynasty's control, the Uyghurs were but late comers

"officially Chinese"? perhaps, but refute me if anything said in this is wrong.

You are a good writer, but do you have any problem in reading and understanding? He/she has already refuted it. You and poirot are avoiding answering my questions. Oh yes, you said you are not interested. Now you are raising this debate.

Well, it is wrong. Because the mordern Uyghurs are the mixture of the Uyghurs who ruled the steppe and the local people who had been lived in this region from the ancient history. When you are saying The Uyghurs are late comers, then you are mixing up the terms. Who are you talking about, the mordern Uyghurs or the ruling class from the steppe?

 Still, before this ruling class migration, that region was well Turkified. According to Zhangqian's record (first Han contact with this region), Hun people were living there, and the names of the oasis cities Suli, Barchuq, Yanqi, Qojo ... etc were pure Turkic names.  Do you need more proofs, tell me then.

Just to remind you, the mixing of the people is different for these two cases. one is one larger group assimilates the other insignificant groups, which almost doesn't leave any significant cultural trace, while another one is several or two significant groups' mixing together, and all have quite significant cultural contribution.  This should be the comment for your loooong writing.  

 

exactly what i was expecting for,  so that i can make my attitude clear, as for political influence of the region, Uyghurs as political entity that extended its influence over the region were well after Han dynasty's control of the region and after Tang's control  of the region as well.

i was going to present my view of Xinjiang history, thats neither sino-centric(the land are rightfully belong to China since ancient times, unconvincing to me), nor pan-turkic(its rightfully ours, others who had influence dont count much in history), but thought it would be not good to do it while there is a tug of war going on, so wait till it cools down. But things turned out to be as i said quite ironical.

I cared about what makes Han and Tang extended their influence to the region, what it served for them, and what today's possession of the region inherited from and whats  then the purpose and drive of holding it, and what makes current government's historical claim as well as meaning of holding the territory.  my concerns is quite different to what you and poirot argues about.  I care less about absolutes than relativism, and im no fans of Sino-centric or pan-turkic views.

 i mentioned Xianbei, only for the interest that they were once nomads but adopted Chinese culture, and how it contributed to the country, which had nothing to do  with Uyghurs of Xinjiang, i meant no comparison between the 2

As i have said you stuck with your mentality about Xinjiang, and arguably extended it to Tibet,simply because im a Chinese, a generalising manner, of inability in droping of such manner, you will simply go on mis-understanding. Thats why you think i tried to compare Xianbei with Xinjiang. While i did try to present some history of interaction between steppe nomads and the Chinese, for history not political concern, thats why i start with "beside political claim" which should have prevented you from relating it again with Xinjiang

thus, i'm not raising the debates at all, im still not interested, not with its history, but with the way and manner you two are arguing with.

Both Mongoloid and caucasian race contributed to the making of the ppl of the region, but this is not my concern,(not mean its not important) though some study say, ancient kingdom like Shule were Mongoloid in the first place(as early Chinese records of the country seem to show),but during later time, the composition changed to "caucasian" looking. ethnic and racial mixing must have done quite often, as the region serves as cross-road between different realm of cultures. but, racial claim doesnt necessarily equal to political claim. As the Chinese during Han-Tang time, or the Mongols whether starts with submission of the Uyghur kingdom to it, or extend of Chahetai and Wokuotai kanates, or the Mongol Zungarians during the Qing period had demonstrated. Or else today there would be no dispute about it at all, if it's going to be considered quite simply.

 

 



Edited by Beijingguy
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.051 seconds.