what if china had discovered the new world?

[loserbutt]

what if instead of European domination and colonization of the world, china or japan or some other asian country had?

[SunWuKong]

i'd be banging lots of white chicks right now

[kangal]

i'd be banging lots of white chicks right now

*applauds* =)

[Elizabeth A.]

"Elizabeth just hasn't been the same since she joined that spacy, New Age-y 'Christian' religion.....Honestly!"

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I'm sure the 'utopia' phrase was expressed with sarcasm and fun,

But anyways gotta answer it anyway...heck no, China is run by humans also and as long as humans are running things, there will be corruption, prejudice, mistreatment, and all the problems that many of us (including myself) bitch about concerning white America.

[ism]

Originally posted by loserbutt@Feb 4 2003, 08:33 PM
what if instead of European domination and colonization of the world, china or japan or some other asian country had?
The white man would be oppressed.

Oh wait, they already are, what with immigrants stealing their jobs, minorities benefitting from reverse racism, everything written in english AND spanish, and ethnic crap forced in their faces in the form of national holidays and history months.

[thaite]

I dunno, probably the same amount or political and cultural imperialism as we already have.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by buoywonder@Feb 5 2003, 12:02 PM
I dunno, probably the same amount or political and cultural imperialism as we already have.
Agreed. I'm far from being a defender of "white is right" but I'm not going to pretend that racism is limited to a select few. Power can corrupt. If Asians were in the same situation, we would be beating down hard on other colored folk (see the Filipino maids thread:P)

[BeTheReds]

Originally posted by ism@Feb 5 2003, 03:20 AM
The white man would be oppressed.


What are you talking about?

There wouldn't be any white man in North America to be oppressed.

The Chinese would have coloized and killed all native americans like they are doing in tibet to the native tibetans.

Everything would just be the way it is now, just with chinese as the main language, and chinese people on top of society.

[BaiginLong]

hmm seee the Chinese almost did back in the 1400s or so but then when we were about to sail around the cape of South Africa our Emperor got superstistious and crazy and recalled all of our trade ships
damn it so close...and yet so far away *sigh*
what could have been *dreams* :P

[BeTheReds]

I can't understand how people can possibly think that the world, or the country even, would be better off if Chinese people, not the british or french or spanish had colonized the NEW world.

Yea, it might be better for Asian people, but for people complaining about civil rights and injustice and all that other good stuff, this seems awfully hypocritical.

Basically you're saying that the world now is unfair cuz we are not on top, but if we were on the top, doing the same things that the top does to us, then it would be fair.

That's nothing but BS. And basically it amounts to nothing more than racism. The belief that your race is uncapable of doing wrong to other races (despite the fact that it has been clearly documented in history that this is not the case) is racist. If you wanna acuse me of complaining about reverse descrimination then you can, but somehow I cannot believe that Chinese masters of the Americas would be any more benevolent than Europeans were. If anything, America would have gotten its slaves from india or southern africa or australia rather than from west africa, or possibly from within china itself.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I don't think anyone here ever seriously insinuated that the world would be a better place if China was on top...... :confused: but perhaps I haven't read into everyone's words enuff

[ism]

Originally posted by BeTheReds@Feb 6 2003, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by ism@Feb 5 2003, 03:20 AM
The white man would be oppressed.


What are you talking about?

There wouldn't be any white man in North America to be oppressed.
Don't read into it so much. Nothing would be different, just that Asians would be the majority and white immigrants would be in the same situation we're in now. True, that's an oversimplification; I'm not sure if Chinese expanding from the West Coast would expand to the East Coast before European explorers got there first, but I'm assuming the question is more about "what if situations were reversed?"

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by BeTheReds@Feb 6 2003, 01:58 AM
I can't understand how people can possibly think that the world, or the country even, would be better off if Chinese people, not the british or french or spanish had colonized the NEW world.

Yea, it might be better for Asian people, but for people complaining about civil rights and injustice and all that other good stuff, this seems awfully hypocritical.

Basically you're saying that the world now is unfair cuz we are not on top, but if we were on the top, doing the same things that the top does to us, then it would be fair.

That's nothing but BS. And basically it amounts to nothing more than racism. The belief that your race is uncapable of doing wrong to other races (despite the fact that it has been clearly documented in history that this is not the case) is racist. If you wanna acuse me of complaining about reverse descrimination then you can, but somehow I cannot believe that Chinese masters of the Americas would be any more benevolent than Europeans were. If anything, America would have gotten its slaves from india or southern africa or australia rather than from west africa, or possibly from within china itself.
i'm not sure i see that anybody who's posted in this thread so far has implied that the world would have been a better place had the chinese did what the english (or europeans) did...

[contra_diction]

same play, different cast.

[blkazngirl]

Ummmm, very interesting. Let's see Black Americans would still be in Africa. And if my dad just happened to met my mother he would be an out-cast again. But I don't think he would have met her anyway. The world would most likely be the same.

[loserbutt]

blkazn girl, is that your pic?

[blkazngirl]

yes it is weishumme/why?

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by loserbutt@Feb 4 2003, 05:33 PM
what if instead of European domination and colonization of the world, china or japan or some other asian country had?
I'd probably be part Chinese instead of part Japanese.

[loserbutt]

well, you don't look black, you look like a full-blooded azn

[DragonKnight]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Feb 4 2003, 05:36 PM
i'd be banging lots of white chicks right now
Oh hellz yah... ^_^

[mr. x]

white man: "im sick and tired of seeing those chinese men stealing are european women in their movies, while we always play gangsters and sidekicks"

[syc]

QUOTE (SunWuKung @ Feb 4 2003, 05:36 PM)
i'd be banging lots of white chicks right now

Oh hellz yah... ^_^

yeah but if the Chinese discovered the world then the norms for beauty would be Asian not European. People would have plastic surgery to make them look yellow and Asian. And white boys would be asking "what if white people discovered the world?"

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by syc@Feb 9 2003, 02:50 AM
QUOTE (SunWuKung @ Feb 4 2003, 05:36 PM)
i'd be banging lots of white chicks right now

Oh hellz yah... ^_^

yeah but if the Chinese discovered the world then the norms for beauty would be Asian not European. People would have plastic surgery to make them look yellow and Asian. And white boys would be asking "what if white people discovered the world?"
yeah but white girls are exotic so i'd still bang them.

[blkazngirl]

Originally posted by loserbutt@Feb 9 2003, 06:51 AM
well, you don't look black, you look like a full-blooded azn
I pretend to be insulted, but I'm not. My mother is fair skinned to tan complexion (depending on the time of year). But she really doesn't have well defined Black features either, yet she is Black. I got my butt, tit's and hair from her. I have wavy hair which I dont like, so I striaghten it. The rest are those stronge Asian genes took priority. Sorry to disappoint you. :(

[BaiginLong]

if china had discovered the new world one of us who is of royal blood may be emperor/empress/prince/princess right now hehe

[Napoleon Chynamite]

If China ruled the world, there would be no such term as 'Poker face' and we would have Mahjong faces. And if I learned how to play mahjong, I would suck at it just like how I suck at poker. :lol:

[BaiginLong]

hmm well following the most possible route of change if China were to not have discontinued foreign trade and exploration in the 1400s (Ming dynasty) we would have taken over the world because we had superior technology in terms of ships and weaponry
now if to make a few real speculations about how the world might be (other than the obvious facts that we would all be different people and nothing would have the same names or that we would all be speaking Chinese, etc.) if this were the case I'd have to dig deep into my Chinese mentality

for one communism may not exist
Confucianism would dominate the thought and philosophy of the world
morals would be more closely upheld
Christianity and Islam would not be as popular
slavery would not have come into play as severely
technology would have grown at a faster pace and would also be more environment friendly
civil service exams may still be in place
democracy, if it had been implemented by now, would also have a layer of possible competency exams to qualify candidates before campaigns
western ideal will have taken much longer to seep in
my guess is that naturally the economic structure will be similar to the modern U.S.'s
law enforcement and military personel would have a much more intensive martial arts progrma and they would be more competent
jury system may not exist
no guarantee if the Ming dynasty will remain and whether or not imperial system would still exist
greater possibility of world peace
money system might still be backed by precious metals
credit system would be drastically different
may take much longer for a phonetic language to become a world standard and thus computers may not have a keyboard interface as we know it but instead have pen/voice/virtual holographic manipulation interfaces
it would also be quite possible that the would would have a larger population
racism would be less of an apparent issue but would nonetheless exist and could possibly be a harder problem to solve (note: old Chinese/Asian people from the mainland hold a lot of prejudice to foreigners)
Mongols would probably not have gotten anywhere in their world conquest attempt
teachers could still exercise martial discipline on students
parents would have a legal right to physically discipline their children and maybe even kill them (as my mother once said to me: "If I could birth you then I can kill you.")
modern popular music would not have nearly as much African influence
feng shui would be a much more popular practice
people would be a lot more superstitious
medicine would be a lot more herb/chi/acupunture based
coffee and it's subproducts would be a lot less popular
there would be no "taboo" when it comes to meat cause the Chinese eat almost everything (including insects *shudders* :gross: )
Mahjong not poker or dominos

ok I've run out of idea but heh here's my list :D

[SunWuKong]

i don't have the time to comment on everything you wrote, many of which i disagree with

but this:

Confucianism would dominate the thought and philosophy of the would

... is contradictory. because it was confucian scholars that exerted the heavy influence they had in the Ming court at the time for china to withdraw exploration and destroy its ships.

[BaiginLong]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Feb 9 2003, 02:41 PM
i don't have the time to comment on everything you wrote, many of which i disagree with

but this:



... is contradictory. because it was confucian scholars that exerted the heavy influence they had in the Ming court at the time for china to withdraw exploration and destroy its ships.
yeah sadly but still I'm saying if China did not withdraw its ships Confucianism would still be the main source of thought in Chinese philosophy and thus this influence would spread

[Danny]

There are so many factors as to what would have happened that it would really be difficult to state. #1 China militarily during the 1600- early 1900's was incredibly weak... so you can assume that they would have lost out to Mexico from Texas to the West Coast. The Spanish would have kicked the crap out of them in the SE. China may have been the 'power' nation in the 1400-1600's, but that was before industrialization and modernization. China did not modernize until the early 1900's. Partly becuase the Dynasties thought that modernization would pull away from their confucious ways and the dynasty's would have lost power, which they did not want.

Assuming that China did assume a power role in the US as we think of it now. I think that power would really have only been in the NW, Canada, Washington and all the way down to SF most likely. You would be looking at a country that would be fragmented between five or six groups, Chinese in the NE, Mexico in the SW, Spain in the SE, England in Canada and the East Coast predominantly and the middle of the nation being cut up between England and China.

There was a script in development for Sliders (TV show in the mid 90's) where the assumption that China had taken over the United States, it was not shot as the show went defunct and went over to the SciFi channel, but one of the assumptions in the script was that the Chinese had become communists as they did in the 50's and ruled everyone in that mindset.

It is nice to imagine scenarios like this, but one cannot really create the scenario without thinking about the historical context of a civilization at the time of founding the New World. China was in now way ready or even capable of doing such a daunting task. Hell, they were barely able to keep thier own country together, so colonization outside of China, 7-8 weeks boat travel away would have been really hard pressed to say the least.

[BaiginLong]

Originally posted by Danny@Feb 9 2003, 02:48 PM
There are so many factors as to what would have happened that it would really be difficult to state. #1 China militarily during the 1600- early 1900's was incredibly weak... so you can assume that they would have lost out to Mexico from Texas to the West Coast. The Spanish would have kicked the crap out of them in the SE. China may have been the 'power' nation in the 1400-1600's, but that was before industrialization and modernization. China did not modernize until the early 1900's. Partly becuase the Dynasties thought that modernization would pull away from their confucious ways and the dynasty's would have lost power, which they did not want.

Assuming that China did assume a power role in the US as we think of it now. I think that power would really have only been in the NW, Canada, Washington and all the way down to SF most likely. You would be looking at a country that would be fragmented between five or six groups, Chinese in the NE, Mexico in the SW, Spain in the SE, England in Canada and the East Coast predominantly and the middle of the nation being cut up between England and China.

There was a script in development for Sliders (TV show in the mid 90's) where the assumption that China had taken over the United States, it was not shot as the show went defunct and went over to the SciFi channel, but one of the assumptions in the script was that the Chinese had become communists as they did in the 50's and ruled everyone in that mindset.

It is nice to imagine scenarios like this, but one cannot really create the scenario without thinking about the historical context of a civilization at the time of founding the New World. China was in now way ready or even capable of doing such a daunting task. Hell, they were barely able to keep thier own country together, so colonization outside of China, 7-8 weeks boat travel away would have been really hard pressed to say the least.
well in making my statements I tried to go for the the most likely possibity
they had the biggest chance of beginning their conquest in the 1400s now if they had begun then and continued their expansionism they would have maintained a stronger military and whatnot so whatever you said right there would not have been valid at all

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I don't think this question was really meant to be taken too seriously simply because of the historical context, but I think it was just meant to be thought in terms of in the present day society (perhaps in American society because it's easier for many of us on YW to identify with or understand), in which instead of white institutional privilege and oppression you would have Asian or Chinese institutional privilege and oppression.

[Danny]

Originally posted by BaiginLong@Feb 9 2003, 03:31 PM
technology would have grown at a faster pace and would also be more environment friendly
at the time China may have been more technologically advanced, but the chinese were against modernization becuase of the thought that it would take away from their confucian thought and the dynasty system did not want to modernize because of the loss of power that they initially thought that it would bring with it. The chinese modernized becuase they were in a situation where if they did not modernize they feared that the foriegn powers were going to carve up their country back in the late 1800's.

There were three attempts at modernization, all happened during the 1800's. almost twocenturies behind Europe and the first two attempts failed becuase of the dynasty heads. China only modernized after the fall of the finally dynasty in 1914 (Chin dynasty?) I believe.

[BaiginLong]

Originally posted by FrozenPizza@Feb 9 2003, 02:52 PM
I don't think this question was really meant to be taken too seriously simply because of the historical context, but I think it was just meant to be thought in terms of in the present day society (perhaps in American society because it's easier for many of us on YW to identify with or understand), in which instead of white institutional privilege and oppression you would have Asian or Chinese institutional privilege and oppression.
this is the rant room
we're supposed to take things too seriously and get into heated debates

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Yea but..I believe the question is, what would the world be like if China found the new world and/or ruled the world or something like that.

It was not meant to be 'Could China have come to rule the world or find the new world?' Obviously, China did not, so it's kinda pointless...just ma two cents.

[BaiginLong]

Originally posted by Danny@Feb 9 2003, 02:52 PM
at the time China may have been more technologically advanced, but the chinese were against modernization becuase of the thought that it would take away from their confucian thought and the dynasty system did not want to modernize because of the loss of power that they initially thought that it would bring with it. The chinese modernized becuase they were in a situation where if they did not modernize they feared that the foriegn powers were going to carve up their country back in the late 1800's.

There were three attempts at modernization, all happened during the 1800's. almost twocenturies behind Europe and the first two attempts failed becuase of the dynasty heads. China only modernized after the fall of the finally dynasty in 1914 (Chin dynasty?) I believe.
going back to the branch of thought I proposed by merely changing one or two factors in that crucial junction in history everything would have changed drastically

now with the technology thing here's my reasoning and I may be wrong but here goes
China starts taking over the world
China needs to be able to defeat all the barbarians of the west quickly effectively and with minimal loss thus China starts to develop technologically
in order to maintain superiority over newly aquired empire China needs to maintain high levels of technological development
etc. etc.

[BaiginLong]

Originally posted by FrozenPizza@Feb 9 2003, 02:56 PM
Yea but..I believe the question is, what would the world be like if China found the new world and/or ruled the world or something like that.

It was not meant to be 'Could China have come to rule the world or find the new world?' Obviously, China did not, so it's kinda pointless...just ma two cents.
well see the point I brought up was at one time they could have taken over the world and yet they threw away that chance for some mysterious reason
and thus here come the debate
would Chinese domination really influence the world as I put it or am I wrong and is the rest of YW to correct me eh?

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Well, if you wanna talk about making minor changes in history to change the present, the farther back you go, the bigger the ripple no matter how small the change. Going back 1,000 years in time and stepping on an ant in the middle of a forest could lead to a totally altered present.

[BaiginLong]

Originally posted by FrozenPizza@Feb 9 2003, 02:59 PM
Well, if you wanna talk about making minor changes in history to change the present, the farther back you go, the bigger the ripple no matter how small the change. Going back 1,000 years in time and stepping on an ant in the middle of a forest could lead to a totally altered present.
bingo my dear
and when we make ripples in water there are some crazy scientists who wouldn't mind mathematically predicting their patterns

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Originally posted by BaiginLong@Feb 9 2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by FrozenPizza@Feb 9 2003, 02:56 PM
Yea but..I believe the question is, what would the world be like if China found the new world and/or ruled the world or something like that.

It was not meant to be 'Could China have come to rule the world or find the new world?'  Obviously, China did not, so it's kinda pointless...just ma two cents.
well see the point I brought up was at one time they could have taken over the world and yet they threw away that chance for some mysterious reason
and thus here come the debate
would Chinese domination really influence the world as I put it or am I wrong and is the rest of YW to correct me eh?
Obviously we can only speculate and I'm not gonna say 'oh you're wrong, many of those things would never come to be'. But the fact is that what makes up Chinese cultural, beliefs, and values is the total result of history and if you change history (i.e. if China indeed rose to power above European powers), it can be argued that the values and beliefs and culture will also change, therefore affecting what would be reinforced or supported in present day China or the Chinese 'empire', for lack of better term.

[Danny]

Originally posted by BaiginLong@Feb 9 2003, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Danny@Feb 9 2003, 02:52 PM
at the time China may have been more technologically advanced, but the chinese were against modernization becuase of the thought that it would take away from their confucian thought and the dynasty system did not want to modernize because of the loss of power that they initially thought that it would bring with it. The chinese modernized becuase they were in a situation where if they did not modernize they feared that the foriegn powers were going to carve up their country back in the late 1800's.

There were three attempts at modernization, all happened during the 1800's. almost twocenturies behind Europe and the first two attempts failed becuase of the dynasty heads. China only modernized after the fall of the finally dynasty in 1914 (Chin dynasty?) I believe.
going back to the branch of thought I proposed by merely changing one or two factors in that crucial junction in history everything would have changed drastically

now with the technology thing here's my reasoning and I may be wrong but here goes
China starts taking over the world
China needs to be able to defeat all the barbarians of the west quickly effectively and with minimal loss thus China starts to develop technologically
in order to maintain superiority over newly aquired empire China needs to maintain high levels of technological development
etc. etc.
But your assumption is a bing leap. Because also... even if they had done the technological advances that would have been needed, you also have to assume that they would have the needed man power to over see their Eastern" empire.

Geographically China is not a place where it would have been able to sustain themselves. They are part of the "great land mass" they would have had constant fighting on their borders as their borders were vast. Spain and England on the other hand, on a peninsula and one on an island, had the geographic protection not to have to worry about war on such a vast front line.

The only reason the Mexicans lost was becuase the force in America at the time had decades to built up forces and they started along the eastern shore. Reinforcing troops over such a large distance would have been incredibly difficult.

There is a reason that colonization and the eventual unification of the United States succeeded, it is becuase it started on the Eastern seaboard and over a timely period of time the trek westward was succesful.

You would have to assume that Mexico would not have been in the situation that it would have been in your scenario. And since this is the scenario, you would also have to assume that San Diego, Los Angeles, El paso, Dallas, and cities of this ilk would not have been formed. Plus you would have to assume that the Chinese Opium problem would not have been an issue.

I think the scenario that you are proposing, even if it were viable would still involve so many factors that the answer could not be assest.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Originally posted by BaiginLong@Feb 9 2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by FrozenPizza@Feb 9 2003, 02:56 PM
Yea but..I believe the question is, what would the world be like if China found the new world and/or ruled the world or something like that.

It was not meant to be 'Could China have come to rule the world or find the new world?'  Obviously, China did not, so it's kinda pointless...just ma two cents.
well see the point I brought up was at one time they could have taken over the world and yet they threw away that chance for some mysterious reason
and thus here come the debate
would Chinese domination really influence the world as I put it or am I wrong and is the rest of YW to correct me eh?
I guess on further note, in terms of 'throwing away the chance', it's so much easier to see the window of golden opportunity in hindsight, unfortunately......

Just like our life stories which at this point in time remain incomplete, history and all the perspectives encompassed is just the world's life story not yet complete.

[BaiginLong]

Originally posted by FrozenPizza@Feb 9 2003, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by BaiginLong@Feb 9 2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by FrozenPizza@Feb 9 2003, 02:56 PM
Yea but..I believe the question is, what would the world be like if China found the new world and/or ruled the world or something like that.

It was not meant to be 'Could China have come to rule the world or find the new world?' Obviously, China did not, so it's kinda pointless...just ma two cents.
well see the point I brought up was at one time they could have taken over the world and yet they threw away that chance for some mysterious reason
and thus here come the debate
would Chinese domination really influence the world as I put it or am I wrong and is the rest of YW to correct me eh?
Obviously we can only speculate and I'm not gonna say 'oh you're wrong, many of those things would never come to be'. But the fact is that what makes up Chinese cultural, beliefs, and values is the total result of history and if you change history (i.e. if China indeed rose to power above European powers), it can be argued that the values and beliefs and culture will also change, therefore affecting what would be reinforced or supported in present day China or the Chinese 'empire', for lack of better term.
thus is the point of this discussion
at which point may it be the most probably for Chinese domination to have happened and how shall we continue from there
what would be the after affects of a Chinese takeover and at what point will western culture seep in
and how will the world evolve with a Chinese root instead of a European one
can we construct such a world in our minds culturally, technologically, governmentally, military, economically, etc.?

[BaiginLong]

Originally posted by Danny@Feb 9 2003, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by BaiginLong@Feb 9 2003, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Danny@Feb 9 2003, 02:52 PM
at the time China may have been more technologically advanced, but the chinese were against modernization becuase of the thought that it would take away from their confucian thought and the dynasty system did not want to modernize because of the loss of power that they initially thought that it would bring with it. The chinese modernized becuase they were in a situation where if they did not modernize they feared that the foriegn powers were going to carve up their country back in the late 1800's.

There were three attempts at modernization, all happened during the 1800's. almost twocenturies behind Europe and the first two attempts failed becuase of the dynasty heads. China only modernized after the fall of the finally dynasty in 1914 (Chin dynasty?) I believe.
going back to the branch of thought I proposed by merely changing one or two factors in that crucial junction in history everything would have changed drastically

now with the technology thing here's my reasoning and I may be wrong but here goes
China starts taking over the world
China needs to be able to defeat all the barbarians of the west quickly effectively and with minimal loss thus China starts to develop technologically
in order to maintain superiority over newly aquired empire China needs to maintain high levels of technological development
etc. etc.
But your assumption is a bing leap. Because also... even if they had done the technological advances that would have been needed, you also have to assume that they would have the needed man power to over see their Eastern" empire.

Geographically China is not a place where it would have been able to sustain themselves. They are part of the "great land mass" they would have had constant fighting on their borders as their borders were vast. Spain and England on the other hand, on a peninsula and one on an island, had the geographic protection not to have to worry about war on such a vast front line.

The only reason the Mexicans lost was becuase the force in America at the time had decades to built up forces and they started along the eastern shore. Reinforcing troops over such a large distance would have been incredibly difficult.

There is a reason that colonization and the eventual unification of the United States succeeded, it is becuase it started on the Eastern seaboard and over a timely period of time the trek westward was succesful.

You would have to assume that Mexico would not have been in the situation that it would have been in your scenario. And since this is the scenario, you would also have to assume that San Diego, Los Angeles, El paso, Dallas, and cities of this ilk would not have been formed. Plus you would have to assume that the Chinese Opium problem would not have been an issue.

I think the scenario that you are proposing, even if it were viable would still involve so many factors that the answer could not be assest.
thus we would have to start recruiting some of the outsiders as Rome did in their conquests
and with that outside culture will also begin to flow inwards
now with the mexico thing
if China had begun conquest in 1400s then they would begin the build up of troops and thus they would have a huge amount if they had decided to deal with Mexico in the 1600's but however my guess is that they would have gone for it sooner because of the prospects of finding gold and other rumored resources there
plus spain would not have had the chance to take over Mexico and thus it would still probably be undeveloped because China would have made it around to Spain before Columbus bumbled his way to North America

[Danny]

My knowledge of the Roman Empire is not much, but I would assume the same problems would have befallen Rome as is why they did not take all of the world over. Their empire was so vast that the constant attack on multiple front of line would have been their downfall. Though I am not sure if Rome itself was ever captured as geographically it is in an area that is not very accessible. This is a problem that China does not have, which would mean conquest of China would have been easier than in Rome terms. Again, it is nice and all to think these scenarios, but I do not think that it would have ever been able to happen with the the location that China was in.

Also, the Ming dynasty was not that large at the time. They had their own problems with southern china's nobility that was not part of their Dynastic realm.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

There has been, for lack of better term once again, evidence or supporting materials suggesting that Chinese explorers (before the emperor shut them down, obviously) made it to American soil before Columbus, based upon a drawing of the night sky by a Chinese explorer/artist/whatever that mirrors modern astronomy charts in portions that could only be seen from the U.S. continent. I can get more details from my prof if anyone is interested cause I didn't really pay attention that day in class...just thought that was interesting. Just to be clear that there really isn't really strong support or following for this theory despite the so-called proof that is presented.

[BaiginLong]

Originally posted by Danny@Feb 9 2003, 03:30 PM
Also, the Ming dynasty was not that large at the time. They had their own problems with southern china's nobility that was not part of their Dynastic realm.
that is a definite problem
I guess to put it bluntly the only real problems that China would have had in taking over the world during my suggested time would be the ones close to home
however my guess is that they might have first started a bit of conquest outside first before harnessing the newly aquired resources and coming back to deal with the domestics

keeping it I think they wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem as Rome would have because China was pretty much a solid nation at the time and the other territories that they would aquire could not exactly attack the heartland and would pose much less of a threat plus with the technical edge that we had at the time things would not get very dicey

now before some tries to bring up the American revolution as an example of how China might have problems maintaing an overseas empire
during the American revolution there was a significant technical, environmental, and supply line advantage that the Americans had
first on the technical side: the Americans had a much improved gun that was very accurate in comaprison with british guns which completely changed the strategies that were in play at the time that was a major problem for the British this can't be argued with the Chinese conquest situation because we have the tech and manpower at the specified point in quasihistory
now for the environment and supply line advantage: the Americans were much more familiar with their environment than the british and had no oceans to travel across to keep their troops supplied plus they also were able to interrupt the Birtish supply influx from time to time with strategy, cunning, and luck. This is the side that does have some weight in argument, but the Chinese situation is slightly different
again back to the technology argument our ships were far superior at the time so they could win any sea battles that were necessary to maintain the ocean supply routes
on ground however the environmental familiarity the defenders had would pose a problem but our troop number and tech could help ease that

also going back to the Romans and Vandals
yes yes I know exactly how that happened ugly but then in that case the Vandals had some idea of how the Romans worked because they were being led by someone who was a former high ranking officer in the legions

[airborneranger]

Just wondering if chinese civilization had a desire to colonize the world why there was no obliteration of japanese, korean, mongol, indian, thai, viet, turk, malay civilizations when it was possible to do so

Instead the chinese emperors built big long wall, instead of going over to other territories like the westerners
such as greek, roman etc Maybe Chinese had everything so they didn't think of checking other people's lands unlike now where there are so many chinese talked craps about their countries so they can be exiled to US, getting married to foreigners to move out and so on

Just read another book about zheng ho in 1421 by gavin menzies this latest book should be good for the chinese who thought to be chinese is not as great as being white or black etc

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by airborneranger@Feb 9 2003, 07:54 PM
Instead the chinese emperors built big long wall, instead of going over to other territories like the westerners
such as greek, roman etc
one reason that china was xenophobic whereas european powers were expansionistic was because china had plenty of land for its people in the past, while european powers had been in disunity more so than the chinese, and consistently fought each other for territorial gains. this also contributed to the technological advances of european powers, because warfare drives technology. china is sort of like the roman empire if it never broke up. if china had been in as much disunity as the european continent, i think there would have been more exploration.

a second reason for china's xenophobia is because historically, chinese civilisation had been more advanced than those immediately neighboring it (or at least the chinese thought so), and so it felt that it had no need for foreign civilisations.

a third reason is because confucian ideals looked down upon new discoveries while exalting old traditions, but this could be directly related to the second reason. this is the reason that i personally find it humourous that people with a passing interest in chinese history and civilisation might think that confucianism is so great. the truth of the matter is that confucianism was the force that held back the chinese people mentally and ideologically, not to mention the fact that confucianism is inherently sexist and classist.

[BeTheReds]

Originally posted by airborneranger@Feb 10 2003, 12:54 AM
Just wondering if chinese civilization had a desire to colonize the world why there was no obliteration of japanese, korean, mongol, indian, thai, viet, turk, malay civilizations when it was possible to do so

when was it ever possible to do so?

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by BeTheReds@Feb 10 2003, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by airborneranger@Feb 10 2003, 12:54 AM
Just wondering if chinese civilization had a desire to colonize the world why there was no obliteration of japanese, korean, mongol, indian, thai, viet, turk, malay civilizations when it was possible to do so

when was it ever possible to do so?
well i don't know about some of the civilisations he mentioned there, but china did go through periods where they attacked neighboring civilisations and had the chance to colonise and control them. off the top of my head, i know that this historically happened in northern vietnam, northern korean peninsula, and in the last dynasty, mongolia. but overall, the philosophy wasn't in colonising. no, they were more egomaniacal than that. the thinking was that chinese civilisation was so great that other civilisations would adopt chinese culture and language by simple association (and sometimes submission to a suzerain-vassal relationship) with it.

[thaite]

The Thais fought many battles with their northern neighbors including the Chinese.

[BeTheReds]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Feb 10 2003, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by BeTheReds@Feb 10 2003, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by airborneranger@Feb 10 2003, 12:54 AM
Just wondering if chinese civilization had a desire to colonize the world why there was no obliteration of japanese, korean, mongol, indian, thai, viet, turk, malay civilizations when it was possible to do so

when was it ever possible to do so?
well i don't know about some of the civilisations he mentioned there, but china did go through periods where they attacked neighboring civilisations and had the chance to colonise and control them. off the top of my head, i know that this historically happened in northern vietnam, northern korean peninsula, and in the last dynasty, mongolia. but overall, the philosophy wasn't in colonising. no, they were more egomaniacal than that. the thinking was that chinese civilisation was so great that other civilisations would adopt chinese culture and language by simple association (and sometimes submission to a suzerain-vassal relationship) with it.
Well I am not going to deny that chinese lead the Eastern World, but speaking for Korea, there were several times when the Chinese attempted to take over and they never ever suceeded in controlling the whole peninsula.

Thanks to Ulchi Mondok who repelled them with the help of weather and forts, Korea was never annexed and never became just another chinese province. On several other attempts this never happened.

It wasn't until the mongols conquered Korea that Beijing controlled it. Because they ran Beijing too.

While certainly China had tons of influence on Korea, I don't think an all out attack with an attempt to colonize or annex it would ever have succeeded.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by BeTheReds@Feb 10 2003, 03:00 AM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Feb 10 2003, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by BeTheReds@Feb 10 2003, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by airborneranger@Feb 10 2003, 12:54 AM
Just wondering if chinese civilization had a desire to colonize the world why there was no obliteration of japanese, korean, mongol, indian, thai, viet, turk, malay civilizations when it was possible to do so

when was it ever possible to do so?
well i don't know about some of the civilisations he mentioned there, but china did go through periods where they attacked neighboring civilisations and had the chance to colonise and control them. off the top of my head, i know that this historically happened in northern vietnam, northern korean peninsula, and in the last dynasty, mongolia. but overall, the philosophy wasn't in colonising. no, they were more egomaniacal than that. the thinking was that chinese civilisation was so great that other civilisations would adopt chinese culture and language by simple association (and sometimes submission to a suzerain-vassal relationship) with it.
Well I am not going to deny that chinese lead the Eastern World, but speaking for Korea, there were several times when the Chinese attempted to take over and they never ever suceeded in controlling the whole peninsula.

Thanks to Ulchi Mondok who repelled them with the help of weather and forts, Korea was never annexed and never became just another chinese province. On several other attempts this never happened.

It wasn't until the mongols conquered Korea that Beijing controlled it. Because they ran Beijing too.

While certainly China had tons of influence on Korea, I don't think an all out attack with an attempt to colonize or annex it would ever have succeeded.
yes, in fact an attempted invasion on the rest of the korean peninsula (northern korean peninsula was under tang chinese control at the time) was a major contribution to the collapse of the tang dynasty - one of the most, if not the most glorious dynasty in chinese history. so great that in fact, chinese americans call themselves tang ren - the tang people.

i don't know if china could have annexed the entire korean peninsula, but it was under that threat that korean nations submitted to the suzerain-vassal relationship that china and korea had - which in practicality was more of a trade relationship of "gifts" and "tributes", and cultural exchanges.

but anyway, i think the point was whether or not china had the ambition of colonising neighboring civilisations, and i think that for the most part, chinese empires in the past just expected neighboring countries to adopt chinese culture on their own and become sinofied.

[BeTheReds]

How about blonde hair with black highlights being the fashion trend in Europe?

[airborneranger]

It is true what you said
Just saying there was an existence of super power ability of colonizing the whole east asia but not enough aggressiveness to create something like opium war and so on
If China was as aggressive as the USA, Spain, Mongol and Britain the possibility was there This is not about who is superior in the far east
Only Japanese of ww 2 thought they are the best of the yellow peril brotherhood
Korean and Japanese use chopsticks and some chinese writings, have martial arts, vietnamese ancient buildings have chinese writings, many chinese people had lived in south east asia many generations
Maybe that is why most east asians have Chinese eyes
It is almost too easy when you have the biggest population Just move as many people as possible to other areas like what the europeans did No wonder there was western propaganda that China is moving han chinese into tibet recently to over populate the place because the west had done it themselves before
Xenophobia can always be combined with expansionism eg. No Asian immigration policy while at the same time westerners controlling asia, a sign no dogs no chinese inside chinese territory-an obvious xenophobia So xenophobia exists within every race and not necessarilly a wrong thing- for survival
So if you see an asian who is only interested in white dating it is ok for you to get a little upset- for survival
White and black people are doing the same thing- for their survival he he he

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by airborneranger@Feb 11 2003, 08:20 PM
No wonder there was western propaganda that China is moving han chinese into tibet recently to over populate the place
but this is not mere propaganda. the chinese government indeed has been moving han chinese into tibet. there are more han chinese than tibetans in tibet now. this movement serves 2 purposes: 1) dilute support for tibet independence in tibet, 2) modernise tibet.

[airborneranger]

However moving people to a less dense area within your own territory shouldn't create a major concern from outsiders should it even if it is true? According to some article dalai lama was a han chinese so this really become confusing
Tibet used to be under British rule or not ?
Western journalist is clearly biased most of the time eg. HK handover caused a reduction in tourism from Japan

[BeTheReds]

Originally posted by airborneranger@Feb 12 2003, 02:26 AM
However moving people to a less dense area within your own territory shouldn't create a major concern from outsiders should it even if it is true? According to some article dalai lama was a han chinese so this really become confusing
Tibet used to be under British rule or not ?
Western journalist is clearly biased most of the time eg. HK handover caused a reduction in tourism from Japan
Okay, if that is your argument then I don't want to hear any more displeasure from any non-American about Native Americans and their misfortunes. Moving around people within American borders is an American thing that outsiders should have no right to criticize. Advocating that white Americans settle the prarieland in a direct attempt to oust the Natives in the name of modernization, civilization or whatever you want to call it, should not raise problems for anyone.

Now I personally think that what happened to the Native Americans is a bad and horrible thing. But I can't stand all these stupid Brad Pitt fans or eager concert goers calling for Tibet's freedom, condemning China for its injustice to Tibetan culture and people when they live on another person's ancestral hunting grounds. "Oh, yea, but that's different!" Is always the answer.

I conversely can't stand all these Japanese people who ask me how can I live with myself knowing I live in a country that was stolen from it's rightful owners, and that those owners' culture is fading fast. Then I remind them of something called WW2 and the Korean Peninsula and Manchuria. Then I remind them of a people called the Ainu. Of course the answer again is "Well yea, but that was different!"

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by airborneranger@Feb 11 2003, 09:26 PM
Western journalist is clearly biased most of the time
no argument here.

the reduction in japanese tourists in HK is probably because of the asian financial crisis (which also happened in 97), and the fact that japan has been in a decade-long recession.

[airborneranger]

From memory before the 9 11 attack, Bush was on his way to clash with China and about to help taiwan to become independent and possibly also to take care north korea Clearly the focus had been shifted from pacific to the middle east
So all those people who have relatives in Taiwan,Korea and China should thank the moslem for the diversion
Many people do not realize that at the moment Russia and Iraq have a contract for oil mining This could be the main reason why Saddam (ex friend of the west) must be replaced by a more friendly leader ie.regime change
Another ex friend is Bin Laden he should get a job teaching people how to hide from U2 spy plane and satellite Even Bush and friends are not sure where he is supposed to be he he he

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by airborneranger@Feb 11 2003, 10:34 PM
Many people do not realize that at the moment Russia and Iraq have a contract for oil mining This could be the main reason why Saddam (ex friend of the west) must be replaced by a more friendly leader ie.regime change
yup and russia is not the only country.
i think bush knows exactly what he really needs to do to win european support for an invasion - give the european union a piece of the pie when the smoke clears.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by airborneranger@Feb 11 2003, 10:34 PM
From memory before the 9 11 attack, Bush was on his way to clash with China and about to help taiwan to become independent
yeah the strategy was to maneuver taiwan into independence before china has enough economic leverage to really protest. right now, china needs the US more so than the US needs china.

[loserbutt]

[QUOTE (airborneranger @ Feb 11 2003, 10:34 PM)
From memory before the 9 11 attack, Bush was on his way to clash with China and about to help taiwan to become independent

yeah the strategy was to maneuver taiwan into independence before china has enough economic leverage to really protest. right now, china needs the US more so than the US needs china. ]

as a Taiwanese, I think that's a pretty decent idea. with independence Taiwan's self-rule is guarnteed, instead of this stupid "flux" that it is in right now

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by loserbutt@Feb 5 2003, 01:33 AM
what if instead of European domination and colonization of the world, china or japan or some other asian country had?
my god. it'd be 10 times worse.

I'm Chinese, but I gotta say we Chinese people are THE most ethnocentric ppl in the world. First, we even refer to ourselves as THE CENTER OF THE WORLD (zhong guo-- typically translated as middle kingdom or middle country). Second, in common speech, even in America, we call all non-Chinese 'foreigners." I'm not shitting you. In Chinese, if I talk about "Americans" yes here in America, I say "foreigners." and I picked that up fr my parents. :)

[kangal]

I'm Chinese, but I gotta say we Chinese people are THE most ethnocentric ppl in the world. First, we even refer to ourselves as THE CENTER OF THE WORLD

hahah ...well said....i cant imagine a board named "whiteworld.org" ......for some reason i think that something like slavery may have lasted a bit longer than it did in our current world....i don't know why....

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Originally posted by ChinaLama@Feb 16 2003, 10:17 PM
my god. it'd be 10 times worse.

I'm Chinese, but I gotta say we Chinese people are THE most ethnocentric ppl in the world. First, we even refer to ourselves as THE CENTER OF THE WORLD (zhong guo-- typically translated as middle kingdom or middle country). Second, in common speech, even in America, we call all non-Chinese 'foreigners." I'm not shitting you. In Chinese, if I talk about "Americans" yes here in America, I say "foreigners." and I picked that up fr my parents. :)
Ur making us look bad....please stop. :unsure: :( :nerd:

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by FrozenPizza@Feb 17 2003, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by ChinaLama@Feb 16 2003, 10:17 PM
my god. it'd be 10 times worse.

I'm Chinese, but I gotta say we Chinese people are THE most ethnocentric ppl in the world. First, we even refer to ourselves as THE CENTER OF THE WORLD (zhong guo-- typically translated as middle kingdom or middle country). Second, in common speech, even in America, we call all non-Chinese 'foreigners." I'm not shitting you. In Chinese, if I talk about "Americans" yes here in America, I say "foreigners." and I picked that up fr my parents. :)
Ur making us look bad....please stop. :unsure: :( :nerd:
Hey, a man's gotta tell the truth. whether or not it's pretty.

and as someone born in communist china, it's my duty to eradicate the 4 olds (i dunno what they are tho).

another thing is, I think Chinese military power even back in its glory days is overrated. northern china was conquered over and over again by the non-Han. The Han dynasty succeeded only very briefly in eliminating the Xongnu threat but at the cost of its economy.

And no offense, if the Chinese military couldn't even conquer a small country like Korea, in one of its strongest military periods (The Tang dynasty was one of the few where the Chinese could effectively counter nomadic warlike tribes, partly b/c the Tang imperial line is partly Turkic), then what makes anyone think the Ming, one of the most ineffectual and corrupt dynasties in Chinese history, could take over anything? it's a surprise they even held onto what they had for so long.

i'm actually more a Qing fan than a Ming fan. Even tho the Qing are "foreigners," their dynasty also saw expansion and great national unity, up to its last hundred years of existence or so. Plus, they conquered Tibet and Taiwan-- and I think having Tibet as a buffer has been of pretty big benefit to China, considering how in the 70s or so China had terrible relations w/ India.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I dunno...perhaps then my upbringing was different from yours. I was never exposed to this ethocentricism unless I was talking to old-ass people in my family tree. We never had this superiority complex or anything of the sort. I guess when you say 'we Chinese people' you mean 'we Chinese people who were born in China'...

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by FrozenPizza@Feb 17 2003, 08:07 AM
I dunno...perhaps then my upbringing was different from yours. I was never exposed to this ethocentricism unless I was talking to old-ass people in my family tree. We never had this superiority complex or anything of the sort. I guess when you say 'we Chinese people' you mean 'we Chinese people who were born in China'...
could be true. :) I'm just basing my argument on language, though. it's nothing serious.

[kangal]

I guess when you say 'we Chinese people' you mean 'we Chinese people who were born in China'...


i'm not sure thats necessarily true since i've listened many a times to parents bantering at functions about how americans were stupid and lazy and how they should be hard working as chinese were.....

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Seems to be a traditional way of Asian thinking then. Sometimes I just get annoyed when people (although perhaps not purposely) try to speak for all Chinese people, even tho I realize Lama was just being kinda sorta half-hearted when he said that we are THE most ethnocentric people in the world. I really don't see other Asian countries as any different in this respect...to put things into perspective.

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by FrozenPizza@Feb 17 2003, 08:22 AM
Seems to be a traditional way of Asian thinking then. Sometimes I just get annoyed when people (although perhaps not purposely) try to speak for all Chinese people, even tho I realize Lama was just being kinda sorta half-hearted when he said that we are THE most ethnocentric people in the world. I really don't see other Asian countries as any different in this respect...to put things into perspective.
when you're a lama, pizza, then you can speak for everyone, too. ;)

[kangal]

yes, i agree that we are defintely not the most ethnocentric...that would have to be the damn swiss....those chocolate making wussies...

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Originally posted by kangal@Feb 17 2003, 12:56 AM
yes, i agree that we are defintely not the most ethnocentric...that would have to be the damn swiss....those chocolate making wussies...
Yea but without them my stomach would never know true happiness.

[BeTheReds]

I think the whole ethnocentric language thing is common for all asian people. After all, when only one nation and one nationality offically speaks a certain language, it tends to take on ethnocentric words. English on the other hand is spoken by many people in many countries, so pc thinking and inoffensive words are an issue simply because there is a diversity of people who speak our language.

Gaijin in Japanese means anyone who is not Japanese, in whatever the speaker's interpretation of "not Japanese" is. Most of the time the interpretation means white people.

Similarly, Koreans residing in Japan will refer to white people as waegukkin (foreigners) when they themselves are foreigners.

I think it is a pan asian, or at least pan yellow way of thinking.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by ChinaLama@Feb 17 2003, 03:01 AM
another thing is, I think Chinese military power even back in its glory days is overrated. northern china was conquered over and over again by the non-Han. The Han dynasty succeeded only very briefly in eliminating the Xongnu threat but at the cost of its economy.

And no offense, if the Chinese military couldn't even conquer a small country like Korea, in one of its strongest military periods (The Tang dynasty was one of the few where the Chinese could effectively counter nomadic warlike tribes, partly b/c the Tang imperial line is partly Turkic), then what makes anyone think the Ming, one of the most ineffectual and corrupt dynasties in Chinese history, could take over anything? it's a surprise they even held onto what they had for so long.

i'm actually more a Qing fan than a Ming fan. Even tho the Qing are "foreigners," their dynasty also saw expansion and great national unity, up to its last hundred years of existence or so. Plus, they conquered Tibet and Taiwan-- and I think having Tibet as a buffer has been of pretty big benefit to China, considering how in the 70s or so China had terrible relations w/ India.
eh. the tang dynasty was on its last leg and was plagued by internal strive during those days. there were rebellions, there was constant struggle to assert power between the emporer's faction and the eunuchs' faction, the military was shrinking, and the taxation system was breaking down. and korea wasn't just one country back then. it was really three countries. to add to that, tang china had to fight the jurchens to the north - who eventually conquered northern china. overall, it was just a bad idea to have been waging military campaigns at the time.

[kangal]

i do think the ethnocentricity aspect may apply to Asia more...recall how hardcore the asians were in not letting outside influences into their countries during the age of exploration....if the theory that china did discover the new world is true...i think their ethnocentricity affected the concept of conquering, as they were happy to have what they had and keep it "in the family" so to speak...the white world was more than happy to go exploring and meeting and conquering new people....i think our ethonocentricity may have just made us go...to hell with the other races...we got ours here....hell..we did have gunpowder first....we should have wooped up

[yoMAMA]

We used gunpowders for firecrackers, while the west imporved on better guns.

[Fireblade]

That's not entirely true. We also used gunpowder for cannons.

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by Fireblade@Feb 17 2003, 09:09 PM
That's not entirely true. We also used gunpowder for cannons.
didn't seem to stop the Mongols. For long anyway. :(

[yoMAMA]

Actually it was the Mongols who introduced gun powders and cannons to Europe, via the Islamic world they conquered.

So basically the biggest and baddest yellow peril in history proves our undoing ;)

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Damn Mongols.

[kangal]

yeah..damn khans....although genghis khan did rule in bill and ted's excellent adventures....wowsers

[Faithless]

<!--QuoteBegin-loserbutt+Feb 4 2003, 05:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (loserbutt @ Feb 4 2003, 05:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> what if instead of European domination and colonization of the world, china or japan or some other asian country had? [/b][/quote]
The question is: why didn't they? They had their chance.

[snuffles]

<!--QuoteBegin-ChottoMatte+Jul 26 2003, 11:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ChottoMatte @ Jul 26 2003, 11:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The question is: why didn't they? They had their chance. [/b][/quote]
if you're intrested in a "grand sweep" answer to that question, try
Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond...

good book...

[SunWuKong]

<!--QuoteBegin-ChottoMatte+Jul 27 2003, 03:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ChottoMatte @ Jul 27 2003, 03:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The question is: why didn't they? They had their chance. [/b][/quote]
China didn't feel that it had to conquer the world. they felt that they were the center of the world and they had everything they needed, and that all others were inferior. they didn't want to associate with those "inferior" cultures too much. they felt that others around them would be so impressed by Chinese culture that they'd sinofy themselves. and some cultures did just that.

[mr. x]

you have to realize, watch something like Hero and yes while Chinese "style" was nice you have to remember that emperors were ruthless and stuff

so could a system like "democracy" be conceptualized under such a rule? not that im saying only whites can, its just theres all these mitigating factors that gave us the easy lives we live today

[Uncle Tat]

<!--QuoteBegin-SunWuKung+Jul 28 2003, 11:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SunWuKung @ Jul 28 2003, 11:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> China didn't feel that it had to conquer the world. they felt that they were the center of the world and they had everything they needed, and that all others were inferior. they didn't want to associate with those "inferior" cultures too much. they felt that others around them would be so impressed by Chinese culture that they'd sinofy themselves. and some cultures did just that. [/b][/quote]
The Chinese also didn't want to "TAINT" their own perfect culture with barbaric cultures.

Ironic how 100 years later, China and the rest of Asia have become white cocksuckers.

The Duke of Zhou would be rolling in his grave.

[Chinese Tourist]

<!--QuoteBegin-BeTheReds+Feb 6 2003, 12:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BeTheReds @ Feb 6 2003, 12:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-ism+Feb 5 2003, 03:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ism @ Feb 5 2003, 03:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The white man would be oppressed.

[/b][/quote]
What are you talking about?

There wouldn't be any white man in North America to be oppressed.

The Chinese would have coloized and killed all native americans like they are doing in tibet to the native tibetans.

Everything would just be the way it is now, just with chinese as the main language, and chinese people on top of society. [/b][/quote]
I don't know if they are really annihilating the Tibetans. Links plz.

Anyhow Tibetans are related to Han Chinese, so we are not really that different.&nbsp; Also there is a long history of coexistence with other groups.&nbsp; China itself, even territory under control for centuries, has minorities living within it. And assimilating into China isn't necessarily a bad thing.&nbsp; Communism maybe, not China.&nbsp;

Why should the rest of the world be Americanized?

Anyhow maybe you don't mind so much since you brought up America killing natives.

Free Tibet is PC out of control. They should be ignored. The only thing to worry about is whether or not Communists are being 4ssholes, and they probably are.

[krome]

The Chinese also didn't want to "TAINT" their own perfect culture with barbaric cultures.
Yeah, didn't they close the borders after the Tang Dynasty when they were very open to foreigners?&nbsp; And there were huge influxes of foreigners coming in, you had hundreds of thousands in their communities in China, in fact.&nbsp; You can still see many ancient statues and figurines of all the long-nosed traders who came in on the Silk Road.&nbsp;

[SunWuKong]

<!--QuoteBegin-Chinese Tourist+Aug 1 2003, 05:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chinese Tourist @ Aug 1 2003, 05:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-BeTheReds+Feb 6 2003, 12:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BeTheReds @ Feb 6 2003, 12:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-ism+Feb 5 2003, 03:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ism @ Feb 5 2003, 03:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The white man would be oppressed.

[/b][/quote]
What are you talking about?

There wouldn't be any white man in North America to be oppressed.

The Chinese would have coloized and killed all native americans like they are doing in tibet to the native tibetans.

Everything would just be the way it is now, just with chinese as the main language, and chinese people on top of society. [/b][/quote]
I don't know if they are really annihilating the Tibetans. Links plz.

Anyhow Tibetans are related to Han Chinese, so we are not really that different. Also there is a long history of coexistence with other groups. China itself, even territory under control for centuries, has minorities living within it. And assimilating into China isn't necessarily a bad thing. Communism maybe, not China.

Why should the rest of the world be Americanized?

Anyhow maybe you don't mind so much since you brought up America killing natives.

Free Tibet is PC out of control. They should be ignored. The only thing to worry about is whether or not Communists are being 4ssholes, and they probably are. [/b][/quote]
well, Tibetans are being bred out of existence, so to speak.&nbsp; the CCP has been moving thousands (millions?) of Han Chinese into Tibet, and now Tibetans are actually a minority in Tibet.

i don't think the CCP's purpose is to outnumber them.&nbsp; i think the CCP is moving people there to modernise Tibet.&nbsp; but outnumbering ethnic Tibetans is just one side-effect of the modernisation.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

<!--QuoteBegin-SunWuKung+Aug 1 2003, 02:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SunWuKung @ Aug 1 2003, 02:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> well, Tibetans are being bred out of existence, so to speak. the CCP has been moving thousands (millions?) of Han Chinese into Tibet, and now Tibetans are actually a minority in Tibet.

i don't think the CCP's purpose is to outnumber them. i think the CCP is moving people there to modernise Tibet. but outnumbering ethnic Tibetans is just one side-effect of the modernisation. [/b][/quote]
On the other hand, they're a majority in Dharamsala, to the extent that the Indians there have all started learning Tibetan so they can sell stuff to them.

[RasFarengi]

Tibet will never be free.&nbsp; Tibet is a huge area, and historical Tibet is a lot bigger than Sizang province today...but Tibetans make up less of China's population than Native Americans do in the US, and if historical Tibet was restored, it would take something like 1/4 of Chinese terroritory in a country that is already very densely populated.

Shit, this doesn't take a genius...Han Chinese are not going to give back that huge area of land so Tibetans can administer a country with 1 person per 500 miles when China is so jammed packed right next door.

Even if China would give it back, Han Chinese would keep moving their due to population pressures, eventually they will be the majority, because the Tibetans wouldn't have the man power to police the border.

[krome]

Actually, China is largely rural and really only has high pop densities in the big cities. It's more spread-out than people think. Definitely not jam-packed with burbs like here.

[RasFarengi]

Krome:

That is true, but China doesn't have much fertile land, the East is the best, that is why most CHinese due to historic migrations.&nbsp; I read that the Han Chinese that are being planted in Tibet are farmers...I thought Tibet was high and arrid, but guess I was wrong.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

<!--QuoteBegin-RasFarengi+ Aug 1 2003, 03:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @&nbsp; Aug 1 2003, 03:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That is true, but China doesn't have much fertile land, the East is the best, that is why most CHinese due to historic migrations.&nbsp; I read that the Han Chinese that are being planted in Tibet are farmers...I thought Tibet was high and arrid, but guess I was wrong.[/b][/quote]
Well, if they're moving lots of Han farmers there, they should probably be studying the local agricultural methods ... considering the commies caused a famine last time when they tried to switch the place over to wheat-based agriculture.

And a lot of mainlanders seem to have the strange idea that living in Tibet is like a "sacrifice" ... they think the high altitude will shorten their lifespans or something. (Though it's probably better for them since the industrial pollution is far less of a problem there than in the rest of China.)

Also, why don't the Chinese just move their population to Vladivostok, as was mentioned on that thread about the Russian Far East? It's a lot less politically troublesome ... there's no international lobby of movie actors and other assorted trouble-makers who are gonna start a movement to "preserve Russian culture" and impose sanctions on China for invading it through immigration.

[yoMAMA]

<!--QuoteBegin-AliBabaIncorporated+Aug 1 2003, 02:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AliBabaIncorporated @ Aug 1 2003, 02:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, if they're moving lots of Han farmers there, they should probably be studying the local agricultural methods ... considering the commies caused a famine last time when they tried to switch the place over to wheat-based agriculture.

And a lot of mainlanders seem to have the strange idea that living in Tibet is like a "sacrifice" ... they think the high altitude will shorten their lifespans or something. (Though it's probably better for them since the industrial pollution is far less of a problem there than in the rest of China.)

Also, why don't the Chinese just move their population to Vladivostok, as was mentioned on that thread about the Russian Far East? It's a lot less politically troublesome ... there's no international lobby of movie actors and other assorted trouble-makers who are gonna start a movement to "preserve Russian culture" and impose sanctions on China for invading it through immigration. [/b][/quote]
LOL, we are just doing that, getting our land back the Chinese way.

The Russians just gotta face it, we the Chinese are unstoppable!

[Cipherous]

<!--QuoteBegin-RasFarengi+Aug 1 2003, 02:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Aug 1 2003, 02:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Tibet will never be free. Tibet is a huge area, and historical Tibet is a lot bigger than Sizang province today...but Tibetans make up less of China's population than Native Americans do in the US, and if historical Tibet was restored, it would take something like 1/4 of Chinese terroritory in a country that is already very densely populated.

Shit, this doesn't take a genius...Han Chinese are not going to give back that huge area of land so Tibetans can administer a country with 1 person per 500 miles when China is so jammed packed right next door.

Even if China would give it back, Han Chinese would keep moving their due to population pressures, eventually they will be the majority, because the Tibetans wouldn't have the man power to police the border. [/b][/quote]
yeah, soon all of SE Asia will be China part II as well.&nbsp;

[yoMAMA]

<!--QuoteBegin-Cipherous+Aug 1 2003, 04:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cipherous @ Aug 1 2003, 04:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-RasFarengi+Aug 1 2003, 02:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Aug 1 2003, 02:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Tibet will never be free. Tibet is a huge area, and historical Tibet is a lot bigger than Sizang province today...but Tibetans make up less of China's population than Native Americans do in the US, and if historical Tibet was restored, it would take something like 1/4 of Chinese terroritory in a country that is already very densely populated.

Shit, this doesn't take a genius...Han Chinese are not going to give back that huge area of land so Tibetans can administer a country with 1 person per 500 miles when China is so jammed packed right next door.

Even if China would give it back, Han Chinese would keep moving their due to population pressures, eventually they will be the majority, because the Tibetans wouldn't have the man power to police the border. [/b][/quote]
yeah, soon all of SE Asia will be China part II as well. [/b][/quote]
I don't see why not, since Singapore (SE Asia's richest and most developed country) is most ethnic Chinese anyways.

Most of SE ASia's corporations/banks/retailers are controlled by Hua Qiao as well.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

<!--QuoteBegin-Cipherous+Aug 1 2003, 05:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cipherous @ Aug 1 2003, 05:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> yeah, soon all of SE Asia will be China part II as well. [/b][/quote]
Gee, just what we wanted, a bunch of surplus unskilled mainland laborers spitting on our streets. You do realize it's pretty crowded down here already, right? And that we're independent fucking countries, not commie colonies? And that if the PLA takes one step over the border to try to force us to accept mainland immigration, Japan is gonna remilitarize faster than you can say East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere? Not to mention India (which means the slowly-but-surely-forming India-Israel-USA axis) will probably start poking its nose around.

I guess American imperialism is the only kind people around here will oppose. Mainland authoritarian imperialism, A-OK! It's alright cuz we're all Azn Brothahs and Sistahs!

[Cipherous]

<!--QuoteBegin-yoMAMA+Aug 1 2003, 05:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (yoMAMA @ Aug 1 2003, 05:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cipherous+Aug 1 2003, 04:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cipherous @ Aug 1 2003, 04:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-RasFarengi+Aug 1 2003, 02:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Aug 1 2003, 02:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Tibet will never be free. Tibet is a huge area, and historical Tibet is a lot bigger than Sizang province today...but Tibetans make up less of China's population than Native Americans do in the US, and if historical Tibet was restored, it would take something like 1/4 of Chinese terroritory in a country that is already very densely populated.

Shit, this doesn't take a genius...Han Chinese are not going to give back that huge area of land so Tibetans can administer a country with 1 person per 500 miles when China is so jammed packed right next door.

Even if China would give it back, Han Chinese would keep moving their due to population pressures, eventually they will be the majority, because the Tibetans wouldn't have the man power to police the border. [/b][/quote]
yeah, soon all of SE Asia will be China part II as well. [/b][/quote]
I don't see why not, since Singapore (SE Asia's richest and most developed country) is most ethnic Chinese anyways.

Most of SE ASia's corporations/banks/retailers are controlled by Hua Qiao as well. [/b][/quote]
wasn't singapore a british colony just like Hong kong.&nbsp;

So you can attribute singapore and hong kong's success to the settlement of the British and not really the Chinese.

[SunWuKong]

<!--QuoteBegin-Cipherous+Aug 2 2003, 03:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cipherous @ Aug 2 2003, 03:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-yoMAMA+Aug 1 2003, 05:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (yoMAMA @ Aug 1 2003, 05:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cipherous+Aug 1 2003, 04:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cipherous @ Aug 1 2003, 04:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-RasFarengi+Aug 1 2003, 02:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RasFarengi @ Aug 1 2003, 02:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Tibet will never be free. Tibet is a huge area, and historical Tibet is a lot bigger than Sizang province today...but Tibetans make up less of China's population than Native Americans do in the US, and if historical Tibet was restored, it would take something like 1/4 of Chinese terroritory in a country that is already very densely populated.

Shit, this doesn't take a genius...Han Chinese are not going to give back that huge area of land so Tibetans can administer a country with 1 person per 500 miles when China is so jammed packed right next door.

Even if China would give it back, Han Chinese would keep moving their due to population pressures, eventually they will be the majority, because the Tibetans wouldn't have the man power to police the border. [/b][/quote]
yeah, soon all of SE Asia will be China part II as well. [/b][/quote]
I don't see why not, since Singapore (SE Asia's richest and most developed country) is most ethnic Chinese anyways.

Most of SE ASia's corporations/banks/retailers are controlled by Hua Qiao as well. [/b][/quote]
wasn't singapore a british colony just like Hong kong.

So you can attribute singapore and hong kong's success to the settlement of the British and not really the Chinese. [/b][/quote]

that's speculation.&nbsp; and so is this:

both colonies were of mostly Chinese people. and taking Taiwan's success as an example, which has a population of Chinese people, but without British rule, one can attribute Singapore's and HK's success to Chinese people.

[yoMAMA]

While then&nbsp; you can also say that the success in Taiwan in mainly due to it being a Japanese colony.


However, there's also a twist:

Since Japanese culture is heavily influenced by Chinese cultures, the credit can also go back to the Chinese civilization!

[AliBabaIncorporated]

<!--QuoteBegin-yoMAMA+Aug 2 2003, 08:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (yoMAMA @ Aug 2 2003, 08:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Since Japanese culture is heavily influenced by Chinese cultures, the credit can also go back to the Chinese civilization! [/b][/quote]
And since China was influenced by Buddhist thought, the credit should really go to India.

But wait, India was invaded by Aryans from the middle east. So the credit should really go to white people.

Of course, how'd those Aryans get there? They came from Africa. This is really an example of the White Man trying to surpress the African role in history.

But wait. People in Africa are the descendents of Chimpanzees.

Chimpanzees only had the chance to evolve cuz the dinosaurs died out due to a meteor strike.

Et cetera ad nauseum.

Seriously cut the "China uber alles" crap, it's getting really fucking annoying.

[krome]

Altho actually I would say homegrown Taoist thought had a far bigger impact on cultural treasures like TCM and internal MA than Buddhism.

[SunWuKong]

<!--QuoteBegin-AliBabaIncorporated+Aug 2 2003, 03:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AliBabaIncorporated @ Aug 2 2003, 03:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Seriously cut the "China uber alles" crap, it's getting really fucking annoying. [/b][/quote]
agreed. yoMAMA, tone it down.

[Chinese Tourist]

<!--QuoteBegin-AliBabaIncorporated+Aug 1 2003, 04:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AliBabaIncorporated @ Aug 1 2003, 04:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ...
...
Also, why don't the Chinese just move their population to Vladivostok, as was mentioned on that thread about the Russian Far East? It's a lot less politically troublesome ... there's no international lobby of movie actors and other assorted trouble-makers who are gonna start a movement to "preserve Russian culture" and impose sanctions on China for invading it through immigration. [/b][/quote]
I don't think the Chinese care nor should anyone else about what some actors think. especially when I have not come across useful arguments by their faction, although I haven't exactly looked

Russia would in fact be more problematic than Tibet, although I think China should take Vladivostok back anyways

Who cares what some ignorant actor thinks? Even Americans don't care what these actors think

[AliBabaIncorporated]

<!--QuoteBegin-Chinese Tourist+Aug 2 2003, 02:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chinese Tourist @ Aug 2 2003, 02:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't think the Chinese care nor should anyone else about what some actors think. especially when I have not come across useful arguments by their faction, although I haven't exactly looked [/b][/quote]
Free Tibet has a lot of support, also among the US government. Dalai Lama has books at every bookstore. There's a general feeling in the US that China's occupation of Tibet is wrong. "Free Vladivostok?" Can't imagine anyway giving a damn, not the least because the Russians have a few million square miles more of uninhabited country. Whereas the Tibetans have nothing except Dharamsala.

[Chinese Tourist]

hmm..

Chinese military power is NOT overrated

the tribes kicked everyone's ass, remember that

also you can't be sure Tang's line is "part Turkic", you can only be sure that it was part Turkic in culture, and that some blood mixing occurred.

You can't say that the military was non Chinese because even the nomad dynasties incorporated Chinese military into their armies

you can't say such and such wasn't Chinese because for a while many Chinese were forced to adopt barbarian names, especially in the military

Tang did conquer Korea in Tang, with the exception of Silla, which was Tang ally. Silla wanted the entire peninsula for itself, the occupation was expensive and with little return, and the Tang Taizong and his descendants wanted the west badly, whereas the east, korea, was already stabilized. So Tang withdrew its armies.

Also you have to remember it was the Chinese Tang armies who defeated the Turks, and the Turks "who became slaves" to the "Chinese khaghan" for 50 years.

in 100 years from the founding of Tang its population went from ~20 million to 55 million, its army peak size was about 750,000 k troops, it expanded in every direction.

[Chinese Tourist]

Ming was not weak and ineffective in the beginning; it overthrew the Mongols and then launched successful offensive campaigns into Mongolia

Han is not a short time, Han is 400 + years where the Hsiung Nu were completely destroyed and subjugated, even chased out of the far west where they had fled

Tang's main struggle was with Tibet, for the uninitiated Tibet was quiet a fearsome power in those days, probably the only time in its history that can be said, it had recently arisen and acquired a written language and army.

Tibetan armored cavalry was said to be very distinctive, and the quality of Tibetan armor was remarked upon by both Tang and Arab. It was Tang support of and Tibetan intervention in the far west along with indigenous resistance that halted Arab expansion there for 50 years.

At the point in time before its massive rebellion, which caused a population drop from 55 million to 17 million, the looting of the capitals by Tibetans and Uighurs, and the independence of every one of its generals, Tang stretched from Afghanistan to Korea, Mongolia to Vietnam. The Chinese were winning the war against Tibet, pushing into Bactria and Kashmir and northeastern Tibet, and had broken up a Tibetan-Arab alliance and several Arab attacks.

You may know of the battle of Talas. Know also that the Chinese had 70k troops there while Arabs had 200k. Nevertheless, despite being outnumbered 3 to 1, the Chinese forced a stalemate for 5 days until betrayed and attacked from the inside by the Karluk Turks.

You must not also overlook that Tang regularly sent out expeditions to the west, and that the An Lushan rebellion which would destroy Tang was a mere four years in the future after battle of Talas, thus cutting short any new expedition for all eternity. The general at the battle, Kao Tsien Tz, was a Korean, and he had incurred the wrath of the Karluks by vanquishing Tashkent and beheading its ruler, even tho it had paid lip service to the emperor. The prince escaped and petitioned for help from the Arabs and the Karluks. It is unfortunate that Kao incorporated the latter into his army.

The Chinese army also included Ferghanians. Ferghana is where the heavenly horses come from; these horses were the backbone of the Tang military as they were enormous and fast and suited for heavy cavalry. In later centuries they would become the ancestors of European knight warhorses.

Before An Lushan rebellion Tang maintained an imperial stables of about 600k horses, many which came from Ferghana. When An Lushan rebelled, he brought 150k troops with him, the entire armies of the northeastern border. Remember Tang's entire military numbered about 750k at this point. The people of the capital region thought it was a joke. Indignant, Tang Ming Huang ordered his generals out, with meager troops, to scold An Lushan, for he too thought it was a farce. His generals @ the capital knew otherwise, one famous Turkic general of the Tibetan campaigns even wept openly when he realized the situation.

The passes leading to the capital were unguarded on the emperor's orders, and instead the capital garrison went forth to meet An Lushan's army, and was destroyed, the imperial generals captured. Tang Ming Huang recalled the best and the bulk of the troops of the Western regions, the Silk Road garrisons, the expeditionary armies. Civil war went on for 8 years while China lost 2/3rd of its population to death and refugees, the frontier was raided by Uighurs and Tibetans, and the twin capitals (which were near the western border) captured and pillaged one by Uighurs and the other by Tibetans.

Tibetans carried off the imperial stables of 600k horses, because the Tang general at the capital was convinced by some sort of official corruption to leave the city with his troops. When the rebellion finally was over not a single general paid attention to the throne, but paid lip service only. Tibetans swarmed over the Western regions and cut off China from the Silk Road. China's population had plummeted to 17 million and the imperial government had not a single army at its disposal. Thus continued the abysmal existence of Tang after An Lushan's rebellion.

Some things to note:
1 million Tang citizens were stranded in modern day Xinjiang under Tibetan occupation. An Lushan rebellion started in 755, ended 763, but at which time the Chinese armies in the west had been recalled and destroyed in civil war. But some Tang garrisons still held out in the Western regions until 790. Understand that, after the best of their troops had been recalled, after they were cut off from the central government, they held out for 35 more years, another generation, meanwhile facing invasion by Tibetans and by Uighurs.

Remember that Ferghana is beyond the borders of modern China today, even further west than Tian Shan. Know that the Tibetans were a formidable enemy, with heavily armored infantry, cavalry, and auxiliary nomad troops. Know that right before An Lushan rebellion China was winning against Tibet, in the Tibetans home territory, high in the mountains, and had defeated the Turks and the nomads of which you seem to hold in such esteem. (not that I am hating on them, but that you seem to say they are better than Chinese) Chinese and allied troops had defeated Arabs before, and even when outnumbered 3:1 still held their own.

I do not think you should take lightly Chinese power, when they faced 200k troops and did well, whereas the Franks faced about 30k and the Greeks had 200k troops of their own at one battle versus something like 50k Arabs and lost.

Remember the Chinese come from a civilized society; that outside the wall only seas of grass and steppe and desert exist, thousands of miles of camps and few cities. The nomads live from youth out there. To campaign out on the frontier often meant many years away from home. Indeed, of early Tang, long before Tang Ming Huang, but during Li Shimin a.k.a Tang Taizong i.e. the founder of Tang and later, the troops conquering the west were both Turks owing allegiance to the "Chinese khaghan", aka the Son of Heaven, and militia, Chinese everyman troops called up for service and rotated out to the frontier. It was later that permanent frontier armies were installed, and the compulsory militia abandoned, and consequently the central government had no capable interior army but had extremely large frontier armies that lived years away from China, and thus learned to become independent.

I do admire and respect the achievements of my ancestors.

[Chinese Tourist]

what I wrote was unorganized. Too bad :P

but there is a lot to say.

Anyhow I have to give credit to Corea's resistance during Sui and Tang times.

Sui's defeat however is attrituble to a clever Corean general along with incompetence of Sui emperor. The Sui emperor brought several million soldiers, almost outnumbering Corean population I think. This may seem like an advantage to some, but if you think about it it is not. Namely, the army starves. Ironically had the emperor brought fewer troops he might have won. Anyhow the Corean general, whose name escapes me, lured the Chinese into a riverbed, which had been dammed earlier by the Coreans. The Coreans broke the dam and, like at the Red Sea, the river came roaring through and flushed the Chinese away.

Tang did conquer with the exception of Silla, and Silla forced a diplomatic ejection, however Corea did slow Tang conquest for a long time because of the impenetrability of one of its fortresses.

there is really too much to say about Chinese history, I don't feel coherent enough to say it. If you are really prejudiced I think it will take some work. But definitely you should read of the accomplishments of the Chinese military, and its leaders, you should of people, of names, of what they did and what they said and what they tried to accomplish.

On a side, remember that Han, like Tang, used combined arms, infantry archery cavalry, both knights and light raiders and cavalry archers like the nomads. These would be the components gradually be adopted by the Byzantines. Know that old Rome's great weakness was vs cavalry, which Tang was particularly adept at, and which Han adopted far earlier than Rome, owing to some unruly northern neighbors.

[Iconoclastic]

If Chinese had discovered the New World, we probably wouldn't even have this thread in the first place. Alternate history concepts like this are unconcludable. But I am planning to write a novel based on the idea of what if social roles in America were reversed; and I think the ending will be as ambivalent as the concept itself.

[SunWuKong]

<!--QuoteBegin-AliBabaIncorporated+Aug 2 2003, 05:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AliBabaIncorporated @ Aug 2 2003, 05:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Free Tibet has a lot of support, also among the US government. Dalai Lama has books at every bookstore. There's a general feeling in the US that China's occupation of Tibet is wrong. "Free Vladivostok?" Can't imagine anyway giving a damn, not the least because the Russians have a few million square miles more of uninhabited country. Whereas the Tibetans have nothing except Dharamsala. [/b][/quote]
what really annoys me is that Taiwan (or the DPP government) is very quick to embrace anything that China has beef with - Tibet independence, Falun Gong, missle shield, etc. i mean it makes sense to me that they do this, but i just think it's really annoying.

[SunWuKong]

<!--QuoteBegin-Chinese Tourist+Aug 2 2003, 05:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chinese Tourist @ Aug 2 2003, 05:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Tang did conquer Korea in Tang, with the exception of Silla, which was Tang ally.&nbsp; Silla wanted the entire peninsula for itself, the occupation was expensive and with little return, and the Tang Taizong and his descendants wanted the west badly, whereas the east, korea, was already stabilized.&nbsp; So Tang withdrew its armies. [/b][/quote]
actually, i don't think Tang dynasty China occupied any parts of what is Korea today. it was Han dynasty China that occupied the northern parts of the Korean Peninsula. China had never occupied all of the Korean Peninsula. and it was partly due to Tang China's continuous effort to invade the Korean nations that weakened Tang China to the point of its downfall.

[mr. x]

<!--QuoteBegin-LL_Cool_D+Aug 4 2003, 04:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (LL_Cool_D @ Aug 4 2003, 04:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think that if an Asian country had discovered the new world I'd have a hell of alot of easier time screwing non-Asian women :P I don't think there would be as much, or if at all any, whiners who complain how the White men are fucking Asian women like there is no tommorow :P . As it is Asian women are wet and willing partners to anything a white man has to offer :D . Perhaps in our hypothetical scenario we would have White boys complaining how they got passed up for geeky, socially inept, bald and toothless Asian men, even though they may be well educated and earning in excess of 90k a year. :dance: [/b][/quote]
dont forget though that white guys are descended from vikings and stuff so thats why they are aggressive and stuff

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Amazing how many different topics about all sorts of historical and social points, can all run downhill to the same tired whining.

[yoMAMA]

<!--QuoteBegin-AliBabaIncorporated+Aug 2 2003, 11:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AliBabaIncorporated @ Aug 2 2003, 11:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And since China was influenced by Buddhist thought, the credit should really go to India.

But wait, India was invaded by Aryans from the middle east. So the credit should really go to white people.

Of course, how'd those Aryans get there? They came from Africa. This is really an example of the White Man trying to surpress the African role in history.

But wait. People in Africa are the descendents of Chimpanzees.

Chimpanzees only had the chance to evolve cuz the dinosaurs died out due to a meteor strike.

Et cetera ad nauseum.

Seriously cut the "China uber alles" crap, it's getting really fucking annoying. [/b][/quote]
Yep, if you go that way back, we are all monkeys from Africa.

But that doesn't matter, does it?

6 billion years later, this planet will be engulfed by the collapsing sun, which will bake earth, and whatever its civilizations/inhabitants.

So who cares anyways?

:lol:

[SunWuKong]

<!--QuoteBegin-AliBabaIncorporated+Aug 5 2003, 05:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AliBabaIncorporated @ Aug 5 2003, 05:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Amazing how many different topics about all sorts of historical and social points, can all run downhill to the same tired whining. [/b][/quote]
well, i think he was just being funny.

at least i thought that's what he was trying to do...