| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Evolution of China 1500-1700
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Evolution of China 1500-1700

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 04:12
Yes, the 1937 was a typo. I was thinking of the start of WWII. Wushe was in 1930. I agree that Taiwan wasn't a "colony" under the Qing, but the Qing took the island, and were the legitimately recognized government of China when they agreed to surrender it to Japan. Japanese colonialism did more for the island in an economically develomental sense than the Qing had. But it was not China who returned Taiwan to its national territory, rather it was the Western powers. And they returned it to the Nationalist government, which may have lost the mainland, but still holds Taiwan. The current ultranationalists in mainland China proclaims Taiwan to be theirs. But it isn't yet. There is certainly room to argue that the world is big enough for more than a single Chinese state. Should a large majority of Taiwan's people opt for independence, the world should support it. After all, it presently has the population of Australia. But, that get's into modern politics, which is not the reason for this thread.

Drg: "Et tu Brute"? Ouch, that hurts. Cry  Pardon me if I ignored the Hainan parallel, but I consider Hainan to be a bit of occupied Dai Viet. LOL Of course, they probably stole it from the same people whose southern cousins later became the Cham.


Edited by lirelou - 18 Aug 2009 at 04:20
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
tradition View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2009
Location: china
Status: Offline
Points: 27
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tradition Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 04:18

to sarmat:"Settler Colonization"you first mention, before that ,i have said the enghish always did the same thing in ameirca,you Ignore it many times.

i just give you wiki in english,settler colonization is one way colonization used,just like Exploitation colonialism,british use settler colonization  in ameirca, and they use  Exploitation colonialism in india,

Drgonzaga :i have said the different with taiwan and hainan,before ming dynasty, it has over 170000 han people on the island,but taiwan havenot and han people on the island.according to chinese history book recorded

Israel could  make a nation because many Jews live in Palestine,if no jewsish lived in israel,how can say the land belong the israel?
 
you always said others evidendce for history is washee,even combridge modern history or english wiki and chinese history record,are you god?andthing is defination by you?if you donnot like ,it wrong?and you ignore it,my god,i cannot believe that
 
my theroy come from some history book,like taiwan 400 history ,etc,how can say chinese propoganda are right, other are wrong?you should provide evidence to support your opinion
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 04:24
Tradition, in re: "my theroy come from some history book,like taiwan 400 history"

OK, then it's only fair to ask if your "Taiwan 400" history was published in Taiwan, or in the Mainland.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
tradition View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2009
Location: china
Status: Offline
Points: 27
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tradition Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 04:48
Taiwan 400 years history was published in taiwan,bec mainland books about taiwan history all are propogandam,only one opionin,taiwan is chinese land since ancient time,it is bullsh*t
 
but i am not only limited the book,i read the taiwantongshi wroted by lianhen(taiwanblue camp opinion)or taiwanfuzhi and taiwanxianzhi,other record from ancient time,this is my view of taiwan history 
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 06:53
And here we get to the nitty gritty:
 
 
You will notice there the reference to 400 years of Taiwan History and a more concise appeal to Kyoshi Ito's Taiwan, 400 Years of History and Outlook.
 
With that, you will realize we are being dragged into a contemporary flame war given a historical veneer and appealing to all the ins-and-outs that would not only curry to the PC palaver of certain Western sensibilities but also melds much of the rhetoric of current Taiwanese politics. Not only that but such represents a typical activity common to the Internet, dissemination of particularist views as valid historiographical analysis. Whatever the virtues of the Democratic Progressive Party, such is not the subject nor the focus of this Forum.
 
By the way Lirelou, this bit about China being "given" Taiwan by the Western Powers is a bit of a stretch since the government of China was a formal member of the Grand Alliance that fought WWII.
 
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 22:40
Yes, Nationalist China was a formal member of the Alliance. And its forces were kept in the field through U.S. military assistance. However, it was only through the efforts of the U.S. that China was treated as a major power, and that the return of Taiwan to China was included as one of the war's aims. So it may be a 'stretch", but it is a reasonable one.

Tradition, Thank you for providing that reference. I have some difficulty in understanding your posts, but I commend your efforts to express yourself in English. I would never be able do do as well in Chinese. Knowing your reference helps to understand your posts.


Edited by lirelou - 18 Aug 2009 at 22:43
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Aug 2009 at 09:32
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

...It would be fair to say that a very large percentage of vessels in the Spanish carrying trade had "colonial" origins, including many naval craft as well--the guarda costa for example.
 
Absolutelly. In Chile there were also those royal shipyards. However, it seems the largest vessels of the Spanish fleet ever were build in Philipinnes for the Pacific crossing.
 
Back to Top
RollingWave View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 29 Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 33
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RollingWave Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Aug 2011 at 08:13
It should be noted that one of the biggest difference between China and the West in terms of development tend to be this... Many of China's historical developments were politically centered, if there was one thing that China was clearly ahead of the west for the longest time it was how their state functioned and managed.  It was a truely centralized state . The officials were chosen from the populace, local governors rotated on a consistent term basis, and from the Song period onward the Military generally became tamed (military coups were no longer a serious threat.)  These are all keys to a modern nation, and something that Europe lacked for the longest time.
 
The "formal" Chinese histories typically inspect dynasties based on these changes.  There were generally consistent trends, increasingly powers was divided . Emperor's task became ever more heavy and military became ever more seperated from politics etc..
 
In this respect, we can examain what the primary difference politically it was between the Ming and Qing.
 
The big changes in the Qing from the Ming could generally be sumerized as...
 
A.No more Eunich based establishments or similar secret police establishments that wrecked the Ming.
 
B.Heir designation became a secret from the time of YungZheng onward, no more open conflicts for succesor rights and arguements from the officials
 
C.Cabinate became even less formal.
 
The constant evolution of the Cabinate system of the Ming / Qing is a curious subject but not one that i'm really familiar with though it is a very big part of the political changes during this period. However that the Qing emperors before XianFeng were generally competent and/or at least commited workers generally helped. Where as at least half of the later Ming emperors felt like they hated the job.
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Aug 2011 at 11:01
Sorry, but that highly "Europeanized" analysis will not wash factually. Speaking of "cabinets" and styling the Qing as formulators of a modernized state is absurd. To confuse Confucianist hierarchy for politics and administrative efficiency is a tad of a simplification with respct to the Mandate of Heaven.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
RollingWave View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 29 Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 33
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RollingWave Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Aug 2011 at 07:17
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Sorry, but that highly "Europeanized" analysis will not wash factually. Speaking of "cabinets" and styling the Qing as formulators of a modernized state is absurd. To confuse Confucianist hierarchy for politics and administrative efficiency is a tad of a simplification with respct to the Mandate of Heaven.
Is it?
 
First off, the term used in the Ming / Qing era, "Nie Ge 內閣" is the same as what we use today to describe a cabinet in the Chinese world. that is why I translate it as a cabinet. your the one using Europeanized view on things to automatically assume that the Cabinet referrs to the British system. All it refers to is the inner circle of the emperor in the Ming / Qing system and it was the center of focus of political developments during this era.
 
Secondly, the Chinese states from the Song onward had many charactoristics of a modern states that similar era states elsewhere did not show. Things like the seperation of military and political leaders for example .  and a local government that actually really was fully controlled by the central onces is another, and to a lesser extend the seperation of different duties (though not in today's sense of judisary / executive / legislative, and the Ming/Qing era sort of reversed course a bit as the seperation between legislative and executive became less clear ). All of these are obvious no-brainers in today's states, but didn't exist in the world consistently until the late 19th century or sometimes even further.
 
The Confucian idealogy played some role in Chinese political system to be sure, but one would be foolish to assume that it dictated all their daily decisions regarding a massive and constantly changing empire.
 
Back to Top
RollingWave View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 29 Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 33
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RollingWave Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Aug 2011 at 07:33
In general context, the Chinese political developement system did not really develop an independent judisiary branch, however from the Sui era onward there were real attempts to push for a seperation of Legislative and Executive branch, hence the establishment of the 三省六部 (the 3 Branch and Six department system)
 
The 3 branches, Shan Shu / Zhong Shu / Men Xia were in effect  Executive / Congress / Senate  in their funciton. the Tang era emperor for example could not really purpose legislations, he could only agree to those purposed by Zhong Shu and approve in conjunction with the Men Xia, it was a obvious progress towards seperation of duties that is a principal of modern governments and generally progressed at a much faster rate in China.
 
Though the system was not truely consistent, Men Xia was generally seen as fairly meh and Shan Shu's power were very limited. eventually the development in the Song - Ming era was that they just removed the 3 upper branch and changed to a system where the Emperor and his inner circle makes legislations, and then the 6 departments went ahead and executed.
 
(The 6 departments were the department of officers, the department of households, the department of military, the department of rites, the department of law and the department of constructions.)
 
 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Aug 2011 at 11:38
Originally posted by RollingWave RollingWave wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Sorry, but that highly "Europeanized" analysis will not wash factually. Speaking of "cabinets" and styling the Qing as formulators of a modernized state is absurd. To confuse Confucianist hierarchy for politics and administrative efficiency is a tad of a simplification with respct to the Mandate of Heaven.
Is it?
 
First off, the term used in the Ming / Qing era, "Nie Ge 內閣" is the same as what we use today to describe a cabinet in the Chinese world. that is why I translate it as a cabinet. your the one using Europeanized view on things to automatically assume that the Cabinet referrs to the British system. All it refers to is the inner circle of the emperor in the Ming / Qing system and it was the center of focus of political developments during this era.
In which case your translation is misleading, since the language of reference here is English, not Chinese. From what you say a better translation might be 'cabal'. Since 1673 (when it was invenrted) 'cabal' has meant the inner circle of advisers to the monarch.
Quote  
Secondly, the Chinese states from the Song onward had many charactoristics of a modern states that similar era states elsewhere did not show. Things like the seperation of military and political leaders for example
The separation of legislative, judicial and military authority in exemplified in classical times by Sparta. It is also fairly common in primitive societies, mostly because of the evident differences in skills and training required for the different functions. It certainly isn't a characteristic of modern states particularly. In fact the chief distinguishing character of modern states has more to do with the size and complexity of the society being governed, which, agreed, China had to face earlier than other soicieties in modern times. (But cf the ancient empires and particularly the role of the Roman consuls in the city as opposed to outside it.)
Quote
.  and a local government that actually really was fully controlled by the central onces is another, and to a lesser extend the seperation of different duties (though not in today's sense of judisary / executive / legislative, and the Ming/Qing era sort of reversed course a bit as the seperation between legislative and executive became less clear ). All of these are obvious no-brainers in today's states, but didn't exist in the world consistently until the late 19th century or sometimes even further.
 
The Confucian idealogy played some role in Chinese political system to be sure, but one would be foolish to assume that it dictated all their daily decisions regarding a massive and constantly changing empire.
 
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Aug 2011 at 15:48
Rolling Wave wrote:
 
"First off, the term used in the Ming / Qing era, "Nie Ge 內閣" is the same as what we use today to describe a cabinet in the Chinese world. that is why I translate it as a cabinet. your the one using Europeanized view on things to automatically assume that the Cabinet referrs to the British system. All it refers to is the inner circle of the emperor in the Ming / Qing system and it was the center of focus of political developments during this era."
 
To be more exact the sense of the term is more aptly set forth as "those who govern" (syn. government) within an etymological perspective and it's contemporary usage is more in line with "respect for the traditional" than any juxtaposition on behalf of modernity. Gcle has gone into the the tenuous aspects of this nationalistic fixation within the genre of contemporary political agitprop emanating from Beijing. Besides, no one disputes the emergence of peculiar bureaucracies in order to handle the unique circumstances generated by numbers and distances. What is in question here is the application of the term Modern given the contemporary character of the Chinese state whose principal problem is the rationalization of the atavistic with respect to the haunting generated by Democracy!
 
My advice: Deal with China and things Chinese on its own terms and not in those of Western political philosophy. "Separation of powers", egad! 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Lao Tse View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jun 2012
Location: Louisville, KY
Status: Offline
Points: 678
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lao Tse Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2012 at 11:37
I belive that China always has, and always will be, the most advanced in many ways. Our culture has lived for more than 3000 years virtually unchanged and the language has atleast 7 dialeccts, with 8000 common characters, and 60000 total characters. I do not see that anywhere else in the world does anyone?
在財富的害處,而是一件好事永遠不持續。我在和平中仅居住在新的風下。 Wei Jia Hong No harm in wealth, but a good thing doesn't last forever. I live only among peace under
Back to Top
Lao Tse View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jun 2012
Location: Louisville, KY
Status: Offline
Points: 678
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lao Tse Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2012 at 11:41
PS: Qing Dynasty China was very peaceful under Kangxi's reign. Only foreigners ruined the system by ripping out our power in ports, forbidding our people to enter certain places, and invading our palace. Cixi Taihou was atleast smart enough not to like westerners.     Angry
在財富的害處,而是一件好事永遠不持續。我在和平中仅居住在新的風下。 Wei Jia Hong No harm in wealth, but a good thing doesn't last forever. I live only among peace under
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.