Print Page | Close Window

Evolution of China 1500-1700

Printed From: WorldHistoria Forum
Category: REGIONAL HISTORY
Forum Name: Modern EA
Forum Description:

URL: http://www.worldhistoria.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=124182
Printed Date: 18 Nov 2019 at 04:29
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Evolution of China 1500-1700
Posted By: calvo
Subject: Evolution of China 1500-1700
Date Posted: 06 Jul 2009 at 20:07
One period of Chinese history that I find intriguing is from the Ming to early Qing dynasty.

It was the time when European nations such as Spain, Portugal, and Holland were building colonies everywhere in the New World and in Asia.

China was by large, at the time still a formidable power in every sense: economical, military, cultural, and technological, yet its modernization rate was already considerably slower than that of Europe.
Whether China could be considered as technically "ahead" or "behind" Europe from 1500-1700 is a highly subjective issue.
While more tradition Euro-centric historians claim that the age of European world supremacy began in the 1500s, other historians have argued that China up until 1700 still had a more advanced economy and a more sophisticated administration, production, and economic system than most European nations; and that a Chinese peasant living during the reign of Kangxi was better fed and more resourceful than a peasant living in Spain, France, or the Netherlands.

I'd like to open a discussion into analysing the social, economic, political, scientific, and technological advancement from the Ming to the early Qing dynasty.

Was it an era of advancement, stagnation, or decline?



Replies:
Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 07 Jul 2009 at 00:39
in re:  "It was the time when European nations such as Spain, Portugal, and Holland were building colonies everywhere in the New World and in Asia."

And some Chinese, notably Zheng Cheng-gong in Taiwan, and Mac Cuu in Lower Cambodia (today Ha Tien Vietnam) were building colonies of their own.


-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2009 at 05:04
The comparative development of China and Western Europe during the centuries inmediately prior to the Industrial revolution is a very debateble subject.
 
Some historians, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Maddison - Angus Maddison , claim that Western Europe had already surpassed any other region of the world in GDP per capita by the late Middle Ages, while other historians such as Max Webber and Jonathan Spence claim that China and Europe had more or less the same GDP per capita up until the year 1750; nevertheless, China's productivity had been relatively high since the Middle Ages, while Europe's productivity had steadily increased since the 1400s; and after the Industrial Revolution, managed to shoot ahead of China and the Middle East.
 
The case is, western European nations established the trans-Atlantic trade; while China established a tributary system across a wide geographical range in East Asia and had a complex system of canals that assisted in the shipping and exchange of goods.
 
Did China's economy grow from the period of 1500-1700? did it stagnate? Or was it already in decline?
 
With what factors do these historians measure the level of "advancement"?
 
 


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2009 at 07:51
Here's a hint: Europe had no export of any interest to the Chinese state save one: silver! One can more or less safely posit that during the period concerned China's economy was entirely dynamic and self-sufficient and drained a significant percentage of Western specie recall that even in the first quarter of the 19th century, Europeans had to "mint" the Spanish peso in order to engage in the China trade--Chinese merchants were entirely uninterested in anything else offered.

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 00:28
Good point. The colonial expansion to Asia and also the Industrial Revolution were pushed in a large degree for that lack of goods to sale to China. Europe, in theirs need to achive the production levels of China resorted to authomatic machinery to produce textiles in large quantities for foreign trade. It also resorted to science to replicate goods such as silk and particularly porcelain.
Colonial expansion in Asia and Africa was pushed because the necesity of having captured markets that consumed goods of the metropolis. Even the sadly famous War of Opium with China started because the necesity of the Europeans to have a better way to trade with China. Opium was easier to obtain than Silver. 


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 06:29
In re: "Here's a hint: Europe had no export of any interest to the Chinese state save one: silver!"

True, but a more nuanced observer would have noted that Europe certainly was ahead of China in the development of armaments, particularly artillery, which the Chinese may have had before the Europeans, and military science. But apparently the Ching believed they were invulnerable. In the following centuries, that turned out to have been a fatal miscalculation. In the meanwhile, Europeans found a product that the Chinese did want, Opium, and launched one of history's first examples of Technological espionage, Robert Fortunes clandestine trip into China to purloin the secrets of the Chinese tea industry, to create what became the Indian tea industry, keeping some of that silver in British hands, Captain Lipton and Lord Twining's among them.


-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 09:40
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

...In the meanwhile, Europeans found a product that the Chinese did want, Opium, ...
 
Curious. That's the same argument Colombian drug lords use in theirs deffense. That they sale a product Europeans want, cocaine ConfusedConfused


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 02:09
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

...In the meanwhile, Europeans found a product that the Chinese did want, Opium, ...
 
Curious. That's the same argument Colombian drug lords use in theirs deffense. That they sale a product Europeans want, cocaine ConfusedConfused
 
Absolutely correct, Pinguin, and if we are addressing formal trade, the Chinese state wanted no part of the product offered. Not only was the opium proscribed but its consumption and distribution within the empire became a capital offense. However, please note, that under no circumstances should the material presented by Wiki on the Opium Trade be accepted as accurate--for goodness sakes it has the Spanish introducing opium to China! Obviously, the dolt who added such information probably desired to deflect attention from the purely British connection and did not know that it was the Chinese merchant who traveled to Manila and not the Spanish who went to China during the epoch of the Manila Galleon!


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Goban
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 03:03
I think that when Zheng He's vayages were recalled is when China as a global super power began to change. Just after the Yuan fell, wasn't there a call to erase all that was not considered "Chinese traditional" which included hegemonic definitions of what the Mongols had adopted culturally from the Chinese in the first place? And many of the technological innovations (like the 9 mast ships) were subsequently destroyed.. also, the resources were used for China's defense rather than to focus on new innovations.
 
China then began to become extreme isolationists--only allowing a few ports open to other polities for trade (export)..Before this though, China was way ahead technologically, at least in respect to maritime technology.  


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 10:58

I disagree...the Chinese military faced different circumstances and needs during the course of the Ming Dynasty, hence the idea that China was vulnerable prior to the 18th century is more speculative and certainly such an enterprise as its conquest as much a pipe dream then as it was when the subject was broached by the Jesuits to Philip II. As for a summary there is a handy reference that provides a good intro as well as dispells certain myths--such as the absence of gun technology.

Needham, Joseph, and Robin D. S. Yates. Science and Civilization in China, Volume 5: Chemistry and Chemical Technology VI: Military Technology. London: Cambridge University Press, 1994.



-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 15:07
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

...Absolutely correct, Pinguin, and if we are addressing formal trade, the Chinese state wanted no part of the product offered. Not only was the opium proscribed but its consumption and distribution within the empire became a capital offense. However, please note, that under no circumstances should the material presented by Wiki on the Opium Trade be accepted as accurate--for goodness sakes it has the Spanish introducing opium to China! Obviously, the dolt who added such information probably desired to deflect attention from the purely British connection and did not know that it was the Chinese merchant who traveled to Manila and not the Spanish who went to China during the epoch of the Manila Galleon!
 
Well, perhaps Spanish merchants may have smuggled some drugs into China... I won't believe it was much because Spain always depended on the Silverfrom Bolivia to pay for most Chinese goods they bought. I really don't know.
 
What do I know is that the British transformed systematically India into a large scale opium producer with the clear purpose in mind of get a large population of vicious people in China, so they ballanced the trade. And when the Chinese goverment refused, British simply crashed the navy.
 
So, the really first important drug cartel was Britain ConfusedConfused
 
That's as far as I know about this curious case....
 
 


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2009 at 10:19
With respect to "Spanish" trade in the Far East, we can not pull the tail of the lion with regard to opium during the years of imperial hegemony. First, because the trade enclave in China proper during the 16th century--as well as the years of the united Iberian monarchy (1580-1640)--was viewed as appertaining to the Portuguese kingdom. Second, the nature of the trade (transport and goods) was in the hands of Chinese merchants themselves, it was they who brought the goods to Manila itself so as to secure silver coinage and ingots. Opium as "merchandise" was unknown in the Philippines until the 19th century, when thanks to the British, it had become ubiquitous in the South China Sea. In fact, the China trade based in the Spanish colony itself caused concern by the last decade in Philip II's reign and led to stiff regulation both in the Philippines and at Acapulco so as to limit the exchange to a single annual vessel. How this factor led to the building of the largest merchant vessels afloat during the 17th and 18th centuries is also an interesting narrative.
 
By the way, Indian opiates also found their way to the United States, which by 1898 already had its own drug problem. So much so that the the first American Episcopal bishop of the Philippines, Charles Henry Brent, instituted a moral crusade in the US against opium between 1902-1918.


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2009 at 15:27
So, would it be political incorrect to say that Britain founded the international drug trade?
 
With respect to the large Manila Gallions, perhaps the largest of theirs time, it is even more curious is that they were build in the East, and not in Mexico or Europe.
 


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2009 at 00:33
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

in re:  "It was the time when European nations such as Spain, Portugal, and Holland were building colonies everywhere in the New World and in Asia."

And some Chinese, notably Zheng Cheng-gong in Taiwan, and Mac Cuu in Lower Cambodia (today Ha Tien Vietnam) were building colonies of their own.
 
Well, at least the Chinese built their colonies closer to their homeland than did the Europeans. And at least Zhen Cheng-gong did not build his colony just for profit but as a refuge from, and a base for his continuing battle against, the Qing.
(He just had to oust the Dutch, under their Swedish born governor Fredrik Coyet, first)


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2009 at 01:44
Carcharodon, REference your "at least ...not only for profit" above. Colonies have been established for various reasons, not always "only for profit". And they were not always established by states, but by private companies and private individuals. And not all colonial experiences were negative. Certainly the aboriginal peoples of Taiwan could argue that colonialism marginalized them, though they weren't really "swamped" by ethnic Chinese until the Nationalist Government fled there in 1949. Colonialism and Empire have many common characteristics, and at times it is amusing to hear proponents of empire, or of retaining the fruits of empire, argue against the "colonialism" or neo-colonialism of others".
 
drgonzaga has already replied to Pinguino's aside on Spanish opium being introduced into China. I would have added that it is irrevelent who introduced opium, which does have medicinal uses, into China. The historical record is clear as to who made opium a major export there, and who fought a military campaign to keep that market open. The British were not alone, and opium traders included French and Amercan merchants, in the latter case, some from "fine old New England" families. And, of course, the California gold strike of 1849 brought tens of thousands of Chinese miners flooding into California, at the height of opium trading in China. What goes out has a habit of coming back. But bear in mind that in the age of 19th Century homeopathic medicine, i.e., not based upon science, the effects of narcotic medicines in the U.S. was dimly understood. Opiates were widely used as pain killers in the U.S. Civil War, as cocaine was shortly thereafter, and both of those resulted in initial U.S. "waves" of drug addiction. The Americans, by the way, never officially participated in the Opium Wars, but on one occasion the Commander of the U.S. "Far Eastern Squadron", a future Confederate admiral, sent the U.S. squadron to fire on Chinese forts and thereby cover the withdrawal of a hard pressed British naval squadron.  The U.S. was thus allowed a "seat at the table" in the treaty negotiations that ended the second Opium War, and thereby obtained admission to the ports and concessions being opened to European nations.
 
More to the point of this thread, i.e., 1500-1700, the defeat of the Ming by another barbarian people, the Manchu (Qing), had repercussions for 19th and 20th Century Vietnam, and 20th and 21st Century Taiwan. Without Mac Cuu, the Mekong Delta would have remained in Cambodian hands, likely to be later replaced by Thailand, making Vietnam just another Chinese territory, or small pro-Chinese neighbor.  Taiwan, whose return to China was a direct result of U.S. sponsorship of Nationalist China in WWII,  currently has a treaty with the U.S. which obliges the latter to come to Taiwan's defense in case of attack by China.


-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2009 at 03:35
Pinguin wrote:
"With respect to the large Manila Galleons, perhaps the largest of their times, it is even more curious is that they were built in the East, and not in Mexico or Europe."
 
Not so curious, and a subject that intersects the other thread on "immigrants". Among the first European immigrants to the colonial world in the late 16th and early 17th centuries were the craftsmen and artisans required for the maintenance of naval contact. Interestingly enough, in 1696 one of the major components of the last "flota" were the naval artisans and chandlers of the Canary Islands, who moved wholesale to the Americas once the archipelago became irrelevant to the Americas trade. In fact, it would be difficult to find a port town without a resident "Real Carpintero" plying his craft as well as training the locals to supply the naval needs of the state. Little wonder that Colaptes melanochloros, received the name carpintero real in the Americas. Save for the willful destruction of old Manila in the 1940s (the Intramuros), a resident of 17th century Havana would have felt just as home in that city.
 
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.


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2009 at 05:39
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Carcharodon, REference your "at least ...not only for profit" above. Colonies have been established for various reasons, not always "only for profit". And they were not always established by states, but by private companies and private individuals. And not all colonial experiences were negative. Certainly the aboriginal peoples of Taiwan could argue that colonialism marginalized them, though they weren't really "swamped" by ethnic Chinese until the Nationalist Government fled there in 1949. Colonialism and Empire have many common characteristics, and at times it is amusing to hear proponents of empire, or of retaining the fruits of empire, argue against the "colonialism" or neo-colonialism of others".
 
The main reason for Zheng Chenggong to go to Taiwan was to set up a base for further warfare against the Qing troops that were taking over the mainland.
 
As for other colonies I can agree that the motifs in creating such has varied but profit (private or for a state) has mostly been involved.
 
And about how colonialism and similar has been referred to by different actors, it is maybe so that oneself are building an empire or spreading civilisation while others are indulging in colonialism and robbery.
 


Posted By: Lance Armstrong
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2009 at 08:19

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Here's a hint: Europe had no export of any interest to the Chinese state save one: silver!

In what way does this constitute a hint? Since European seafarers controlled maritime world trade since 1500, that is trade across the Mediterranean, the Atlantic, trans-Pacific and largely the Indian ocean, you are effectively claiming that China had no interest in the goods of the world. Which may be well be true, but ultimately was China's problem, not that of the world, proven by the subsequent course of history.

As it was the China trade was only of secondary importance for European traders. Much more important were the SE Asian spice islands and India. And this trade in turn was of secondary importance to the Atlantic economy, not to mention intra-European trade on the North and Baltic Sea as well as the Med which may well have been still larger.

Actually, if you look at it from another perspective, Chinese economy, which lacked any noteworthy gold and silver production, was utterly dependent on European bullion for its monetarization. This was even more crucial for maintaining its functioning, since the Chinese economy had a long tradition of being undermonetarized beginning with the Han economy which hampered its eonomic development (see Walter Scheidel's comparison between the Roman and Han levels of monetarization).



Posted By: Lance Armstrong
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2009 at 08:26

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

The colonial expansion to Asia and also the Industrial Revolution were pushed in a large degree for that lack of goods to sale to China.

The Eastern trade was actually driven by the prospect of spices in India and the Indies (=Indonesia). Colombus went westwards in the search for India and found 'Indians', not Chinese.

In the Far Eastern theatre, China was actually of secondary importance even  to Japan until the expulsion of all Westerners there in the 1630s. 



Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2009 at 09:08
Well, Lance, one has to measure lack of actual knowledge prior to 1500 and the final realization that there was no "Great Khan" in Asia as Columbus thought but instead a rather formidable state with secure frontiers. The consolidation of Portugal's Estado da India between 1500 and 1555--really a series of entrepots astride the traditional trade routes of South Asia--did have two foci, Goa in the Indian Ocean and Macau in the South China Sea. Not that the Portuguese did not soon have a confrontation with the Spanish in "the Moluccas" during the 1570s. However, by the close of the century Macau was the central point for Portuguese activity northward and even the incursion into Cipangu was Macao based. True, lacking the wherewithal in specie held by the Spanish, the Chinese trade at Manila eclipsed activity with the Portuguese at Macao, however the purpose of Portuguese strategy was control over the carrying trade westward and not access to Chinese markets, since these were, as stated previously, principally self-sufficient. After all, as with their successors (the Dutch and later the English), they really had nothing to offer China.

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Lance Armstrong
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2009 at 10:39

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

After all, as with their successors (the Dutch and later the English), they really had nothing to offer China.

You simply assert that, but where is your proof? That the Ming declined to buy goods from the world market was not the fault of the world market which offered all imaginable goods. All the world traded with European merchants and European merchants traded with all the world.

Instead of trying to sell the idea that the world market had nothing to offer China, it may be much more worthwhile asking what factors led China to isolate itself from the international stream of goods.

Actually, European traders had all kinds of precious goods to offer such as

- spices of unrivalled equality from India and the spice islands

- dear skin from Taiwan or frurs through the Siberian trade

- coffee from the Arabian peninsula

- cotton products from India

- all goods from the Americas

- timber

- European manufactured products such as weapons, clocks, furniture, parfume, gold and silver ware etc. etc.

The world market offered more than enough goods, the real reasons for China standing apart on the maritime world trade were to a large degree home-grown, that is its policy of self-isolation and the almost total lack of maritime engagement or even understanding in imperial Confucian circles. 



Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2009 at 12:39
Are you kidding me or do you understand that Chinese merchants were active on their own and needed no European to serve as carriers of anything. The internal markets and commercial networks and roads in China dwarfed those in Europe, and as stated long before the merchants of Southern China traded in Manila for but a single item specie. Coffee from Arabia, Starbucks no less.

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: tradition
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2009 at 04:43

China so-called capitalism germinated in Qing Dynasty turned Ming Dynasty three times,

Qing Dynasty's knowledge is called the sinology(hanxue), has overthrown the Song and ming dynasty Neo-Confucianism comprehensively.Also is called China's Renaissance time
The Qing Dynasty has realized the agricultural reform, The Qing Dynasty firearm assembly achieves 50%
 
 
but while the great qing was a failure in the 19century?
 
 
bec 1,China ancient times technology long-term advanced, but has not appeared the empirical science, the West has advaced  in the scientific method,
The Song and  ming dynasty"s Neo-Confucianism has hindered the Chinese science development
 
 
2,Ming Dynasty and Qing Dynasty although the trade is developed, but the merchant is only like slaves under the imperial authority slave, has not formed the European similar free city and the independent bourgeoisie strength
 
3, when  european countries changes from the the feudal fission to the nation-state unification , the imperial authority despotic stage is very short, because the bourgeoisie and the free city strength already were at the rise stage.But China has founded the perfect despotic imperial authority system unification big empire in the qin dynasty, all trades and the independent breath are devastated all
 
4,China is an agricultural country for a long time, therefore lacks the power which the sea expands.Adopts the maritime restrictions in the Ming Dynasty to close up, when implements the despotic dictatorship control to in, China already fell behind in fact in the  mid and later ming period than West.But skinny the camel is bigger than the horse, may  
Continues to the 18th century
 
 
5,China has also carried on the thought revolution in the 18th century, carries on reconsidering to the Confucianist theory, but because in the Chinese culture did not have the ancient Greek logical and democratic idea, so he fail


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2009 at 07:41
I think we have problems in translation...

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2009 at 09:24
Originally posted by Lance Armstrong Lance Armstrong wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

After all, as with their successors (the Dutch and later the English), they really had nothing to offer China.

You simply assert that, but where is your proof? That the Ming declined to buy goods from the world market was not the fault of the world market which offered all imaginable goods. All the world traded with European merchants and European merchants traded with all the world.

Instead of trying to sell the idea that the world market had nothing to offer China, it may be much more worthwhile asking what factors led China to isolate itself from the international stream of goods.

Actually, European traders had all kinds of precious goods to offer such as

- spices of unrivalled equality from India and the spice islands

- dear skin from Taiwan or frurs through the Siberian trade

- coffee from the Arabian peninsula

- cotton products from India

- all goods from the Americas

- timber

- European manufactured products such as weapons, clocks, furniture, parfume, gold and silver ware etc. etc.

The world market offered more than enough goods, the real reasons for China standing apart on the maritime world trade were to a large degree home-grown, that is its policy of self-isolation and the almost total lack of maritime engagement or even understanding in imperial Confucian circles. 

 
Drgonzaga is absolutely correct. European trade had nothing to offer to China except opium. All the other goods were complitely out of the interest of Chinese.


-------------
Σαρμάτ



Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 16 Aug 2009 at 13:44
drgonzaga, There was a fair amount of Western and Japanese trade with China through the Nguyen port of Hoi An. See "Nguyen Cochinchina" by Li Tana. But, of course, the majority of products traded to China through Hoi An would have been eaglewood, mandarin grade birds nests, and other SEA products. China did have a need for sulpher-nitrate for the production of gunpowder, and got that from Taiwan (see "Out of China: Or Yu Yonghe's Tales of Formosa" translated by Macabe Keligher (SMC Publishing, Tapiei, 2003)). As I mentioned previously, they certrainly could have purchased cannon from the Portuguese to upgrade their artillery. Their decision not to do was shortsighted. (The Nguyen did, and found their Macau manufactured guns handy in their war with the Trinh.) So it is more of a case that the Qing felt that there was nothing the West produced of interest to them, rather than "need", and they were wrong. Ergo, China's backwardness in Defense.

For the poster who mentioned these: Regarding deer skins, these were also obtained in great quantity from Taiwan (per Yu Yonghe), I presume from Chinese settler/traders, so there was no need to purchase them from westerners. As for coffee, there is not much interest in China for coffee today, and it had to be zero back in the 1500-1700 period. Tea was their great drink, and a real money maker, until Robert Fortune made his clandestine trip in 1800s (a case of Western industrial espionnage). Should that change in the near future, Vietnam, now the world's #2 coffee producer, is likely to be the beneficiary until the Chinese get their own industry started.


-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: tradition
Date Posted: 16 Aug 2009 at 16:12
zhenchenggong attacks and occupies Taiwan mainly is in order to resist the Qing Dynasty to establish the base ,not like Westnation is equally establishes the colony for the export of capital
 
 IF zhenchenggong has the opportunity to seize the mainland,he will turn  agricultural oriented in the same old way , this is decided by the Chinese society ,they donot like west style ocean expansion,they think it is waste money and energy


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2009 at 02:43
Well, Lirelou, I adhered to the time frame provided, which essentially encompassed the Ming, and not the Qing, since even there the early policies of the new dynasty were much different from the course followed later.
 
Now, to the Marxist turn introduced by our Chinese member. First of all Chinese traders had long established commercial links throughout the South China Sea (and many were so downright capitalistic, that piracy became a common norm) during the early Ming (many were actual extensions of networks under the Yuan). As for the wish to transfer the term "slaves of the emperor" into a connotation invoking institutional slavery as set in the West, that's a no-go. After all, were not the early colonial ventures by the merchants of London undertaken under royal authorization as "servants" of the monarch? No permission or license made you a pirate, it's as simple as that!. Likewise, when discussing weaponry much of the conclusion presented here suffers for a maritime fixation or to cite Sun Laichen: the maritime mentality. In this respect, one had best read this interesting essay:
 
Sun Laichen. "Military Technology Transfers from Ming China and the Emergence of Northern Mainland Southeast Asia" in Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 34:2003
 
Likewise, accepting the thesis of Hu Qiuyuan without full familiarity with the Ming Shi-lu is extremely hazardous given the flux in nomenclature, specially when it comes to identifying "Japanese" pirates. These chronicles are on line:
 
http://epress.nus.edu.sg/msl/ - http://epress.nus.edu.sg/msl/
 
Chinese treatises dealing with firearms in this period are also must reads--the Ji Xiao Xin Shu for example--and one can intimate the point made here by perusing this site:
 
http://www.chinese-gun.freewebspace.com/photo.html - http://www.chinese-gun.freewebspace.com/photo.html
 
Further, I must disagree with tradition and his use of the term "colony" in his argument. We do not call the presence of first Portuguese and the later Dutch entrepots in Japan "colonies"; hence, the similar phenomenon in Guangzhou or Taiwan during the 16th century must give one pause if viewed as "colonies"--they were not. In fact, the only example of "colonization" at this time in the South China Sea can only be the Spanish on Luzon.


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: tradition
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2009 at 03:12

why could not use the word colony? chinese always called The dutch who  seizes Taiwan colonizer.In fact,chinese colonized taiwan early than dutch.do you know the man call yan si qi?taiwan is the Chinese first overseas colony which yan si qi built.and zhen chenggong is second one.before zhen,Taiwan's  inhabitant always occupies the population overwhelming superiority,zhen changed that, just like spanish kill ameirca native people.,and made the colony

 
 
http://huanghb.blog.ifeng.com/article/1341730.html - http://huanghb.blog.ifeng.com/article/1341730.html #


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2009 at 03:37
It were the Dutch who actually started to bring Chinese to Taiwan to cultivate local lands. Before the Dutch Taiwan. wasn't of any interest for the Chinese at all despite the fact, that it is very close to the Mainland.

-------------
Σαρμάτ



Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2009 at 05:57
Originally posted by tradition tradition wrote:

why could not use the word colony? chinese always called The dutch who  seizes Taiwan colonizer.In fact,chinese colonized taiwan early than dutch.do you know the man call yan si qi?taiwan is the Chinese first overseas colony which yan si qi built.and zhen chenggong is second one.before zhen,Taiwan's  inhabitant always occupies the population overwhelming superiority,zhen changed that, just like spanish kill ameirca native people.,and made the colony
http://huanghb.blog.ifeng.com/article/1341730.html - http://huanghb.blog.ifeng.com/article/1341730.html #
 
I am always fascinated by nomenclature and its usage or misusage for that matter. This phrase specially caught my attention:"spanish kill ameirca native people.,and made the colony". In juridical and political terms, the Spanish never had a single colony in the New World. Surprise!  You'd have to search hard, to no avail, to find "colonia" as a juridical term. Yes, you would find "kingdoms" and "capitanias" (a term reserved for military frontiers), and "gobiernos", but no colonies. In fact, in terms of municipal units, self-government was the standard under the aegis of the "cabildo".
 
I am afraid that in "opening" the pages of history, the Chinese, are no less apt to play with the vocabulary than any European with a cause. Here is an example from the Internet:
 
http://www.chinaknowledge.de/index.html - http://www.chinaknowledge.de/index.html
 
Specially in such areas that deal with "foreigners":
 
http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Yuan/yuan.html - http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Yuan/yuan.html
 
Whatever the background (in terms of people and culture) as far as Taiwan (or to use the Portuguese word endowed on the island in the 16th century "Hermosa" or Formosa) can be assessed politically, one has to recognize that with the Qing, the island became a formal prefecture within the Chinese administrative structure in 1680, and that the subsequent century saw immigration from Fujian and Guangdong transform the ethnic composition of the island. Now, should I employ the term "colonial" for events that took place after 1895?


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: tradition
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2009 at 06:40

donnot play Doctrine words with me.spanish havenot made the colony in the new world?pls read the example from the Internet

The Spanish founded the first successful colony in North America at Saint Augustine in 1565. Over the next century, Spanish colonists and conquistadors seized and settled everything in the Americas from Mexico to the modern-day U.S. West and southward, with the exception of British Honduras, the Guyanas, and Brazil. In addition, the Spanish controlled Florida and much of the Caribbean.
 
http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question20731.html - http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question20731.html
 
 
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h436.html - http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h436.html
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_colonization_of_the_Americas - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_colonization_of_the_Americas
 
you never read chinese history books,of course you donnot know, zhen chenggong bring his follow to taiwan(formosa),the population   of  han(most fujianess has overwhelming superiority than native taiwanese),you can read the former kuomingtang"s chief lian zhans'grandfather,
lianhen,wroted a book called the history of taiwan
 
 
zhenchenggong are not belong to the manchu government,but he is a chinese,he made the colony of taiwan,this is the  Chinese first overseas colony


Posted By: tradition
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2009 at 07:01
It is very simple  
 
before zhen chengong,Taiwan's native people's population surpasses the Han people, only then the minority Han people   live  in Taiwan, Taiwan does not have the ownership place
 
 
after zhen chengong,he bring many fujian guys to taiwan,the han nation"s population surpasses the native people,zhen made    Chinese administrative structure (zhen faith to ming dynasty,ming danasty is china of course),you cannot said zhen didnot belong to the manchu dynasty,so taiwan is not chinese colony,ok?
 
and after general shi attacked taiwan,qing government united taiwan,and many imigrants of han sent to taiwan,china Has implemented the complete colonial rule to Taiwan
 
 
after sino-japan war,taiwan (formosa) became japan"s colony from the chinese hand,this is taiwan"s history.
 
 
you have different explanation of the term "colony",but you are not god,i'm not,we just express our oponion. Chinese history material  in english lacks very much,if you will resarch chinese history, you should learn chinese


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2009 at 07:57
Er...tradition, you obviously did not heed my warning on the dangers of the Internet. The oldest Spanish "city" in North America is Santo Domingo de Guzman founded in 1496. Saint Augustine was established as a military garrison so as to complete the defensive perimeters of the maritime route to the Atlantic. It was always a dependency of other jurisdictions and sustained from Havana as a link in the Armada de Barlovento. There was no British Honduras in 1565, much less any "Guyanas", and "Brazil" was actually a part of the Habsburg patrimony from 1580-1640.
 
By "Chinese" history books are you making reference to current historiographical production? Or "official" state text-books? Otherwise, that statement of yours is a bit off-base given the citations already presented. What is the Ming Shi-lu, subversive capitalist literature? Whatever attributes you may wish to assign to Zheng Cheng Gong in 1661, I've been to the Wencheng Pavilion and know all the ins-and-outs of nationalistic propaganda. Besides, I somehow feel that your definition of "colony" has a lot to do with these Chinese terms: xiaoshun, xiangyue, baoliu/weihu, and xiaozhong.


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: tradition
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2009 at 14:23
this is not my definition of "colony" ,it is many serious history book"s definition.you should read the combridge    modern history volumn3,page 186,page 517,etc .the west history use colony to describe  spanish colony in ameirca in that time,if you have ereetronic book,you can use the word colony,and search it in this book,how can say this is my defination of the colony
 
 
 
chinese propaganda always said taiwan long long ago are chinese land,this is bullsh*t,in fact,taiwan is the first overseas colony of china,just like spanish.taiwan's native people salved by zhenchenggong.    china is  a suzerain   of taiiwan(zhenchengong loyal to ming dynasty),just like japan colonized taiwan.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2009 at 23:32
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 
By "Chinese" history books are you making reference to current historiographical production? Or "official" state text-books? Otherwise, that statement of yours is a bit off-base given the citations already presented. What is the Ming Shi-lu, subversive capitalist literature? Whatever attributes you may wish to assign to Zheng Cheng Gong in 1661, I've been to the Wencheng Pavilion and know all the ins-and-outs of nationalistic propaganda. Besides, I somehow feel that your definition of "colony" has a lot to do with these Chinese terms: xiaoshun, xiangyue, baoliu/weihu, and xiaozhong.
 
Actually tradition has a point here. It can be somewhat difficult to penetrate Chinese history in its finer details if one cannot read chinese. A big portion of older sources are not yet translated to any western language. Of course there has been, and is an ongoing effort to translate much of the important stuff, and many western historians with China as there field of work has also learned to master Chinese. But still there are tons of material that has not came up onto the eyes of westerners yet.  So in that sense Chinese historians have an advantage.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 01:31
Well Carcharadon, are you attempting to save the Doc from destruction? Perforce, I have to smile as I fondly gaze upon my scroll (a hand-copy) of Eighteen Scholars on Fairyland by Ch'iu Ying. Let us just say that my grasp of Chinese history and achievements--as well as cultural and societal distinctions--are not of the pedestrian variety. Read and learn as I turn to tradition.
 
He wrote:
this is not my definition of "colony" ,it is many serious history book"s definition.you should read the combridge    modern history volumn3,page 186,page 517,etc .the west history use colony to describe  spanish colony in ameirca in that time,if you have ereetronic book,you can use the word colony,and search it in this book,how can say this is my defination of the colony[?]
[C]hinese propaganda always said taiwan long long ago are chinese land,this is bullsh*t,in fact,taiwan is the first overseas colony of china,just like spanish.taiwan's native people salved by zhenchenggong.    china is  a suzerain   of taiiwan(zhenchengong loyal to ming dynasty),just like japan colonized taiwan.
 
With all due respect, tradition, the New Cambridge Modern History has much to go before gaining Biblical status and scriptural inerrancy [Beware the leaven of the Oxbridgees], yet volume III ("The Counter Reformation and the Economic Revolution, 1559-1610") is not an exercise in lexicography but instead a general narrative that really does not address the manner of government utilized by the Spanish in the New World. The Spanish (or the Portuguese for that matter) never utilized the term "colonies" for their transatlantic dominions. In this respect--just as when analyzing the Chinese sense of xiaozhong and baoliu/weihu--one has to recognize the perceptions of the actors and not the observers! The English might have called their territories "colonies" and its denizens "colonists" but you will not encounter any such terminology in the Spanish and Portuguese documents of the 15th through 18th centuries. The distinction is quite important, specially in any discussion of the indigenous populations of the new "kingdoms", for they received their judicial and administrative autonomy in direct relationship to the crown. For that same reason, I questioned you usage of "colony" with respect to Taiwan. Which brings me directly to point and your use of Zheng Cheng Gong (Zheng Chenggong in Pinying), which naturally contrasts sharply with another figure in the history of the island, Shi Lang, and the creation of the prefecture of Taiwan under the Qing. Rather than discuss "the Gates of Hell", the early Ming appellative for the island, or the xiaoshun of the Zheng (despite my urge to have their heads shavedEvil Smile), or even the personal opinions of the Emperor Kang Xi, let us focus heavily on Fujianese particularism and its effects on contemporary historiography. Shall we discuss the "sacred kings" who "developed" Taiwan?


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 01:39
But was Taiwan really a colony?  It has become a part of China as most of the South before that. Yes, Taiwan had indigenous population, but so had most of the others Chinese provinces south from Changjiang river. Chinese slowly expanded there and Sinicized the local population.
 
In Taiwan the process was complitely the same. One can't see exploitation of the local population and resources by Chinese, as it can be seen in Africa and Latin America. It was rather a slow cultural expansion and assimilation of the Taiwanese yuanzhumin by the Chinese settlers. In fact, Chinese didn't even control all the island until the Japanese took over and crushed the Western mountain yuanzhumin tribes in the early 20th century.
 
So, I would say it can be called a colony in terms of "overseas settlement" ("overseas" is a far fetched defintion though, since the island is so close to the Chinese Mainland) but it wasn't a colony in a "strict definition" i.e. a source of cheap, goods, resources and slave labor.


-------------
Σαρμάτ



Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 02:01
AFAIK the Chinese term that is used to refer to a colony is "zhimindi"  (殖民地) but it's almost always used to refer to the Western colonies in Asia, Africa and the New World (including the Dutch colonization of Taiwan) and also Japanese colonies in Asia and has negative connotation. Chinese official historiography never uses term zhimindi as a reference to Taiwan. By contrast it's always called as something like "an intergal part of the Chinese territory" from the very ancient times.

-------------
Σαρμάτ



Posted By: tradition
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 02:04

spanish havenot wrote the word "colony",not mean it was not exist,just like men havenot used the word religion,but  The primitive religion already exists,colony it the same.so i qouted the cambridge modren history ,they although use colony to describe the spanish empire in ameirca

 It has become a part of China as most of the South before that?not long time ago,taiwan is the Chinese first overseas colony which yan si qi built that.chinese governmernt havenot controlled taiwan before that time.
 
 
 
Chinese didn't even control all the island until the Japanese took over and crushed the Western mountain yuanzhumin tribes in the early 20th century,this is why taiwan is a colony of china,and not  chinese territory.taiwan made the province in the later ching dynasty,when general lin min  chuan faced the japanse threaten.before that, chinese countrol taiwan just like dutch.zhen chen gong just  put Taiwan as a counter-attacks  mainland  platform ,with exploits the yuanzhuming, makes the smuggling trade
 
 


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 02:25
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Well Carcharadon, are you attempting to save the Doc from destruction? Perforce, I have to smile as I fondly gaze upon my scroll (a hand-copy) of Eighteen Scholars on Fairyland by Ch'iu Ying. Let us just say that my grasp of Chinese history and achievements--as well as cultural and societal distinctions--are not of the pedestrian variety. Read and learn as I turn to tradition.
 
Nice to hear that you master the language and lishi of old mighty Zhongguo.
 
But still there is some material there that hardly any westerners have seen.


Posted By: tradition
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 02:38
《台灣府志》云:“台灣有中國民,自思齊始。” 《台灣縣志》也说:“顏思齊之所部屬多中土之人,中土之人入台灣自思齊始。”
 
taiwanfuzhi and taiwanxianzhi recorded,yan siqi is the first han nationatilt guy  lived in taiwan,he bring his gangs to make a colony in taiwan,do some Smuggling robs business,and Then economical immigration, seizes the Taiwan land.the wester colonist do the same thing  with chinsese in ameirca,seized the  land and made the white men immigration.yansi qi lived  in the same time with zhenchengong and his daddy,zhen zhilong.
colony have many style,Macroscopic or microscopic, money guidance or military guidance,spanish colony is military oriented.many history use different defination,wny you always call you are right,others are wrong?
 
 
chinese propanganda is bullsh*t,in fact ,qing dynasty is the most greatesr dynasty in chinese history,more aggressive as empire ottoman in the west,invades mongolia,tibet,xinjiang ,make a large Territory as now,it is Three times than folish ming dynasty territory.it is qing dynast"s honour.chinese goverment always said love peace,longlong ago these land was belong to china,it is all propaganda and bullsh*t,with out blood and stell,how to win the large territory?


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 02:38
Originally posted by tradition tradition wrote:

spanish havenot wrote the word "colony",not mean it was not exist,just like men havenot used the word religion,but  The primitive religion already exists,colony it the same.so i qouted the cambridge modren history ,they although use colony to describe the spanish empire in ameirca

 It has become a part of China as most of the South before that?not long time ago,taiwan is the Chinese first overseas colony which yan si qi built that.chinese governmernt havenot controlled taiwan before that time.
 
What is the fundamental difference between the Chinese expansion in Taiwan and in the South?
 
No difference at all.
 
If you talk about the "first Chinese overseas colony," then it should be Hainan, because it's also "overseas" and it was "colonized" much longer before Taiwan was "colonized."
 
 
 
Originally posted by tradition tradition wrote:

Chinese didn't even control all the island until the Japanese took over and crushed the Western mountain yuanzhumin tribes in the early 20th century,this is why taiwan is a colony of china,and not  chinese territory.taiwan made the province in the later ching dynasty,when general lin min  chuan faced the japanse threaten.before that, chinese countrol taiwan just like dutch.zhen chen gong just  put Taiwan as a counter-attacks  mainland  platform ,with exploits the yuanzhuming, makes the smuggling trade
 
 
 
No. The Dutch control and Chinese control were totally different. The Dutch were just a very small minority that exploited the local population and extracted all the goods they needed and brought them for the sale in Asian and European markets.
 
Chinese, by contrast, came en masse, started to cultivate land and making it into their own. They didn't view Taiwan just  as an alien land and a source of cheap goods and labor they viewed it as a fertile home of their own. The same as the Chinese settlers from the North viewed the South in the Chinese mainland.


-------------
Σαρμάτ



Posted By: tradition
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 02:49
when chinese occupy hainan,they havenot global trade conceotion,but in the 17century,zhenchengong and his gangs join the global trade wave,the time is different
 
 
The Dutch control and Chinese control were totally different,before yansiqi,no han men lived in taiwan,chinese occupied the land and immigration,it is just similiar with british did in ameirca, yansiqi  and zhenchenggong   did the same things which  exploited the local population and extracted all the goods they needed and brought them for the sale in so called the golbal market in the 17th century.
 
 
 


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 03:18
Originally posted by tradition tradition wrote:

when chinese occupy hainan,they havenot global trade conceotion,but in the 17century,zhenchengong and his gangs join the global trade wave,the time is different
 
The Dutch control and Chinese control were totally different,before yansiqi,no han men lived in taiwan,chinese occupied the land and immigration,it is just similiar with british did in ameirca, yansiqi  and zhenchenggong   did the same things which  exploited the local population and extracted all the goods they needed and brought them for the sale in so called the golbal market in the 17th century.
 
Well tradition since you have discovered the transcription problem in the Forum's operating system, you will understand why I did not take the time to decipher one of your posts. But, the one above does have many problems including your refusal to acknowledge not only the trade connections of the Han Dynasty but the historical parallels between Zhuya (Hainan) and Taiwan even in the Ming period. "Global trade" is not solely a maritime phenomenon.
 
Now as to who is "right or wrong", such is not the issue instead the question revolves around who is less affected by bias and nationalistic rationalizations. As Sarmat indicated your argument can not sustain scrutiny in its use of terminology, and from my perspective the issue is one of false politicization. Would you wish to speculate on the Japanese origins of good old comrade Zheng? 


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 03:23
The Dutch in the 17th century brought Chinese farmers because they needed someone to cultivate the land. In some time the number of the Chinese farmers exceeded by far the number of the Dutch traders and soldiers present in Taiwan. And they were not happy with the Dutch rule. When Zhen Chengong invaded Taiwan he relied on the local Chinese farmers. After Zhen Chengong had expelled the Dutch another wave of the Chinese settlers came from the mainland. They continued their usual traditional way of life (land cultivation). They married the local women and slowly assimilated local tribes into Chinese culture. Zhen Chengong participated in trade. Yes, but so he had been doing that before he relocated to Taiwan and when his main base was in the Mainland China. Does it mean that the Mainland China was "a colony of Zhen Chengong" ? Of course not.
Chinese very soon formed the majority of the population of the island. The Chinese farmers cultivated lands and payed taxes to Zhen Chengong and his heirs that was the usual practice for the Chinese state. The admnistration of Taiwan was not essentially diferent than the administration of the Mainland. Similar methods and similar conditions.
 
Expansion in Taiwan was just a natural continuation of the Chinese expansion in the South. One notable thing though, was that the Chinese were able to expell a Western colonial power from the place. That was quite and achievement IMHO.


-------------
Σαρμάτ



Posted By: tradition
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 03:42
you have admitted zhenchengong put the mainland as his base,it is ok.so taiwan is just a platform to support zhenchengong counter attack mainland.it is just a colony,
 
 
do you know settler colonialism?british and spanish although do the same thing with zhen chenggong,how many white immigrations seized the land from the native nation in ameirca,land cultivation,just as you said.
 
The admnistration of Taiwan was not essentially diferent than the administration of the Mainland. you are wrong,it is totolly different,in fact qing just put taiwan as a  fortification ,is totolly different with inland
 
 
 


Posted By: tradition
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 03:58
from my perspective the issue is one of false politicization. it is just your view,Comments history need you show your evidence.but i havenot seen you had shown that.just you said hainan and taiwan,i said it is different,bec the time is different,the namad conquer is equivalant with hitler invasion ?of course not.
you always said your defination are right,but havenot any evidence?this is a good way to comment history?


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 04:05
I'm afraid, you don't really understand what you're talking about.  "Colonialism" has a broad meaning. Basically there are two types. "Settler" and "Exploitation" Colonialisms. "Settler colonialism" is a phenomenon when large groups of people settle in an alien land, start to cultivate it and move there en masse. Taking this definition, we can say that the whole process of Chinese history is a large "settler colonialism" in all directions including Taiwan.
 
But "Exploitation colonialism" is different; there are only a few colonists among the majority of locals who violently exploite the colony and take the resources. That was quite often during Western Colonisation of Asia and Africa.
 
So, Taiwan was definitely an example of "Settler colonialism," but definitely, not an "Exploitation colonialism."


-------------
Σαρμάτ



Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 04:28
Originally posted by tradition tradition wrote:

from my perspective the issue is one of false politicization. it is just your view,Comments history need you show your evidence.but i havenot seen you had shown that.just you said hainan and taiwan,i said it is different,bec the time is different,the namad conquer is equivalant with hitler invasion ?of course not.
you always said your defination are right,but havenot any evidence?this is a good way to comment history?
 
The "time" is not different since what was taking place on Hainan in the years 1555-1650 was the identical process experienced in Taiwan. Just as large numbers of Han were transported to Taiwan during those years, so too did such take place on Hainan as Fujian and Guandong peasants were brought to cultivate the island and pushed the Li into the more remote environs of the island.
 
A piece of advice: please refrain from positing claims of others making erroneous analogies...Hitler and Nomads, what next?


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: tradition
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 04:33
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism -
you have agreed with my opinion,chinese in taiwan,they use settler colonialism,one kind of way colonist like british and spanish used,taiwan is really chinese colony,pls read wiki in english
 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settler_colonialism
 
 
 
Imperialist powers may opt for one type or the other, or both at the same time. Perhaps the most clear example of this difference is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire - British Empire , whose white population settled mainly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_colonization_of_the_Americas - North America and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia_%281788%E2%80%931850%29 - Oceania , exterminating in the process the native population and building modern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructure - infrastructures , and disregarded the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj - Indian subcontinent and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa#Britain.27s_occupation_of_Egypt_and_South_Africa - Africa , already densely populated. Those areas, instead, were ruled by a small colonial population, and their economies were oriented exclusively around agriculture and extraction aimed at export to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom - United Kingdom .
 
 
ths both of you, to support my opinion,haha


Posted By: tradition
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 04:42
hitler and the house of namandy ,both of the england invader,you can said it is the same thing?of course,they are not.(one is the nation-state,another is just dynasty,havenot the nationlism)
 
 
so, chinese occupied the hainan ,it is although different with taiwan.bec time changed.chinese put taiwan as their colony,use settler colonialisn and although rob the land from the native people.rob taiwan"s rosourse for smuggle global businesee in the 17th century,totally different with them
 
 
 


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 04:47
Originally posted by tradition tradition wrote:

ths both of you, to support my opinion,haha
 
What opinion?
 
In fact, I can hardly understand what you're trying to communicate. Confused
 
And most of that I understand is some poorly drafted nonsense.


-------------
Σαρμάτ



Posted By: tradition
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 05:04
why i said it is different between taiwan and hainan,bec you are not familiar with their history
 
 
as above i have said, before 17th century,it havenot han settlement in taiwan,taiwanfuzhi and taiwanxianzhi all recorded
 
 
but hainan is different,song dynasty it has over 100,000 han immigrants to hainan ,in yuan dynasty,the amount rise to over 170,000.you can said it is similar with taiwan?
 
 
before later ming dynasty,taiwan is no owner,but hainan is not so


Posted By: tradition
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 05:24
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Originally posted by tradition tradition wrote:

ths both of you, to support my opinion,haha
 
What opinion?
 
In fact, I can hardly understand what you're trying to communicate. Confused
 
And most of that I understand is some poorly drafted nonsense.
you said the settler colonizatin is the way which chinese used in taiwan,i qupted english wiki to show both of you,  settler colonizatin is one way of colonist always used.so you agree with my opinion,chinese put taiwan as his colony
 
 
both of you said,taiwan is same with hainan,i donot agree,bec,before latter ming dynasty,taiwan havenot any han people lived there,you can search in the book taiwan fuzhi and taiwan xianzhi.
 
but there are over 170000 han people lived in hainan in the yuan dynasty,can you say if is the same,of course not


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 05:52
"Settler Colonization" is the term that was first used by me, and then you found it in wiki after learning about it from my post.
 
What you were trying to prove is that "Chinese colonization" of Taiwan was the same with "Dutch colonization" of the island.
 
Taiwan's case is complitely the same with Hainan. Both were overwhelmed with the waves of Chinese peasant migration lured with the large virgin langs.
 
And as Drgonzaga mentioned, both islands were largely inhabited roughly in the same time span.


-------------
Σαρμάτ



Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 08:21

Apparently, my suspicions of trolling are entirely correct. How anyone can have "numbers" for mainland migration to anywhere, much less Hainan, during the Sung, and then iterate numbers for the Yuan, while totally ignoring the actual process during the Ming, which actually culminated in a revolt of the mountain Li during the Qing, is absolutely astonishing.

English Wiki...hah, wiki washee!


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 09:08
Just some observations from Macabe Keliher's "Out of China", based on Yu Yonghe. First, the oldest notice in Chinese records of any landing on Taiwan was in 1292. That said, Taiwan was considered "a mudball in the sea" for the Chinese, as per Qing Emperor Kangxi. By the early 1600s, there were only seven to eight hundred Chinese settlers living there, far outnumbered by the indigenous Malayo-Polynesian tribes, who were racially kin to the Filipinos. Macabe points out that the arrival of the Dutch allowed Chinese immigration to increase, in that the Dutch pacified the tribes. It should be noted that "pacification" was achieved only over specific slices of territory near the sea. The tribes continued to control the hintelands, and anyone stranded in their territory was liable to be killed. So however much Chinese migration there was to the island, and Macabe mentions a figure of 100,000 by 1662, it was obviously limited to certain districts and ports. In 1874 the Japanese sent a punitive expedition into the island to punish one tribe for murdering Japanese fishermen. When compensation was demanded from China, the Chinese court demurred on the grounds that the Aboriginals were "outside their jurisdiction". Even after Japan took over Taiwan, the Aboriginals remained in control of certain territories. A museum I visited a few years back (a Taiwan Aboriginal museum is just up the road on the opposite side of the Taiwanese National Palace Museum, and well worth a few hours look) had a display of photographs showing heads taken in the 1910s. The last serious clash between the Japanese Army and the Taiwanese Aboriginals was the Wushe incident in 1937. So, the reality is that Taiwan only really became "Chinese" in 1945, when the Allies forced its return to Nationalist China, and in 1949, when Chiang Kai-shek's forces moved to the island from the mainland, bringing several million people in their wake.

-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 09:28
Et tu Brute? And an "aboriginal" museum to boot!Angry However, this interesting aside does nothing to a) alter the parallel with Hainan, 2) destroy the administrative absorption of the island within the system of prefectures refined by the Qing. Now as to "pacification" of the tribes...shades of 19th century Luzon!

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 12:27
I don't think lirelou's note somehow alters the conception of Taiwan as a natural extension of the Chinese thrust to the South.
 
In fact, Wushe incident (that occured in 1930 BTW) proves the point that Taiwan wasn't really a colony. Unlike Chinese, that just slowly expanded through the island and didn't start massive style "pacification" campaigns (a usual pattern of the Chinese expansion) Japanese tried to conquer the whole island right away and imposed very strict restrictions on "Taiwanese Barbarians" as they called aboriginal people that resulted in Wushe rebellion. Nothing like that happened during the Chinese rule, that proves that Taiwan wasn't regarded as a colony in the "exploitation" sense.


-------------
Σαρμάτ



Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 14:12
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.


-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: tradition
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 14:18

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


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 14:24
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


Posted By: tradition
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 14:48
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 


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2009 at 16:53
And here we get to the nitty gritty:
 
http://www.taiwandc.org/history.htm - http://www.taiwandc.org/history.htm
 
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


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2009 at 08:40
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.


-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2009 at 19:32
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.
 


Posted By: RollingWave
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2011 at 18:13
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.
 
 
 
 


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2011 at 21:01
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


Posted By: RollingWave
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2011 at 17:17
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.
 


Posted By: RollingWave
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2011 at 17:33
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.)
 
 


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2011 at 21:38
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.



Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2011 at 01:48
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


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20 Jun 2012 at 21:37
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?


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20 Jun 2012 at 21:41
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



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net