| 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
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Evolution of China 1500-1700
    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
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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?
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 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: 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
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

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

Joined: 02 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 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
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 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.
 
 
 
 
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 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.
 
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: 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.


Edited by lirelou - 19 Aug 2009 at 08:43
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 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 16:53
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
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 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 
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 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
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 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
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 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.


Edited by lirelou - 18 Aug 2009 at 14:20
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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

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

Joined: 02 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 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
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 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.

Edited by lirelou - 18 Aug 2009 at 09:10
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 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 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
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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

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 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
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 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
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.


Edited by Sarmat - 18 Aug 2009 at 04:48
Σαρμάτ

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 04:42
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
 
 
 
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 04:33
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 British Empire, whose white population settled mainly North America and Oceania, exterminating in the process the native population and building modern infrastructures, and disregarded the Indian subcontinent and 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 United Kingdom.
 
 
ths both of you, to support my opinion,haha
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 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 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
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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."


Edited by Sarmat - 18 Aug 2009 at 04:07
Σαρμάτ

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 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?
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 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
 
 
 
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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

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 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.