China and the development of firearms

Originally Posted by solarz

I have to agree with Lezt here. Chinese Nationalism is actually very young, born only in the fires of the Japanese invasion. If you look at past conflicts, whether it's against the Liao, Jin, Mongols, or Manchu, the average peasant really didn't care what ethnicity their emperor was. The famous "Heaven Earth Society" (天地会) was formed by former nobles and officers of the Ming military.

Remember the Boxer Rebellion? These guys frustrations would have been deemed "patriotic" if it had been properly channeled, but they didn't even know the meaning of "patriotism" back then. Instead, they channeled their rage in a form most familiar to them: a religious movement.

The reason China always ended up being united had more to do with its geography and military capabilities than any shared sense of identity. In effect, when Qin Shihuang first united China, it gave every warlord to come after the same idea: "hey, I can do that too!". The fact that indeed, they *can*, would eventually lead to the unification of the "China".

I put China in quotes because really, its definition changed vastly over millenia. China is not just the Han ethnicity, nor is the Han ethnicity just China. From the end of the Han Dynasty to the rise of the Tang Dynasty, China experienced near 400 years of unceasing warfare. Many kings and kingdoms rose and fell in the land that we now call China during those 400 years. Historians today call these kingdoms "dynasties" in order to construct a narrative of continuous Chinese history. While there may be some merits to that approach, anyone living in those days would not have appreciated the "common identity" shared between his kingdom and those guys who are coming over to conquer it.

So in many ways, the Chinese Nationalism that we enjoy today (and we do enjoy it!) only exist thanks to the following people:

1- Sun Zhongshan, for breaking the millenial tradition of feudalism and giving the common Chinese people their own stake in the welfare of their nation.

2- The Japanese invaders, through their brutal occupation tactics, for making the Chinese people realize how precious and easily lost the above stakes are.

3- Mao Zedong, for showing the Chinese people, through Communist land reforms and later the Korean War, that they can indeed retake and even defend those stakes if they worked together.

Well I disagree with you, it seems you want to argue that the only type of nationalism is the definition of modern nationalism, and if this were true, it would only apply to nations from 19th century and onward. Even after the found of America, people identity themselves as part of the State they belong much more than the nation. It was not until after the civil war, the attitude starting to change dramatically.

What I am talking about is a shared identity of a single civilization and an single people, which is something China have and no other Empire had, and especially the empires he mentioned in the beginning of Rome, Persian and the Arabs.

And you can't attribute this all to geography, I don't think Western Europe or Middle East had any easier geographic than Northern and Southern China, in fact I would say China's geography are quite harsh then compare to Roman empire and Person empires, and I would totally see that it is very possible that today's China would be like Europe today, split into many nations, each speak their own language and customs, but the fact is, it is not, and have not been for the majority of their history,

And if you want that if it was solely due to the pure willpower of the single warlords who with their willpower and determination is able to united all of China, then why haven't we see them in Europe or Middle East? because by this standards, there has been over a dozen strong will Chinese rulers able to do this over and over again in the time of chaos and break up, but not even a single such person from other civilizations all over earth? Because statistically speaking, this is almost impossible.

And I have said it before, there has been many times when China was fragmented in the past, and under those circumstances for any other people, it would have stayed fragment forever and it did, but not China, they always come together. You can't say this is all because of the will of a single warlord of geography.

Sun Zhongshan, Japanese, Mao Zedong certainly helped them to put a definition of what nationalism is, but way before them, the identity of a single people/civilization have long been deeply ingrained into the people's mind, consciously or unconsciously.

And I agree with your example of post Han and pre-Tang history, it was indeed chaos, but why don't you ask yourself, if it was pure chaos, what make them to unite together to became Tang after that? Why would it have not became like Europe? Where after the fall of Rome, the barbarians took over and the empire was forever lost? Under the circumstances for China, it would be entirely possible for the same outcome to occur, but why it didn't?

And the longer you go back in history, of course, the more fragmented the Chinese identity is, and the closer you go in history, the stronger the identity, so you can't just one instance in Chinese history and call it "Chinese" as the pure definitions of "Chinese", the Chinese identity have always been evolving, and the trend is the identity has becoming stronger and stronger as time passes.

Originally Posted by jackliu

This is something I disagree with you, vast majority of the Chinese for many hundreds of years, consider themselves to be one race which is unlike Roman, Persian and the Arab empires, they make clear distinction of the conquer race/class vs the conquered people, and never really made any effort in integrating them as well as China did. Even when China was at the most chaotic times in history, which was many, in the end, one power is still able to conquer and unite the fragmented people together, this is clearly NOT the case for Rome, Persian and the Arabs. After their empire break out, all the independent people never had any desires to form together. And during many times of China's chaos, it was just as bad as the post fragmentation of those other empires, but yet in the end, they still come together.

Maybe you want to argue that people all over China only until recently have many different customs or even languages, but this has much to do with the distance and lack of technology as anything else. But even then, people still have a strong identity that they belong to one race, that there is only one ruler under the heavens.

Or maybe you want to say that the Qing's acquisition of the Xinjiang or China's acquisition of Tibet make them an Empire, may that be so, but they represent less than 5% of overall China's population, vast majority of the Chinese today in China still hold very strongly that they belong to one race of people.

Jack when you're refering to race, are you specifically thinking Han or just race in a more generic term like a chinese race?

Originally Posted by jackliu

This is something I disagree with you, vast majority of the Chinese for many hundreds of years, consider themselves to be one race which is unlike Roman, Persian and the Arab empires, they make clear distinction of the conquer race/class vs the conquered people, and never really made any effort in integrating them as well as China did. Even when China was at the most chaotic times in history, which was many, in the end, one power is still able to conquer and unite the fragmented people together, this is clearly NOT the case for Rome, Persian and the Arabs. After their empire break out, all the independent people never had any desires to form together. And during many times of China's chaos, it was just as bad as the post fragmentation of those other empires, but yet in the end, they still come together.

Maybe you want to argue that people all over China only until recently have many different customs or even languages, but this has much to do with the distance and lack of technology as anything else. But even then, people still have a strong identity that they belong to one race, that there is only one ruler under the heavens.

Or maybe you want to say that the Qing's acquisition of the Xinjiang or China's acquisition of Tibet make them an Empire, may that be so, but they represent less than 5% of overall China's population, vast majority of the Chinese today in China still hold very strongly that they belong to one race of people.

Jack, it is a matter of perspective and I respect yours.

My case is; what makes up the Chinese race today? The Chinese idea is a continuous absorption of other races and colonization.

Lets call the Xia/Shang/Zhou to be the base "Chinese"; Qin was considered semi sinitized people with a majority of people being XiRong. infact the other states of the warring state period sinitized the other tribes and took their land; the BeiYi to the north, the DongYi from the east and NanMan to the south.

The Han that followed the Qin took land from Xiongnu and from Tibet

fast forward to the Tang; the tank took land from: Yuezhi, Gokturk, Tuyuhun, tufan, Xiyu,

Skip to the Yuan/Qing; the foreign dynasties: China took, the whole of Tibet, Xinjang, Mongolia, Manchuria, Korea

I must be missing things here and there. But in summary, "China" took land from 4 barbaric tribes in ancient times, and land from 9 competing empires. That of course includes population.

As such, China is much less homogeneous than modern history will like to present.

Originally Posted by kwaigonegin

Jack when you're refering to race, are you specifically thinking Han or just race in a more generic term like a chinese race?

Since over 93% of Chinese consider themselves to be Han, so I would say Han, but that's not the point, the point is not about race, it is about this identity that there can be only one ruler under the heaven, which is widely adopted by Han and most of other minorities under Chinese rule.

But of course, Uygur and Tibetans today disagree, however they are not the first minorities strongly protested against Chinese rule in the past, but in the end they all integrated either into the Han race, or held on to their own race, but still accepted to be part of the Chinese civilization.

Also there is no pure Han race anymore, through thousands years of assimilation and integration we have no idea who really have pure Han blood, so you can even say that "Han" itself is not a definition of race but rather an idea as well just like the idea of being "Chinese"

Originally Posted by Lezt

Jack, it is a matter of perspective and I respect yours.

My case is; what makes up the Chinese race today? The Chinese idea is a continuous absorption of other races and colonization.

Lets call the Xia/Shang/Zhou to be the base "Chinese"; Qin was considered semi sinitized people with a majority of people being XiRong. infact the other states of the warring state period sinitized the other tribes and took their land; the BeiYi to the north, the DongYi from the east and NanMan to the south.

The Han that followed the Qin took land from Xiongnu and from Tibet

fast forward to the Tang; the tank took land from: Yuezhi, Gokturk, Tuyuhun, tufan, Xiyu,

Skip to the Yuan/Qing; the foreign dynasties: China took, the whole of Tibet, Xinjang, Mongolia, Manchuria, Korea

I must be missing things here and there. But in summary, "China" took land from 4 barbaric tribes in ancient times, and land from 9 competing empires. That of course includes population.

As such, China is much less homogeneous than modern history will like to present.

I agree with you everything you have said here, it is not physically possible for the original Han race to totally conquer and wipe out the indigenous population and only grow the Han race on their land, in fact, the only time this has been done is the European invasion of the Americas, where smallpox and deliberate policy that wiped out well over 95% of the existing population.

What happened in Asia mainland is indeed the original Chinese took control and expanded over the existing people's land, there is no doubt about that, but what I'm trying to say is, being Chinese is not about being what is your blood, it is about what is your identity, your philosophy, your culture. The original Chinese may have used physical force to conquer their foe, but in the end, they use culture to integrate them into the Chinese culture so that the conquered people themselves sooner or later consider themselves to the Chinese, and given time, most of them even consider themselves to the Han as well.

The biggest different is not the blood, is what you think you are that counts, and this is where the Chinese empires is most different when compare to others.


Also I may add, if you want to measure a people by their genetic similarity, I remember a few years ago there was a test done on the modern Israelis Jews and their much hated enemy the Muslim Palestinians, the result was truly striking, it shows them to have the same ancestor right at the time when the original Jewish people was chased out of their homeland. That means, those who stayed later converted to Islam long time ago, and those who where exiled kept their identity. But still today, those two people that hate teach other so much are closer in blood than in many Han people from Northern and Southern China. However there is no way you can say, the Israelis and Palestinians are the same people and the Chinese are not. It is not the blood, it is the identity that truly matters.

One common culture, one common ancestry and one written language bind China together in one identity.
Important in this, is the idea of the mandate of heaven. No self respecting warlord in Chinese history would not seek the mandate of heaven. Dynasty may rise and falls but the identity continues with every passing of the mandate of heaven.
True, there is a break in the 大分裂时代, when barbarian roamed the middle earth for hundreds of years, it is China dark ages. But Han/Confucium proved its superiority with 杨坚 of Sui Dynasty restored the mandate of heaven and assimilate all the barbarians. Thus Chinese identity renewed with new blood.

Originally Posted by Lezt

Jack, it is a matter of perspective and I respect yours.

My case is; what makes up the Chinese race today? The Chinese idea is a continuous absorption of other races and colonization.

Lets call the Xia/Shang/Zhou to be the base "Chinese"; Qin was considered semi sinitized people with a majority of people being XiRong. infact the other states of the warring state period sinitized the other tribes and took their land; the BeiYi to the north, the DongYi from the east and NanMan to the south.

The Han that followed the Qin took land from Xiongnu and from Tibet

fast forward to the Tang; the tank took land from: Yuezhi, Gokturk, Tuyuhun, tufan, Xiyu,

Skip to the Yuan/Qing; the foreign dynasties: China took, the whole of Tibet, Xinjang, Mongolia, Manchuria, Korea

I must be missing things here and there. But in summary, "China" took land from 4 barbaric tribes in ancient times, and land from 9 competing empires. That of course includes population.

As such, China is much less homogeneous than modern history will like to present.

I am curious, do you consider Japan homogeneous?

Originally Posted by JsCh

I am curious, do you consider Japan homogeneous?

I know you asked him this question, but maybe I would like to chip in.

It is true, Japan have been heavily influenced by the Confucianism and Chinese culture in the past. But deep down, the Japanese themselves have a very strong self identity. They may have wars in the past, but all of those wars are fought on their own island between themselves, and in the end they still see those who live in Japan are Japanese, and anyone from outside to be none-Japanese and not to be interacted with.

Deep down, the Japanese are very xenophobic as they don't like outsider living in Japan, and they themselves only belong to Japan only. They like to seal themselves off from other people on earth if possible, which is very different from China, the Chinese civilization consider themselves to be the center of the world, they have this confidence that they got it all, and they are willing to share it with other people that wants to learn, but for Japan, they rather keep what they have and not let anyone bother them. And unfortunately during WW2, this xenophobic sentiment got hijacked and turn into an extreme form of racism and Japanese racial superiority over all others.

But one interesting aspect of Japanese society is that because of this need to stay seal themselves off from outside, they developed this strong sense of urgency to stay strong to prevent invaders coming in, and because of this, they can be actually be very accommodating to those they think are stronger than they are and learn from them, that is why they were so willingly to adopt Chinese culture, philosophy, language, architecture, religion etc... and this is also the reason they were able to so quickly reform their whole society in the 19th century where the arrogant Qing Dynasty failed to do.

If you can understand this, you will understand why Japan acts the way they do today towards China.

Originally Posted by jackliu

I agree with you everything you have said here, it is not physically possible for the original Han race to totally conquer and wipe out the indigenous population and only grow the Han race on their land, in fact, the only time this has been done is the European invasion of the Americas, where smallpox and deliberate policy that wiped out well over 95% of the existing population.

What happened in Asia mainland is indeed the original Chinese took control and expanded over the existing people's land, there is no doubt about that, but what I'm trying to say is, being Chinese is not about being what is your blood, it is about what is your identity, your philosophy, your culture. The original Chinese may have used physical force to conquer their foe, but in the end, they use culture to integrate them into the Chinese culture so that the conquered people themselves sooner or later consider themselves to the Chinese, and given time, most of them even consider themselves to the Han as well.

The biggest different is not the blood, is what you think you are that counts, and this is where the Chinese empires is most different when compare to others.


Also I may add, if you want to measure a people by their genetic similarity, I remember a few years ago there was a test done on the modern Israelis Jews and their much hated enemy the Muslim Palestinians, the result was truly striking, it shows them to have the same ancestor right at the time when the original Jewish people was chased out of their homeland. That means, those who stayed later converted to Islam long time ago, and those who where exiled kept their identity. But still today, those two people that hate teach other so much are closer in blood than in many Han people from Northern and Southern China. However there is no way you can say, the Israelis and Palestinians are the same people and the Chinese are not. It is not the blood, it is the identity that truly matters.

The question then becomes where do you draw the fine line?

Practically, entire western culture is a decedent of greeko-roman culture. To the point where the Holy Roman Empire (Germany) thought that it was the 2nd rome, that the Russian Empire considered itself the third Rome. alternatively, Asian culture (I am using it in the classical term), middle eastern culture is a direct decedent of the Persian and Babylonian cultures, yet no one after claimed to be the recarnation of the prior although they share the same culture, language and heritage.

Japan is an interesting question, genetically Chinese and Japanese are more or less identical; but I doubt that you will find people form either nation who willingly believe they are the same as the other. But Why I bring up Japan, and likewise Korea and Vietnam is that; during the fall of China, they thought themselves as the continuation of the "chinese essence" just as HRE and Russia had after the fall of rome. What more is, Japan also took the idea of mandate of heaven for their emperor; and like China, had used that mandate to shift power many times.

I am from HK, you can ask a person on the street who they feel they are and 50% of the time, you will get an answer that they are HongKongness while the other half will reply that they are chinese. As I am currently in Mongolia, infact I will be beaten up by neo-nazi skin heads if I suggest that they are Chinese - but you get Chinese styled temples and paintings etc. When I was in Tibet, Tibetans didn't really consider themselves Chinese either

So it is a much more muddled question; China is like Russia. It is much more like a country born out of the carcass of an empire and within it's borders are a diverse people who may not consider themselves as a part of the host country even thou they reside in it and share the same cultural heritage.

Originally Posted by JsCh

I am curious, do you consider Japan homogeneous?

Is this a trick question?

I say no. Japan is not; mainly because of Okinawa and Hokkaido - even after the Japanese policies to suppress the indigenous Okinawan and Ainu cultures

Malta, North Korea; maybe.

Originally Posted by Lezt

Is this a trick question?

I say no. Japan is not; mainly because of Okinawa and Hokkaido - even after the Japanese policies to suppress the indigenous Okinawan and Ainu cultures

Malta, North Korea; maybe.

Yes, it is a trick question.
Because by your definition of homogeneity, there would not be any on this planet beside special case of very small and isolated country.

Japanese and Korean might dream of carrying the banner of the mandate of heaven but they have never considered to be successful by history like the Mongolian and Manchurian.

Hong Kong people answer by stating their political allegiance. They would still consider their race to be Han Chinese.

Tibetan and Mongolian and some other minority for example Chinese Russian/Korean do not consider themselves as belong to the Chinese race because they have their own race. But majority of them considered themselves belong to the Chinese nationality. Moreover, they are minority even if you add them all up together.

China has an overwhelmingly large (over 90%) single ethnic group that has assume the same identity for an extended period of time (millennium). The diversity within that group do not hinder their identity at all. Outside of that group is too small to matter.

Milestone! Warm congratulations to the Chinese first AMF fighter planes （J-31）fly

success!

This morning when 10：32 points, China's second kind of stealth fighter, five generation fighter AMF, J - 31, has formally test flight from the ground.

China become the world's second, at the same time test two five dynasties prototype country.

Previously only the United States at the same time developed F - 22 and F - 35 two five generation machine

We wandered far from the development of fire arms in China!
The American historian William H. O'Neill ( ? I can't find him or the book. I read it some thirty years ago ) considered in a book about Power and History that the indented nature of the Asian peninsula that is called Europe enabled small polities to maintain themselves against neighbors. Over time the number of polities was reduced but the amount of warfare needed let to a faster development of fire arms, as well as more weatherly ships, than happened in Asia.

The notion that European culture is derived from the Greeks and Roman is an invention of the 18th and 19th century. In fact European civilization is largely derived from the Muslims, who indeed transmitted Greek and Roman culture, but also culture from India ( think of our numerals ) and China, but also contributed a huge amount themselves.
The Jews were driven out of Palestine not by the Romans ( they were not allowed to live in Jerusalem because of the three insurrections against Roman rule: 66-70, 115-118 and 132-135, and later, when the Roman Empire had become Christian, because they had murdered god ), and not by the Muslims, but by the Crusaders who murdered about ten thousand when they took Jerusalem in 1098. The Palestinians are the decendents of Jews who converted to Christianity ( about a sixth of the Palestinians are Christian ) or Islam.

Originally Posted by jackliu

Well I disagree with you, it seems you want to argue that the only type of nationalism is the definition of modern nationalism, and if this were true, it would only apply to nations from 19th century and onward. Even after the found of America, people identity themselves as part of the State they belong much more than the nation. It was not until after the civil war, the attitude starting to change dramatically.

What I am talking about is a shared identity of a single civilization and an single people, which is something China have and no other Empire had, and especially the empires he mentioned in the beginning of Rome, Persian and the Arabs.

And you can't attribute this all to geography, I don't think Western Europe or Middle East had any easier geographic than Northern and Southern China, in fact I would say China's geography are quite harsh then compare to Roman empire and Person empires, and I would totally see that it is very possible that today's China would be like Europe today, split into many nations, each speak their own language and customs, but the fact is, it is not, and have not been for the majority of their history,

And if you want that if it was solely due to the pure willpower of the single warlords who with their willpower and determination is able to united all of China, then why haven't we see them in Europe or Middle East? because by this standards, there has been over a dozen strong will Chinese rulers able to do this over and over again in the time of chaos and break up, but not even a single such person from other civilizations all over earth? Because statistically speaking, this is almost impossible.

And I have said it before, there has been many times when China was fragmented in the past, and under those circumstances for any other people, it would have stayed fragment forever and it did, but not China, they always come together. You can't say this is all because of the will of a single warlord of geography.

Sun Zhongshan, Japanese, Mao Zedong certainly helped them to put a definition of what nationalism is, but way before them, the identity of a single people/civilization have long been deeply ingrained into the people's mind, consciously or unconsciously.

And I agree with your example of post Han and pre-Tang history, it was indeed chaos, but why don't you ask yourself, if it was pure chaos, what make them to unite together to became Tang after that? Why would it have not became like Europe? Where after the fall of Rome, the barbarians took over and the empire was forever lost? Under the circumstances for China, it would be entirely possible for the same outcome to occur, but why it didn't?

And the longer you go back in history, of course, the more fragmented the Chinese identity is, and the closer you go in history, the stronger the identity, so you can't just one instance in Chinese history and call it "Chinese" as the pure definitions of "Chinese", the Chinese identity have always been evolving, and the trend is the identity has becoming stronger and stronger as time passes.

You forget, Europe did experience a period of unification. It was under the Roman Empire.

The biggest obstacle that geography presents is always logistics. Under the Roman Empire, Europe had the technological and economical power to mount logistical operations that can overcome the European geography and conquer the majority of the European continent.

Once the Roman Empire fell, however, Europe went on a path of feudal-theocracy. Kings were not the highest rulers of the land, they paid obeisance to the Pope. Warfare took on a highly ritualistic form where the nobility had a code of being ransomed back if they were captured in battle. Europeans perfected the technology of armor and castles, but had poor offensive counters to these such as crossbows and siege engines. In short, the military technology of medieval Europe was geared toward turtling. Castle sieges were enormously expensive, and no single King could gain the economic strength to conquer his neighbor, nevermind the entire continent. Remember the the Hundred Year War between the French and the English? Those guys went at it for a hundred fricking years over an area of land the size of a Chinese province, and still couldn't conquer each other!

So you can't just consider geography alone. You have to consider it along with the technological and logistic capabilities of the civilization.

After the fall of the Roman Empire, much knowledge was lost to the Europeans, including things like sanitation and road construction. On the other hand, despite the centuries of warfare after the fall of the Han Dynasty, the Chinese civilization still kept the knowledge of their forefathers. During the 400 years of fragmentation, any one faction had the *potential* to unify the land, it's just that none of them had any lasting success until Tang.