China and the development of firearms

Chill Jack.

I will find you the sources once I have time.

And reread my post, I never said HRE was ever like a dynasty; I said that HRE thought themselves as Romans and an embodiment of Rome even thou they are not; just like many people nowadays think themselves as Han, and they are not.

And I know my history well, religion is not a good indicator of cultural inheritance. If you have been to Egypt, you would know, people are more prideful of being Egyptians, the decedents of the Pharaohs instead of being the decedents of Islam.

You also do know that the Russian Empire is larger than the Soviet Union; the laregest extent of the russian empire is 23.7 million square km, while the USSR was 22.4 million square km. Hence, your statement is wrong

Originally Posted by Lezt

Chill Jack.

I will find you the sources once I have time.

And reread my post, I never said HRE was ever like a dynasty; I said that HRE thought themselves as Romans and an embodiment of Rome even thou they are not; just like many people nowadays think themselves as Han, and they are not.

And I know my history well, religion is not a good indicator of cultural inheritance. If you have been to Egypt, you would know, people are more prideful of being Egyptians, the decedents of the Pharaohs instead of being the decedents of Islam.

You also do know that the Russian Empire is larger than the Soviet Union; the laregest extent of the russian empire is 23.7 million square km, while the USSR was 22.4 million square km. Hence, your statement is wrong

So what is your point of the last reply huh? My thesis is Chinese civilization is much more unified as a political and cultural identity than any other human civilization on earth, maybe you can argue that Jews share some of this aspect as well, but what they have experience in the past is not even close when compare to Chinese civilization. And my thesis is that China though out history was much more homogeneous than any other people on earth as well. And your original reply was trying to dispute that I assume by bring up Rome and others, and this reply, it seems you never challenge my main thesis. So I assume you agree with it?

And no, just because you THOUGH you are someone does not MAKE you it, heck, HRE, Tsarist Russia, Ottoman Turks and even the Arabs at sometime entertain the notion that they are the 2nd coming of Rome, but does it make them the direct descent of Rome? HELL NO.

Same cannot be said for the Chinese civilization, their linage is very much continuous.

Religion was just an example, so what else do you want to measure it on? You want to measure it on Language? Trust me, you don't, it will support my point even more than yours. And again... modern Egyptian are prideful of their history as they should, because it was a glorious history indeed, but so what? The ancient Egyptian to them is nothing more than a distant memory than anything else, did you even know that until they Napoleon's team discovered the Rosetta Stone, the old Egyptian language was lost for almost 2000 years, that means for 2000 years the Egyptian people have no freaking idea what is all the grand monument around them was saying, how is that for culture connectivity? And look a the Chinese history, their language http://xuehanyu.wikispaces.com/file/..._evolution.gif Notice how the words today are direct evolution from the 1400 BC, please, please show me ONE civilization among the history of human have something similar? Go ahead, take your time.

As for the Russia, I am referring to Russia to TODAY, not the Russian empire before 1917, that was indeed very similar to what USSR is, but today's Russia is not the same as USSR or Tsarist Russia. Today's Russia is much more homogeneous in term of it is population.

Again, before you post anything to dispute what I wrote, I just want to get one thing straight, my whole point is Chinese civilization is very different from all over civilization and culture on earth, it has a unbroken record, one generation have direct descendant from the next generation, there is no invasion, no plague, no outside intervention, no internal down fall that broke their linage all the way form beginning to today. And most Chinese have this identity of being Chinese for a lot longer than other civilization on earth. If you disagree about this, go ahead and say it.

Originally Posted by jackliu

So what is your point of the last reply huh? My thesis is Chinese civilization is much more unified as a political and cultural identity than any other human civilization on earth, maybe you can argue that Jews share some of this aspect as well, but what they have experience in the past is not even close when compare to Chinese civilization. And my thesis is that China though out history was much more homogeneous than any other people on earth as well.

When you phrase it that way, both your theses are provably false. Korea is a far more homogeneous people than China, and the Jewish cultural identity is much more unified due to their sharing of a single religion.

The view that China is a homogeneous culture is a myth. The Han ethnicity is a social construct. Northern Han is more genetically similar to northern minorities than to southern Han.

You only think China is homogeneous because it presents a single version of history for you to consume. This is the result of millenia of central authority, both political and social (in the form of Confucianism).

What is probably more accurate is to think of the Chinese cultural identity as a web spanning all kinds of people and cultures.

Modern nationalism has obviously cemented this identity, but if we go back 200 years, when this Nationalism did not yet exist, we can see where your "homogeneous" argument breaks down.

Let's imagine it's 1812, less than 3 decades before the Opium War. The Emperor is Jiaqing, son of the great Emperor Qianlong. Jiaqing is well meaning, but know he has no chance of matching the fame of his father. Even though he executed He Sheng, the roots of corruption have taken deep hold among the imperial functionaries. Strange foreign devils are asking to trade with the Celestial Court, but they have been confined to a single port in Guangdong.

Let's take a rice farmer from Suzhou, a peddler from Beijing, and a weaver from Yunnan. The farmer and the peddler both identify themselves as of the Han race, and the weaver is of the Miao race.

Of those 3, only the peddler is literate. None of them even speak the same language. Yet they would all be considered Chinese. So apart from all being subjects of the Qing Empire, what traits can you identify that all 3 would share, but which a "non-Chinese" would not normally have?

Originally Posted by solarz

When you phrase it that way, both your theses are provably false. Korea is a far more homogeneous people than China, and the Jewish cultural identity is much more unified due to their sharing of a single religion.

The view that China is a homogeneous culture is a myth. The Han ethnicity is a social construct. Northern Han is more genetically similar to northern minorities than to southern Han.

You only think China is homogeneous because it presents a single version of history for you to consume. This is the result of millenia of central authority, both political and social (in the form of Confucianism).

What is probably more accurate is to think of the Chinese cultural identity as a web spanning all kinds of people and cultures.

Modern nationalism has obviously cemented this identity, but if we go back 200 years, when this Nationalism did not yet exist, we can see where your "homogeneous" argument breaks down.

Let's imagine it's 1812, less than 3 decades before the Opium War. The Emperor is Jiaqing, son of the great Emperor Qianlong. Jiaqing is well meaning, but know he has no chance of matching the fame of his father. Even though he executed He Sheng, the roots of corruption have taken deep hold among the imperial functionaries. Strange foreign devils are asking to trade with the Celestial Court, but they have been confined to a single port in Guangdong.

Let's take a rice farmer from Suzhou, a peddler from Beijing, and a weaver from Yunnan. The farmer and the peddler both identify themselves as of the Han race, and the weaver is of the Miao race.

Of those 3, only the peddler is literate. None of them even speak the same language. Yet they would all be considered Chinese. So apart from all being subjects of the Qing Empire, what traits can you identify that all 3 would share, but which a "non-Chinese" would not normally have?

That is my point!!!! I wrote this in the last few post already, that Chinese or Han is not a genetic identity, it is a cultural identity, it encompass many nationality and genetic differences, it is not about what you are, it is about what you THINK you are, that is makes Chinese unique. I already post this response to the other guy in post #66 so I'll copy and paste here again.

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.

And those 3 that you speak of, they have very little actual similarity between them (maybe not the Miao, because depends on the Qing period, they might be in rebellion with the government), but they still share one thing, they considers themselves to be part of the Chinese civilization, and to that extend, they do share some common values systems that they hold together, such as Confucianism, Concept of mandate of heaven, what is Chinese and what is not etc... it is very possible they don't see themselves as modern Chinese see themselves as the Chinese identity today, which includes nationalism in the modern sense, but they already do share this a far greater identity already.

What I'm trying to say is, even if you see them the old Chinese system as extremely backward, but to me, they are extremely advanced, even more advanced than today's culture identity. Because in today's self identity, you are still very much divided by language, by race, by birth location etc.. But not the old Chinese identity, because don't you think it is absolutely amazing for people that speaks totally different language, who lives half of world apart still consider themselves to share a common bond? I think in the far future, this is the identity that all human will have someday, that the identity of being human instead of identity of being part of a nation, or part of a city state, or part of a town, or tribe, and we will not be identified/divided by the language or birth location barrier. Sure the regional identity will always exist, but they will exist to the extend that I think I am a Californian, but I hold my identity of being part USA much more important, this will be similar, in the end the most importance emphasis in the future will be placed upon the common bond that we all share as being part of the human race.

To that extend the old Chinese civilization is extremely close to this concept, and this is done with thousands of years of being relatively homogeneous as part of a centralized government throughout history.

Originally Posted by jackliu

And those 3 that you speak of, they have very little actual similarity between them (maybe not the Miao, because depends on the Qing period, they might be in rebellion with the government), but they still share one thing, they considers themselves to be part of the Chinese civilization, and to that extend, they do share some common values systems that they hold together, such as Confucianism, Concept of mandate of heaven, what is Chinese and what is not etc... it is very possible they don't see themselves as modern Chinese see themselves as the Chinese identity today, which includes nationalism in the modern sense, but they already do share this a far greater identity already.

What I'm trying to say is, even if you see them the old Chinese system as extremely backward, but to me, they are extremely advanced, even more advanced than today's culture identity. Because in today's self identity, you are still very much divided by language, by race, by birth location etc.. But not the old Chinese identity, because don't you think it is absolutely amazing for people that speaks totally different language, who lives half of world apart still consider themselves to share a common bond? I think in the far future, this is the identity that all human will have someday, that the identity of being human instead of identity of being part of a nation, or part of a city state, or part of a town, or tribe, and we will not be identified/divided by the language or birth location barrier. Sure the regional identity will always exist, but they will exist to the extend that I think I am a Californian, but I hold my identity of being part USA much more important, this will be similar, in the end the most importance emphasis in the future will be placed upon the common bond that we all share as being part of the human race.

To that extend the old Chinese civilization is extremely close to this concept, and this is done with thousands of years of being relatively homogeneous as part of a centralized government throughout history.

Like you said, the Miao probably did not consider herself to be "Chinese". Yet you say that these 3 people all share a common bond. Can you point out what that bond is?

Originally Posted by solarz

Like you said, the Miao probably did not consider herself to be "Chinese". Yet you say that these 3 people all share a common bond. Can you point out what that bond is?

I already told you

they do share some common values systems that they hold together, such as Confucianism, Concept of mandate of heaven, what is Chinese and what is not etc

Let me ask you this, does the Miao people today consider them to be Chinese? Most of them do. (Notice I said Chinese, NOT Han)

Does Tibetan and Uygur consider themselves to be Chinese? most them probably don't

And lastly, over 93% of Chinese consider themselves to be "Han" People, but I think it is safe to say vast majority of that 93% who's ancestor was not Han people at all, they were people from other groups that got conquered and assimilated into the Han people, if you ask them at the time of the original Chinese conquest, would they consider themselves to be Chinese? Of course they don't, ask their children's children's children's 10 generation later, would they consider themselves to be Chinese? Yes they do.

Understand what I'm trying to say?

Originally Posted by jackliu

I already told you they do share some common values systems that they hold together, such as Confucianism, Concept of mandate of heaven, what is Chinese and what is not etc

Let me ask you this, does the Miao people today consider them to be Chinese? Most of them do. (Notice I said Chinese, NOT Han)

Does Tibetan and Uygur consider themselves to be Chinese? most them probably don't

Confucianism is used by more than just the Chinese culture. The Koreans, Japanese, and Vietnamese societies are all based on it. The mandate of heaven is a part of Confucianism.

Not all Chinese believe or follow Confucianism. There are many Uygurs who follow Islam but still consider themselves Chinese. There are ethnic Russians whose culture is the same as national Russians who consider themselves Chinese.

As for "what is Chinese and what is not", that's circular logic. I am *asking* you what it means to be "Chinese".

And lastly, over 93% of Chinese consider themselves to be "Han" People, but I think it is safe to say vast majority of that 93% who's ancestor was not Han people at all, they were people from other groups that got conquered and assimilated into the Han people, if you ask them at the time of the original Chinese conquest, would they consider themselves to be Chinese? Of course they don't, ask their children's children's children's 10 generation later, would they consider themselves to be Chinese? Yes they do.

Understand what I'm trying to say?

Right, and how does this make Chinese history and culture homogeneous?

Homogeneous
Adjective:
Of the same kind; alike.
Consisting of parts all of the same kind.
Synonyms:
uniform - similar

You are imagining that the "Chinese Culture" is some kind of black hole sucking in smaller cultures and turning them into "Chinese" particles.

Instead, the Chinese culture is like a river, feeding from a myriad of streams and smaller waterways. It might *look* homogeneous on the surface, but if you examine it closely, you will find living organisms and sediments from all over the land.

There is no single characteristic that makes one person Chinese and another person "not Chinese". It is not like the Jews, where you are a Jew if you belong the Judaism faith. Instead, there is a web of beliefs, traditions, language, and yes, physical characteristics, which makes a person identify themselves as Chinese. However, this web or pattern is different from community to community. No two groups of people take the Chinese identity for the exact same reasons.

Originally Posted by solarz

Confucianism is used by more than just the Chinese culture. The Koreans, Japanese, and Vietnamese societies are all based on it. The mandate of heaven is a part of Confucianism.

Not all Chinese believe or follow Confucianism. There are many Uygurs who follow Islam but still consider themselves Chinese. There are ethnic Russians whose culture is the same as national Russians who consider themselves Chinese.

As for "what is Chinese and what is not", that's circular logic. I am *asking* you what it means to be "Chinese".

Yes, confucianism is only one of the hundreds of Chinese philosophies that survived history. what about Taoism? What about Faism (the teaching of Fa, or the rule of law)? People believing in these philosophies still identify themselves as Chinese.

I agree that nationality has nothing to do with genetics and has everything to do with culture. Children of Chinese immigrants to the US definitely identify themselves as Americans, yet they have the "pure" Chinese blood.

Originally Posted by vesicles

Yes, confucianism is only one of the hundreds of Chinese philosophies that survived history. what about Taoism? What about Faism (the teaching of Fa, or the rule of law)? People believing in these philosophies still identify themselves as Chinese.

I agree that nationality has nothing to do with genetics and has everything to do with culture. Children of Chinese immigrants to the US definitely identify themselves as Americans, yet they have the "pure" Chinese blood.

Yeah that's what I mean, Confucianism, Taoism, hundreds of Chinese philosophies or even Buddhism. All of it combined together and the belief system that makes you Chinese. What is Chinese is not in your genes, it is in your minds.

There are many pure "Han" blood of Chinese immigrants born into their society that does not even speak Chinese, or may even hate themselves for what they are, but sad thing is, people still judge them from outside as Chinese. And yes it is possible for them to read up more about their own culture and discover who they are, and if they later hold the identity they are Chinese, then they will became Chinese.

This is also in theory, possible for any other races of people to do the same thing and became Chinese, but there is very few cases of this so far.

Originally Posted by solarz

Confucianism is used by more than just the Chinese culture. The Koreans, Japanese, and Vietnamese societies are all based on it. The mandate of heaven is a part of Confucianism.

Not all Chinese believe or follow Confucianism. There are many Uygurs who follow Islam but still consider themselves Chinese. There are ethnic Russians whose culture is the same as national Russians who consider themselves Chinese.

As for "what is Chinese and what is not", that's circular logic. I am *asking* you what it means to be "Chinese".

This reply is interesting, so you just told me there are ethic Russians, Uygurs, Korean all believe they are Chinese, which support my thesis in the very beginning that being Chinese is not a race, it is what you believe in, and that Chinese is an identity that can encompass many ethnicity, and this identity is very strong throughout history and it is central to the Chinese civilization. So if you agree with this, why are you so hanged up on what exactly is a "Chinese" I don't understand what is your point? I never disputing with you on the definitions of Chinese-ness.

As for Korean, Japanese and Vietnam society which believed in Confucianism, that is because they were influenced by the Chinese civilization in the past, they see it works so they adopted it, I don't see what's wrong here. According to ancient China, they all have their places in the Mandate of Heaven, with China as the center, and they are the tributary kingdoms, and most of those nations actually structured their court and very much base on the Chinese imperial court, but they themselves acknowledge that the ultimate center is still in China's imperial court, and they all accepted this relatively peacefully throughout the history until recently the 19th century, when China itself got weak, and can no longer really protect it is tributary nations. However it does not mean those nations abandon what they learned from China for thousands of years, because those customs and tradition have long been integrated with their own culture and believes. Again, I don't see their existence have any conflict with what I am trying to say.

Right, and how does this make Chinese history and culture homogeneous?

Adjective:
Of the same kind; alike.
Consisting of parts all of the same kind.
Synonyms:
uniform - similar

You are imagining that the "Chinese Culture" is some kind of black hole sucking in smaller cultures and turning them into "Chinese" particles.

Instead, the Chinese culture is like a river, feeding from a myriad of streams and smaller waterways. It might *look* homogeneous on the surface, but if you examine it closely, you will find living organisms and sediments from all over the land.

There is no single characteristic that makes one person Chinese and another person "not Chinese". It is not like the Jews, where you are a Jew if you belong the Judaism faith. Instead, there is a web of beliefs, traditions, language, and yes, physical characteristics, which makes a person identify themselves as Chinese. However, this web or pattern is different from community to community. No two groups of people take the Chinese identity for the exact same reasons.

Alright, if you want to get technical and bring out the dictionary, then yes you are right, Chinese civilization is not like Star Trek Borg, who acts like mindless zombies and swallows every nation that it come into contact with and destroy all.

And yes, I already said that there can be 2 different Chinese person living 5000 km apart who have to deal with very different things from their day to day life, and they may have very little commonality to share or cannot even understand what each other is speaking. But guess what? They still consider themselves to be Chinese no matter the difference they have, and yes they may not share 100% of what being Chinese-ness is. They still have this identity of being Chinese in the end, and this identity is what holding the nation together as one political entity for most of their history.

And this is what make them special from all other civilizations.

Originally Posted by jackliu

And yes, I already said that there can be 2 different Chinese person living 5000 km apart who have to deal with very different things from their day to day life, and they may have very little commonality to share or cannot even understand what each other is speaking. But guess what? They still consider themselves to be Chinese no matter the difference they have, and yes they may not share 100% of what being Chinese-ness is. They still have this identity of being Chinese in the end, and this identity is what holding the nation together as one political entity for most of their history.

And this is what make them special from all other civilizations.

Remember what started this whole debate?

Originally Posted by Lezt

I do not like to view China as a continuous homogeneous country. China had until very recently been an empire; unlike the roman, Persian, Macedonian empires which disintergrated; China held on.

Lezt did not say that there was no Chinese identity, but that China is not a homogeneous country. Those are two different concepts.

Originally Posted by solarz

Remember what started this whole debate?



Lezt did not say that there was no Chinese identity, but that China is not a homogeneous country. Those are two different concepts.

I was having problem with this paragraph.

I do not like to view China as a continuous homogeneous country. China had until very recently been an empire; unlike the roman, Persian, Macedonian empires which disintergrated; China held on.

Which puts China in the same category as Rome, Persian, Greeks, Arabs, Egyptians etc.. That for some magical reason China is able to hold on, while others didn't, but essentially they are no different from those other civilization, except for some reason China got lucky and hold on. Luck have nothing to do with it, the culture and the Chinese identity throughout history is what make it hold together time after time after chaos.

Doesn't really matter of this identity itself is 100% homogeneous or not by the genetic identity of the original founders.

So it all comes down to the definition of homogeneity.

Chinese is a collective culture, prefer to seek commonality/relationship and reserving the differences. Chinese tend to have a holistic view, therefore for Chinese, they see a commonality after all factors are considered. We do not like to go splitting hair in order to find a single metric to measure commonality. If an overwhelming number of Chinese agree that it is so, then that is the truth.

So I think the argument being that Chinese is more homogenous than most others in a holistic way.

I do not think defining homogeneity with genetic works given what we know today. And the example of Jew homogeneity, well, that is by definition. That is like saying all American has American citizenship. Is it really true that all Jew practice Judaism? Is a Jewish boy that do not practice Judaism still Jew?

If someone go and get a research grand to do a study, Chinese have no problem with that. But deep down Chinese would considered that rather stupid and waste of resources. Because by all practicality, the identity exist and proven in real life. If the overwhelming majority of Chinese believe in it, and live by it, that would be the true significance. The proof is in the pudding.

Originally Posted by jackliu

I was having problem with this paragraph.




Which puts China in the same category as Rome, Persian, Greeks, Arabs, Egyptians etc.. That for some magical reason China is able to hold on, while others didn't, but essentially they are no different from those other civilization, except for some reason China got lucky and hold on. Luck have nothing to do with it, the culture and the Chinese identity throughout history is what make it hold together time after time after chaos.

Doesn't really matter of this identity itself is 100% homogeneous or not by the genetic identity of the original founders.

To give you some sources of Sinocentrism and how Japan at a time thought itself as the rightful decedent of China, I am only going to quote wiki:

Sinocentrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In an ironic affirmation of the spirit of Sinocentrism, claims were even heard that the Japanese, not the Chinese, were the legitimate heirs of Chinese culture. In the early Edo period, neo-Confucianist Yamaga Soko asserted that Japan was superior to China in Confucian terms and more deserving of the name "Chūgoku". Other scholars picked this up, notably Aizawa Seishisai, an adherent of the Mito School, in his political tract Shinron (新論 New Theses) in 1825.

-

My statement on empires is only regarding landmass, if you think about it, Pan-Slavic culture endured the rise and fall of the russian empire, SU and now the federation. Anglo-Saxon culture, transcended Saxony and Angles; it survived England, Britain, the UK, the British Empire, and it still exist today. Similarly, other cultural identities survived to this day even if the state of empire ceased to exist.

What I am saying is that the endurance of Chinese culture is not out of the ordinary, The only difference is that China and Russia retained most of the land they acquired during their empire.