Quote:

Original posted by Historian at 13-7-2008 12:16
I'm appalled at the arguments the Chinese government and many Chinese people offer to justify their occupation of Tibet. Here, I'll refute all your arguments. Unless you can reasonably rebut my points ...

Hi, Historian, above words is you statemented at first.
Why did you say:Comparing the relationship between Han and Manchu with whites and blacks is ###.
Please discuss like a gentleman




[ Last edited by joej2005 at 20-7-2008 15:05 ]

  historians...."But Manchus were the one with the power during the Qing dynasty. ..."...hehehehe.Just like me saying
  " But Whites were the Masters with power during Slavery"...hehehe,false historian,please pick another weapond...hehehehe.

Quote:

Anthrophobia, if you read this thread entirely, you'll find that I've already said what you said. Will respond to your other points later.

Actually, it is by reading it entirely that I can claim that you said the opposite. Or, how bout a quote of your own post to prove it to me? To be blunt, I don't think you never mentioned the Union of the Five Races nor the fallacy of judging current boundaries with historical boundaries until I brought it up, but you could prove me wrong with a quote

Quote:

You say Han --> white and Manchu --> black. But Manchus were the one with the power during the Qing dynasty.

I say that's a really invalid comparison, as Han had a heck of a lot more power than blacks did during the same time period.  What would people during the 18th century say to have a half-black as president(such as emperor Kangxi for the Qing dynasty), or black officials in governing positions? Just the thought of abolishing slavery(considering Lincoln never really said he was going to do until it was obvious he was winning the American Civil War) started a civil war.Heck, at least the Qing population census counted the Han as one person instead of a fraction of a person, as America used to count blacks. Ironically, it's the Southern States that wanted blacks to be counted as a whole person, while the Northern States did not(because this would give the Southern States more voting power through population count, even though blacks weren't allowed to vote). So, I would say that the Han during the Qing had powers that African Americans could only hope to dream of. It's impressive how much society advanced in just 200 years. Now we could have a half-black president, and no one's spasming over it.

[ Last edited by Anthrophobia at 21-7-2008 04:39 ]

Historian: Today I feel good, so it's time for me to educate you and your kind. Chinese is one of the few countries with a very long history. Just written history  alone,is four thousand seven hunderd  plus years.So your statement  of  "Manchu Empire does NOT equal China. China was part of the Manchu Empire along with Mongolia and Tibet. ",is called sectional history .You have taken over 5000 years of Chinas History,and concentrated on a section that was ruled by the Qing court, and the Yuan  Dynasty.A total of 357 out of 4700 plus year to create a point. So this is your new weapond? Your new weapond is worst than your first. Shows racism and an  Evil  heart  at its core.Take my advice, and enjoy the olympics.Even ABC,will no longer fall for your Tricks.
Antrophobia: Your statement of    "Han had a heck of a lot more power than blacks did during the same time period....." Shows that  you and historian ,are from the same milk. Hummm ..Maybe two is acturally one:?  Your statement should read " Han had the same amount of power as White did during the same period".Playing trickly with Chinese history, will not serve your purpose.Your time would be better serve in front of CCTV learning about Chinese culture.

[ Last edited by Talkstraight at 21-7-2008 05:34 ]

Quote:

Your statement should read " Han had the same amount of power as White did during the same period".Playing trickly with Chinese history, will not serve your purpose.Your time would be better serve in front of CCTV learning about Chinese culture.

If I said that, it would imply Manchus were slaves to the Han, which can't be any more wrong. And what is your purpose but to spread flame material? You went as far as hinting that Historian and I are the same person.  In fact, your posts throughout this thread were borderline flaming so far.

Quote:

Just written history  alone,is four thousand seven hunderd  plus years.So your statement  of  "Manchu Empire does NOT equal China. China was part of the Manchu Empire along with Mongolia and Tibet. ",is called sectional history .You have taken over 5000 years of Chinas History,and concentrated on a section that was ruled by the Qing court, and the Yuan  Dynasty.

Well, you can't fault him when even the CCP claims that Tibet was a part of China ever since the Yuan, which would be 700 yrs ago. But neither the Ming nor the Yuan were heavily discussed in this thread, so what do you expect?

Quote:" If I said that, it would imply Manchus were slaves to the Han, whichcan't be any more wrong. And what is your purpose but to spread flamematerial? You went as far as hinting that Historian and I are the sameperson.  In fact, your posts throughout this thread were borderlineflaming so far."
         The point is : Not to fall into the trap of"divide and conquer."Historian tries to divide the chinese into different ways of thought.Once his point becomes valid,historian will have breaded a few thinkers under his palm.Just like the FLK has a Black female giving out phampets on the street in the United States..As for hinting that Historian and you are the same person,that was a mistake on my part.. and I appoligize. When Historian uses Han against Tibet / Mongol / Manchurian,it is the same technique as using "House Slave", against "Field Slaves". And this must be exposed from the start. .Expose them immediately, and they will begin to fall like flies. ... Next: Hit them with the same medicine that he is trying to sell.To  historians dismay and  surprise,this  medicine has more posion ,than the the lies that he is trying to  sell.

[ Last edited by Talkstraight at 21-7-2008 08:30 ]

Apology accepted, but please respect each others opinions as well. Blatantly calling them "selling lies" whether you disagree with them or not, won't do the forum any good. It would only upset Historian, who as a result might say something that'll upset you, and then the cycle of hate would just keep turning. Just kindly point out your facts if you disagree. You can see that I myself disagrees with Historian, but an educated debate is much more preferable. I don't think I have the right to do any moderating about it as you didn't outright attack him, but taking the advice would make the forum just a little friendlier.

[ Last edited by Anthrophobia at 21-7-2008 10:04 ]

finally that "historian" showed the true color of his. from "human rights", to "new country tibet". well he should be straightforward from the start. personally i have never been to that dharamsala, but i heard it has quite nice surrounding, except  the town itself is kind shoddy.

here is the straightforward answer: it would never happen!!!

as american saying "united we stand", i add it a bit more "divided we fall". it is true for the united states of america, it is also true for china.