Originally Posted by
Faux Newbie
And how many of those books are by scholars that are well respected in their field?
You have a credit card, congratulations.
None of whom you can actually name.
Again, what is the name of this or what experts were used in it? There's not that many China experts whose expertise applies here, if you have such a large library and know so much about it, these names become pretty familiar pretty quickly.
The problem is, there were quite a few survivors who seemed to carry on a consistent story, whether they later were less pleased with the party or not, whether they stayed in China or not, on what occurred on the march. There are apocryphal stories, to be certain, but the idea that the march did not occur, that it did not occur in relation to actions of the Nationalists, is a bit out of the bulk of scholarship on this topic.
No, the Japanese wanted Chinese to act as workers, just as they had expected of the Koreans and the Ainu and other Asians they considered their lesser brothers. Unrest in China caused them to seek to root out political enemies, which required ever increasing repression that drove ever greater numbers into opposition, just as would happen in the ROK when they carried on Japanese policies toward dissidents in later years.
Japan needed Chinese workers to work in Manchuria, and the communists endangered that. The Japanese leadership's entire Asian co-prosperity sphere was a necessary condition for competing against the West, Japan could not populate China with Japanese workers, not could it count on Korean workers, as they also were creating unrest in North China and agitating. The repression was not much different that the actions of the ROK later, overreaction to political dissidents that ultimately fed into and benefited those dissidents.
I was wondering when the ad hominem attack was coming. All talk, no fact, you are.
Both of these were in the Qing, and one was the result of the other. And now they are considered a great power by U.S. experts. So what?
I have not disputed that there were defeats in Chinese history. No state has existed as long without also facing defeats. Again, what is your point?
Tibetan? The Tibetans didn't invade and conquer China. Are you talking about the Mongols? Manchu?
Do your geography, Tibet didn't conquer China.
If you are talking about the Mongols, then we are discussing more than pastoral folk, but military leaders who defeated a lot more leaders than those of China, who had advisors from all cultures, including a number of Chinese advisors who were well respected for the skills by the Khan, and who were a massive cavalry force, just like the Manchu.
In the case of the Manchu, again, they had non-Manchu bannermen from many regions, they made use of cavalry in the North and ground troops and boats to gain access to the South. Hardly simple nomads at that time in history.
From there, the Manchu were acclimated over time by the imperial system.
The Mongols could not hold the territory because the need for the imperial system's bureaucracy meant adoption of Chinese customs, which made it easy for chieftains in the steppes to attack the authority of mongols living as Chinese.
In the periods before and between these periods, the Chinese played nomadic chieftains one against the other and employed their cavalries in their armies.
BS.
I'll just assume you mean rule of law, as in precedent.
Aside from ascribing a whole mess of stuff to all western powers during those times when it doesn't apply, it is amazing that you break out secularism. I'll assume you count Confucianism as a religion.
And despite all that, 1/3 of the wars in the world at any point in that time were in Europe. This wouldn't end until the U.S. and Russia made Western Europe a nuclear hotspot not to push. Not one day before. Plenty of torture in all that time, plenty of cruel Kings, ending with nationalism and conflict of empires. Equality of the sexes is a joke in almost that entire period. Guillotines. Etc.
Bleh. Generalizations. These do not historical analysis make.
You seem to be extending your history back to one period, and then applying it retroactively to all periods, including periods in which China's economic status was dominant, including to the Brits.
I am highly amused as you go from "the Chinese are weak and have always been weak" to "their leaders are cruel, and WOMEN'S RIGHTS!" I will give you credit for being a feminist.
After every period in which cavalry from the North took China, the Chinese took total control of those regions again, divided these Northerners, used the ones that were loyal to them as cavalry, and made it harder for such people's to retake China. The Xiongnu's approach for taking China would no longer work by the time of the Mongols, the Mongol approach no longer worked by the time of the Manchu. In each case, a more technological China required a more advanced force to take it, which could be said about a great many places across the world that contributed to global development worldwide in both the East and West.
Your entire premiss is that your society is only good if others are bad. Your society is based on a melange of eastern and western ideas, from China's bureaucracy to Iroquois ideas on democracy and warfare to Indian and Persian math to a huge number of other factors, all of which form the basis for your life, whether you like it or not.
I do support the fact that you are a feminist.
Now again, what were the sources for your info?