Thanks for the reply, I certainly could be wrong as the future is impossible to predict, and even history is not exactly science， contradictory evidences exist depending on which side the historical written source come. Having said that, let’s discuss on the several points you raised, which I believe your conclusion is inaccurate or at …
Thanks for the reply, I certainly could be wrong as the future is impossible to predict, and even history is not exactly science， contradictory evidences exist depending on which side the historical written source come. Having said that, let’s discuss on the several points you raised, which I believe your conclusion is inaccurate or at least incomplete without full context. Happy to get into more detailed historical reference in a different capacity.
1. Kansu Corridor (I think you meant Gansu Corridor). First, Tang Dynasty is not the first “Chinese” empire to administer it. Han Dynasty took control the Corridor and Tarim Basin in 121BC after war with the Huns (or Xiongnu, some scholar say these were ancestors of Attila the Hun). Four administrative territories were established by Han Dynasty, and lasted more or less until AD63-89. Historically, the Corridor is somewhat of an ethnic melting pot on the border of “Chinese civilization” and northern nomads. Starting in Qin Dynasty, the areas was occupied by various small Kingdoms before being conquered by the Huns/Xiongnu, then more or less exchanged hands between “Chinese” empires and nomad tribes. Huns/Xiongnu was one such tribe, but also included Sarpi/xianbei, Tibetan,Turkic, Mongols, most are probably Mongoloids but Caucasian mummies have been discovered in the area. The Tang Dynasty conquest you referred to, I believe it’s just another similar battle between Turkic tribes (who subjugated smaller tribes) and Tang (whose Founding Family were not Han Chinese but Sarpi/Han Chinese mix). And this was not an one way deal, the same Turkic Tribe (or Kingdom) started invading what’s consider “traditional Chinese” territory as early as AD615 and was at the Gate of ChangAn, Tang’s Capital, in AD626. So it may be too much a stretch to pin the aggression on Tang along rather than at least both sides here.
2. Tibet. It was not first conquered by Qing Dynasty, Mongo/Yuan dynasty took control of it (invaded ~AD1240). Even prior to Qing taking control in 1720, Tibet rulers were consulting with Qing court on major decisions until the death of 5th Dalai Lama were concealed from Qing in 1682 and Dzungars Mongo tribes took over Tibet in 1717. Dzungars was also the dominant ethnic group in Xinjiang until Qing eradicated them via genocide in 1757-1758, and some scholars argue Uighurs did not become prominent in Xinjiang until Zungars were wiped out in the genocide (but that’s another topic). Was Qing Dynasty “as sinified as it would ever become” as your referenced? Two data points, in the Treating with Russia regarding Manchuria/Siberia in 1689, also by Emperor Kangxi who conquered Tibet, the official document had Manchu, Russian and Latin but not Chinese. Two, Han Chinese were not allowed in Manchuria, Qing’s ancestral land, until after 1861. So this questions is too subjective and there is no right answer, but I think it’s hard to argue they are as signified as it would ever become in 1720, not even 50 years after Manchu conquered China
3. Japan. The notion “Japan had not been expansionist until is suddenly was” you mentioned could not be further from the historical facts. Japan invaded Korea in 1592, 4 years after Toyotomi Hideyoshi first united Japan and again in 1597, it almost took the entire Korea until Ming Dynasty’s intervention. This is before the Shogun period! In subsequent years, Japan had various small scale military actions against Chinese coast and Korea, culminated into the First Sino-Japan war, which again started with Japan’s invasion of Korea. At China’s defeat in this war, Treaty of Shimonoseki was signed to cede various Chinese territories including Taiwan. Senkaku Island was also taken control by Japan after this. This is all before WWII, with Japan’s invasion of China, Malaya, and rest of Asia. Yes Japan is not expanding today after US dropped two Nukes and armies of American soldiers based there, but many who studied WW2 and battles of pacific islands, and the treatment of WW2 POWs at the hands of Japanese may have a different view.
Notwithstanding all of the above, there is no right or wrong answer in terms of how serious one should take “China’s threat or aggression”, it’s up to individual citizens and countries. But if we look at historical context and make an objective comparison with Japan’s occupation of Korea/China/Malaya, Rome’s expansion into Greece/Carthage/Hispania/Gaul/Britannia, Spanish Conquistador, US/UK Slave trading, and all the genocides came after those, I find it hard to compare factual Chinese military expansionary actions measuring up anywhere close to these examples. So the questions is, why should people become so concerned of a culture/country whom neither in historical or modern times, made such expansionary advances, especially compared with the above peers who have? Obviously being a different culture and communism government have a lot to do with it, but informed people should look deeper than that. Happy to change my mind upon new evidence.
Thanks for the reply, I certainly could be wrong as the future is impossible to predict, and even history is not exactly science， contradictory evidences exist depending on which side the historical written source come. Having said that, let’s discuss on the several points you raised, which I believe your conclusion is inaccurate or at least incomplete without full context. Happy to get into more detailed historical reference in a different capacity.
1. Kansu Corridor (I think you meant Gansu Corridor). First, Tang Dynasty is not the first “Chinese” empire to administer it. Han Dynasty took control the Corridor and Tarim Basin in 121BC after war with the Huns (or Xiongnu, some scholar say these were ancestors of Attila the Hun). Four administrative territories were established by Han Dynasty, and lasted more or less until AD63-89. Historically, the Corridor is somewhat of an ethnic melting pot on the border of “Chinese civilization” and northern nomads. Starting in Qin Dynasty, the areas was occupied by various small Kingdoms before being conquered by the Huns/Xiongnu, then more or less exchanged hands between “Chinese” empires and nomad tribes. Huns/Xiongnu was one such tribe, but also included Sarpi/xianbei, Tibetan,Turkic, Mongols, most are probably Mongoloids but Caucasian mummies have been discovered in the area. The Tang Dynasty conquest you referred to, I believe it’s just another similar battle between Turkic tribes (who subjugated smaller tribes) and Tang (whose Founding Family were not Han Chinese but Sarpi/Han Chinese mix). And this was not an one way deal, the same Turkic Tribe (or Kingdom) started invading what’s consider “traditional Chinese” territory as early as AD615 and was at the Gate of ChangAn, Tang’s Capital, in AD626. So it may be too much a stretch to pin the aggression on Tang along rather than at least both sides here.
2. Tibet. It was not first conquered by Qing Dynasty, Mongo/Yuan dynasty took control of it (invaded ~AD1240). Even prior to Qing taking control in 1720, Tibet rulers were consulting with Qing court on major decisions until the death of 5th Dalai Lama were concealed from Qing in 1682 and Dzungars Mongo tribes took over Tibet in 1717. Dzungars was also the dominant ethnic group in Xinjiang until Qing eradicated them via genocide in 1757-1758, and some scholars argue Uighurs did not become prominent in Xinjiang until Zungars were wiped out in the genocide (but that’s another topic). Was Qing Dynasty “as sinified as it would ever become” as your referenced? Two data points, in the Treating with Russia regarding Manchuria/Siberia in 1689, also by Emperor Kangxi who conquered Tibet, the official document had Manchu, Russian and Latin but not Chinese. Two, Han Chinese were not allowed in Manchuria, Qing’s ancestral land, until after 1861. So this questions is too subjective and there is no right answer, but I think it’s hard to argue they are as signified as it would ever become in 1720, not even 50 years after Manchu conquered China
3. Japan. The notion “Japan had not been expansionist until is suddenly was” you mentioned could not be further from the historical facts. Japan invaded Korea in 1592, 4 years after Toyotomi Hideyoshi first united Japan and again in 1597, it almost took the entire Korea until Ming Dynasty’s intervention. This is before the Shogun period! In subsequent years, Japan had various small scale military actions against Chinese coast and Korea, culminated into the First Sino-Japan war, which again started with Japan’s invasion of Korea. At China’s defeat in this war, Treaty of Shimonoseki was signed to cede various Chinese territories including Taiwan. Senkaku Island was also taken control by Japan after this. This is all before WWII, with Japan’s invasion of China, Malaya, and rest of Asia. Yes Japan is not expanding today after US dropped two Nukes and armies of American soldiers based there, but many who studied WW2 and battles of pacific islands, and the treatment of WW2 POWs at the hands of Japanese may have a different view.
Notwithstanding all of the above, there is no right or wrong answer in terms of how serious one should take “China’s threat or aggression”, it’s up to individual citizens and countries. But if we look at historical context and make an objective comparison with Japan’s occupation of Korea/China/Malaya, Rome’s expansion into Greece/Carthage/Hispania/Gaul/Britannia, Spanish Conquistador, US/UK Slave trading, and all the genocides came after those, I find it hard to compare factual Chinese military expansionary actions measuring up anywhere close to these examples. So the questions is, why should people become so concerned of a culture/country whom neither in historical or modern times, made such expansionary advances, especially compared with the above peers who have? Obviously being a different culture and communism government have a lot to do with it, but informed people should look deeper than that. Happy to change my mind upon new evidence.