The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPeter Lee Archive
What if It Wasn’t “One China” vs. “Two Chinas”? What If There Was “No China”?
Brexit, 中国 Denialism, and the End of "China"
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

What does this map have to do with Brexit?

The answer may surprise you!

But first, the wait is over, people. My Brexit hot take is up at Asia Times: The Brexit Upside for China

The PRC was not happy with Brexit, despite the Atlanticist fetish with spinning any difficulties with the neo-liberal project as a foul victory for Putin & the Chicoms.

In parsing the PRC discomfort with the possibility of the United Kingdom fragmenting into Britain + Wales, independent Scotland, and a merger of Northern Ireland with Ireland, and perhaps the EU losing a clutch of key states and regressing into a lesser union, I draw parallels and contrasts in my Asia Times piece between the shaky state of play in western Europe and the PRC’s own problems with its internal multi-national order in a manner I predict readers will find entertaining and informative.

The PRC has a bias toward stability and against direct democracy. There’s more. It also has a major vested interest in the legitimacy and viability of multi-national institutions. In case you haven’t noticed, the PRC is the biggest multi-national enterprise on the planet, avowedly run on multi-national principles with the full panoply of nationalities and autonomous zones.

The outsized emotional reaction to the Brexit vote provided me with an interesting and unexpected perspective on another area of identity-emotionalism: the CCP’s obsession with the New Qing History (“NQH”) debate and the prospect for PRC disintegration abetted by unhelpful competitors and adversaries.

To give an idea of the fears and anxieties the seemingly esoteric NQH tussle arouse in the CCP, I’m going to characterize the dispute as “ 中国 Denialism” here. I have to call it “ 中国 Denialism” instead of the more Western-friendly “China Denialism” for reasons you’ll see at the end of the piece.

In my AT piece I wrote:

One of the most furious and reliable sources of scholastic spittle on the Internet is the invective against “New Qing History”, which embodies CCP fear and indignation at the skepticism of modern social science toward the objective, enduring existence of something called “China” (including the Tibetan and western holdings, to which the PRC positions itself as the “rightful heir”) as opposed to viewing East Asia as the parade ground for an irregular march of multi-ethnic kingdoms and ill-defined territorial ambitions through history and “China” as little more than a self-serving post-modern projection by the current rulers.

Interestingly, the Marxist materialists holding the key ideological slots in Chinese social science have chosen to plant their flag on the idea that “中国 “ does exist as something more than a subjective abstraction in the minds of malleable and fallible meat puppets. Tough row to hoe, but there’s a reason:

The passion is understandable because denying “China” and exploiting China’s local divisions to seize the more useful and profitable bits has been a preoccupation of adversaries and competitors ever since nationalism became the driving principle of geopolitics.

The West started it with “spheres of influence” and the “Open Door”, both of which assumed an effective absence of “Chinese” sovereignty during Manchu Qing rule. Japan continued it during the Republic of China period by asserting superior claims and needs of the Japanese empire to the Korean peninsula, “Manchuria”, and even Tibet and Mongolia.

Japan imperial philosophy in the first half of the twentieth century regarded “China” as what we would today call a “failed state”, a territorial designation for a grab-bag of ethnicities with virtually no overall national identity and legitimacy–as opposed, of course to the Japanese Empire itself.

This philosophy supported the permanent alienation of the Korean peninsula from China (and a brutal failed attempt to extinguish its indigenous civilization and incorporate the people and territory into Japan); the establishment of puppet states supposedly incorporating the national aspirations of the Manchurian and Mongolian people, and the “Reorganized ROC” puppet regime in Nanjing (which derived its imperfect legitimacy not from the “Chinese people” but from Wang Jingwei’s purported stature as Sun Yatsen’s political heir; interesting point!), all under the tutelage of the Japanese empire under the principle of Hakkō ichiu.

In my Asia Times piece, I viewed this as a contemporary as well as historical phenomenon and make the observation:

A lot of the China partition maps put out by Uyghur and Tibetan independence activists seem to have their roots in Japanese partition scenarios.

Retraction/correction time. Well, hedging time. Well, actually, teachable moment time as digging into the story behind these maps raised and, to some extent, answered some interesting questions.

When I wrote the passage, I was thinking about this map (also reproduced at the head of the piece), which I’ve seen floating around the Internet a fair amount in Tibetan/Uyghur circles in various incarnations:


You’ll see the yellow bit over Shanghai way is called “Goetsu”. Hmmm. Doesn’t quite sound Chinese.

Here’s another version, with “Goetsia” instead of “Goetsu” and showing some love to the Hui and various nationalities in the South:


And one more. With flags! The Khitans finally get some recognition, with the result that “China” is evicted from Beijing and is relegated to a Kosovo-style enclave in the Central Plain/Xian area.


I might also point out that the Japanese imperialist roots of this version are embarrassingly plain. The flags for the Manchurian and Khitan states are warmed-over versions of the flags for the Manchukuo and Mengjiang puppet regimes of the 1930s. Nor is “Goetsu” (which gets most of the eastern seaboard here as 大吴越国 ) doing itself any favors with a hybrid rising sun backdrop in its banner.

To get the simple part out of the way first, Goetsu is not a Mandarin or modern local Chinese dialect variant; it’s the Japanese rendering of the term 吴越. 吴and 越 were Chinese kingdoms that date way back to the Warring States period, of course in the East China regions championed by the Goetsu separatists.

吴 and 越 are “Wu” and “Yue” in Mandarin. Judging by a useful on-line pronunciation dictionary with audio files for several dialects including Wu,, 吴越 is pronounced somewhere around “Wo ya” and “Ho yue” in two Wu dialects variants (Wu dialects are notoriously fragmented).

Whatever it is, 吴越 is not “Goetsu” in Mandarin, or in modern Wu dialect.

“Goetsu” probably entered the Japanese vocabulary as a pronunciation of “吴越” pretty early on, since the character pair appears in Sunzi’s Art of War, which itself had made its way to Japan by the eighth century CE via Korea.

The reference appears in a passage: 《孫子·九地》:“夫吳人與越人相惡也,當其同舟而濟,遇風,其相救也,如左右手: “People from Wu and Yue detested each other, when they were crowded on a boat together and ran into a storm they had to work together to save each other”.

Same idea of “in the same boat” or “we’re all in this together so let’s help each other”. Or, if you’re David Cameron, “I’m going to chop a hole in the bottom of the boat, hand the oars to Boris Johnson, and jump overboard.” There, your Brexit reference.

In China, this anecdote was summed up in the four-character idiom, 吴越同舟, “Wu and Yue Same Boat”; in Japanese, it becomes 呉越同じ船 , which is phonetically rendered as Go etsu onaji fune.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have our “Goetsu”. It’s Japanese.

Therefore, I drew the inference that the maps employing the term “Goetsu” drew on Japanese separatist agitprop dating back to the 1930s.

Well, it is separatist, and the term is Japanese, but I haven’t found a use of the term in literature related to Imperial Japanese partition-related scheming AFTER GOOGLING FOR A WHOLE HOUR AND A HALF!

The closest I could come up in a link between eastern China separatism & Japanese skullduggery was a Youtube posted by “Great Goetsu” of a 1942 barnburning military tune, “Song of the Decisive Battle in Great East Asia” playing over a depiction of what is apparently regarded as the “Goetsu” logo:

goetsu flag

The song seems to enjoy considerable favor among nostalgic Japanese militarists, since it is a) a bitching ditty and b) on the Internet in several loving incarnations like this one:

It does not appear, however, to mention “Goetsu”. Consider it likely that “Great Goetsu” is a Japanese imperial fanboy, not a local separatist.

Unfortunately, the situation is muddied by the fact that somebody—and I didn’t get close to nailing this down—recently decided it would be a good thing to use “Goetsian” as an umbrella term for various Wu dialects in the southern Jiangsu/northern Zhejiang area that previously simply called themselves [name of your town here] local dialect. So Goetsu has made its way into the neutral discourse, and isn’t a pure Japanese imperialist signifier.

So, as to the question of there’s any sinister current Japanese involvement in the presentation of “Goetsu” as a descriptor for Wu-language separatists, right now I’m just hangin’ here.

But on the whole there’s no reason not to call the proposed separatist bastion “Wuyue”, an identification that carries considerable local pride with it.

Local chauvinism by Wu speakers in central China, especially against impositions from Mandarin speakers in Beijing, is definitely a thing. And there is a local independence movement, albeit to be pretty small, well miniscule if judged by its anemic Internet presence.

Trying to get a line on Wu chauvinism, I found a ten-page report from a one-time member of a Wu-language on-line forum. Judging by the parts I plowed through, there was a lot about frictions between various identity-politics activists and a lengthy catalog of grievances concerning northern Chinese outrages against Wu culture dating back to the Taipings and beyond, but I didn’t find anything relating the independence movement to the genuine ties between the region and Japan, which actually go back 1000 years.

From what I’ve gathered, the Wuyue kingdom of the 10th century (which occupied much of the space as well as the names held by the ancient Wu and Yue states of the Spring & Autumn period referenced by Sunzi) is considered to be an apogee of Chinese civilization and the foundation for localist Wu pride & identity. It also occupies a special place in the pantheon of worthy interlocutors of the Japanese empire.

Significantly, the kingdom had extensive and significant exchanges with Japan, especially in cooperative development of Buddhism through exchange of sutras. I get the impression Wuyue may be regarded by Japanese nationalists as the “good, sophisticated” China that nourished the development of a superior Japanese civilization before it unfortunately got submerged by various lumpen actors. Spitballing here, but I get the feeling there’s a lot of 1930s-40s Japanese academic work on the historical roots and contemporary implications of Chinese “inferiority” and regional bright spots that scholars are not keen to discuss, just as few people are eager to brag on the racially-informed anthropology of 1930s America, the alleged superiority of light-skinned blacks, and so on.


According to the report, members on the forum used another geographic indicator that I found pretty significant, the characterization of “China” as 支那 , not 中国. 支那 harks back to the absolute Ur term for China as a geographic place name, which maybe came out of Sanskrit way back when. That’s the term the Japanese used in the 1930s and 1940s, as can be seen from this military map, not “ 中国 “。


Trouble is, 支那 is universally understood as a derogatory term for China favored by Japanese nationalists, and has been for about 80 years.

Wikipedia China has a good entry on the evolution of the term 支那 from a neutral descriptor to a term of disparagement by the time of the second Sino-Japanese War (a.k.a. World War II). After the war, Chiang Kai-shek called on the Japanese government to drop the term from its official documents and textbooks, and the Japanese obliged.

And that’s why I defaulted to “中国” denialism and not “China denialism” to get across the issue of what the CCP is concerned about–because calling some place “支那” i.e. “China” is a way of denying its legitimacy as a “nation”, in the case of ” 中国 “ the “nation” at the center of Asia.

The phonetic rendering of 支那 that comes out in Japanese is “shina”. Shintaro Ishihara and other right wing nationalists employ “shina” when they want to get China’s goat. Sorta like calling a football team “The Redskins” or the West Bank “Judea & Samaria”. It’s the taunt of an unrepentant and contemptuous colonizer.

So I consider the appearance of 支那 as something of a leading indicator when it pops up in “Goetsu” chatter. It not only gives aid and comfort to local separatists keen for an alternate signifier to “中国 “; it also reminds me the Japanese revisionist agenda for the “Second Sino-Japanese War” as a noble exercise in decolonization and nation-building is still alive and well, perhaps even resonating inside China. It also reinforces my suspicions concerning the ongoing ambitions of right wing Japanese nationalists to hive off the “advanced” coastal parts of China and secure them, together with Taiwan, in Japan’s sphere of influence.


With this perspective, the New Qing History dispute doesn’t look quite like just an abstract academic dustup between PRC traditionalists and largely but not exclusively foreign scholars who want to introduce contemporary theoretical rigor to the examination of the concept of “China”.

For the CCP, perhaps NQH is something more than an unpleasant modern echo of a belittling historical trend dating to the 1930s, when the Japanese empire declined to grant the place they were invading the courtesy of calling it what the locals wanted to call it , instead seeming to regard it as a place on the map to which nobody else had a superior claim to rule or even name, and they were free to occupy, define, and exploit…and partition.

Maybe it has to be viewed in the context of a current threat to the PRC’s territorial integrity, its legitimacy, and its survival.

In my opinion the CCP views NQH in the context of a trend, supported by Japanese revisionists, Western strategists, and Indian hawks to question the existence of “ 中国” and legitimize support for separatist movements (of which the “Republic of Goetsu” is probably the least of the PRC’s worries).
Of course, the outsider insistence on defining “China”–in a way that would probably have Edward Said nodding his head in rueful recognition–probably colors PRC resistance to Western efforts to question and supersede its sovereignty over another non-Han holdings: the South China Sea. The claim to the SCS, in the CCP’s eyes, is not much weaker–or stronger–than the PRC’s claims to any of its territories. If one is repudiated, what’s the case for asserting legitimate sovereignty over the rest?

It’s not just an academic issue with unpleasant implications for current affairs.

Denying the legitimacy of “ 中国” is a convenient bookend to current efforts to characterize the PRC as an enemy of the liberal order i.e. a rogue state. Not only is the government a pariah, the nation it claims to govern doesn’t even exist!

It looks like a way to deny PRC sovereignty over its territorial holdings, and open the door for opposition to the PRC as an illegitimate occupier on the grounds of–take your pick– R2P (neo-liberal flavor), struggles of national determination (liberal flavor), failed commie state that needs a healthy push into its pre-dug grave (knuckledragger).
Revisionism is alive and well as the dominant Japanese political discourse, as is questioning the PRC’s legitimacy as a geopolitical stratagem (remember the “struggle of the international liberal order against authoritarian revisionism”, anybody?), and encouragement of separatism as a strategic lever for the PRC’s many adversaries.

“One China” may not be on its deathbed, but it’s not looking that great.

One China? How about “No China”?
So there you have it: Brexit, New Qing History, and the South China Sea, and the ontological reality of “China”, all wrapped up in one smoking hot take. You’re welcome!

(Republished from China Matters by permission of author or representative)
• Category: History • Tags: Brexit, China, Goetsu, New Qing History, PRC 
Hide 57 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website

    “In case you haven’t noticed, the PRC is the biggest multi-national enterprise on the planet, avowedly run on multi-national principles with the full panoply of nationalities and autonomous zones.”

    But Peter Flea, all you peepul looky alike.

    • Replies: @Joe Wong
  2. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website

    Peter Flea, you Chinee a very pesky peepul.

    It such big trouble to make Chinee pull together into one peepul.

    You know why, Peter Flea?

    It cuz of familism. Chinee put family above race and nation. So, if good for family, Chinee betray race, culture, and nation. Chinee no good.

    In some way, Chinee see nation as big family. Family used as metaphor for all things in China. Chinee prefer real family over national family. Now, liking real family over national family only natural. It a matter of sentiment.
    But when sentiment turn into ideology, it go wrong. Family very good. But familism very bad. To favor own family good. But when favoring own family become core ideology of life, it lead to much corruption as it mean even favor retardo family member over good of nation. This why Chinee so corrupt and no rise very high. Japanese less into familism and do better in some way.

    Why Chinee so easily gobbled by imperialists in 19th century? Too many familist Chinee turn against own people and play comprador elite to gain goodies from western imperialist. It sort of like the family in NOBLE HOUSE who serve white Taipan.

    But Chinee people this way because Chinee rulers this way. Chinee politics all about dynasty and family and not about larger good. So, Chinese kings only favor family, and this become standard for all Chinee. So, familism trump family-as-metaphor. Family-as-metaphor is good in making all Chinee feel as part of common family. But Familism is bad in making Chinese feel their family matter more than entire universe.

    So, if something good for family, Chinee will do bad corrupt things to get the goody. But of course, there now something even worse than familyism. There now me-ism. This is terrible, Peter Flea. Me-ism not same as individualism of West that about free thought, free will, reason, conscience, and such high-minded stuff. Individualism no mean individual is center of universe. It mean each individual need be free, educated, rational, and moral to be good person, to be responsible, to be useful member of society. Individualism assert the freedom of oneself but it also obligate individual to be thoughtful, considerate, and moral member of society.

    But such no exist in China. Chinee no get true meaning of individual. What exist in China is me-ism. Me-ism is selfish, vain, greedy, piggish, swinish, and some such. Me-ism is “all about me”. It is “you kiss my ass and make me happy”. It is tyrantism. Chinee rulers into me-ism. They feel they got mandate of heaven and that make them do whatever they like. Sure, Confucius said wise ruler must think of good of people, but Chinee rulers not very wise. They eat just Chinese buffet of greasy food and have sex like Ottoman Sultan. Look at North Korea, a mini-nation modeled on Chinee culture. Leader there into me-ism. He all fatty and porky piggish while people all skinny and barely eat to live. He no care about people. He say ‘me is all that counts’.


    And Chinee rulers act this way for ages. And Chinee parents act such way to kids. Chinee hubby act such way to wifey. Chinee father act such to son. Because Chinee society defined by me-ism at very top, when any Chinee get small portion of power, he use mini-me-ism to lord over others. Such behavior no good. It so petty.

    Look at Mao. He come to power in name of people, but everything was ‘me-ism’. What good for ‘Me Mao’ is good. Mao put himself or ‘me’ above all else. And now, we see so many mini-me louts all over China. They make some money, they act so big and better than you. Chinee women so crass and materialist. No care about anything but ‘me, me, me’.
    Granted, West also go from individualism to me-ism. This not surprising cuz homomania now new religion of West. Homos so vain, narcissist, and me, me, and me. And celebrities all about self-aggrandizing me-ism. Rappers not about individualism. They about me-ism. They think universe revolve around their ego. They think they the center of universe.

    And whole celebrity craze says famous people live by own rules. Normal rules no apply to celebs and holy homos. So, when such me-ism become template for millennials, we see so many young people who say ‘me, me, me’ but never think about higher good.

    Now, on topic of Chinee unity, there is need for true individualism over me-ism. But CCP prefer me-ism among Chinee peepul cuz a me-ist greedy Chinee only work for own self. Such greed not a challenge to CCP power.
    A true individual is one who think for himself and arrive at own idea of what is good. And then he try to spread his ideas and bring people together to make better social order. Such is challenging to CCP.
    CCP would rather have Chinee think in terms of ‘me-ism’ and just live for oneself. That way, each Chinee work hard and make money and spend money but never think of higher or common good to call for real reform. As such, no challenge Communist Party Rule that monopolize ‘what is good for all Chinese’. Surely, a Chinee who work for greed and spend all money on self is less threat to CCP rule than a thinking Chinee who develop moral/rational individuality and ask relevant questions about direction China should go.

    But the same kind of mentality now promoted in the West. Looky at America. American elites no likey individualism that think critically and raise questions and pose challenge to PC used by Jewish-and-Homo elites to keep people under control.
    American elites prefer that people into me-ism. That way, people just indulge in self-pleasure while no think about bigger/higher issues. Such piggery give semblance of freedom but it just fool’s errand.

    Consider following scenario: Suppose there a tyrant who not allow real political or intellectual freedom to people. As such, people not free. But suppose in order to make the people feel free, the tyrant allow people to indulge in hedonism, piggishness, debauchery, childishness, tomfoolery, wildness, and trashiness.
    Suppose people allowed to drink tons of beer, eat tons of bigass tacos and fries, get endless tattoos and piercings, laugh like tards at dumb TV shows, listen to junglish music, and holler to sports. Like the debauched bread-and-circuses crowds of the Roman Empire. They no have political freedom or rights of individuals. But they feel free because they are allowed freedom to expend their energy in debauched delights. It is like BRAVE NEW WORLD where people are kept happy and feeling ‘free’ because their life filled with pleasure and distractions. We see such in both Chiner and US. It no good.

    Anyway, what good way for Chinee to come together? China must set itself apart from West and must ask Chinee peepul the following questions:

    1. Would it be good idea for Chinee to let Russians to take over Chinee media? Should Russians control information and news in China?
    The answer is OF COURSE NOT. If Russians control Chinee media, Russians use media to serve Russian interest, not Chinee interest.

    2. Would it be good idea for Chinee to let Japanese to take over Chinee history & narrative in academia? Should Japanese dictate and shape Chinee collective memory?
    The answer is OF COURSE NOT. If Japanese control Chinee history, Japanese mold narrative to serve Jappy interest. Jappers selectively choose parts of Chinee history to make Chinee look bad and ‘guilty’. And Jappers selectively manipulate history to make Japany invasion of China look not so bad, even good.

    3. Would it be good idea for Chinee to let Jews to take over Chinese banking and finance? Should Jews dictate Chinee monetary policy and decide who get what loan and such?
    The answer is OF COURSE NOT. If Jews control Chinee banking, Jews use financial
    institutions to serve Jewish interest and to take away economic power away from Chinee who are made dependent on Jews.

    4. Would it be good idea for non-Chinee to take over Chinee wombs? Should Chinee wombs be property of non-Chinee men to have non-Chinee babies who grow up imprinting on non-Chinee men as father and boss? You know, Peter Flea, Amy Chua marry some Jewish guy and her daughter grow up as Jew and now serve in ROTC. If Jews who control US tell her go kill Chinee across Pacific, she do so. You see so many Chinee American girlers give wombs to Jews to create Jewish babies who may attack China and kill Chinee.
    What happen in US no concern of Chinee, but why Chinee fathers come to US and give away daughter womb to Jewish men who use yellow womb to incubate Jewish killer babies who one day work against China? That no good. It almost as bad as white women offering their womb to create black babies who grow up to be nappy-head uglies who hate and attack white America.

    Anyway, in China itself at least, Chinee men better hold onto wombs of Chinee women. Besides, with so many Chinee bachelors due to one-child-policy and abortion, China need every woman it has.

    Anyway, point I make is Chinee people of China need to be served by media, banks, government, military, academia, and etc controlled by Chinee. If other people gain control of such things, there is no guarantee they work for Chinee interest. They more likely act like imperialists and use institution to gain control over Chinee.

    Looky at America. All things controlled by Waspies at one time. Banks, government, military, media, entertainment, academia, and etc all in waspy hands. So, white America serve White America. When whitey control immigration, there was Chinee Exclusion Act that saved California from yellow flood had open borders been allowed.

    But then, Jews come along and say, ‘diversity good for everyone’. So, Jews take over institutions like banking, academia, courts, law schools, media, and etc. Jews assure whites that Jews will use those institutions fairly so that all Americans equally served. But Jews use academia to spin narrative that say ‘white people suck so bad and must atone forever for white guilt’. Jews use media to make white people to blame for all that wrong in society. Jews use media to favor negroes over whites and homos over Christians. Jews use courts to push homo stuff. Jews use education to turn white kids into self-hating negro-worshiping homo-loving PC-addled tards. As Jews control the government and politicians that control the military, even US military now serve Jewish supremacism and homo-imperialism around world. Jews remake immigration policy so that Whites in California no longer have power to exclude non-whites. So, what happen? California is now demographically beaner-state ruled by Jewish and Homo elites.
    That sucky so bad, Peter Flea.

    And Russians find out how sucky it is for Jews to take control of banking, media, and all else under Yeltsin in the 90s.

    Now, I not say only Jews do bad stuff. If Chinee banking taken over by Jappers or Korons(Korean morons), they do bad stuff too. If Chinee media taken over by Arabs, they do bad stuff too. Arabs no good. If Chinee academia taken over by Turks or Greeks, they manipulate history to exploit Chinee too. Jews just more dangerous because more smart and savvy and have wits to take over other nations.

    So, Chinee must control own institutions. That is one of strength of China, and it must keep that way. In the US, ‘diversity’ a religion. As Jews fear white majority, they use their control over elite institutions to pack them with anti-white People of Color who serve Jews against whites. Look at Sotomayor the ‘wise’ anti-white Latina.
    Obama also a perfect example. But white people support Obama because Jews fool them into thinking whites must atone for ‘historical sins’. But white people not always think this way. They think this way because media and academia fall into Jewish hands.

    Just think. If Israeli academia and media fell into Palestinian hands, Pallies could mold the new generation of Jewish kids to feel eternal guilt over Nakba. If Israeli government fell into Sudanese hands, the black Africans can change Israel’s immigration policy and flood the nation with black Sudanese.
    This is why diversity suck, Peter Flea.

    China have many problem, but it is nation of Chinese ruled by Chinese who control all institutions. That is great thing. Let no people fool Chinee that such unity-and-homogeneity(relatively speaking) is no good and that it better if Chinee academia dominated by Russians, Chinee media dominated by Japanese, Chinee courts dominated by Jews, Chinee military dominated by Turks, Chinee banks dominated by Korons, and etc.
    Remember when China cut up like a cake by various imperialists? Those imperialists say to Chinee, ‘diversity is our strength’. In other words, better for China to be ruled and cut up by diverse powers.
    Diverisity suck so bad, Peter Flea.

  3. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor

    Anti-familism doesn’t work. It just burns up asabiya:

    Familist ideology probably ends up preserving the things that make larger scale cooperation and asabiya possible.

  4. @Priss Factor

    I take it you’re the “retardo family member” in your family…

  5. Interesting and useful article…

    Yes it is important to turn over the rocks under which the neo-imperial revanchists are still crawling…they may be smaller than a mouse’s turd today, but these things can baloon very quickly under the right circumstances…ie Kosovo…

    Out of curiosity about retardo’s reference to the James Clavell bilge epic “Noble House” I found that the inspiration for the “Struan” trading house featured prominently in Mr. Bilgework’s novels is still operating in China and actually earned 41 percent of its revenue there as of 2010…

    Maybe time to clear out these parasites and other fifth column elements still in HK…?

  6. ltlee1 says:

    Looks like the CIA’s Office of Transnational issues has commissioned another study on whether China will “pop the cork”.

  7. ltlee says:
    @Priss Factor

    Nah, Chinese has a great tradition which explains why China has survived the ups and downs of history. Poring himself over some old Chinese books, a certain professor of Chinese history H. G. Creel was surprised to discover that Chinese official class really cared about the well being of the common people. In ancient China? And without given a vote? Are Chinese government officials such nice people?

    “Most of all, however, we find the conception that the duty of the minister
    is to aid and to influence the ruler to govern in such matter as bring about
    the welfare of the people as a whole. This is a remarkable fact, and one
    which at first seems almost unaccountable. The people as a whole, that is
    those below the aristocracy, were completely subject to the dictation of the
    ruling classes. Many of them were slaves and serfs. They did not even have a
    ‘vote’ to make it worth while for politicians to become sentimental over
    them. Was it merely out of the goodness of their hearts that the members of
    the scholarly class, who were not, after all, very humble themselves,
    championed them? Was it solely from the benevolence of their natures that the
    kings allowed themselves to be influenced in their behalf? One may doubt it.”

    Could it be that the books are doctored? For propaganda purpose?

    “Indeed, the whole talk of solicitude for the welfare of the people is so
    difficult to account for that one is at first tempted to disbelieve it
    entirely, and to think that it has been written into the ancient books by
    Confucian scholars of later years, as a matter of propaganda. But this is not
    the case. We not only find such sentiments expressed in early and authentic
    books which have come down to us, but even in early bronze inscriptions,
    which can hardly have been tampered with.”

    (Quotes from THE BIRTH OF CHINA by H.G. Creel)

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  8. For what it’s worth, my pet theory of the world is that Europe, China, and India should be considered as geographically somewhat segregated [topographical maps help here] subcontinental civilization ‘zones’ of Eurasia, in each of which there has been a cycle of unity and disunity of states, foreign invasion, demographic churn, religious importation/invasion and, more or less, a fairly durable sense of being a cultural zone. They have interacted with one another for good and ill mainly through the central Asian heartland, whether by trade through the silk road or by the pressures they put on the nomad peoples to move around. [Willing to consider the Perso/Turkish/Arab world as a fourth, and can see a case, but can’t quite get my head around where it would end vis a vis the heartland- it’s less distinct than the other three.]

    Of the three, China has had for a couple of millennia the greatest success in unifying and reunifying their imperial zone, the strongest and most durable ideology of unity going back to the Qin, and the most successful swamping of the culture zone by one ethnic group, presuming for the moment “Han” is a valid category.

    The Indians have had less success, and more of it driven by foreign empires like the Mughal and the even more foreign British, but because they have a large state now encompassing much of their subcontinent and using the same name, and a sense that this is their correct identity, we have acquired the habit of retconning the past toward this outcome. [I don’t actually care to annoy Indians by questioning the idea that the 1857 rebellion was their first war of independence, and some Indians at that time actually had conceived that idea, but it’s still projecting backwards as if someone said the resolution of the Napoleonic wars at Vienna should have led to a united Europe. India had just gone through centuries of disunity and near-unity under the form of empire, against which plenty of Indians had fought and the Maratha had already destroyed, when they decided to make the Mughal emperor briefly the figurehead of a ‘nationalist’ movement I have a hard time thinking Shivaji would have recognized. If you imagine the peoples and princes of Europe rallying to overthrow Napoleon and then making one of his heirs the figurehead of a European nationalist movement against, say, Russia, you might have an approximation.]

    But I digress. Europe, of the three, also had a sense of civilizational unity on various levels, but never got as far with reunifying as an empire after the 10th century, despite a lot of political theory implying that unity still existed.

    All that for the mental frame in which I read this.

    I guess my main question is whether or not “Han” really is a valid category, whether I have massively underestimated the persistence and significance of regional identities that either subdivide the Han or link Han in some regions with pre-existing local minority groups as against more distant Han, and how far back any of these factors go through the vicissitudes of ‘Chinese’ history, and to what degree do they represent similar lines of division across centuries.

    In essence, is the fact that 90% of ‘Chinese’ are Han an inadequate determinant of the scope for China being considered a national state rather than a union of peoples/nations/states/ or what have you?

    For a [somewhat deliberately simple-minded] comparison. Are the Han of China the equivalent of “Germans” in Germany or “Russians” in Russia, or can they better be compared to “Germanic” people or “Slavic” people in multiple states with their own identities, those identities having been also influenced by the presence of other local ethnic groups past or present?

    • Replies: @Talha
  9. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor

    Learn English you illiterate foreigner!

  10. Joe Wong says:
    @Priss Factor

    Peter Lee is a Korean, or Korean American, he is not Chinese.

  11. Joe Wong says:

    I would say the author has forgotten to include Korea as part of China, after all China did rule Korea for thousands of years as prefectures just like Vietnam. Reinging in Korea, Vietnam and Taiwan as part China is legitmate and a mission of all Chinese.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    , @Joe Wong
    , @Bala
  12. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website

    Peter Flea, you waste too much (ch)ink on silly stuff.

    The map above with Goetsu and Cantonia really goofy stuff. It tickle my funny bone.
    It Onion-like.

    What Chinee really must worry is not such silly trivia. It is Muslims in Uighurland.

    Personally, I no take sides. I figure Chinee conquer territory like Russia take Siberia and US take the West from Indians. So, Chinee no worse imperialist than other big nations.
    But on other hand, I can understand aspiration of Tibetan and Uighur folks like I can understand aspiration of Palestinians and fat Hawaiians who regret giving away island to whites and yellows in exchange for potato chip and Hawaiian T-shirt.

    The fact is most Han Chinee feel as Chinee. There is little danger of Chinee in Manchuria or in South demand independence. Maybe Hong Kong prove pesky but it no big problem. Hong Kong folks just greedy and if give them more money, they go along.

    So, it really come down to Chinee vs Tibetan and Uighur.

    But even there, Uighur much bigger threat. Why? Tibetans look like East Asian people. Racially, they look somewhat better than Chinee but they looky ‘chinky’ just the same. So, they an Asian people. But here the thing. Tibetan population stable. And Buddhist not known for fighting and terrorism. Also, Tibet isolated. Sure, south of Tibet are some Buddhist nation that offer sanctuary to Tibetan refugee, but there is no united Buddhist front against China from nations next to Tibet. India and Nepal be nice to refugee, but they no want to make big trouble with China. Also, India mostly Muslim and Hindu, and they not much agree with Tibetan Buddhist folk.
    So, Tibetan folk are manageable. And with more Han Chinee move to Tibet, maybe Tibet just absorbed into China.

    But Uighurland different case. Uighurs, while mixed with Asian blood, look very different from Chinee. They look Turkic or some such. They racially decisively different from Chinee. Also, Muslim folks have many more babies than Chinee folk and Buddhist folk. Capitalist materialism in Shanghai and other Chinee city turn Chinee women into career ho’s who only care for cosmetic, TV show, handbag, high heel shoe, and getting rich hubby. They no longer want to be regular woman who be wife and mother with kids.

    In contrast, Muslim women in Uighurland still play wifey and mother and have lot of kid. So, it much more difficult for Chinee to just go to Uighurland and overwhelm them demographic-like. Beside, Chinee now no have babies and Chinee would rather move to US, Canada, and Australia than move to Uighurland where there much bad tension. Chinee rather live under white rule than rule as Chinee over Uighur. Life easier under white rule like dog prefer to serve human than be leader of pack in wild.


    Also, Uighurland connected to Muslim nations, and there so many. Unlike Buddhist Tibet that is culturally and religiously isolated(Tibetan Buddhism even different from Buddhism in other Asian nation) and all alone as kind of Shangria in Richard Gere’s twinkly eye, Uighurland right next to bunch of Muslim and Turkic nations that seek to aid Uighur brethren to independence from Han Chinee. Uighur folks have connection all across Central Asia to Turkey to even Middle East. Some Uighur folks even end up in ISIS training camp. So, there is worldwide network that aid Uighur folks.

    It is funny, Peter Flea.

    Western global community much prefer Tibetan over Uighur. Tibet has mythic cult of shangri-la after that book LOST HORIZON by some guy. Famous celebrities find Dalai Lama like Yoda of Star Wars. They romanticize Tibetan as peaceful Buddhist folk who not even into shaolin kungfu stuff that do bruce lee stuff. So, Tibet has ‘cool’ factor and international currency in ‘human rights’ sweepstake. This may seem like huge boon to Tibet, but in the end, it not do much good for Tibet. All those Hollywood celebs no can do much for Tibet except express sentiment and sympathy and Richard Gere’s ‘good vibes’ send by telepathy or some such. Also, they mostly virtue-signaling like George Clooney with Sudan. It just virtue showbiz.

    In contrast, Uighur folks no have champions in world of global glamour. There no Hollywood star or famous people who say they adore Uighurs. Maybe it cuz Uighurs sound like whiggers. Me not know. Anyway, Muslim folks not very much liked by Western folk. When Hillary and Obama say they respect Islam, it just a cover to invade and destroy Middle East and North Africa. It is like how Billy Boy Clinton once say he love black folks but it was cover to lock up lot of blacks in jail and to gentrify cities and kick blacks out. All such pro-black rhetoric was effective as cover to carry out policies that locked up Negroes or sent them packing of city to be gentrified.

    Anyway, it may seem that Uighur folks now hopeless since they no have glamour factor. Famous people no stand up for Uighur. If you ask American who is Dalai, most of them know him as Yoda-like character. But if you ask American who is uighur, they just say, ‘whigger is a white guy who think he’s a nigga’. American not know.

    But Uighur folk actually have huge advantage over Tibetan folk. Why? Cuz Uighur have very high birth rate and cuz they not alone when it come to fighting power. We know Muslim like to fight. They can be aggressive and tireless. And Uighur much angry at Chinese. And unlike Buddhism that call for peace and withdrawal, Islam say, ‘go kick infidel ass’. So, Uighur nationalism and religion meld into one. Uighur folks feel great ethnic pride and religious rage. But most important, they have Muslim neighbor nations that send weapon, agents, books, propaganda, and etc to rouse up Uighur against Chinee. Chinee dream of silk road, but Uighur have hajib road that stretch from Middle East to Uighurland. There a vast Muslim network that help Uighur in NW China to fight long battle.

    So, in end, it will really be a question of whether Han Chinee can control Uighur folk.

    All other stuff is side issue. They trivial.

    Tibet now no can escape Chinese python coil. But Uighur might tear itself free of Chinee or cause huge headache because there so many Muslim Turkic folks in other nations who more than willing t aid their Turkic brother in Uighurland against Chinee.

    I no kidding, Peter Flea.

    So, you want to be smart? Then you drop all this trivial goofery about Cantonia and Goetsu. What really matter is Can Chinee Hold onto Uighurland?

    Chinee vs Uighur. That is main show.

    In fact, Uighur problem may pull all Han Chinee together.

    It’s like Tibet issue pull all Chinee–even overseas Chinee–together.

    • Replies: @bunga
    , @Yang
  13. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website
    @Joe Wong

    Then why he go on and on about Chinee? He a koron or korean moron?

    Why he fool us? He no good.

  14. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website
    @Joe Wong

    Korea and Vietnam not part of China.

    China see both as satellite kingdoms to leave alone if behave.

    Vietnam not so much behave, so much fighting between China and Vietnam.

    Korea better behave, so China tolerate.

    Even in 20th century, Vietnam folk more defiant. They fight all and win.
    Korean folk just dogs who obey big power.

    Mongolia and Manchuria different matter. Funny paradox. People who try invade China become part of China. Mongolia once invade China and eventually Mongolia part of China. Manchu folks invade China, and Manchuria become part of China.

    Only reason Mongolia become independent was because Russia insist it be so. Otherwise, it part of China too.

    But Korea and Vietnam never try invade China, so they remain independent even if they sometimes must kiss butt of Big China.

  15. Joe Wong says:
    @Priss Factor

    The author is frustrated, as a Korean he is jealous, resentful and fearful of China’s achievements, if Korean does lick Chinese boots they will be ruled by the barbaric unprepentant war criminal Japanese as subhuman species. Even though the S Korean submitted to the American as a lackey but the American is on the Japanese side and rank them below the Japanese.

  16. Joe Wong says:
    @Joe Wong

    As long as Korea exists, it was always the Chinese paid the heavy price to maitain the existence of Korea from being subjugated by the barbaric invadors be it the normadic Mogolian, barbaric pirate Japanese or bloodthirthy American and their allies. When China was strong Korea was safe, otherwise the Korea would be a living hell. If the author wishes there is no China, perhaps the Korean are missing their live under the Japanese rule. Japanese will always conquer Korea before stepping futher, it is their national policy no matter what form of government in Japan.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  17. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Joe Wong

    Lol. You are really stupid.

    Obviously this poster is some white guy. Not sure if he claimed to be a Korean somewhere else, but if he did it was just to mess with you.

    SMDH. Damn some people are guilable on this board.

    • Replies: @Joe Wong
  18. K. says:

    If I ever meet, in the flesh, someone who self identifies as a Khitan, I will eat my shoe. Also, I notice that Shandong 山东 is painted yellow. People are of course free to speculate as they wish, but the grownups take ideas like a Shandongless China about as seriously as the idea that a ship-wrecked Sufi master named Sheik Zubayr wrote “Hamlet” and “King Lear”.

  19. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    {Korean folk just dogs who obey big power.}

    A good example is Ban Ki-moon who gives services to criminals, US dictates and he reads. I never seen such as PETTY AND SMALL person in my entire life.

  20. X says:

    Of course the PRC will eventually fall, this is the fate of dynasties in Chinese history.
    Future historians will look back on the PRC as the Red Dynasty that followed the Qing Dynasty, separated by the Kuomintang.
    The Red Dynasty will lose the Mandate of Heaven, if it has not done so already. This is inevitable.
    And will be followed by around period of warfare and crisis similar to the Warring States period, after the fall of the Zhou.

  21. @ltlee

    Superb comment! A rare treat.

  22. Joe Wong says:

    You should know what is mentally colonized zombie or the best slave, those zombies and slaves do not know they are zombies or slaves, they identify with their master regardless their appearance. They are brain washed from cradle to grave with excessive flag saluting. The majority of American, Japanese, European, Taiwanese, Filipino and a lot of Russian and Chinese are these types of zombies and slaves.

    Besides you should do some research before spewing out self righteous troll like Peter Lee. Reading westerners wrote Chinese history will only intoxicate your brain with orientalsim based on half baked truth.

  23. Tom Welsh says:

    Very nice. But you nforgot to include Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Iran, Iraq, India, Pakistan and… well, actually most of Asia in “Mongolia”.

    You see, if you go raking back through history you can produce almost any result you wish. Long after the Mongol Empire disappeared, the Americas were happily innocent of a single “White” European. Does that mean that the USA and Canada should be completely expunged from the map? (Actually, I can think of worse ideas, but it’s probably not going to happen).

    • Replies: @Rehmat
  24. Last time we were in Guangzhou, the Chinese government had a program of changing the official language to Mandarin everywhere. The Cantonese weren’t having any of it.

    A central government does things like that only when it senses it’s losing control.

    I’ve been telling people that the PRC will eventually go the way of the old Soviet Union. I only hope they can do it without a great deal of bloodshed…. China has a really rough history in this regard.

    • Agree: Talha
  25. haha I see peter made an enemy of a very annoying retard 🙂

  26. Rehmat says:

    “The PRC has a bias toward stability and against direct democracy. There’s more. It also has a major vested interest in the legitimacy and viability of multi-national institutions. In case you haven’t noticed, the PRC is the biggest multi-national enterprise on the planet, avowedly run on multi-national principles with the full panoply of nationalities and autonomous zones.”

    Peter Lee you made me fall from chair laughing your above Chinese expertise.

    America’s top Jewish philosopher Dr. Chomsky had claimed over a dozen times that America world’s greatest terrorist state and that it doesn’t democracy in Muslim-majority nations because it turn them to anti-Israel.

    Why many American multinational companies have set-up their operations in China?

    Why America owes China the largest debt – over \$1 trillion?

    YES, China is one of the remaining colonial powers but it doesn’t have its forces in more than 140 countries like United States.

    And let’s not forget, China, like the US, Russia, UK, France, Germany and Australia, too believes that “Israel has a “God-given right” to occupy an Arab land.

    Last year, Greek foreign minister Nikos Kotzias delivered a speech at the University of Tehran in which he called the Islamic Republic and China the new emerging powers.

    “We live in ever-changing world extending from the Atlantic to Pacific Ocean. The shift of power is happening from the West to the East to a degree today, new powers and countries with long histories like Iran and China are emerging in the world,” Kotzias said.

  27. Rehmat says:
    @Tom Welsh

    What Peter Lee forgot to include was the ever-expanding map of Israel.

  28. Richard S says:

    China, Chin, Sin, Sina etc etc have been known and used by western Eurasians for millennia to refer to the vast rich civilisation in the distant Orient. The Middle Kingdom (中国) is more equivalent to a word like “Christendom” or “Dar as-Salam” in conveying something far grander and all-embracing than an ethnic nation state.

    But we forget that European nation states (larger than, say, Slovakia) were basically abstractions imposed on peoples of different identities better to facilitate royal administration in the early modern period. By the same reasoning as the mapmakers above, “France” should really just be the greater Paris area (happily called the Île-de-France) while the rest of the RF is subdivided into Burgundy, Normandy, Brittany, Picardy, Lorraine etc etc. Every medium sized European country has at least one separatist region or suppressed potential nation.

    • Replies: @Rehmat
  29. Talha says:
    @random observer

    Great article! Learned a lot.

    And great comment RO…

    Adding to your input on India; from what I know about Indian politics and history, one of the reasons that the central government is so gung-ho about hanging on to the Kashmir territory is due to very similar undercurrents as outlined in this article. The breakaway of Kashmir could likely lead to other districts wanting autonomy. India is less like a country and more like a continent (a sub-continent at that, as you mention); people from one end of it to another worship completely different deities, speak different languages (sometimes the medium of communication is English, not even Hindi), etc.

    Anyway, maybe someone more knowledgeable can correct me if I’m off base.

    China has had for a couple of millennia the greatest success in unifying and reunifying their imperial zone

    It has, but at what price? Chinese history was shockingly bloody when I first came across the estimated death tolls of the various wars. And to a lesser degree with Ashoka, Mughals, etc. It seems if you want unity, you must be willing to pay a high price in blood. American Civil War for instance…The EU is perhaps the first attempt a this type of unification without resort to arms – unless I’m missing something. Which is good because any disintegration will likely be devoid of bloodshed.

    The more I reflect on trends of history like this, the more I am amazed that the Ottomans (spanning multiple continents) lasted for so long – I believe they hold the record for longest unbroken dynastic rule.


    • Replies: @random observer
  30. bunga says:
    @Priss Factor

    “In contrast, Muslim women in Uighurland still play wifey and mother and have lot of kid. So, it much more difficult for Chinee to just go ”

    You mean the Chinese don’t screw their wives ? All those Chines numbering in billions are the products of divine Chinese intervention?

    How the heck did the Chinese manage to constitute 40 % of Ughyiar?

    Your rest of the exposition is an exercise of idiocy Recognize your moronic utterances before you accuse Peter Lee .Call your self a Chinese cockroach before calling him a flea.

    “ibet now no can escape Chinese python coil. But Uighur might tear itself free of Chinee or cause huge headache because there so many Muslim Turkic folks in other nations who more than willing t aid their Turkic brother in Uighurland against Chinee. ”

    Have you ever heard about the Chinese threat and harsh complaints against Indonesian Thai and Vietnamese over the treatment of ethnic Chinese ? Indians do same when their brethren get mistreated in Fiji and in Trinidad. That may not be normal but very common and pretty traditional.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  31. spandrell says: • Website

    ” in Japanese, it becomes 呉越同じ船 , which is phonetically rendered as Go etsu onaji fune.”

    No it doesn’t. Where’d you take that from? Couldn’t you ask someone knowledgeable?

    I used to like your articles but I’m starting to feel some Gell-mann amnesia over this blog.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  32. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website

    “You mean the Chinese don’t screw their wives ? All those Chines numbering in billions are the products of divine Chinese intervention? How the heck did the Chinese manage to constitute 40 % of Ughyiar?”

    Why you no read properly what I say?

    Chinee used to screw their wives. China poor country until recent. Almost all men and almost all women poor. They not have fancy stuff to show off. They live just to live. And many Chinee live in countryside. There nothing to do but get married and have kids and raise family. That was life.

    But with rise of capitalism, Chinee move to big cities. And there they make some money, and Chinee women no longer want to marry just any guy. They look for better guy with more money. Women wait and wait for Better Guy or they just watch Soap Opera and live in virtual reality of fantasy romance.

    So, many Chinee women no have kid. Shanghai have birthrate of 0.8 baby per woman.
    China losing population super-fast.

    So, if we look at longrun trend, there be more Uighur since that part of China still backward and traditional. There, Uighur women still into being wife and mother.

    But since rise of Chinese economy, Chinee women no longer take any man who is good enough. They look for BETTER man.

    It the Western disease. We see in West too. Women screw around but no get married like they used to. No settle down to be wifey and mother.

    Modernization, more than one-child policy, will do to Chinese demographic what happen in Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and S. Korea. They all follow way of Germany where women no have kid.

  33. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website

    It really say ‘I want some sukiyaki’.

  34. Che Guava says:

    I am almost embarrassed to post in this thread, there are so many stupid and irrelevant replies.

    Am surprised by Peter Lee’s meandering, too, raising many good points, but not taking them anywhere (always read and usually enjoy your articles). It did have a little that I didn’t know.

    A few random points for other commenters who read threads.

    People in Guangzhou or Canton have been supposed to learn the national language, and to varying degrees have, for a long time. It’s not a new policy.

    I doubt that any large proportion really knew the differences in orthography, or could read much anyway, suspect that the proportion reading the written language in Cantonese literature is much the same as (or higher than) it was in 1949.

    For all of its wrongs to Korea, Japan’s polity has not always dreamt of subjugating the place. It happened under Hideyoshi, repulsed from there and soon replaced here by the Tokugawa shoguns.

    Under them, local warlords and pirates, mainly or solely in Kyushu, made the occasional raid, to kidnap craftsmen, and presumably, the occasional woman, but this ran against the policy of the central govt. and was very much a local secret at the time. Awareness of this is part of the reason the Nth. Koreans felt justified in their much smaller kidnapping campaign in the seventies and eighties. Many other reasons … not that it excuses them.

    Saigo Takamori, a tragic hero in the transition from shogunate to Imperial Japan, wanted to invade Korea as a means of asserting power. His colleagues felt it was too soon, he was beheaded in a cave after leading one of the many brief civil wars at the time.

    People he’d trained rose to the top of the new Meiji govt., they put the plan into action, so in Korea, you have the puppet kingdom, forced marriages of royals, then the annexation. The old royal palace in Seoul gives a strong feeling of this.

    The current polity just doesn’t want to resolve anything, what would you expect from a PM who entered politics on the strength of revanchist comics about thirty years ago?

    As for historical status of Korea, Vietnam and Japan re. their many situations and the many situations in China, they are very different.

    Vietnam was part of the sino- world to start with, even I can recognise cognates with Chinese languages (or dialects), and that the grammar is much the same.

    Can recognise the same in nominal cognates between Japanese and Korean, and the grammar being much the same, but Japanese has an underlay of something else, it’s not the Ainu, except in place names, but from the south or the Pacific.

    To the point: China always recognised the various polities in the Korean peninsula as separate from it, but they often had tributary relations.

    With Vietnam, it was different, since they spoke a dialect of the same language, they were assumed to be part of the thing. Due to misrule, it seems. they rebelled.

    Japan’s ’emperors’ from the seventh to eighth centuries veered from pledging tributary relations (which some prefer to forget) to writing boastful messages and receiving scathing replies.

    Apart from the Mongol invasion (which did happen, but failed, yet resulted in the overthrow of the shogunate of the time), contact from there was confined to a little trade, occasional missions from Japan to China, for study of literature, philosophy, and religion (Tao and Buddhist), and piracy.

  35. Rehmat says:
    @Richard S

    A Chinese Muslim, Admiral Zheng He, visited Americas during his seven maritime expeditions between 1405 and 1433 – before Christopher Columbus landed there ACCIDENTALLY.

    • Disagree: Che Guava
  36. Richard S says:

    It’s improbable that his fleet reached the Americas, but it is historically noteworthy that ethno-cultural otherness was no impediment to success for the talented and able in the Ming Empire. He’d have been burned to death in Western Europe at that time (although probably well received by his fellow Muslim Turanians in Khanate Russia).

    The decaying West has no monopoly on globalisation. A solidly organised Eurasia, with super-railroads connecting Antwerp to Shanghai (and everything in between) will inherit the century, with the interior lines of communication impervious to naval blockade.

  37. @Rehmat

    Thank God he didn’t bring your sick, hateful, pedophile-worshipping religion with him and colonize this continent instead of civilized people.

    • Replies: @bunga
    , @Rehmat
  38. bunga says:

    did he turn China into one–“Thank God he didn’t bring your sick, hateful, pedophile-worshipping religion with him and colonize this continent instead of civilized people.”?

  39. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website
    @Joe Wong

    Two Wongs don’t make a white.

  40. Rehmat says:

    Are you trying to tell me that former leader of UK’s Holocaust Scam and president of UK’s Jewish Lobby, who raped children at a Jewish orphanage, Lord Janner, was a Muslim?

  41. denk says:

    prez xi jing ping visited malaysia in oct 13 and was given red carpet reception.
    he had very warm and fruitful talks with both mahathir and najib. both countries pledged to elevate their excellent relation to higher level, with grand plan for cultural and economic cooperation, including the construction of a zheng he centre.

  42. @Talha

    That could be right about the Ottomans- as a dynasty ruling continuously over the same [albeit expanding and contracting] empire, and if one counts their early days as a tiny breakaway principality of Rum, their 1299-1922/4 run of 623/5 years may be the longest such. I don’t think any historical Chinese dynasty except the Zhou got close to that.

    Habsburg family power can best be dated to their acquisition of ducal Austria in 1276 when their head Rudolph was King of Germany, and their run to 1918 [equally with its vicissitudes] almost exactly parallels the Ottomans. But they were never as powerful.

    Your point about China and India’s history of warfare is well noted. I am often struck by the emphasis being placed on Europe’s history of ‘constant’ warfare. Although industrialization raised the stakes, I don’t find Europe’s history of warfare all that more bloody or destructive than China’s or India’s apart from that. Both the other great regions, and the Middle East, underwent constant churn of states, dynasties and empires no less than Europe. India was just coming off one such prolonged phase when the British started their takeover, and indeed they did it by acting like just another successor state. China’s history is replete with wars fought on a scale and level of mayhem that would have made Europeans prior to the Napoleonic wars shudder. Or even 1914.

    It’s just that we in the west are farther from them, and have limited understanding and sources for much of it. IIRC, the collapse of the Tang, Southern Sung, and Ming dynasties could be considered each as or more catastrophic in loss of life and property damage than the combined impact of the fall of the western Roman empire and the loss of much of the eastern one to Islam, although China probably recovered more quickly from all three than Europe and Byzantium did from theirs.

    And of course the Taiping and other rebellions against the Ching racked up body counts comparable to the World Wars.

    I can’t speak in detail on India on that point, but they seem to have been at it in a serious way during most centuries, especially after the arrival of Islam.

    • Replies: @denk
  43. denk says:
    @random observer

    when the ming court sent out a powerful fleet led by zheng he, he went around making friendly calls and trading with countries all over the world.
    centuries later, the ‘civilised’ euros sent their fleets to plunder and conquer. they cornered all the premium real estatesin north america, south america, dozens of islands in the pacific .
    why do u think there two white countries australia, nz smack dab in asia today ?

    a leopard never changes its spots.
    while china is busy building it 1s1r project these days, the euros led by murkkans continued their plunderings and land grabbing with gutso, right into the 21c.

    if u ask the world whats the difference bet china and murkka/euro, they’d tell u,
    one is a builder, the other a destroyer‘.
    no prize for guessing which one is the ‘destroyer’. !

    china has been a benign country since time immemorial, while the euros dont seem to have progressed one bit even after centuries of evolution.

    so spare us this ‘china no different from us’ craptraps.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @random observer
  44. Talha says:

    While there is little doubt the Europeans perfected the ability to project violence beyond their continent – nobody could withstand their weaponry and discipline on the field of combat – the Chinese had periods that were exceptionally bloody (internally) for pre-modern times; the age of the three kingdoms is testimony to that. But you are right, the violence did not often go outside of China itself. So I believe RO was comparing apples to apples – namely, violence internal to Europe or internal to China.


    • Replies: @random observer
    , @denk
  45. @denk

    That’s a remarkable effort to narrowcast, focusing on the issue of maritime trade and exploration.

    On the other hand, China of today is sitting on a vast imperial domain that may now have a Han majority, but is vastly larger than the original homeland of the peoples who called themselves Zhou, or even the combined territories of all the “warring states” of more or less Chinese people during the era of the same name.

    That’s a world record duration and permanence for an empire of conquest, annexation, assimilation, and demographic repopulation. There are whole nations [Thai, Bamar Burmese, and to some extent Vietnamese] whose original homeland was within what have long since become Chinese borders.

    And China made plenty of attempts to expand it later on too. They squatted on chunks of central Asia even beyond their current borders for a time.

    I can see why the Ming wouldn’t devote resources to overseas expansion- they had an empire already and tributary neighbours to extort, and were admittedly then the most overall advanced society. Europe’s divided states needed to find their empires overseas.

    I think there are two white countries south of Asia [Australia and New Zealand] because first Dutch and later British explorers found them where Chinese sailors had never had the gumption to look. Or Chinese the gumption [or need] to settle them. Not unlike the Americas. If China had needed to look for them and found them, they would have. And the result would have been the same. Plenty of extinct peoples who once lived in what is now China, known now only by names Chinese gave them.

    You’ll get no argument about Chinese builders from me, overall. How’s that wall doing for you? But Europe need yield nothing to China in being builders, whether of societies or institutions or of physical achievements. You got a great wall and plenty of fine ancient cities and palaces. Europe has better traditional architecture.

    Also, there’s those revolutions in agriculture, industry, technology, transport, etc. that Europe produced. though you did suggest gunpowder and paper money to us, so thanks. China’s still piggy-backing on and ripping off all those Western accomplishments. When you finally get to the moon I’ll concede the supremacy of your moonbase. But remember to thank all those Germans, Americans and Russians who pioneered flight and space, and salute in the general direction of the nearest American flag site.

    Also, see my selected list earlier of Chinese wars and massacres. I reiterate- China knew just fine how to kill and destroy.

    • Replies: @denk
  46. @Talha

    A more generous reply than mine, and indeed that was the comparison I was making, which I thought clear.

    Although I elected to add that China of today is the product of imperial conquest. Imagine if Rome had encompassed all Europe and kept reassembling itself as a conscious remake of its previous forms, and eventually somebody in whatever Helsinki would then be called commented that obviously Helsinki had always been a Latin city and part of eternal Rome. I suppose to them it would have been.

  47. denk says:
    @random observer

    funny u should talk about the moon. !

    on another site, there’s a thread about china’s plan to explore mars in the coming yrs.
    the commenters are either murkkans or brits.

    there’r the mandatory put down,
    ‘the chicoms are stealing all our tech’, [2]

    the stock gratuitous malice,
    ‘lets wait for it to blow up’ !
    ‘send them all to mars, good riddance’
    ‘let them go and dont let them come back’ !
    blah blah blah.

    i say,
    what have the ‘chicoms’ ever done to fukus to deserve such venom ? [1]
    zero, none, nada, zildh.

    more to the point, who’s the positive force in the world today ?
    why dont we hold a referendum on this , do the world community want a chinxit or usaxit ?
    which one should be exiled to mars ,the builder or the destroyer ???
    should be a no brainer eh ?

    actually its a one way fukus assault on china since the opium war.
    for the uninitiated, fukus = fuck uk, us.

    yeah sure , the ‘chicoms’ and only the ‘chicoms’ managed to hack a direct conduit into pentagon/lockheed martin/cia and grab whatever they want 24×7,
    if u believe this i’ve a bridge …..

  48. denk says:

    ‘compare apple to apple’, point taken.

    yet ro is a bit ‘confused’ .
    when i mention ‘builder’ vs ‘destroy’ it means
    china’s ‘one belt one road’ project vs murkka’s ‘bomb them to hell and bomb them again’ madness.
    which is the better way for mankind i ask ???

    im amazed when he launched into a diatribe about chinese backwardness vs the western godess !
    how did he manage to turn a moral issue into a dick swinging contest ?
    could this be due to cultural pecularities, in the west they worship the man with the biggest dick, er, gun, or ‘my country right or wrong’ ?

    he can forget about chinese ‘saluting to murkkan flag’ btw.
    that flag stands for evil, depravity, an insult to the eagle !
    criminals like bush, obama , blair might be able to hold courts in the west, in china these creeps would get a fire squad..

    funny he should side step the ‘one belt one road’ initiative , the greatest symbol of china the ‘builder’,
    but choose to take a dig at qin era ‘great wall’ instead, !
    he’s right it wasnt such a great technology wonder, it certainly didnt stop the northern hordes from overuning the hans twice, thats how we got the yuan [mongols], qing [manchus] dynasty remember ?

    here’s the irony.
    the great wall is the perfect symbol of the defensive nature of hans strategy, the antithesis to his ‘marauding hans conquering all and sundry’ meme !!

    i wish i could greet u with ‘peace’ but,
    the barbarians are at the gates, the vultures are in a frenzy….. !

    • Replies: @random observer
  49. One can deny the legitimacy of “One China”.

    Indeed one can even deny the legitimacy of “China”.

    Both make no sense at all to the Chinese.

    In fact, both “China” and “Chinese” don’t exist in eyes of “ 中国人” or more strictly “汉人”, in our language dictionary.

    “China”and “Chinese” are merely Anglonised Persian words to fascilitate the intellectual incapacity of the Western pronunciations – Made-by-the West, and used exclusively for the West and in the West.

    “汉人” and our terroteries , however, have been ligitimised by our DNA and 2,000 years unified history and metality that melted in our blood and culture. Neither the Persians nor the Anglos(and their modern day lackeys), can do a sh!t about it no matter how hard they spin so-called “China”, “One China” or “Chinese”. Wake Panda up wherever Huawei changes its name into Chinawei. ROFL

  50. @denk

    Having a hard time discerning the internal logic of all that so I’m going to just ignore the first one and look at this one.

    You didn’t make it clear that your ‘builder’ versus ‘destroyer’ characterization was so limited in time and space. It earlier seemed a comparison of Chinese versus European/Western civilization writ large, so I responded on those terms. I see now you mean just to compare China to the United States in the last decade or so, and with a strangely obsessive focus on one grand works project by China. Again, an extraordinarily truncated vision in both time and space.

    “im amazed when he launched into a diatribe about chinese backwardness vs the western godess ”

    No idea what that means. At no point did I suggest China is or has been backward. The opposite, indeed. On that last reference, did you mean “goddess” or “goodness”? I’m not into matriarchal religion so I’ll assume ‘goodness’. What does goodness have to do with anything? Just comparing civilizational accomplishments over a 2000 year timespan and noting the role of the industrial revolution. Even speculated about upcoming Chinese achievements that may be realized.

    As to dick swinging, no. Merely responded to your original criticism, which included the absurd notion that China has always been a “benign country” whatever that phrase is supposed to mean.

    • Replies: @denk
  51. Wow. Perhaps the main takeaway from all this is that westerners on the internet are more open to critical appraisals of their civilization, indeed generate them [especially on Unz] than are Chinese.

  52. denk says:
    @random observer

    to summarise,
    chinese like to built stuffs , westerners revel in breaking them up.

    chinese practice zen, the west indulge in ‘dick measuring’ .
    ‘great wall didnt turn out so swell eh ‘!
    ‘chinese space prog sucks, ‘no big deal , rip off of old western tech, chinese should pay homage to the western god when they do reach the moon’ !

    chinese are benevolent,
    great wall is a perfect example ,its all about ‘defence’
    to get some perspective, murkka has waged 250 wars since its birth, every single one has been naked aggression. !
    dept of ‘defence’…. my ass !

    you cited the taiping rebellion as example of another blood letting in chinese history.
    yet it was a just war , thats when the hans uprising ended the qing court’s repressive rule and heralded the birth of modern china.

    hans have big hearts.
    both mongols and manchus committed genocides during their rule of china. but there were no han reprisals when they turned the tables on their tormentors.
    zero, none,nada, zilch.
    for perspective, murkkan invading force turned fallujah into ‘shards’ to punish the iraqis after the execution’ of 4 blackwater death squad goons. !

    modern china is the culmination of thousands of yrs of interplay amongst the hans./mongols/manchu/ huns/tibetans/jin etc it involved cultural exchange, even inter marriage.and…. wars, more often than not, hans were at the receiving end !
    hans were overrun twice by the always menacing northern hordes.
    yet in the end, the invaders invariably got defeated and assimilated, resulting in an enlarged han ruled china.
    i guess u can chalk it up to the benign hans good karma !
    hehehehe !
    [for perspective, euros colonisations of north/south america, nz, oz etc were outright land grab, on such a massive scale its in a league all by itself !]
    no comparison !

    ‘chinese didnt take over oz, nz cuz they lacked the euros gumpton.’ [power play !]

    bs !
    chinese wherewithal brought them to many places but they didnt colonise, they traded, fraternalised but they never over stayed the host hospitality…unlike the euros. [1]
    in places like malacca u can still find many relics of the zheng he expedition, including many descendents of chinese sailors who ‘went local’ and married local lass !

    chinese make love, murkkans/euros make wars. !
    china builds, west destroy.
    it has always been that way,
    looks like it’ll always be that way !

    • Replies: @random observer
  53. @denk

    That’s just special.

    Hey, don’t get me wrong. China still cool.

  54. China is a master of tampering and whitewashing history.
    Those ethnic people who were invaded had been either disappeared from the physical world, or had been assimilated into them as an part of the Chinese. Snowball effect.

    That’s why they look like benign.

    That’s why they advocate that they had never invaded any country, only civil wars.

  55. Yang says:
    @Priss Factor

    It’s a little more complicated. The Han Chinese sent to Xinjiang are from non-coastal provinces, and therefore breed more than you probably think. Also, the urban areas in Xinjiang have pretty much no intention to fight. It’s more in the rural west and south.

    The real problem is that Islam is a powerful religion. It used to rule the world; of course they don’t want to ditch it.

  56. Bala says:

    China should be dismandled. tibe, Hong Kong, East Thurgmanistan etc., should be freed from the iron clutches of china. CCPis a terror Organisation. It sshould be black listed. Saans should be driven from earth to save other people. tibet should revolt againstchina. India should support freedom of Tibet, Jing Jiang, Hong Kong etc states. America sould bombord china and dismantle the barbarious chineese. One thing is certain China is ging to loose its provinces illegally occupied b them. Let us Dfat China. It is a terror state. Ji Jingping is a worst administrator.all pople from illegally occupie countries should revolt against China. inianary has given a strong blow to chineesse inefficient and childish military. chinese understand one thing that you spread chineese virus to the entir world. the world economies are suffering seerly by yu. you hav to pay a pric for that. Jingping fac3 is like a PIG. he should be hanged.

  57. Bala says:
    @Joe Wong

    your desie will b defeated. soon china will be dismantld into severl countries. your china will become a small country soon. America is going to take necessary steps to dismantle your gredy and idioic narrow mindd country. ou are the terror to human kind. you cunning f3llows.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Peter Lee Comments via RSS
How America was neoconned into World War IV
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?