User talk:Arilang1234/Archive 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
公即為漢傢傳人,華夏子民,孫先生擁護者, 何不思光復華夏文明,反認同蒙元滿清為中國耶? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.2.166 (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- A translation, for the sake of transparency (nothing against you Arilang: I know you didn't write this):
“ | You are a child of the Huaxia people and a supporter of Mr. Sun Yat-sen: why not consider restoring Huaxia civilization by objecting to recognizing the Mongol Yuan Dynasty and the Manchu Qing Dynasty as "China"? | ” |
- This message was written in classical Chinese to make it more difficult to read for machines or for those whose Chinese is not so good. Anyway, this kind of political motivation for editing would clash directly with the spirit of Wikipedia. Sincere cheers to you, Arilang, for not falling for it. Madalibi (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for you complimentary comment Madalibi. Well, according to Hua-Yi distinction, we really have no choice. My argument is, if we reject Mongols and Manchus, and kick them out of the Chinese formula, we should then also kick Tang Dynasty out, because of their Xianpei stock, kick Ming Dynasty out, because they were a bunch of Hui muslim. What have we got left? Arilang talk 06:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I DO generally disagree with people who say that the Yuan and Qing dynasties were "China" in the same sense as the Han, Tang, Song, or Ming. The Qing, for example, was much more of a multi-ethnic empire than the Ming, because Manchu rulers governed large regions of their empire in clearly different ways. And depending who they were talking to, the Qing emperors were also Khans of the Mongols, reincarnations of Buddhas, etc. I just don't take this kind of observation in the spirit of "restoring Chinese civilization to its lost grandeur," as the anonymous poster seemed to imply. I wish I had time to integrate all these views on the Qing dynasty wiki... Anyway, talk to you later! Madalibi (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- There's no proof that zhu yuanzhang was a muslims, stop slandering people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.136.147 (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- THe mongol and manchu rulers had no chinese blood. Tang emperors did and so did ming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.136.147 (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Arilang, you said Tang's emperors are Xianbei origin, it's not totally true. I know Li Shiming has Xianbei blood, but only one of his ancestors was Xianbei, and was a matriachal ancestor. okay, if Li Shimin's mother is Xianbei, he is 1/2 xianbei, is his grand-mother is xianbei, li is 1/4 xianbei, 1/8.1/16 and so on. So, li's xianbei origin is minim. You know, a ethnic origin is marked on Y chromosome, so we herited our ethnic origin from our father. Li's father is Han, so in theory, Li is a Han. And you can see Li speak Han language, wear Hanfu, have Han customs... All this told us that we can consider Li is a Han, not really Xianbei.
Zhu Yuanzhang, the first emperor of Ming, is a real Han, not Hui muslim. Zhu is Hui, is only a rumour, certain persons told this because only Zhu has constructed some muslim 'churches' for Hui peoples, according to this logic, you can also say Zhu is a european, because he has also constructed some catholic churches pour europeans who came to China!
I'm a Han, and I'm often disappointed and frustreted when I see some chinese of other ethnic groups
insulted Han people by using violent actions and nasty words, and the most of Han don't rebut them. And the gouverment traits us as second-rank people, just because we are numerous. And some Han don't know the real history, they said like, 'our hero Gengis Khan is a great king, blabla...' They ignore that Gengis khan killed so many innocent Han people! I'm not against mongols who like their heros, but for us, he's only a atrocious butcher. And in the history books used by school, they said almost all that mongols et manchus invaders are our heros, and Yue Fei is a flunky who disturbed relations between peoples! Whose fault, dusting the eyes of ignorant Han? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.2.166 (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I wish you could understand my explanations. (oh, my poor english) 67.204.2.166 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.2.166 (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- My answer is please read Hua-Yi distinction, that is all I can say Arilang talk 01:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)