1904 China map admits Paracel, Spratly not Chinese territory

[Nestea]

Can you read Han chinese ? In the Nguyen Dynasty we used also Han Chinese for writing. For demonstration the Islands belong to Viet is clear enough.

In fact can not read to understand the Chinese characters also know, on the map “黄沙" and "萬里長沙”, Are near the coast of Vietnam, Your picture is better verify my statement, Vietnam's so-called Hoang Sa and Truong Sa are close to the islands of the coast of Vietnam, Not real in the Nansha Islands!

See above (EastSea's image)
Trying to avoid Paracels? So it means you have agreed that our sovereignty over Paracels is right



Y U NO read?



See? It said "Equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina (Vietnam)"
The map-drawing technique in that period was still poor, so the map can't provide the extract distance. That's why we need texts to back-up our maps. Got it?


----------------

BTW, where are your maps and texts? Where are your evidences and sources? What is the base of your buffalo's tongue claim? Y U NO show them?

I am just saying that the South China Sea dispute five parties around the Nansha Islands, so our discussions have focused on the Nansha Islands.

´ÓÅ·ÖÞÔçÆÚµØͼÖÐÕÒÑ°ÄϺ£µÄ×Ù¼£ Paracel/PracelÇøÓò±äǨÑо¿

Western understanding of the China Sea is the ancient Chinese map in the transmission of information, Once the central Vietnam coast not far from some of the shoals, sandbars painted a long strip, And called Parcel / Pracel (s) / Paracels, But until recent times, they discovered that the Xisha Islands of China, And began to draw in the upper right corner of the long strip of the Xisha Islands, and gave several different names, Later, a very modern (for example Plate6 1851) map began on the map to remove the long strip, But the “Paracels” this name transferred to now the real xisha islands.

1838 Vietnam map, this map reflects the Vietnamese about the territory characteristics, But these two Islands near the coast of Vietnam, If you press the Vietnamese say, "萬里長沙” is the Nansha Islands, But a far cry from reality location. So here is a very interesting question, Why Vietnam other territories draw more accurate, However, only these two islands and the actual difference so big?


1774, Western maps, map location description is more accurate, All the islands in Southeast Asia and the reality is no longer much difference, These two islands or near the coast of Vietnam. Vietnam's so-called Hoang Sa and Truong Sa are close to the islands of the coast of Vietnam, Just some of the central coast of Vietnam sandbars and shoals.

¶«ÄÏÑó¸÷¹úÑظïͼ

“萬里長沙”is the Xisha Islands, “千里石塘" is the Nansha Islands.

 

[ComeAtMeBro]

Don't misunderstand me, pal. In ancient time, the concept of "天下“（whole world) is different with today's. It's far more smaller one. Ancient people's ability to recognize the world is very limited. Actually this kind of philosophy also existed in other cultures.

Also because ancient Chinese believed this is a small world, they got the courage to rule the "whole world". So at that time. all the known lands were either ruled by China, or became vassal states of it.

Then what's your basis then?

How can you be so sure that the ancient chinese is the first to discover the island?
Why afraid of international courts if you believe you have a strong evidence from the ancient times?

I'm amaze you don't post regarding bombin us
I'm tired of your friends reading the same post again and again saying "I will bomb you I will bomb you"

 

[Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ]

There is an old Chinese saying: “普天之下莫非王土”。Do you know the meaning of it? It means" All lands under the sky belong to the great Chinese emperor". That concept had been widely accepted by all Chinese for thousands years. So ancient Chinese had no motivation to draw their border line on map. It's a useless work for them. Ancient Chinese took it for grant that the land they found belongs to Chinese.

Now that's the evidence of your claim
BTW, according to your argument that "1904 China map is land map not sea map", "All lands under the sky belong to the great Chinese emperor" doesn't mean even seas are yours Ya I'm just kidding never mind

It's quite obvious that islands in SCS were first discovered by Ancient Chinese. Ancient Chinese were far more advanced in navigation field. When Chinese ancestors crossed SCS and got to Arab countries and other SEA countries by their huge ships. Vietnamese could barely leave their coast line with their shabby boats.

Oh, you "discover" something doesn't mean that you "have the sovereignty over that thing". If you found something that doesn't have a owner and want to set your sovereignty, you need to
1) claim it officially, by (an) official map(s) or by a declaration from your gov, but no one oppose your claim.
2) disembark your army there to set sovereignty or pitch your flag their; but no one oppose your action.
Can Spanish claim the whole America continental just because Colombo found it first? Of course no

 

[ComeAtMeBro]

Can Spanish claim the whole America continental just because Colombo found it first? Of course no

Just imagine if the chinese did this rather than the spaniards
FFS our planet will be named CHINA instead of EARTH

 

[Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ]

In fact can not read to understand the Chinese characters also know, on the map “黄沙" and "萬里長沙”, Are near the coast of Vietnam, Your picture is better verify my statement, Vietnam's so-called Hoang Sa and Truong Sa are close to the islands of the coast of Vietnam, Not real in the Nansha Islands!

Y U STILL NO READ?

Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique de Précis ... - Conrad Malte-Brun - Google Books
The French book "Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique du Précis de la géographie universelle en huit volumes" (volume 2) was published in Paris, 1831. Page 221 said that: "equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire". "A une egale distance de la cote de Cochinchine et de l'ile d'Hai-nan, l'archipel de Paracels est une dependance de l'empire d'Annam"

Now give me the name of what archipelago is as large and far from the coast as the archipelago in our map so Westerners can be mistaken with Paracels and described "equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire". If there is no archipelago like that, it means the archipelago in the map is Paracels, ok?

I am just saying that the South China Sea dispute five parties around the Nansha Islands, so our discussions have focused on the Nansha Islands.

Nah, unlike you, I prefer something simple. Too many parties want Spartly, but Paracels is the problem between only Vietnam and China, so we should discuss about it first.

´ÓÅ·ÖÞÔçÆÚµØͼÖÐÕÒÑ°ÄϺ£µÄ×Ù¼£ Paracel/PracelÇøÓò±äǨÑо¿

Western understanding of the China Sea is the ancient Chinese map in the transmission of information, Once the central Vietnam coast not far from some of the shoals, sandbars painted a long strip, And called Parcel / Pracel (s) / Paracels, But until recent times, they discovered that the Xisha Islands of China, And began to draw in the upper right corner of the long strip of the Xisha Islands, and gave several different names, Later, a very modern (for example Plate6 1851) map began on the map to remove the long strip, But the “Paracels” this name transferred to now the real xisha islands.

Not far? Oh really? So what about this far

Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique de Précis ... - Conrad Malte-Brun - Google Books
The French book "Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique du Précis de la géographie universelle en huit volumes" (volume 2) was published in Paris, 1831. Page 221 said that: "equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire". "A une egale distance de la cote de Cochinchine et de l'ile d'Hai-nan, l'archipel de Paracels est une dependance de l'empire d'Annam"

and this far

One thing, our Paracel Teams (Đội Hoàng Sa and Đội Bắc Hải) start from our near coast islands to go to Paracel. For example, Ly Son island, just go and search it on google, oh if you have google there

This three things have completely destroyed your argument about "Vietnamese Paracels are near the coast, not real Paracels"

You see, the map which used later Western's technique provide better accuracy about distance.

And your Chinese "very modern (for example Plate6 1851) map" is too poor, I mean the technique, terrible, more like Vietnamese 15th Century map drawing technique, I can't even understand what is going on there. But you have very nice and modern typed letters You only have one map while we have many maps with more than 100 books, so we have to have a question: Is that a fake map made by your gov recently?

1838 Vietnam map, this map reflects the Vietnamese about the territory characteristics, But these two Islands near the coast of Vietnam, If you press the Vietnamese say, "萬里長沙” is the Nansha Islands, But a far cry from reality location. So here is a very interesting question, Why Vietnam other territories draw more accurate, However, only these two islands and the actual difference so big?

Other territories are more accurate? How?

The size, the distance are very different because of the poor technique in that period. Notice how close is that in the map from Southern Vietnam to Western Malaysia. S

1774, Western maps, map location description is more accurate, All the islands in Southeast Asia and the reality is no longer much difference, These two islands or near the coast of Vietnam. Vietnam's so-called Hoang Sa and Truong Sa are close to the islands of the coast of Vietnam, Just some of the central coast of Vietnam sandbars and shoals.

So why don't they draw the "other" Paracel? It's bigger, more noticeable than some "islands near Vietnamese coast", right? They are mentally retarded or what? Or if you want to say that they "miss" the Paracel, well, hundreds, thousands of Westerners who go around South East Asia sea for 400 years but all of them "miss" the "real Paracel"? What a pity of Western's sailing :rofl"

 

[kankan326]

Then what's your basis then?

How can you be so sure that the ancient chinese is the first to discover the island?
Why afraid of international courts if you believe you have a strong evidence from the ancient times?

I'm amaze you don't post regarding bombin us
I'm tired of your friends reading the same post again and again saying "I will bomb you I will bomb you"

I'm sure Chinese found the islands first. We found sank ancient Chinese ships in SCS.
Could I bring your house to the court and decide whom it belongs to? I believe this is a gesture of humiliation to you. If we agree to bring those islands to court. What if Vietnam some day claims that Hainan island also belongs to him. Should we take Hainan island to the court again? We should never get this ridiculous things started.

Now that's the evidence of your claim
BTW, according to your argument that "1904 China map is land map not sea map", "All lands under the sky belong to the great Chinese emperor" doesn't mean even seas are yours Ya I'm just kidding never mind




Oh, you "discover" something doesn't mean that you "have the sovereignty over that thing". If you found something that doesn't have a owner and want to set your sovereignty, you need to
1) claim it officially, by (an) official map(s) or by a declaration from your gov, but no one oppose your claim.
2) disembark your army there to set sovereignty or pitch your flag their; but no one oppose your action.
Can Spanish claim the whole America continental just because Colombo found it first? Of course no

OMG, Why you asked ancient people to act according to today's rules? I believe at that time nobody did the things you listed.

 

[ComeAtMeBro]

Could I bring your house to the court and decide whom it belongs to? I believe this is a gesture of humiliation to you. If we agree to bring those islands to court. What if Vietnam some day claims that Hainan island also belongs to him. Should we take Hainan island to the court again? We should never get this ridiculous things started.

Is that how your government want to you to believe
I pity you for the lack of information then

International court will be the neutral ground for both of us.
Your evidence, our evidence, and the other nation's evidence will be examine and make a decision based on that.

This is how "civilized" race decides

 

[Snomannen]

1. The "1904 China map" only shows a part of China (直&#30465, not the whole China;

2. The donors and the owner of the museum are careless.

 

[kankan326]

Is that how your government want to you to believe
I pity you for the lack of information then

International court will be the neutral ground for both of us.
Your evidence, our evidence, and the other nation's evidence will be examine and make a decision based on that.

Territory issues are not like crimes. For instance, some sea area has been Chinese fishmen‘s fishery for thousand years. Could we provide that to court? Ancient Chinese found the island and name it. Could it be a evidence at all? No, it's never as easy as crime. The evidences are right there. If I say Hawaii belongs to China, do I have the evidences for it? No. Does USA have evidences that it belongs to her. No.

 

[EastSea]

In fact can not read to understand the Chinese characters also know, on the map “黄沙" and "萬里長沙”, Are near the coast of Vietnam, Your picture is better verify my statement, Vietnam's so-called Hoang Sa and Truong Sa are close to the islands of the coast of Vietnam, Not real in the Nansha Islands!




I am just saying that the South China Sea dispute five parties around the Nansha Islands, so our discussions have focused on the Nansha Islands.

´ÓÅ·ÖÞÔçÆÚµØͼÖÐÕÒÑ°ÄϺ£µÄ×Ù¼£ Paracel/PracelÇøÓò±äǨÑо¿

Western understanding of the China Sea is the ancient Chinese map in the transmission of information, Once the central Vietnam coast not far from some of the shoals, sandbars painted a long strip, And called Parcel / Pracel (s) / Paracels, But until recent times, they discovered that the Xisha Islands of China, And began to draw in the upper right corner of the long strip of the Xisha Islands, and gave several different names, Later, a very modern (for example Plate6 1851) map began on the map to remove the long strip, But the “Paracels” this name transferred to now the real xisha islands.

1838 Vietnam map, this map reflects the Vietnamese about the territory characteristics, But these two Islands near the coast of Vietnam, If you press the Vietnamese say, "萬里長沙” is the Nansha Islands, But a far cry from reality location. So here is a very interesting question, Why Vietnam other territories draw more accurate, However, only these two islands and the actual difference so big?


1774, Western maps, map location description is more accurate, All the islands in Southeast Asia and the reality is no longer much difference, These two islands or near the coast of Vietnam. Vietnam's so-called Hoang Sa and Truong Sa are close to the islands of the coast of Vietnam, Just some of the central coast of Vietnam sandbars and shoals.

¶«ÄÏÑó¸÷¹úÑظïͼ

“萬里長沙”is the Xisha Islands, “千里石塘" is the Nansha Islands.

Ha ha, Chinese are liars about Island of Vietnam.

1. On your map stated in middle in chinese (near by the islands and same parallel with Vietnam 越南東部, 交趾 Việt Nam Đông Bộ-Giao Ch&#7881 :東洋大海 Đông dương Đại Hải, it's related to 東洋 半岛 Indo-China peninsula in English. It means Chinese accepted that there is "East Sea - Biển Đông" same name as we have been calling our sea from ancient time.
2. No where 東沙 西沙 南沙. Stop lying, bro.
3. This is map about the sea and islands with many countries are drawing, no evidents or notices for that Islands belong to China.

1. The "1904 China map" only shows a part of China (直&#30465, not the whole China;

2. The donors and the owner of the museum are careless.

There is only one. We have more evident to show that in the past Qing Dynasty China didn't considered such Islands are parts of China.

 

[ComeAtMeBro]

Territory issues are not like crimes. For instance, some sea area has been Chinese fishmen‘s fishery for thousand years. Could we provide that to court? Ancient Chinese found the island and name it. Could it be a evidence at all? No, it's never as easy as crime. The evidences are right there. If I say Hawaii belongs to China, do I have the evidences for it? No. Does USA have evidences that it belongs to her. No.

First of all "You should not compare others(USA) to you(China)"
That's a sign of inferiority complex

Regarding your post,

Not because ancient chinese named it doesn't mean they have the rights on it.
In ancient eras, you don't have telephones, television, media, and internet.
How can you be sure the the ancient chinese where the "FIRST" one to name it?

If you do really believe that your evidences were strong then there's no point of avoiding the international court
This is how international law works my friend, you can't just claim everything

Tell your government to stand up like a MAN and stop relying on cheap dirty tactics

 

[kankan326]

First of all "You should not compare others(USA) to you(China)"
That's a sign of inferiority complex

Regarding your post,

Not because ancient chinese named it doesn't mean they have the rights on it.
In ancient eras, you don't have telephones, television, media, and internet.
How can you be sure the the ancient chinese where the "FIRST" one to name it?

If you do really believe that your evidences were strong then there's no point of avoiding the international court
This is how international law works my friend, you can't just claim everything

Tell your government to stand up like a MAN and stop relying on cheap dirty tactics

Ancient people can not talk for us in court， which you are very good at taking advantage of. If I'm not making it wrong. I remember there is an ancient Chinese ship under the water of Huangyan Island. Is that an evidence for us?

 

[ComeAtMeBro]

Ancient people can not talk for us in court， which you are very good at taking advantage of. If I'm not making it wrong. I remember there is an ancient Chinese ship under the water of Huangyan Island. Is that an evidence for us?

No you're wrong, there's no better than both of us. It's the evidence that matters here
We don't care if you won in the end atleast you won in a more manly and less barbaric way rather than bullying you know

You can use any evidence if you want to, in the end the decision is in the hand of the court

 

[kankan326]

No you're wrong, there's no better than both of us. It's the evidence that matters here
We don't care if you won in the end atleast you won in a more manly and less barbaric way rather than bullying you know

You can use any evidence if you want to, in the end the decision is in the hand of the court

Even we are 100% sure that we are winning in the court. We are not going to take our land to court. As I said, this is a dangerous start. Only thieves like to try their luck on court. It's a zero risk business for them.

 

[Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ]

I'm sure Chinese found the islands first. We found sank ancient Chinese ships in SCS.
Could I bring your house to the court and decide whom it belongs to? I believe this is a gesture of humiliation to you. If we agree to bring those islands to court. What if Vietnam some day claims that Hainan island also belongs to him. Should we take Hainan island to the court again? We should never get this ridiculous things started.

OMG, Why you asked ancient people to act according to today's rules? I believe at that time nobody did the things you listed.

Actually Spain, England, France, Portugal ... did that. Even our ancient people did both of those things. So?