History of Vietnam or What do you want to know about Vietnam?

[Grand Historian]

By saying "China" do you mean, an anglicized term for Cathay/Catai used by Portuguese explorers? Cathay or China is derived from the name Khitan (契丹), which was used at the time, and, was publicized by Marco Polo in his book to refer to the people of Liao Dynasty who ruled what is known today as Northern China, then, yes my friend, they are related to Go Joseon (Koreans). Both Khitan and Korean originated from Baekdu Mountain. People living south of Liao were referred by Marco Polo in his book as "Manji" (Barbarians). I am glad you are flattered by this.

Chaoxian was originally a Zhou vassal state that was ruled by Jizi's descendants,which eventually reached Northern Korea due to pressures by Yan.

While the Gojoseon that nationalist Koreans picture today which supposedly incorporated Manchuria,the Shandong peninsula and all of Korea is nothing more than fantasy.

The Khitans,Jurchens,Xianbei,Xiongnu etc were never part of the non existent Gojoseon polity.

Baekdu mountian is holy to nomadic tribes not Koreans,as late as the Joseon dynasty it was labeled as a mountain revered by barbarians with minimal descriptions,it was only due the revisionism by Sin Chaeho that today's Koreans worship it.

 

[dichoi]

You claimed 文化 was of Japanese origin and subsequently you've been busted by 2 members,now you shift your goalposts that Japanese used a combination.

I think you have problem with your English to understand me. 文 and 化 is chinese word, but combination word 文化 is created by Japanese. Today chinese borrowed back 文化 from Japanese.

Sinicized means following Chinese culture,while the Red River elites are the nobles/scholars of the Hanoi area.

Do you think Thanh Hoa people were not "sinized" ?

I remind you that both our History Book 大越史略 and 大越史記全書 is written by Thanh Hoa People. 大越史略 is written by Le Van Huu 黎文休, 大越史記全書 is written by Ngo Si Lien 吳士連, both came from Thanh Hoa.

Đình, former Le, Nguyễn Dynasty founded by Thanh Hoa people. Thanh Hoa people is civilized like Hanoi/Red river delta people.

Beijing and Shanghai people don't like each other but not to the point of civil war they more or less consider themselves Han (doesn't mean they consider each other kin but that's another story) and practice Chinese culture albeit a regional one.

Both Thanglong/Hanoi and Thanh Hoa nobles/scholars were Viets too, shared same tradition culture, costom, language and studied Han Zi from childhood in home town and taken also on state exam in Tonkin too.

You don't seem to understand my point,you don't just apply labels anachronistically, ie you don't label Buddha a Nepalese/Indian as those ethnicties didn't exist back then and neither do you call Qin Shihuang a Han or Le Loi a Kinh.

What do you mean about Qin Shihuang ? he is son of La Puvi 吕不韦 from 趙國 , there is native land of Han people. It is clear that Qin Shihuang was Han Chinese.

 

[Grand Historian]

I think you have problem with your English to understand me. 文 and 化 is chinese word, but combination word 文化 is created by Japanese. Today chinese borrowed back 文化 from Japanese.

Read Kirov Airship or Huaren's post 文化 already was used by the Han dynasty it wasn't a Japanese invention as you claim.

Do you think Thanh Hoa people were not "sinized" ?

I remind you that both our History Book 大越史略 and 大越史記全書 is written by Thanh Hoa People. 大越史略 is written by Le Van Huu 黎文休, 大越史記全書 is written by Ngo Si Lien 吳士連, both came from Thanh Hoa.

Đình, former Le, Nguyễn Dynasty founded by Thanh Hoa people. Thanh Hoa people is civilized like Hanoi/Red river delta people.

They were clearly less Sinicized than the Red River elites(read the works of the scholars I mentioned),the Binh Ngo dai cao was applied to Red River delta elites.

Both Thanglong/Hanoi and Thanh Hoa nobles/scholars were Viets too, shared same tradition culture, costom, language and studied Han Zi from childhood in home town and taken also on state exam in Tonkin too.

Again regionalists tensions were boiling and there wasn't a united Vietnamese identity despite the propaganda nowadays.

What do you mean about Qin Shihuang ? he is son of La Puvi 吕不韦 from 趙國 , there is native land of Han people. It is clear that Qin Shihuang was Han Chinese.

How can Qin Shihuang be Han Chinese if Han Chinese was used as an ethnoym starting from Northern Wei?

There is no evidence he's the son of Lu Buwei.

You clearly don't understand what anachronism is,again is Buddha Nepalese/Indian when none of these concepts were in state at the time of his birth?

 

[SimonTagawa]

Chaoxian was originally a Zhou vassal state that was ruled by Jizi's descendants,which eventually reached Northern Korea due to pressures by Yan.

While the Gojoseon that nationalist Koreans picture today which supposedly incorporated Manchuria,the Shandong peninsula and all of Korea is nothing more than fantasy.

The Khitans,Jurchens,Xianbei,Xiongnu etc were never part of the non existent Gojoseon polity.

Baekdu mountian is holy to nomadic tribes not Koreans,as late as the Joseon dynasty it was labeled as a mountain revered by barbarians with minimal descriptions,it was only due the revisionism by Sin Chaeho that today's Koreans worship it.

Chaoxian was originally a Zhou vassal state that was ruled by Jizi's descendants,which eventually reached Northern Korea due to pressures by Yan.

While the Gojoseon that nationalist Koreans picture today which supposedly incorporated Manchuria,the Shandong peninsula and all of Korea is nothing more than fantasy.

The Khitans,Jurchens,Xianbei,Xiongnu etc were never part of the non existent Gojoseon polity.

Baekdu mountian is holy to nomadic tribes not Koreans,as late as the Joseon dynasty it was labeled as a mountain revered by barbarians with minimal descriptions,it was only due the revisionism by Sin Chaeho that today's Koreans worship it.

History has shown us that one ethnicity would often mislabel another as "barbarian" through lack of knowledge, understanding and appreciation for that culture, simply because the custom differ from their known norms. "Manji" is an example of this given by Marco Polo.

It is common for archeologist and historians to look at other sites beside their own country in search of lost ancient history. Greek for example, often look for Ancient Greek sites in Turkey. Are they claiming to be Turkish? Of course not.

Common people, like you and I, are interested and curious in such studies as well. This is why we are here in this forum to see others opinions and to share ours. Many Kakyō (華僑) look back to China in search of their lost heritage, this is normal. After so many generations living overseas, many Kakyō thinks and acts more like the people in their adopted country than they are as 華人. With that said, it is not surprising for Chaoxian-zu and Hánguó-rén to find their connections.

We human don't know for certain where we all originated from. It is our quest, a long enduring curiosity to search for clues and answers. Many look through ancient text, some look to the stars, while few dig through ancient soils. Sometimes our speculations are wrong. However, by doing so, we open the door for other possibilities and understanding.

By the way, I am actually Vietnamese, my wife is Han-Chinese, my adopted son is Japanese.

My time here was very educational. Thank you all for your posts and replies.

 

[Grand Historian]

History has shown us that one ethnicity would often mislabel another as "barbarian" through lack of knowledge, understanding and appreciation for that culture, simply because the custom differ from their known norms. "Manji" is an example of this given by Marco Polo.

I agree contempt breeds ignorance,however my point was the Joseon era Koreans didn't view Jurchens as their own despite what what Korean nationalists today are desperately claiming Jin and Qing as Korean to boost their own ego.

It is common for archeologist and historians to look at other sites beside their own country in search of lost ancient history. Greek for example, often look for Ancient Greek sites in Turkey. Are they claiming to be Turkish? Of course not.

The problem is that nationalistic Koreans make ridiculous claims that require a suspension of logic and distortion of historical sources to achieve their goal.

In the eyes of many Chinese the Koreans are trying to usurp the cultural/civilizational origin of East Asia from China to Korea.

We human don't know for certain where we all originated from. It is our quest, a long enduring curiosity to search for clues and answers. Many look through ancient text, some look to the stars, while few dig through ancient soils. Sometimes our speculations are wrong. However, by doing so, we open the door for other possibilities and understanding.

Its proven that are ancestors originate from the continent of Africa,however what the Koreans are doing is like saying the Africans originated from the Chinese.

Likewise what nationalistic Koreans are doing today is shameless,they twist the Altaic hypothesis by claiming that all other Altaic speakers ie Mongols,Manchus etc originated from Gojoseon therefore they are Korean,cherrypick quotes out of Chinese books to show that they "owned" lands in today's China,stress a narrative that they are "pure" and that Koreaness already existed in prehistoric times,making claims that defy linguistics Jusen = Joseon,even to the insane ie insisting that Shang,Yan,Xianbei/Xiongnu states,Liao,Jin,Yuan,Qing etc are all Korean and that Chinese somehow rewrote history about their Korean conquerors.

 

[SimonTagawa]

I agree contempt breeds ignorance,however my point was the Joseon era Koreans didn't view Jurchens as their own despite what what Korean nationalists today are desperately claiming Jin and Qing as Korean to boost their own ego.


The problem is that nationalistic Koreans make ridiculous claims that require a suspension of logic and distortion of historical sources to achieve their goal.

In the eyes of many Chinese the Koreans are trying to usurp the cultural/civilizational origin of East Asia from China to Korea.


Its proven that are ancestors originate from the continent of Africa,however what the Koreans are doing is like saying the Africans originated from the Chinese.

Likewise what nationalistic Koreans are doing today is shameless,they twist the Altaic hypothesis by claiming that all other Altaic speakers ie Mongols,Manchus etc originated from Gojoseon therefore they are Korean,cherrypick quotes out of Chinese books to show that they "owned" lands in today's China,stress a narrative that they are "pure" and that Koreaness already existed in prehistoric times,making claims that defy linguistics Jusen = Joseon,even to the insane ie insisting that Shang,Yan,Xianbei/Xiongnu states,Liao,Jin,Yuan,Qing etc are all Korean and that Chinese somehow rewrote history about their Korean conquerors.

When reading History, one must keep in mind that ancient history was written in favor of members of the royal family he served. Historians write down facts with a knife across their neck (just a figure of speech). Modern history is written in favor of the majority of the land, based on facts gathered from different angles regarding the event. Yet, if the event(s) is too controversial for the public or too sensitivity to others ethnicity living within its borders, it will only be briefly mentioned in a few sentences or may not be included in the final draft. Although, the information may pop up in bookstores, sold only as a controversial or leisure reading book that either gets high ratings or be ignored entirely. Like a good modern news reporter, great Historians favors no boundaries. He tells it as it is and record as true to the events that occurred as humanly possible; with facts from different sides. But by doing so, they would risk their career and possible criticism from the public, ending up being just a writer under another pen name.

This is not a subject of discussion for this thread. Perhaps you should start another discussion topic regarding your concerns about Korea's propaganda and seek for facts, and views from the Korean and others.

Best wishes to your endeavor.

 

[dichoi]

Read Kirov Airship or Huaren's post 文化 already was used by the Han dynasty it wasn't a Japanese invention as you claim.

In Han dynasty, chinese didn't have a idea about "Culture", this is modern terminology came from western people. It focused on ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society. Culture is like fashion is changed time to time to meet requirements of human kind in each society in process of development.

when in the past Chinese said '"文化不改", it is conflicted with modern idea of term "culture". the term in Han Zi "文化不改" could be translated in to English that " What is written, it can not change". It got nothing to do with "Culture" in modern concept.

They were clearly less Sinicized than the Red River elites(read the works of the scholars I mentioned),the Binh Ngo dai cao was applied to Red River delta elites. Again regionalists tensions were boiling and there wasn't a united Vietnamese identity despite the propaganda nowadays..

In reality, Le Loi aproved such Annoucement "Binh Ngo Dai Cao" only. This document is written by Nguyễn Trãi (阮廌), (1380–1442). He was an illustrious Vietnamese Confucian scholar came from Red River Delta. Lê Lợi didn't cared about tension should be done by such Viet Jian, traitors, defectors. They should been escaped to China with Ming Dynasty' army.

The purpose of announce "Binh Ngo Dai Cao" to reaffirm the independence of Dai Viet.

How can Qin Shihuang be Han Chinese if Han Chinese was used as an ethnoym starting from Northern Wei?
There is no evidence he's the son of Lu Buwei.

Wei Guo territory is today part of He Bei province China's, there is native land òf Han Chinese.

You have to read Shiji 史記/史记, bro. Lu Buwei was very famous person in history of China when he did a policy bussiness, proposed his wife as gift to the Jin Emperor.

You clearly don't understand what anachronism is,again is Buddha Nepalese/Indian when none of these concepts were in state at the time of his birth?

Buddha is Nepalese, he was a prince (traditionally dated 563–483 BCE), who later renounced his status to lead an ascetic life and came to be known as the Buddha. By 250 BCE, the southern regions came under the influence of the northern India Kingdoms, and Nepal later on became a nominal vassal state of India.

Today, in Vietnam people say that historically Buddha is came from Nepal, or India or correctly from India Continent. It is same story about Qin Xihuang, he was Chinese ( then word Jin or Qin is an origin root of word "China" is to be used popular in the world today) or more correctly: he was Han Chinese. Han Chinese is 92 % of population of China.

The different is that Nepal become independent state, Qin was vassal state of Zhou and reunited China under rule of Qin Emperor.

 

[Grand Historian]

When reading History, one must keep in mind that ancient history was written in favor of members of the royal family he served. Historians write down facts with a knife across their neck (just a figure of speech). Modern history is written in favor of the majority of the land, based on facts gathered from different angles regarding the event. Yet, if the event(s) is too controversial for the public or too sensitivity to others ethnicity living within its borders, it will only be briefly mentioned in a few sentences or may not be included in the final draft. Although, the information may pop up in bookstores, sold only as a controversial or leisure reading book that either gets high ratings or be ignored entirely. Like a good modern news reporter, great Historians favors no boundaries. He tells it as it is and record as true to the events that occurred as humanly possible; with facts from different sides. But by doing so, they would risk their career and possible criticism from the public, ending up being just a writer under another pen name.

This is not a subject of discussion for this thread. Perhaps you should start another discussion topic regarding your concerns about Korea's propaganda and seek for facts, and views from the Korean and others.

Best wishes to your endeavor.

If you actually believe in Korean nationalist historiography then so be it.

Keep in mind it was you that brought up the Khitans "relationship" with the Koreans.

They typical excuse is that the Chinese of Japanese burnt the glorious history of the Koreans and trying to hide the fact that Korean were the rulers of East Asia.

No, great historians don't spend their times on pseudo history,why do you think works written on the "Black" Egyptians,Chinese discovering the Americas,or even Korean Gojoseon are scorned by the international community?

 

[Grand Historian]

In Han dynasty, chinese didn't have a idea about "Culture", this is modern terminology came from western people. It focused on ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society. Culture is like fashion is changed time to time to meet requirements of human kind in each society in process of development.

when in the past Chinese said '"文化不改", it is conflicted with modern idea of term "culture". the term in Han Zi "文化不改" could be translated in to English that " What is written, it can not change". It got nothing to do with "Culture" in modern concept.

You clearly haven't read KirovAirship or Huaren's posts your claim has already been debunked and you are just trying to shift goalposts.

In reality, Le Loi aproved such Annoucement "Binh Ngo Dai Cao" only. This document is written by Nguyễn Trãi (阮廌), (1380–1442). He was an illustrious Vietnamese Confucian scholar came from Red River Delta. Lê Lợi didn't cared about tension should be done by such Viet Jian, traitors, defectors. They should been escaped to China with Ming Dynasty' army.

The purpose of announce "Binh Ngo Dai Cao" to reaffirm the independence of Dai Viet.

No it didn't Le Minh Khai has clearly shown that it was addressed to the Vietnamese "traitors",a declaration of independence didn't even exist in Classical Chinese so all you are doing is twisting the original.

Wei Guo territory is today part of He Bei province China's, there is native land òf Han Chinese.

You have to read Shiji 史記/史记, bro. Lu Buwei was very famous person in history of China when he did a policy bussiness, proposed his wife as gift to the Jin Emperor.

Do you or do you not understand what anachronism is?

1: an error in chronology; especially : a chronological misplacing of persons, events, objects, or customs in regard to each other

2: a person or a thing that is chronologically out of place;especially : one from a former age that is incongruous in the present

3: the state or condition of being chronologically out of place
Anachronism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

The concept of Han Chinese couldn't have existed back then as Hanzhong was a foreign place to the natives of the central plains.

You don't seem to understand that sources about Qin Shihuang were highly unflattering and criticizing of his persona and his empire so including a line of his supposed illegitimacy was to validate that Tian punished his rule.

Unless you have DNA of King Zhuangxiang,Qin Shihuang and Lu Buwei your claim holds no merit.

Buddha is Nepalese, he was a prince (traditionally dated 563–483 BCE), who later renounced his status to lead an ascetic life and came to be known as the Buddha. By 250 BCE, the southern regions came under the influence of the northern India Kingdoms, and Nepal later on became a nominal vassal state of India.

Today, in Vietnam people say that historically Buddha is came from Nepal, or India or correctly from India Continent. It is same story about Qin Xihuang, he was Chinese ( then word Jin or Qin is an origin root of word "China" is to be used popular in the world today) or more correctly: he was Han Chinese. Han Chinese is 92 % of population of China.

The different is that Nepal become independent state, Qin was vassal state of Zhou and reunited China under rule of Qin Emperor.

Again anachronism,we don't call Confucius a resident of the People's Republic of China the same reason why Buddha isn't from the Republic of India or Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal.

If you cannot grasp this basic concept,then there's nothing left more me to say.

 

[SimonTagawa]

In Han dynasty, chinese didn't have a idea about "Culture", this is modern terminology came from western people. It focused on ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society. Culture is like fashion is changed time to time to meet requirements of human kind in each society in process of development.

when in the past Chinese said '"文化不改",

Buddha is Nepalese, he was a prince (traditionally dated 563–483 BCE), who later renounced his status to lead an ascetic life and came to be known as the Buddha. By 250 BCE, the southern regions came under the influence of the northern India Kingdoms, and Nepal later on became a nominal vassal state of India.

Today, in Vietnam people say that historically Buddha is came from Nepal, or India or correctly from India Continent. It is same story about Qin Xihuang, he was Chinese ( then word Jin or Qin is an origin root of word "China" is to be used popular in the world today) or more correctly: he was Han Chinese. Han Chinese is 92 % of population of China.

The different is that Nepal become independent state, Qin was vassal state of Zhou and reunited China under rule of Qin Emperor.

In Han dynasty, chinese didn't have a idea about "Culture", this is modern terminology came from western people. It focused on ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society. Culture is like fashion is changed time to time to meet requirements of human kind in each society in process of development.

when in the past Chinese said '"文化不改", it is conflicted with modern idea of term "culture". the term in Han Zi "文化不改" could be translated in to English that " What is written, it can not change". It got nothing to do with "Culture" in modern concept.



In reality, Le Loi aproved such Annoucement "Binh Ngo Dai Cao" only. This document is written by Nguyễn Trãi (阮廌), (1380–1442). He was an illustrious Vietnamese Confucian scholar came from Red River Delta. Lê Lợi didn't cared about tension should be done by such Viet Jian, traitors, defectors. They should been escaped to China with Ming Dynasty' army.

The purpose of announce "Binh Ngo Dai Cao" to reaffirm the independence of Dai Viet.



Wei Guo territory is today part of He Bei province China's, there is native land òf Han Chinese.

You have to read Shiji 史記/史记, bro. Lu Buwei was very famous person in history of China when he did a policy bussiness, proposed his wife as gift to the Jin Emperor.



Buddha is Nepalese, he was a prince (traditionally dated 563–483 BCE), who later renounced his status to lead an ascetic life and came to be known as the Buddha. By 250 BCE, the southern regions came under the influence of the northern India Kingdoms, and Nepal later on became a nominal vassal state of India.

Today, in Vietnam people say that historically Buddha is came from Nepal, or India or correctly from India Continent. It is same story about Qin Xihuang, he was Chinese ( then word Jin or Qin is an origin root of word "China" is to be used popular in the world today) or more correctly: he was Han Chinese. Han Chinese is 92 % of population of China.

The different is that Nepal become independent state, Qin was vassal state of Zhou and reunited China under rule of Qin Emperor.

Hi dichoi,

Siddhartha Guatama (The Buddha) was born in the republican state known at the time as Sakya Gaṇa-rājyaa, which in now modern Napal. Napal did not exist during Buddha's time. Vietnamese refer to his birthplace as "Lâm Tỳ Ni" (Lumbini), In Sanskrit meaning "Lovely".

As for the origin of the word China, was derived from "Chin" a word the Persian merchants used to refer to Great Jin (大金), the Jurchens, a dynasty that follows shortly after Great Liao (大遼;Khitan). Marco Polo used as "Cathay". In Latin as "Sinae" This word was later used to by Portuguese explorers as "China".

Persians do not know the history or the existence of the Qin Dynasty (秦朝). It was before their time. Therefore, Qin is not the root word of China.

Respectfully.

 

[fromdesert]

They look like each other to some extent.

But you are wrong, Zhang Hanyun is from Sichuan, not Shanghai.



Really? You really think so? French sounds terrible. Spanish sounds good.

Chinese sounds best

 

[dichoi]

You clearly haven't read KirovAirship or Huaren's posts your claim has already been debunked and you are just trying to shift goalposts.

and what is "cách mạng văn hóa" "文化大革命" ? , this concept 革命 chinese borrowed back from Japanese too.
So in time of "文化大革命" in China, most of peasant in China didn't understood what does it mean, then Mao Zedong said : " rebel has right " or " tạo phản có lý" in Vietnamese.

No it didn't Le Minh Khai has clearly shown that it was addressed to the Vietnamese "traitors",a declaration of independence didn't even exist in Classical Chinese so all you are doing is twisting the original.

Le Minh Khai or Lam C. Kelly is trolled about 平吳 大誥, this document is written by Nguyen Trai, he is Red River Delta scholar, and 而 各 帝 一 方 existed in Classical Han Zi too. It got a meaning "Independence"

and what does it mean the following statement ?

惟 我 大 越 之 國,
實 為文 獻 之 邦 。
山 川 之 封域 既 殊,
南 北 之 風 俗亦 異 。
自 趙 丁 李 陳 之肇 造 我 國,
與 漢 唐 宋元 而 各 帝 一 方 。

Như nước Việt ta từ trước,
Vốn xưng văn-hiến đã lâu,
Sơn-hà cương-vực đã chia,
Phong-tục bắc nam cũng khác.
Từ Đinh, Lê, Lý, Trần, gây nền độc-lập,
Cùng Hán, Đường, Tống, Nguyên, hùng-cứ một phương,..

The nature of this statement is a declaration of independence of Vietnam from China.

Do you or do you not understand what anachronism is?
1: an error in chronology; especially : a chronological misplacing of persons, events, objects, or customs in regard to each other
2: a person or a thing that is chronologically out of place;especially : one from a former age that is incongruous in the present
3: the state or condition of being chronologically out of place
Anachronism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
The concept of Han Chinese couldn't have existed back then as Hanzhong was a foreign place to the natives of the central plains.
You don't seem to understand that sources about Qin Shihuang were highly unflattering and criticizing of his persona and his empire so including a line of his supposed illegitimacy was to validate that Tian punished his rule.
Unless you have DNA of King Zhuangxiang,Qin Shihuang and Lu Buwei your claim holds no merit.

when you don trusted on Shiji or chronicle stories recorded about the story of Lu Buwei. Officially Qin Shihuang 秦始皇帝 is dencent of 五帝 - 顓頊. Qin Shihuang is the son of 秦庄襄王. So he is Han Chinese.

I believe on the history of 三皇五帝 of ancient China. it is myth, but created by Chinese. Like Hungking and Van Lang of Vietnamese.

Again anachronism,we don't call Confucius a resident of the People's Republic of China the same reason why Buddha isn't from the Republic of India or Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal.
If you cannot grasp this basic concept,then there's nothing left more me to say.

Base on your logic, it does not existed such kind of "sinized red river elites" in Tonkin when Lê Lợi taken back Đại Việt from Ming Dynasty temporally occupation in 22 year.

After 1949, did Mao cared to much about such Han Jian traitors who were cooperated with Japanese in WW II ?

 

[Grand Historian]

and what is "cách mạng văn hóa" "文化大革命" ? , this concept 革命 chinese borrowed back from Japanese too.
So in time of "文化大革命" in China, most of peasant in China didn't understood what does it mean, then Mao Zedong said : " rebel has right " or " tạo phản có lý" in Vietnamese.

It originated from China,you don't seem to understand the Chinese already had the meaning in Hanzi while the Japanese merely combined them.

Which has nothing to do with 漢 being borrowed by Vietnamese as it was exclusively used to designate Chinese culture other than some toponyms.

Le Minh Khai or Lam C. Kelly is trolled about 平吳 大誥, this document is written by Nguyen Trai, he is Red River Delta scholar, and 而 各 帝 一 方 existed in Classical Han Zi too. It got a meaning "Independence"

and what does it mean the following statement ?

惟 我 大 越 之 國,
實 為文 獻 之 邦 。
山 川 之 封域 既 殊,
南 北 之 風 俗亦 異 。
自 趙 丁 李 陳 之肇 造 我 國,
與 漢 唐 宋元 而 各 帝 一 方 。

Như nước Việt ta từ trước,
Vốn xưng văn-hiến đã lâu,
Sơn-hà cương-vực đã chia,
Phong-tục bắc nam cũng khác.
Từ Đinh, Lê, Lý, Trần, gây nền độc-lập,
Cùng Hán, Đường, Tống, Nguyên, hùng-cứ một phương,..

The nature of this statement is a declaration of independence of Vietnam from China.

Come back when you can actually read classical Chinese and refute his points.

when you don trusted on Shiji or chronicle stories recorded about the story of Lu Buwei. Officially Qin Shihuang 秦始皇帝 is dencent of 五帝 - 顓頊. Qin Shihuang is the son of 秦庄襄王. So he is Han Chinese.

I believe on the history of 三皇五帝 of ancient China. it is myth, but created by Chinese. Like Hungking and Van Lang of Vietnamese.

Again you can't prove he's descended from who unless you have the Y DNA of both parties you are trying to link.

All this demonstrates is you're incapable of understanding that ethnic groups are fluid and that concepts change,if you cannot grasp the concept of anachronism then I can't help you.

Let's say my great grandfather was a Manchu,despite me being a Han,it would be erroneous to label my great grandfather a Han.

The Qin never called themselves Han Chinese and had no reason to,as Hanzhong wasn't the traditional land of the Qin and didn't exhibit any special qualities.

The 3 sovereigns and 5 emperors as well as Vietnamese myths are grounded in fantasy except that Chinese don't go as far as Vietnamese and claim the entirety of Southern China as their homeland.

Base on your logic, it does not existed such kind of "sinized red river elites" in Tonkin when Lê Lợi taken back Đại Việt from Ming Dynasty temporally occupation in 22 year.

After 1949, did Mao cared to much about such Han Jian traitors who were cooperated with Japanese in WW II ?

Where's the flaw in my logic?

Sinicized means that they follow Chinese customs/laws etc. are you going to deny this?

I'm not Mao so how should I know?

 

[Viet]

I agree contempt breeds ignorance,however my point was the Joseon era Koreans didn't view Jurchens as their own despite what what Korean nationalists today are desperately claiming Jin and Qing as Korean to boost their own ego.


The problem is that nationalistic Koreans make ridiculous claims that require a suspension of logic and distortion of historical sources to achieve their goal.

In the eyes of many Chinese the Koreans are trying to usurp the cultural/civilizational origin of East Asia from China to Korea.


Its proven that are ancestors originate from the continent of Africa,however what the Koreans are doing is like saying the Africans originated from the Chinese.

Likewise what nationalistic Koreans are doing today is shameless,they twist the Altaic hypothesis by claiming that all other Altaic speakers ie Mongols,Manchus etc originated from Gojoseon therefore they are Korean,cherrypick quotes out of Chinese books to show that they "owned" lands in today's China,stress a narrative that they are "pure" and that Koreaness already existed in prehistoric times,making claims that defy linguistics Jusen = Joseon,even to the insane ie insisting that Shang,Yan,Xianbei/Xiongnu states,Liao,Jin,Yuan,Qing etc are all Korean and that Chinese somehow rewrote history about their Korean conquerors.

Can you tell me why the Ming, Qing placed Korea on the top of the ancient tributary system?

 

[Grand Historian]

Can you tell me why the Ming, Qing placed Korea on the top of the ancient tributary system?

The Joseon were close in proximity,did not seek to invade other tributaries or Ming itself,offered tribute regularly,derived authority from the Ming emperor,common enemies etc.

Keep in mind if wasn't for the subsequent unification of China by Zhu Yuanzhang,Yi Seonggye wouldn't have the chance to revolt and used the Ming as a keystone for imperial legitimacy.

To summarize the Goryeo-Joseon interregnum due to extensive marriage and Yuan hegemony there were many factions loyal to the Yuan suzerain,King Gongmin of Goryeo had to purge pro Yuan officials which undermined his legitimacy.

However King Gongmin was faced with the conundrum of facing a Ming or Yuan intervention so he tried to appease both sides,however due to miscalculation he tried to seize the Liaodong peninsula in 1370 greatly angering Emperor Hongwu though he died before Ming intervention.

Due to the death of a Ming envoy and doubt that King U was actually his son,Emperor Hongwu used this opportunity to threaten King U by not providing Chinese legitimacy

Hongwu seeing how King U was at least competent in surviving accepted tribute though there was a period of years with frosty relationships due to the Goryeo also giving tribute to the Mongol chieftain Naghachu.

However Naghachu surrendered to the Ming and the Ming proceeded to annex Northeastern Korea due to unclear borders.

King U then proceeded to send a token force to invade Liaodong in 1388,and the rest is history as Yi Seonggye used this chance to set up puppet rulers and eventually take over the Goryeo himself.

However this is not the start of rosy relationships despite granting Yi Seonggye the right to name his kingdom Joseon,Hongwu still used temporary titles.

The Ming believed that Yi Seonggye was still technically an usurper claiming he was the son of Yi In-Im(a Yuan loyalist),murderer of the Goryeo monarchs,supposed collaboration with Jurchens raids.

A Joseon-Ming conflict almost happened when Hongwu decided to close the Sino-Korean borders over a perceived insult while some factions wanted to invade Liaodong,though it ended due to Hongwu's death and Taejo's abdication.

Both Ming and Joseon went through mini civil wars over descendants of their founders with the Koreans granting resources as tribute which thawed the rift left behind by Hongwu.

So by Emperor Yongle the amicable relationship between Ming and Joseon with culminated with Ming aid during the Imjin War and Joseon support of the Ming over the Manchus.