Lee Kuan Yew

[East Asia United]

Both Mongols and Manchu are part of Chinese ethnic group. I wonder where is the capital of British India

In my opinion, the thing that makes them Chinese and therefore of the East Asian population group, is their negligible genetic distance to other East Asians.

This would mean that the Tibetans and Uighurs are not East Asian (in terms of their race), though they may be Chinese in nationality and culture.

 

[AADHAAR]

stop equating his serious and astute statement with anything out of imperial Japan. What I'm asking is was India subcontinent composed of various kingdoms and empire before British unify it. And was there ever a continuous line of central government regarding itself as a India Kingdom or empire before the Mughals. If not, than we can say that Mughals tried to unified India, but British finally did it.



Both Mongols and Manchu are part of Chinese ethnic group. (Ha ha .. they don't consider themselves. And just go and check with Uyghurs and Tibetans.) I wonder where is the capital of British India

PRC is the last surviving bastion of colonialism ... and they know this... once the force of oppression unleashed by PLA goes, PRC will fall apart.

A democratic and liberal PRC cannot exist ..... the moment you bring in freedom and liberty, PRC will dismantle .. and all the subjugated colones will regain their independence.

 

[East Asia United]

PRC is the last surviving bastion of colonialism ... and they know this... once the force of oppression unleashed by PLA goes, PRC will fall apart.

A democratic and liberal PRC cannot exist ..... the moment you bring in freedom and liberty, PRC will dismantle .. and all the subjugated colones will regain their independence.

Actually you showed your ignorance right there. The only widespread discontent is by the Tibetans and the Uighurs (who aren't even East Asians anyway). The Manchus don't consider themselves Chinese? LOOL!

 

[AADHAAR]

Actually you showed your ignorance right there. The only widespread discontent is by the Tibetans and the Uighurs (who aren't even East Asians anyway). The Manchus don't consider themselves Chinese? LOOL!

Manchus are as much chinese .. as ukrainians are russians.

PRC is not a country.. but territorial hoard of a bunch of oppressors using the PLA oppression in the terrritories under their control.

The most peaceful way PRC disintegrates is "commonwealth of chinese states" ... just like ex-Soviet Union did.

The more disastrous way could be as bad as atomisation of much of PRC, east of the "great wall".

Lets hope, it happens in a peaceful way.... not the other way.

 

[East Asia United]

Manchus are as much chinese .. as ukrainians are russians.

PRC is not a country.. but territorial hoard of a bunch of oppressors using the PLA oppression in the terrritories under their control.

The most peaceful way PRC disintegrates is "commonwealth of chinese states" ... just like ex-Soviet Union did.

The more disastrous way could be as bad as atomisation of much of PRC, east of the "great wall".

Lets hope, it happens in a peaceful way.... not the other way.

How are you going to have a separatist movement based on ethnicity when virtually all (93%) belong to the SAME ethnic group? And in addition, many, like the Manchu and Mongols are East Asians genetically.

Regardless, how many provinces are minority-Han? They are so few it's not even worth mentioning. Tibet and what else?

 

[INDIC]

Well, you should read his articles and writings more. Lee is a great statesman. Look at what he done for Singapore. And his statements carry great weight in the international arena. Trust me, he is probably the most credible statesman in Asia. and he made the comment

"India is not a real country. Instead it is thirty-two separate nations that happen to be arrayed along the British rail line.”

This is a statement to thought through and ponder on why he make that comment. By looking at history, you can see where he come from. The British rail line united India after British political conquest of India. And India subcontinent contains various kingdoms that British unite into one. Can you dispute this fact?

Is he an expert on Indian history. Chinese may know of him because of his Chinese ancestry but he looks more like a localized popular leader among Chinese people, never came across his popularity in the world.

 

[Aegis DDG]

How are you going to have a separatist movement based on ethnicity when virtually all (93%) belong to the SAME ethnic group? And in addition, many, like the Manchu and Mongols are East Asians genetically.

Regardless, how many provinces are minority-Han? They are so few it's not even worth mentioning. Tibet and what else?

I am quite impressed about how China managed to be Han dominant despite having an Large population of 1 billion plus. BTW Have you read about population change in the propusus Song Dynasty (10th century)? It why China had massive population untill the Qing Dynasty. Song Dynasty was on the few places where Industrialization was ripe... over 3 billion cooper cast currencies were made and 500 million paper money. Song Dynasty created over 150,000 tons of Iron and even steel, it was to be surpassed by the UK in the late 18th century!

 

[INDIC]

Both Mongols and Manchu are part of Chinese ethnic group. I wonder where is the capital of British India

Manchus had separate civilization than Hans, their language is Tungusic while Mandarin is a Sino-Tibetan language. why is their writing system look different from the Han people if they were the part of Chinese civilization. They became part of Chinese civilization only in 17th century when they united whole of China from Beijing to Urumqi/Lhasa although Puyi tried to create Manchu homeland with the help of the Japanese. Please stop presenting fake facts.

Manchu language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Manchu script-Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[INDIC]

Again, off-topic. I am simply referring to the state of modern China. Han are 93% of the population.

Also, the Manchus (Qing dynasty) and the Mongols are both East Asian peoples. They are genetically of the East Asian population group.

But they had their own civilizations different from Han people.

 

[StarCraft_ZT]

I am quite impressed about how China managed to be Han dominant despite having an Large population of 1 billion plus. BTW Have you read about population change in the propusus Song Dynasty (10th century)? It why China had massive population untill the Qing Dynasty. Song Dynasty was on the few places where Industrialization was ripe... over 3 billion cooper cast currencies were made and 500 million paper money. Song Dynasty created over 150,000 tons of Iron and even steel, it was to be surpassed by the UK in the late 18th century!

correct, you are quite familiar with Song Dynasty

 

[East Asia United]

I am quite impressed about how China managed to be Han dominant despite having an Large population of 1 billion plus. BTW Have you read about population change in the propusus Song Dynasty (10th century)? It why China had massive population untill the Qing Dynasty. Song Dynasty was on the few places where Industrialization was ripe... over 3 billion cooper cast currencies were made and 500 million paper money. Song Dynasty created over 150,000 tons of Iron and even steel, it was to be surpassed by the UK in the late 18th century!

Indeed, the Europeans (Whites) only surpassed East Asia in the 17th century with the beginnings of the Great Divergence, and even then China was not surpassed as the world's largest economy until the very late 19th century.

But they had their own civilizations different from Han people.

Irrelevant. You keep going off-topic. Is China 92-93% Han right now or not? One single ethnicity is the overwhelming majority of the country, like the USA or most European countries pre-1960 (even the USA can be argued to be of multiple ethnic groups starting in the late 19th century).

And anyway, you are wrong. Are you saying the Qing Dynasty was not Chinese? So I guess China did not exist between 1644 and 1912, and of course the Yuan Dynasty was also not Chinese (so no Chinese existed as a nation between 1271 and 1368).

This is hilarious.

 

[faithfulguy]

b

Indeed, the Europeans (Whites) only surpassed East Asia in the 17th century with the beginnings of the Great Divergence, and even then China was not surpassed as the world's largest economy until the very late 19th century.



Irrelevant. You keep going off-topic. Is China 92-93% Han right now or not? One single ethnicity is the overwhelming majority of the country, like the USA or most European countries pre-1960 (even the USA can be argued to be of multiple ethnic groups starting in the late 19th century).

And anyway, you are wrong. Are you saying the Qing Dynasty was not Chinese? So I guess China did not exist between 1644 and 1912, and of course the Yuan Dynasty was also not Chinese (so no Chinese existed as a nation between 1271 and 1368).

This is hilarious.

This Indian is getting off topic so people do not remember the fact that India was created by Britain. And unless you ignore history, this is without dispute.

 

[AADHAAR]

b

This Indian is getting off topic so people do not remember the fact that India was created by Britain. And unless you ignore history, this is without dispute.

It is you who are trying to evade things which are been clearly been pointed out.

Closing your eyes will not make PRC not being a repressive artificial regime ... so far .. managing to hold the vicitim ethnic population and their territories in a vice-like colonial grip. It is so, and any sane person can readily see it.

You may have wishes how the world should be .. but it isn't that way.

And history has clearly shown that no oppressive regime has survived for ever ... can you give one counter-example?

If not, then open your eyes to the reality of PRC which is an artificial oppressive regime.. which will have to give way to freedom and liberty .. one day.


Yes, nobody can predict, precisely, when PRC will actually meet its destined collapse .. it can after 2 years, 5 years or 15 years . and it can happen withing the next 6 months.

After all who could have predicted the break-up of Soviet Union (which was a super power) in 1984 ... and the world saw what happened in less that 5 years from 1984.

 

[Wholegrain]

Manchus had separate civilization than Hans, their language is Tungusic while Mandarin is a Sino-Tibetan language. why is their writing system look different from the Han people if they were the part of Chinese civilization. They became part of Chinese civilization only in 17th century when they united whole of China from Beijing to Urumqi/Lhasa although Puyi tried to create Manchu homeland with the help of the Japanese. Please stop presenting fake facts.

Manchu language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Manchu script-Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lol @INDIC keep going on about the puppet state Manchukuo. The majority of its government, its prime minister, population, and army were Han, mandarin was the language of its national anthem. The state was a puppet state set up by the Japanese and has nothing to do with Manchus asking for their own state or separatism.

The ancestors of the Manchu, the Jurchen were part of the Ming. Their homeland was part of the Ming under the Nurgan (Nurkan) Regional Military Commission. Look at the northeast where it says "Jurchen" and "Nurkan".

The found of the Qing dynasty, Nurhaci was a vassal to the Ming like many under Jurchen chieftains an their tribal groupings, the Jianzhou and Haixi. The Jurchen guard were vassals to the Ming and took orders from Ming Generals. Nurhaci said he was a loyal vassal but decided to rebel because the Ming accidently killed his father and grandfather. Look up the "Seven Grievances", "Jurchen Guard", and "Jianzhou Jurchens".

They previously used a Chinese derived script for their language. The Ming dynasty Yongning temple stele is inscribed in this script and in Chinese. The stele was found in modern day Russia in Tyr.

Jurchen script and language

 

[INDIC]

Irrelevant. You keep going off-topic. Is China 92-93% Han right now or not? One single ethnicity is the overwhelming majority of the country, like the USA or most European countries pre-1960 (even the USA can be argued to be of multiple ethnic groups starting in the late 19th century).

And anyway, you are wrong. Are you saying the Qing Dynasty was not Chinese? So I guess China did not exist between 1644 and 1912, and of course the Yuan Dynasty was also not Chinese (so no Chinese existed as a nation between 1271 and 1368).

This is hilarious.

Read the two conflicting points you wrote.