[Request] Source of Sprartly Islands Belonging to China

[EastSea]

When have I ever stated that Manchus never sat on the Imperial Throne?

Rather the Manchus did not prefer to call themselves Manchus but Qiren and heavily mixed with Han Chinese.

Van Lang never exist,your cowards show texts written thousands of years later.

If 2,000 years later Vietnamese wrote that Vietnam ruled China will that automatically make it true?

I don't have time to walk you though Chinese texts read 論衡.說苑,白虎通,風俗通義 etc to see that Yuechang's location was unknown.

Quite rich,tell Cambodians,Laotians,Thais and Burmese that they were originally Vietnamese and see what they say.

Champa never belonged to Vietnamese until the Southern expansion,alter history as much as you want but the truth will never be changed.

You can't even read the simply title of the map thus your arguments are baseless.

The only thing Vietnamese PDF members are capable of are spreading their propaganda that Van Lang is real.

read again what you said;

" Man Qing doesn't exist, ..." What is this my boy. ?

Van Lang era is prehistory era of our history. We don't say that Vietnamese is a lonely ethnic group of Van Lang Hungkings, there were many other ethnic group were living in Van Lang territory. We are Vietnamese we dont have right to deny history of our ancient ancestor.

we don't care what do you think about it.

You can read the book "An Nam Chi Luoc " in Han Zi. This book founded in China. It sated that

" The land of Nan Jiao in time of Zhou it called Viet Thuong. in Qin Dynasty it called Tuong commandary, At the end of Qin, Zhiao Tuo annexed it and decrared a independent State".

so that, Viet Thuong is covered part of North Vietnam, up to Ha Tinh province of Vietnam today.

Champa people came later, they were from Java people in origin. they are called Cha Va or Cham or Chiem in Vietnamese.

You have to read your history book in China, Chams King adressed the letter to China King, he claimed also that Champa is Viet Thuong. He would like to take back Annam to them and ask China support Champa to do that.

I also said that Khmer people in Cambodia (10 million) and Mon people in Myanma (1, 5 million) Khmu people in Laos (0.5 million) who shared Mon/Khmer language in root with us. But they are in different ethic group.

 

[Snomannen]

read again what you said;

" Man Qing doesn't exist, ..." What is this my boy. ?

"Man Qing （滿清）doesn't exist" because "Man Qing（滿清）" is never a title nor name used by ANY rulers of the Qing Dynasty.
There are several names of the Empire: 大清國，中華大清國，中國 etc, but none of them is "Man Qing（滿清）". The term "Man Qing", used by the Han chauvinists, firstly appeared during the Late Qing. It is never an official title or name of the Empire.

Got it, KID?

 

[EastSea]

"Man Qing （滿清）doesn't exist" because "Man Qing（滿清）" is never a title nor name used by ANY rulers of the Qing Dynasty.
There are several names of the Empire: 大清國，中華大清國，中國 etc, but none of them is "Man Qing（滿清）". The term "Man Qing", used by the Han chauvinists, firstly appeared during the Late Qing. It is never an official title or name of the Empire.

Got it, KID?

Han chauvinists are right. This concept include word Man for Manchurian. and Qing is for the dynasty ruled China, KID.

 

[Grand Historian]

read again what you said;

" Man Qing doesn't exist, ..." What is this my boy. ?

Van Lang era is prehistory era of our history. We don't say that Vietnamese is a lonely ethnic group of Van Lang Hungkings, there were many other ethnic group were living in Van Lang territory. We are Vietnamese we dont have right to deny history of our ancient ancestor.

we don't care what do you think about it.

You can read the book "An Nam Chi Luoc " in Han Zi. This book founded in China. It sated that

" The land of Nan Jiao in time of Zhou it called Viet Thuong. in Qin Dynasty it called Tuong commandary, At the end of Qin, Zhiao Tuo annexed it and decrared a independent State".

so that, Viet Thuong is covered part of North Vietnam, up to Ha Tinh province of Vietnam today.

Champa people came later, they were from Java people in origin. they are called Cha Va or Cham or Chiem in Vietnamese.

You have to read your history book in China, Chams King adressed the letter to China King, he claimed also that Champa is Viet Thuong. He would like to take back Annam to them and ask China support Champa to do that.

I also said that Khmer people in Cambodia (10 million) and Mon people in Myanma (1, 5 million) Khmu people in Laos (0.5 million) who shared Mon/Khmer language in root with us. But they are in different ethic group.

As KirovAirship said Man Qing was never used as an official title and neither were Manchus were referred to as Manchus by the vast majority of Han.

Van Lang has as much veracity as Atlantis which is none,your fake history fools no one ie International scholars never recognize Vietnamese fabrications.

No one gives a damn what An Nam Chi Luoc stated,the ancient texts didn't state that Yuechang in Vietnam.

Claiming ancestry from ancient Chinese texts is not exactly uncommon.

It doesn't matter if you share an ancestor thousands of years ago their land doesn't belong to you.

Can Chinese claim all of Africa?

Han chauvinists are right. This concept include word Man for Manchurian. and Qing is for the dynasty ruled China, KID.

Name one treaty that uses Man Qing,you know nothing about Chinese history.

The only thing you are capable of is lying.

 

[GR!FF!N]

they did? please find government document or report they assert it in last thirty years. i have said you just play words game. if now i stand in any area in india where no soldier stand there, can i argue it belongs to me? i can not check evey island in india if there is troop, but i believe there are many, what is the rationale for you to argue your authority? taking up some main islands and declare the rest belongs to you, this is what exactly 1946 chinese government do. do not talk about the 1975 things, it have passed for almost 30 years after we declare our authority thorugh troops

I'd say any island or any place which is under "Foreign Power's control" is not under indian control(but it has nothing to do with authority or claim).for example,Pak occupied Kashmir or areas which China now has physical presence.its not about "playing with words".in any disputed area,Physical presence is everything.India/Pakistan can yell "Kashmir is ours" unlimited times in a day,but ground realities'll never change.

same goes for islands as well.if say,China occupies few islands of India and India couldn't do anything about it,that may remain as "disputed area" but it is under China's control.is it that hard to understand??it doesn't need to post soldiers or bunkers to asserts one's claim over "Non Disputed Land",but in case of dispute,presence is everything.take the scenario.Daioyu is under Japan's control,as it is still under Japan's authority and though there is not any presence of troops,but they can physically access it and China can't.but it is "disputed"(as China claims it) nonetheless.

 

[aliaselin]

I'd say any island or any place which is under "Foreign Power's control" is not under indian control(but it has nothing to do with authority or claim).for example,Pak occupied Kashmir or areas which China now has physical presence.its not about "playing with words".in any disputed area,Physical presence is everything.India/Pakistan can yell "Kashmir is ours" unlimited times in a day,but ground realities'll never change.

same goes for islands as well.if say,China occupies few islands of India and India couldn't do anything about it,that may remain as "disputed area" but it is under China's control.is it that hard to understand??it doesn't need to post soldiers or bunkers to asserts one's claim over "Non Disputed Land",but in case of dispute,presence is everything.take the scenario.Daioyu is under Japan's control,as it is still under Japan's authority and though there is not any presence of troops,but they can physically access it and China can't.but it is "disputed"(as China claims it) nonetheless.

No, Japan has never sent troops to Diaoyu Island, so what is your so-called authority? I did not deny Vietnam takes up some of the island at the moment, but here we are talking about history. In 1946, there is no argues for ROC to claim authority of Spraytly Island, why need ROC government control very island when there is no potential threat?

 

[GR!FF!N]

No, Japan has never sent troops to Diaoyu Island, so what is your so-called authority? I did not deny Vietnam takes up some of the island at the moment, but here we are talking about history. In 1946, there is no argues for ROC to claim authority of Spraytly Island, why need ROC government control very island when there is no potential threat?

because they've "Official control" and they accessed it several times.

Japanese visit to Diaoyu Islands for survey prompts China condemnation | South China Morning Post

Could China perform any such action even now??all they could do is sail their ships around the territorial water and airspace(and not violating it).

and I'm not saying anything about why it was needed to place soldiers to ROC to make their claim strong,I'm saying that Vietnam left largest numbers of reefs and islands even now,thus,ROC or China is/were no way near to control it,cause,when you control a region,you try to prevent its occupation.there is barely any such skirmishes only recently(and the battle of Johnson's Reef).see,China is still sparring with Vietnam and Philippines to control this region.its not like they slipped past China's control on these islands to capture it.they're in control for decades now.

 

[EastSea]

In 1946, there is no argues for ROC to claim authority of Spraytly Island, why need ROC government control very island when there is no potential threat?

Don't lie

in 1946 ROC signed aggreement with France in Chongqing agreed that Farance take control in Vietnam with the Islands belong to it.

1947 ROC claimed nine dash in your kitchen in Chongqing too, it was unknown in this time.

1951, by Francisco Conference, PM of Vietnam Govt Tran Van Huu protested it, and claim of ROC was rejected by voting.

 

[Snomannen]

Han chauvinists are right. This concept include word Man for Manchurian. and Qing is for the dynasty ruled China, KID.

Saying that chauvinism is right?
Once again you have proved that you are nothing but a racist, ignorant, uneducated liar.

 

[fromdesert]

There is a small room, a map, a pen and a chinese, he take the pen, imagines and draws a cycle with 11 dots then declare "all in this cycle are mine". after that he deletes 2 dots and say again "all in this cycle are mine". this is not specifying, no coordinates, and now chineses can not explain what is it. Just only china

 

[EastSea]

Saying that chauvinism is right?
Once again you have proved that you are nothing but a racist, ignorant, uneducated liar.

Han chinese said it too, so are they, han chinese are racist, ignorant, uneducated liar ?

 

[Snomannen]

Han chinese said it too, so are they, han chinese are racist, ignorant, uneducated liar ?

I told you already that those chauvinists quickly turned back to the right rail and abandoned chauvinism in order to found the Republic, which means that those chauvinists and their former version about ethnics cannot represent all the Han Chinese. Got that~?

They figured out they were wrong so they quickly changed, but ignorant, uneducated people like you will never learn. You are just like a modern nazi who has learn nothing from the past, which is ever worse than the real nazi.

 

[EastSea]

I told you already that those chauvinists quickly turned back to the right rail and abandoned chauvinism in order to found the Republic, which means that those chauvinists and their former version about ethnics cannot represented all the Han Chinese. Got that~?

so, the matter is disputed in China too, not only here on PDF.

 

[Grand Historian]

so, the matter is disputed in China too, not only here on PDF.

Han Chauvinists are the vocal minority.

On the other hand you love to spread lies.

 

[fromdesert]

Xi Jinping said: "In Chinese blood, there is no DNA for aggression or hegemony" But He tell the trust "In Chinese blood, there is no DNA for law or justice"