Rumors killer -- Spreading lies is bad, mmkay?

[Snomannen]

Some people always take the advantage of the internet (which provides "non-realistic space" for anyone to talk anything they want) to spread rumors and lies.
For example, here is a statement posted by a new recruit here yesterday:

It was surprising for British and French army to discover that the Qing army's weaponry were in such a low level that they only know how to use long knife to cut. And it was also surprising to Chinese when they discovered that weapons created and improved in Ming Dynasty was even better and superior than the weapons used by Qing troops. Yet, all of those were dumped by Qing government, because they thought this is not good to maintain their govern over Han people.

Here is my response:

Could you please provide source of this story please?

Yet obviously someone is not willing to prove his words and try to divert attention by dropping bunch of "sources":

Have you forgot being invaded by foreign troops in late Qing Dynasty? Have you forgot how they burned everything in the Summer Palace?
Well, perhaps you gotta check more biography or files written by George Macartney, Matteo Ricci and many other churchmen that had come to China. Also, historical relics rubbed by foreign invasions won't cheat people's eyes. No matter by googling or baidu or to just look up to some technology history or weaponry history books talking about China, you'll certainly see the difference of 2 periods of time divided by the point that China was occupied by Qing government.

I nicely ask him again to post the exact page that able to prove his statement:

Again may I ask you to find me a book or sth that can prove any word you state here:

[ It was surprising for British and French army to discover that the Qing army's weaponry were in such a low level that they only know how to use long knife to cut. And it was also surprising to Chinese when they discovered that weapons created and improved in Ming Dynasty was even better and superior than the weapons used by Qing troops. Yet, all of those were dumped by Qing government, because they thought this is not good to maintain their govern over Han people. ]

Especially that bold part.

Yet this is what he replied to another liar:

I guess he just want us to give him/her the exact name of books. How hilarious he is since we've given him the things for him to look up.
There's no need to argue with him any more, for he's becoming irrational with every line~ Have fun and it's time for me to have dinner~

My response to such irresponsible, rude, shameless attitude:

How could you drop a bunch of staffs and ask me to search it for myself instead of showing me the exact page that prove your statement. Maybe it's not because you are irresponsible or sth, maybe it's because you don't even know where the source is and this is all your own imagination.

Every single reference I have used, I post the exact parts of the books instead of just throwing you a bunch and let you find it. See, this is how academic discussion works. You are the one who is getting irrational here.

How about you go tell your professor at university that "I have drop bunch of books on your desk. Here is my dissertation without any reference, if you want reference just search those books. I don't have time for that."

Another shameless reply:

you are not my professor, and we are talking about history, not all history books are on internet, so silly, m.r double standards man

If you are talking about history then how could you not making reference? Who do you think you are, 玉皇大帝 (an "advanced God" in Chinese folk beliefs) ? You want people to believe everything come for your mouth and trust your own imagination? Who is the silly guy here?

Again if you are not able to provide any source in exact page, then that means you DIDN'T even know what you are talking about and all of the words come from your mouth are all nonsense~

Everyone who has read my posts knows that this is how I make statement, one of the example:

"The slightest fault committed by a Tartar mandarin ( Manchurian) is severely punished; but the punishment of the greatest is often mitigated, if the delinquent be a Chinese (Han)."

--A General Description of China by Jean-Baptiste Grosier
An Historical, Geographical, and Philosophical View of the Chinese Empire ... - William Winterbotham - Google 圖書

Another example:

記得哪個滿清酋長說過，朕非中國之人，乃主中國之事

(Translate: A Manchurian ruler claimed that he is not Chinese who rules over China.)

甚麼叫 "乃主中國之事"，你篡改文獻的技倆有夠差勁的：

"在逆賊等之意，徒謂本朝以滿洲之君，入為中國之主，妄生此疆彼界之私，遂故為訕謗詆譏之說耳。不知本朝之為滿洲，猶中國之有籍貫。舜為東夷之人，文王為西夷之人，曾何損於聖德乎？" － 大義覺迷錄

(Translate: here is what the manchurian really said "Traitors are so foolish that they don't even know Manchuria is a part of China.")

Since I'm a responsible man who respect and care facts the most, I have been spending hours to search for historical record that can prove that guy's statement -yet none of the sources support his "story"~ But that doesn't mean that I didn't find anything interesting during those past hours... (to be continued)

 

[Snomannen]

A Chinese scholar from Qing dynasty recorded that Cantonese are good at using air rifle, even a ten years old can "shoot a coin 100 steps far away" (just a hyperbole).

"粤人善鸟枪，山县民儿生十岁即授鸟枪一具，教之击鸟。久之，精巧命中，置于肘上背物而击之，百步外钱孔可贯。鸟枪以新会所造为精，枪成置于掌上，击物而枪 不动，掌亦无损。然后架之于肘用之，其人在前，则转身而横击之，无不妙中。枪既锤炼精熟，夜必悬于墙，否则曲而不直。引药又宜长带在身，使人气温暖，方易 著火。炭则以糯谷为之，盖沙炮贵长，鸟枪贵轻，而药皆宜干燥。此外有三眼枪者，有置于刀枪之末，本末互用者，有交枪者。其曰瓜哇铳者，形如强弩，以绳悬络 肩上，遇敌万铳齐发，贯甲数重。其曰沙炮者，以百炼精铁为之。长者一丈五六，或二丈。每一发可毙人于三箭地外。其为制也，皮宜厚，腹宜光滑，口宜稍大于 身，使弹子易于喷撒。弹子多至升许，一发毙数十百人。杂以快钯藤盾，长短相救，用之战阵，可以每战辄无敌矣。"－－［南越笔记 ］


Some paintings of the Battle of Palikao, a war of "disastrous failure" of the Qing dynasty lost to the British & French.

Only long knife you said?

 

[Jlaw]

too many posters posing as Chinese like that Jing person.

 

[Marshmallow]

lies spreading?

 

[sahaliyan]

Good,it's better to know the historical truth rather than fake history

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

I am not a big fan of the Qing Dynasty, but these angry youths always tend to use Qing as the scapegoat to cover China's past failure.

This kind of history revisionism is no better than those Japanese/Korean/Viet ultra-nationalists who claimed that they have invented China's civilization.

Even if the Ming Dynasty was there, it would get no better than Qing, perhaps even worse as China's controlled territory would become much smaller.

 

[Andrei]

I am not a big fan of the Qing Dynasty, but these angry youths always tend to use Qing as the scapegoat to cover China's past failure.

This kind of history revisionism is no better than those Japanese/Korean/Viet ultra-nationalists who claimed that they have invented China's civilization.

Even if Ming Dynasty was there, it would get no better than Qing, perhaps even worse as China's controlled territory would become much smaller.

no body say ming dynasty is good, we talk about how hanfu disappeared not talk about qing dynasty

Some people always take the advantage of the internet (which provides "non-realistic space" for anyone to talk anything they want) to spread rumors and lies.
For example, here is a statement posted by a new recruit here yesterday:



Here is my response:

Could you please provide source of this story please?

Yet obviously someone is not willing to prove his words and try to divert attention by dropping bunch of "sources":



I nicely ask him again to post the exact page that able to prove his statement:

Again may I ask you to find me a book or sth that can prove any word you state here:

[ It was surprising for British and French army to discover that the Qing army's weaponry were in such a low level that they only know how to use long knife to cut. And it was also surprising to Chinese when they discovered that weapons created and improved in Ming Dynasty was even better and superior than the weapons used by Qing troops. Yet, all of those were dumped by Qing government, because they thought this is not good to maintain their govern over Han people. ]

Especially that bold part.

Yet this is what he replied to another liar:



My response to such irresponsible, rude, shameless attitude:

How could you drop a bunch of staffs and ask me to search it for myself instead of showing me the exact page that prove your statement. Maybe it's not because you are irresponsible or sth, maybe it's because you don't even know where the source is and this is all your own imagination.

Every single reference I have used, I post the exact parts of the books instead of just throwing you a bunch and let you find it. See, this is how academic discussion works. You are the one who is getting irrational here.

How about you go tell your professor at university that "I have drop bunch of books on your desk. Here is my dissertation without any reference, if you want reference just search those books. I don't have time for that."

Another shameless reply:


If you are talking about history then how could you not making reference? Who do you think you are, 玉皇大帝 (an "advanced God" in Chinese folk beliefs) ? You want people to believe everything come for your mouth and trust your own imagination? Who is the silly guy here?

Again if you are not able to provide any source in exact page, then that means you DIDN'T even know what you are talking about and all of the words come from your mouth are all nonsense~

Everyone who has read my posts knows that this is how I make statement, one of the example:



Another example:


Since I'm a responsible man who respect and care facts the most, I have been spending hours to search for historical record that can prove that guy's statement -yet none of the sources support his "story"~ But that doesn't mean that I didn't find anything interesting during those past hours... (to be continued)

you are disgusting, always misleading others , and cut pieces of article to mislead others

 

[Grand Historian]

皇漢 are just pathetic individuals who rely on racism,fabrications and plain ignorance to spread their agenda,thankfully their numbers are nowhere as large as they claim.

They can't even differentiate a primary source from a secondary source,and evidence that contradicts their view is immediately dismissed as Manchurian propaganda

 

[Andrei]

I am not a big fan of the Qing Dynasty, but these angry youths always tend to use Qing as the scapegoat to cover China's past failure.

This kind of history revisionism is no better than those Japanese/Korean/Viet ultra-nationalists who claimed that they have invented China's civilization.

Even if Ming Dynasty was there, it would get no better than Qing, perhaps even worse as China's controlled territory would become much smaller.

so why not against japan? japan control much bigger territory of asia , if you want more land.

皇漢 are just pathetic individuals who rely on racism,fabrications and plain ignorance to spread their agenda,thankfully their numbers are nowhere as large as they claim.

They can't even differentiate a primary source from a secondary source,and evidence that contradicts their view is immediately dismissed as Manchurian propaganda

对于分不清文化复兴与民族主义的人，没必要跟你多话

A cannon from the Huolongjing, compiled byJiao Yu and Liu Ji before the latter's death in 1375 (Ming Dynasty)

 

[Andrei]

Wow the second pic you gave, Battle of Palikao 八里桥之战， qing soildiers used Bows and arrows, spears against french soldiers' gun. great, it made differences with long knives? same Cold steel against modern guns
By the way, Battle of Palikao happend in Second Opium War, before this, there was First opium War. even in second opium war, the qing soldiers still used cold steels, like Bows and arrows, spears, long knives, so what did they use in First war? After first war, they even didn't learn from western new technology, still keeping use cold steels.
Pic from Edward Belcher - Edward Belcher (1843). Narrative of a Voyage Round the World. Volume 2. p. 158.
Chinese soldiers with gingals

Source: Rumors killer -- Spreading lies is bad, mmkay? | Page 2
Record paintings of Qing Dynasty, how qing soldiers fight against french soldiers, see , what were they using. gun or knives?

German record paintings of war between china and germany, see what the qing soildiers hold in hand, knives or gun or cannon?

american painting record

record of japan, did they use cannon or gun, or knives?

Qing army, did they hold gun or knives in hand?

Opium Wars, storming of the Taku Forts by British troops, 1860 (did qing soilders use gun? or knives?)

 

[Grand Historian]

对于分不清文化复兴与民族主义的人，没必要跟你多话

A cannon from the Huolongjing, compiled byJiao Yu and Liu Ji before the latter's death in 1375 (Ming Dynasty)

What's your point?

Late Ming already adopted European style cannons as native ones lagged behind.

I'm asking for the primary source that Hanfu was banned,while you don't even address all the exceptions KirovAirship and I have shown.

If you thought the late Qing only utilized bows,spears and swords then you need to get your head checked.

 

[Andrei]

What's your point?

Late Ming already adopted European style cannons as native ones lagged behind.

I'm asking for the primary source that Hanfu was banned,while you don't even address all the exceptions KirovAirship and I have shown.

If you thought the late Qing only utilized bows,spears and swords then you need to get your head checked.

I gave you already many times record of hanfu be banned in qing dynasty. but you ignored

What's your point?

Late Ming already adopted European style cannons as native ones lagged behind.

I'm asking for the primary source that Hanfu was banned,while you don't even address all the exceptions KirovAirship and I have shown.

If you thought the late Qing only utilized bows,spears and swords then you need to get your head checked.

畿南大屠杀

　　时间：北明崇祯十七年（1644年）阴历（以下同）五月

　　地点：北直隶三河、昌平、良乡等地

　　死难人数：约5,000人

　　发动者：满清“睿亲王”多尔衮

　　事件简介：是年五月，大顺军西撤。满清军队占领畿南地区，强令汉族剃发易服。当地汉族居民纷纷揭竿而起，反对满清统治。满清朝廷派出军队弹压，对起义者和居民大肆屠戮，连老幼亦不能幸免。

　　参考资料：《清世祖实录》

What's your point?

Late Ming already adopted European style cannons as native ones lagged behind.

I'm asking for the primary source that Hanfu was banned,while you don't even address all the exceptions KirovAirship and I have shown.

If you thought the late Qing only utilized bows,spears and swords then you need to get your head checked.

潼关大屠杀

　　时间：南明弘光元年（1645年）正月十三日

　　地点：陕西潼关

　　死难人数：约7,000人

　　发动者：满清“豫亲王”多铎

　　事件简介：正月十二日，李自成从潼关回援西安。留守潼关的大顺“巫山伯”马世耀向满清军队诈降，但密信为满清所获。次日，多铎诈称举行宴会，将马部官兵解除武装，手无寸铁的战俘被尽数屠杀。

　　参考资料：《清世祖实录》、《潼关志》

What's your point?

Late Ming already adopted European style cannons as native ones lagged behind.

I'm asking for the primary source that Hanfu was banned,while you don't even address all the exceptions KirovAirship and I have shown.

If you thought the late Qing only utilized bows,spears and swords then you need to get your head checked.

江阴大屠杀

时间：南明弘光元年（1645年）八月二十一日至二十三日

地点：南直隶江阴县

死难人数：约172,000人

发动者：满清“豫亲王”多铎、“贝勒”博洛、“贝勒”尼堪
事件简介：是年闰六月，江阴人民反抗满清的剃发易服政策，奋起据城反抗。典史陈明遇、主簿阎应元、秀才许用等人带领义民，抵抗满清围剿大军三月之久。城破后全城军民无一投降，俱为屠戮，只余老小五十三人。

参考资料：《江阴城守记》、《清世祖实录》、《清史稿》

What's your point?

Late Ming already adopted European style cannons as native ones lagged behind.

I'm asking for the primary source that Hanfu was banned,while you don't even address all the exceptions KirovAirship and I have shown.

If you thought the late Qing only utilized bows,spears and swords then you need to get your head checked.

鲁迅先生说：“满清杀尽了汉人的骨气廉耻。”其实东方落后于西方，正是始于满清的建立。

What's your point?

Late Ming already adopted European style cannons as native ones lagged behind.

I'm asking for the primary source that Hanfu was banned,while you don't even address all the exceptions KirovAirship and I have shown.

If you thought the late Qing only utilized bows,spears and swords then you need to get your head checked.

潼关大屠杀

　　时间：南明弘光元年（1645年）正月十三日

　　地点：陕西潼关

　　死难人数：约7,000人

　　发动者：满清“豫亲王”多铎

　　事件简介：正月十二日，李自成从潼关回援西安。留守潼关的大顺“巫山伯”马世耀向满清军队诈降，但密信为满清所获。次日，多铎诈称举行宴会，将马部官兵解除武装，手无寸铁的战俘被尽数屠杀。

　　参考资料：《清世祖实录》、《潼关志》

 

[Andrei]

What's your point?

Late Ming already adopted European style cannons as native ones lagged behind.

I'm asking for the primary source that Hanfu was banned,while you don't even address all the exceptions KirovAirship and I have shown.

If you thought the late Qing only utilized bows,spears and swords then you need to get your head checked.

李自然 《试论清初满洲贵族推行“剃发易服”政策的主旨》
《黑龙江民族丛刊》一九九八年第四期(总第五十五期)

《试论清初满洲贵族推行“剃发易服”政策的主旨》

顺治元年(1644年)清军入关后，多尔衮除马上出台安民政策外，于同年五月即传谕兵部：“今本朝定鼎燕京，天下罹难军民皆吾赤子，出之水火而完全之，各处城堡著遣人持檄招抚，檄文到日剃(剃)发归顺者，地方官各升一级，军免其迁徙”，“凡投诚官吏军民皆著剃发，衣冠悉遵本朝制度”。末几，由于北京等地的汉人反抗，清政府遂暂缓实行，“天下臣民，照旧束发，悉从其便”。

顺治十年(1653年)九月，由于发现部分艺人尚未剃发，顺治帝再次重申剃发令。“谕内大臣巴图鲁公鳌拜、伯索尼曰:‘览刑部奏言，缉拏逆贼伙党并获有未经剃发优人王玉、梁士子二人，供称身系戏子，欲扮女妆，以故未经剃发，如我等人，各省俱有’等语。前曾颁旨不剃发者斩，何尝有许优人留发之令，严禁已久，此辈尚违制蓄发，殊为可恶。今刊示严谕.内外一切人等，如有讬称优人未经剃发者，著遵法速剃，颁示十日后，如有不剃发之人，在内送刑部审明正法，在外该管各地方官奏明正法，若知而不举，无论官民治以重罪，其传谕刑部，速行刊示。”颁此严旨后，全国上下无一幸免.发式遂告统一。



“剃发易服”后的待遇。剃发后明人可免于杀戮，并分与田产。正如努尔哈赤招降镇武堡明军所说：“顺者生，逆者亡也！沙岭之人因不归降，遂破其城，尽杀其人”，“尔等已无所恃，即是败走，犹在山海关内，孰能给尔田舍耶?与其受妻离子散之苦，何如剃发速降之善哉！”言下之意，剃发可免死，给予田产，并保证妻子不离散。不仅如此，其安全还要受后金政权的保护，天命六年(1621年)三月二十三日，努尔哈赤致信额附恩格德尔：“河东汉人皆已剃发归降之，五部诸贝勒，当各自晓谕部众，严守本国，不得越界行乱，致招衅端”。“尔五部诸贝勒，如欲征明。可寻别地征之矣。汗已驻跸辽东城，河东乃我征服之地，其国人皆已剃发归降，尔等何故掠之?尔若如此前来征战，则我可往征尔等。如不从此谕，仍略我攻取之地，以致我两国构怨，又何益有之?据闻河东国人未尽剃发，其河桥已拆毁。拟于入冬冰结后，往征河对岸之地。冰结之前夕，五部诸贝勒如欲征明，可往征河东之国人众矣。”可见，剃发之人是被看作自己的国民，同满洲人一祥生活和受到保护。


顺治二年(1645年)六月的剃发令：“向来剃发之制，不即令划一姑听自便者，欲侯天下大定，始行此制耳。今中外一家，君犹父也，民犹子也，父子一体，岂可违异。若不划一，终属二心，不几为异国之人乎?此事无侯朕言，想天下之民亦必自知也。自今布告之后，京城内外限旬日，直隶各省地方，自部文到日，亦限旬日，尽令剃发。遵依者，为我国之民，迟疑者，同逆命之寇，必置重罪。若规避剃发，巧辞争辩，决不轻贷。”遵从者是清国之民，违犯者则为逆贼，这是判定真正顺逆的试金石。

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

so why not against japan? japan control much bigger territory of asia , if you want more land.

Japan didn't even control half of China during the WWII.

PS, whether it is Ming or Qing, it doesn't matter, since they all belong to history right now.

What I really care is the future of PRC, which is now thriving for the Chinese civilization.

 

[Andrei]

What's your point?

Late Ming already adopted European style cannons as native ones lagged behind.

I'm asking for the primary source that Hanfu was banned,while you don't even address all the exceptions KirovAirship and I have shown.

If you thought the late Qing only utilized bows,spears and swords then you need to get your head checked.

“时奴贼既得辽阳，辽东八站军民不乐从胡者，多至江边…… 其后，贼大至，义民不肯剃头者，皆投鸭水（鸭绿江）以死。”（朝鲜 《朝鲜王朝实录》

Japan didn't even control half of China during the WWII.

PS, whether it is Ming or Qing, it doesn't matter, since they all belong to history right now.

What I really care is the future of PRC, which is now thriving for the Chinese civilization.

so then why when han chinese want revival own culture and civilization, all against this?