5 ms·

Given that “China” is an amorphous and ill-defined entity historically and the Quynh Empire only started in 1644... you’re on pretty shaky ground here. At best

Given that “China” is an amorphous and ill-defined entity historically and the Quynh Empire only started in 1644... you’re on pretty shaky ground here. At best you can say that there were civilizations in the China area. But it wasn’t until ~220BC that the area was any sort of unified civilization (under the Qin dynasty). While that is a couple of hundred years before Britons were unified under the Romans it still makes the Chinese at that time “a recent-ish tribe that entered history only after the Qin conquest”. At least as much entering history as you appear to be crediting the British Isles - given that it was well known back to 1600BC for its strong tin economy and trading culture. That’s not even including the massive amount of known, detailed, and extensive historical evidence of civilization back to 4400BC (Stonehenge is ~3300BC, FYI). Now were these things like post-Roman Britain? No, but neither was pre-Qin “China”, instead being a collection of warring competing civilizations... much like the Celtic states in England. Long story short: you’ve bought into the mythology of China.

coldtea 8y ago
>But it wasn’t until ~220BC that the area was any sort of unified civilization (under the Qin dynasty). We have excellent arts and artifacts and poetry and philosophy of great sophistication from China centuries before that. Whether that was a single state or different kingdoms is as beside the point, as whether e.g. some British poets are English, others Scottish, etc.
- abritinthebay 8y ago
  Absolutely - I'm not denigrating what the people and civilizations in that area did, I'm saying that the previous statements have heavy qualifiers. I mean we have records and arts and artifacts in England before it was called that and unified back to the 6th century BC. We have evidence of massive sophisticated construction back to 3300 BC! But are those "British"? If not then the point about the Qin dynasty is valid. If so then Britain has the same storied history as China (though not the volume of artifacts). It can't be selective standards for each.

coldtea 8y ago

>But it wasn’t until ~220BC that the area was any sort of unified civilization (under the Qin dynasty). We have excellent arts and artifacts and poetry and philosophy of great sophistication from China centuries before that. Whether that was a single state or different kingdoms is as beside the point, as whether e.g. some British poets are English, others Scottish, etc.

abritinthebay 8y ago
Absolutely - I'm not denigrating what the people and civilizations in that area did, I'm saying that the previous statements have heavy qualifiers. I mean we have records and arts and artifacts in England before it was called that and unified back to the 6th century BC. We have evidence of massive sophisticated construction back to 3300 BC! But are those "British"? If not then the point about the Qin dynasty is valid. If so then Britain has the same storied history as China (though not the volume of artifacts). It can't be selective standards for each.