2 ms·

Let's conveniently forget the 100 years of the Yuan dynasty ruled by Mongols and the 300 years of the Quing dynasty ruled by the Manchu and pretends that the hi

Let's conveniently forget the 100 years of the Yuan dynasty ruled by Mongols and the 300 years of the Quing dynasty ruled by the Manchu and pretends that the history of China is the history of the Han. Why would anyone question that? It's really hard to take the article seriously given how much it oversimplifies its premises.

mohanmcgeek 5y ago
The article does mention both of these facts.
- WastingMyTime89 5y ago
  In a way, yes, the article alludes to it in order to prove that China was threatened by the nothern tribes but that's a weird way to qualify 400 years of history. > "The heartland has always been threatened by the nomadic tribes that live in the north. These tribes weren’t just small groups on sporadic raids. Some were dangerous enough to conquer and rule China: the Mongols ruled for a century, starting in the 1280s, and the Manchus for nearly 250 years, starting around 1650." Especially considering this comes after this - "Another way to put it: China is the Han, and the only thing they care about is protecting the Han" - which it direcly contradicts.
- WastingMyTime89 5y ago
  Ok, I'm replying a second time because I kept being downvoted. I guess my first answer is not clear enough. The article doesn't address these points. It mentions both facts as an exemple of invasions like if they were footnotes. That's four hundred years of history, more than the whole USA history. So yes, it does indeed conveniently forget them. Both periods had a significant impact on China which the article sweeps under the rug because it would go against the wrong story it is trying to sell.
  - mohanmcgeek 5y ago
    Did China become ethnically Mongol or Manchurian in those 400 years? They're still Han. The plate tectonics part of this article is a stretch. But other than that, this article seems well researched. Whether one agrees with it or not is decided by one's position on "geographic determinism".

mohanmcgeek 5y ago

The article does mention both of these facts.

WastingMyTime89 5y ago
In a way, yes, the article alludes to it in order to prove that China was threatened by the nothern tribes but that's a weird way to qualify 400 years of history. > "The heartland has always been threatened by the nomadic tribes that live in the north. These tribes weren’t just small groups on sporadic raids. Some were dangerous enough to conquer and rule China: the Mongols ruled for a century, starting in the 1280s, and the Manchus for nearly 250 years, starting around 1650." Especially considering this comes after this - "Another way to put it: China is the Han, and the only thing they care about is protecting the Han" - which it direcly contradicts.
WastingMyTime89 5y ago
Ok, I'm replying a second time because I kept being downvoted. I guess my first answer is not clear enough. The article doesn't address these points. It mentions both facts as an exemple of invasions like if they were footnotes. That's four hundred years of history, more than the whole USA history. So yes, it does indeed conveniently forget them. Both periods had a significant impact on China which the article sweeps under the rug because it would go against the wrong story it is trying to sell.
- mohanmcgeek 5y ago
  Did China become ethnically Mongol or Manchurian in those 400 years? They're still Han. The plate tectonics part of this article is a stretch. But other than that, this article seems well researched. Whether one agrees with it or not is decided by one's position on "geographic determinism".