4 ms·
The article does mention both of these facts.
by mohanmcgeek 5y ago
The article does mention both of these facts.
- WastingMyTime89 5y agoIn 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 agoOk, 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 agoDid 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".