Iran, India, China and Egypt have had historical settlement for a good 5,000 years
I think that’s kind of a common misconception that occurs when you’re implementing ideas like race, nationality, or ethnicity to historical people who didn’t really know them or understand them in the same way.
In regards to China, are we talking about the ethnic han? Well they displaced and settled land from other Chinese ethnicities. If we’re just talking about the ethnicity held within a single nationality. Well, see there’s a place in China called Inner Mongolia…
In regards to Egypt, it’s not an ethnicity, it’s a nationality. You obviously have the ptolemeic dynasty, who were just some Greeks. You had the Persian dynasty for a while, then the nubian, then the meshwesh(Libyan), you even had the Hyksos who were proposed to be from the Levant. It’s all over the place.
My point being that the ancient world was more connected than most people originally think, and ethnicities tended not to stay in one place for thousands and thousands of years.
You may know better but continuing to use China as the example - weren’t they also repeatedly conquored and resettled by steppe people? Like, not only have they not had a 5000 year historic settlement but they have had as chaotic history of conquest and resettlement as just about anyone in history.
You may know better but continuing to use China as the example - weren’t they also repeatedly conquored and resettled by steppe people?
Eh, I guess it depends on who you consider to be Chinese, and what period of history you’re talking about?
For the most part the steppe people like the Turkic or the Mongolians did the majority of what we consider conquering in China in the 13th-14th century.
Before that they didn’t really comprise a large threat unless you are going much further back in history. If we are examining the Han dynasty, who shares a piece of history around the same time as the Romans, then yes. We don’t exactly have a bunch of primary sources, but we can tell a lot by the distribution of dna and language that they historically occupied large aspects of northern China, and are related to modern Manchu people’s, and those who hail from Manchu people like the modern Koreans.
Like, not only have they not had a 5000 year historic settlement but they have had as chaotic history of conquest and resettlement as just about anyone in history.
If we are speaking of the migration and conquest carried out by the Han, it’s not even really been hundreds. In the 19th century during the Taiping rebellion the Han started a civil war/genocide that killed around 30 million people. You get some pretty contextual quotes that kind of put into perspective the ethnic conflict native to China "“China is the China of the Chinese. We compatriots should identify ourselves with the China of the Han Chinese.”
The Mongols ruled China during the Yuan Dynasty. The Manchu ruled China during the Qing Dynasty
The Manchu people also known as the Jurchens, are descendents of the mongol and Turks.
Xianbei and Xiongnu ruled parts of China for periods
Yes… Which were both tribes of steppe people from the eastern han dynasty, which is what I claimed in my post.
the Warring States
The Qin dynasty is a bit more complicated as it was multi ethnic, but was originally founded by people who would one day consider themselves Manchu. But this is prior to the han dynasty and really before conflict in the area stratified into mostly ethnic based conflicts.
Taiping Rebellion
I already covered the Taiping rebellion in a separate reply.
China is drastically more complicated than our eurocentric perspective suggests
Lol, I’m Korean, a descendent of the Manchu people.
I think the problem you are having is that in Europe transitioned away from classical imperialism much sooner than Eastern Asia. So most you tend to have a hard time separating nationality with ethnicity, as that is typically how you guys divided empire into nation states
So when you use vernacular like mongol, you don’t realize that it’s interchangeable with things like steppe people, Manchu, or Jurchen depending on what era or dynasty you are talking about.
If the “fall of Mongolia” refers to the Yuan Dynasty, then the Han very obviously ruled China both prior and after that.
It depends on how they are interpreting Mongol. There are a couple ways to interpret Mongol depending on how exacting you wish to be. The most specific is just the Mongol empire, the period prior to the establishment of the yuan dynasty. The mongol dynasty which includes the yuan dynasty and the rest of the kaganates. Or the most general, the modern vernacular for tribal steppe people.
If they are just talking about ethnic groups originating in Manchuria then they are correct. The Qin dynasty was the first dynasty of imperial China, and it originated from the Manchu people prior to the Han Dynasty. These are ethnically the same people who would eventually establish the Yuan and Qing dynasties .
I don’t think you understand exactly how long the beef between Manchu and Han goes back, or the modern and contemporary attempts by the Han to obscure their ethnic contributions via historical revisionism.
Modern Han chauvinism has been recognized as a problem for the leaders of China since the Taiping rebellion where you start to hear quotes like “China is the China of the Chinese. We compatriots should identify ourselves with the China of the Han Chinese.”
You think that having an indigenous population means that everything was sunshine and roses, and no group of humans was killing other groups of humans over that particular chunk of land? You might need to brush up on your history lessons.
All those countries came about by conquering tribes. They were all empires at one time or another. China never stopped being an empire. Tibet & Taiwan would like a word with you…
Considering Taiwan’s population is primarily (~95%) Han and by their own constitution they still claim the old RoC borders (including tibet and mongolia) I think Taiwan might want to have a word with you
deleted by creator
I think that’s kind of a common misconception that occurs when you’re implementing ideas like race, nationality, or ethnicity to historical people who didn’t really know them or understand them in the same way.
In regards to China, are we talking about the ethnic han? Well they displaced and settled land from other Chinese ethnicities. If we’re just talking about the ethnicity held within a single nationality. Well, see there’s a place in China called Inner Mongolia…
In regards to Egypt, it’s not an ethnicity, it’s a nationality. You obviously have the ptolemeic dynasty, who were just some Greeks. You had the Persian dynasty for a while, then the nubian, then the meshwesh(Libyan), you even had the Hyksos who were proposed to be from the Levant. It’s all over the place.
My point being that the ancient world was more connected than most people originally think, and ethnicities tended not to stay in one place for thousands and thousands of years.
You may know better but continuing to use China as the example - weren’t they also repeatedly conquored and resettled by steppe people? Like, not only have they not had a 5000 year historic settlement but they have had as chaotic history of conquest and resettlement as just about anyone in history.
Eh, I guess it depends on who you consider to be Chinese, and what period of history you’re talking about?
For the most part the steppe people like the Turkic or the Mongolians did the majority of what we consider conquering in China in the 13th-14th century.
Before that they didn’t really comprise a large threat unless you are going much further back in history. If we are examining the Han dynasty, who shares a piece of history around the same time as the Romans, then yes. We don’t exactly have a bunch of primary sources, but we can tell a lot by the distribution of dna and language that they historically occupied large aspects of northern China, and are related to modern Manchu people’s, and those who hail from Manchu people like the modern Koreans.
If we are speaking of the migration and conquest carried out by the Han, it’s not even really been hundreds. In the 19th century during the Taiping rebellion the Han started a civil war/genocide that killed around 30 million people. You get some pretty contextual quotes that kind of put into perspective the ethnic conflict native to China "“China is the China of the Chinese. We compatriots should identify ourselves with the China of the Han Chinese.”
deleted by creator
The Manchu people also known as the Jurchens, are descendents of the mongol and Turks.
Yes… Which were both tribes of steppe people from the eastern han dynasty, which is what I claimed in my post.
The Qin dynasty is a bit more complicated as it was multi ethnic, but was originally founded by people who would one day consider themselves Manchu. But this is prior to the han dynasty and really before conflict in the area stratified into mostly ethnic based conflicts.
I already covered the Taiping rebellion in a separate reply.
Lol, I’m Korean, a descendent of the Manchu people.
I think the problem you are having is that in Europe transitioned away from classical imperialism much sooner than Eastern Asia. So most you tend to have a hard time separating nationality with ethnicity, as that is typically how you guys divided empire into nation states
So when you use vernacular like mongol, you don’t realize that it’s interchangeable with things like steppe people, Manchu, or Jurchen depending on what era or dynasty you are talking about.
Except most of China was colonised by the Han people after the fall of Mongolia…
This is ahistorical. If the “fall of Mongolia” refers to the Yuan Dynasty, then the Han very obviously ruled China both prior and after that.
If that isn’t what you mean, then you really don’t know what you’re talking about
It depends on how they are interpreting Mongol. There are a couple ways to interpret Mongol depending on how exacting you wish to be. The most specific is just the Mongol empire, the period prior to the establishment of the yuan dynasty. The mongol dynasty which includes the yuan dynasty and the rest of the kaganates. Or the most general, the modern vernacular for tribal steppe people.
If they are just talking about ethnic groups originating in Manchuria then they are correct. The Qin dynasty was the first dynasty of imperial China, and it originated from the Manchu people prior to the Han Dynasty. These are ethnically the same people who would eventually establish the Yuan and Qing dynasties .
I don’t think you understand exactly how long the beef between Manchu and Han goes back, or the modern and contemporary attempts by the Han to obscure their ethnic contributions via historical revisionism.
Modern Han chauvinism has been recognized as a problem for the leaders of China since the Taiping rebellion where you start to hear quotes like “China is the China of the Chinese. We compatriots should identify ourselves with the China of the Han Chinese.”
Something like that.
How long do you have to wait before it’s okay to live somewhere?
You think that having an indigenous population means that everything was sunshine and roses, and no group of humans was killing other groups of humans over that particular chunk of land? You might need to brush up on your history lessons.
You’re making a utilitarian argument that doesn’t account for the value of sovereignty.
All those countries came about by conquering tribes. They were all empires at one time or another. China never stopped being an empire. Tibet & Taiwan would like a word with you…
Considering Taiwan’s population is primarily (~95%) Han and by their own constitution they still claim the old RoC borders (including tibet and mongolia) I think Taiwan might want to have a word with you
Removed by mod
Good job telling everyone you have no fucking idea what history is
Blisteringly stupid.