The New Dominion

Comments 54

1. Tom wrote:

   Very interesting. I just wonder how he knows that the Xiong-nu were of Turkic origin and the Donghu protomongolians. Before the Kitai I am not aware of any tribe with a proven Mongolian language. If anybody knows anything I´d be glad to read it.

   Posted 20 Aug 2010 at 7:40 am ¶
2. Caomengde wrote:

   严风吹霜海草凋，筋干精坚胡马骄.
   汉家战士三十万，将军兼领霍嫖姚。
   流星白羽腰间插，剑花秋莲光出匣。
   天兵照雪下玉关，虏箭如沙射金甲。
   云龙风虎尽交回，太白入月敌可摧。
   敌可摧，旄头灭，履胡之肠涉胡血。
   悬胡青天上，埋胡紫塞傍。
   胡无人，汉道昌。
   陛下之寿三千霜。
   但歌大风云飞扬，
   安用猛士兮守四方。
   胡无人，汉道昌。

   Posted 24 Aug 2010 at 3:59 am ¶
3. Caomengde wrote:

   Kahar: … Chinese characters don’t mesh with the rest of the world, wherever they go, they make Chinatowns.

   Spoken like a true Chinese “intellectual”! Wang Lixiong would feel right at home with this dude.

   Posted 24 Aug 2010 at 4:07 am ¶
4. Caomengde wrote:

   It’s well known that Li Clan that started Tang dynasty have Xianbei origin, either as Hannized Xianbei or Xianbeized Han or mixture of both.

   I think it’s rather comparable to Fitzgerald Clan that started as part of conquering Normans in Ireland. Overtime, Fitzgerald adopted local language and custom and in turn themselves became Irish. It’s same story played world over, in Persia, India and of course China.

   By the time Li Shimin have got around to establish Tang dynasty, Tang Empire was no doubt a Chinese enterprise. Ruling elite may have retained some traces of their nomadic customs, but it’s stretch to call Tang dynasty an Altaic Dynasty.

   It will be like calling F. Scott Fitzgerald Scandinavian, totally preposterous, even though his paternal ancestors might have swoop down in Viking ships.

   Posted 26 Aug 2010 at 4:50 am ¶
5. Caomengde wrote:

   btw, the poem I posted above came from famous Tang dynasty poet Li Bai who was himself born in what is today’s Kirghizstan and reputedly spoke Persian. If you under Chinese you will see how Han (汉) and Hu (胡) are clearly delineated and where a contemporary Tang person stand on this issue.

   Posted 26 Aug 2010 at 4:59 am ¶
6. Tom wrote:

   It is sad to see how defensive some people get about the “purity” of the Han past of today´s China. But that doesn´t keep the same people (maybe not Caomengde) from claiming for instance Ghengis Khan as Chinese because he was the indirect founder of the Yuan dynasty. Or detecting supposedly “Ur” asian traces in the mummies of the Taklamakan. Reminds me very much of the not so far away past in Europe and the genocide with which it all ended.

   Posted 26 Aug 2010 at 1:47 pm ¶
7. Porfiriy wrote:

   Hm, that’s actually pretty poor reasoning, Caomengde. Apples and oranges.

   F. Scott Fitzgerald, an a 20th century American author almost eight entire centuries removed from the Normans’ arrival in Ireland, and comparing that to the Li dynasty of the Tang empire that was less than 3 centuries removed from the Xianbei migration into the Central Plains and was composed of individuals who were born and raised in regions that were geographical close to if not outright located inside regions where sedentary agricultural cultures and pastoral nomadic cultures overlapped.

   Yeah, pretty poor.

   Anyway, if we were actually trying to be serious here rather than being smug one could imagine a more illustrative “thought experiment” would be thus:

   Exploring the idea of how “sinified” or “Xianbeiified” the Li family was (hailing from what is even today named Inner Mongolia in an homage to the persistent “inbetweenenss” of the region) by the rise of the Tang dynasty, roughly 3 or so centuries after the Xianbei established their cluster of dynasties in northern “China,” we can then ask, a similar THREE (also known as “not nearly an entire millenium on the other side of the planet”) centuries after the Normans arrived in and conquered the British isles, how much of their Normanness have they retained?

   If we’re going by what the Normans can teach us (cough your idea cough) if anything the Normans reinforce the idea that after centuries and considerable geographic movements a relatively isolated or insulated elite can be quite resilient in retaining much of their “original” culture. In the 14th century – 3 centuries after the arrival of William the Conquerer – the English elite, still was quite distinctly Norman/Frankish.

   1.5 centuries after the arrival of William the Conquerer, Richard the Lionhearted, conspicuously adopted and beloved by today’s Brits as a cultural hero they can call their own (much like the Chinese today with Li Shimin) didn’t even speak English.

   In a fashion similar to Kahar Barat’s observation of Tang marriage practices, English royalty, even centuries after their arrival in England very frequently married with princesses coming from houses on the continent – Eleanor of Aquitaine being the most famous example of course but a vast majority of King’s mothers pretty much fit this pattern. Usually from France. You know, where many English houses originated – um, kind of like how Barat observes that much of the Tang royalty was insistent in marrying into other Xianbei families.

   The Plantagenets – who ruled England up to three centuries after William’s invasion, the analogous time frame we’re looking at here, spoke Norman French. They spoke Norman French and their mothers, the queens, were all Normans and so quite arguably much of the local royalty centuries after their arrival retained far more than a token amount of their Norman identity. It could be said that they were “Norman” dynasties.

   If I know very little about English history I know next to nothing about Irish history but nevertheless Wikipedia tells me that the Hiberno-Normans – Normans who settled in Ireland – only ceased to be an extremely distinct population among the Irish in the 17th century – 5 centuries after their arrival. Wikipedia also tells me that the Irish referred to Hibero-Normans, including the Fitzgerald clan (again, your poor analogy here, not mine) as foreigners.

   So basically, rumors on your part on the assimilate-ability of transplanted aristocracies are apparently greatly exaggerated. If we make a comparison with England (ehem, without the bullshit time spans you impose on them) it seems actually quite possible, to say the least, that the Li Clan had, three centuries later, retained much of their Altaic heritage and the question of whether the Li dynasty can be considered an Altaic one remains open despite your most noble (read: smarmy) of efforts.

   Posted 28 Aug 2010 at 11:13 am ¶
8. Tom wrote:

   One of the truly admirable traces of Chinese as compared to European civilisation is, that it seemingly never mattered who was at the helm of the state. The English language changed almost beyond recognition after the Norman conquest but China shook off the Mongols, various other nomad tribes in shortlived northern dynasties and the Manchu with hardly a shrug. Military dominance and force don´t seem to have been the decisive factors in the formation of Chinese society and the retention of her culture. Something else seems to be at play here as compared to Europe and I can only hope, that China will find her old self assurance again. What does it matter after all, if the Tang weren´t ethnically Chinese? Fact is the greatest chinese poets flourished under that dynasty. And if the Tang were Altaic it would only prove that water ultimately destroys the greatest stone. To my pacifist heart a very comforting thought indeed.

   Posted 28 Aug 2010 at 4:39 pm ¶
9. Caomengde wrote:

   Li family claimed to be descended from ( most likely bogus claim) Han Chinese Li Clan of LongXi region ( a famous lineage stretching back to Qin and Han dynasty.)

   In every way they are marketing themselves as Han Chinese (They do speak Chinese btw). There is no evidence that they see themselves as anything but.

   The fact that first few generations of Li married with Xianbei clan must be taken into context.

   Yang family that establish Sui dynasty and Li family that established Tang came from the same military elite arise out of Rebellion of Liu Zheng (Six Garrisons) that took over Western half of Northern China after the collapse of Touba (Xianbei) North-Wei dyansty.

   Yuwen Clan (actually XiongNu in origin, but absorbed into Xianbei confederation after collapse of XiongNu power) with the help of Yang and Li and few other military families founded Northern Zhou dynasty out of the wreckage of Touba Wei empire. All families of this Six Garrison group inter-married. Both Yang and Li took Yuwen (and couple other XiongNu-Xianbei Six Garrison Clan, Dugu and ShangKuang) wives. These are political alliance marriages which enable Yang and then Li eventually took over the enterprise.

   Anyway, Tom is correct. Ultimately it doesn’t matter whether Li Clan is originally Han Chinese or not. All sedentary cultures at the rim of Eurasian steppes have been fundamentally impacted by the nomadic groups that roamed in between. Another great ancient civilization, that of Persia, also saw waves of nomadic invaders coming down from North taking over, then eventually became patrons and defenders of Persian cultures against the latest invaders.

   Posted 30 Aug 2010 at 12:01 am ¶
10. Porfiriy wrote:

    The Li family “marketing” themselves as “Han” “Chinese” is, ironically, precisely that. Marketing. It remains imminently unsurprising and ho-hum that when a warrior aristocracy conquers a polity with a well-established administration system that they would quite naturally adopt the tropes, the writing systems, and the conventions of that existing administration to streamline the transition to power. That the Li dynasty – and any other foreign arrivals thereafter including the Yuan and the Qing, would adopt bogus “Chinese” heritages and write edicts or histories in “Chinese” says more about their ability to intelligently ascertain what will consolidate their rule than some deep-rooted “admiration” for Chinese culture (a common trope, but bullshit, really). So you’re right – accidentally, of course. It’s marketing. In fact, such a word, with all its connotations, turns your words quite upside down: anyone who is MARKETING themselves in a certain way probably in fact understand themselves in a wholly different context and are MARKETING precisely to achieve a certain goal. So a Tang emperor could be perfectly content with MARKETING a bullshit “Chinese” heritage and MARKETING via his obsequious Han Chinese ministers writing Chinese edicts while at the same time truly be himself and be at home by living in a yurt and solely interacting with Turkic royalty in the comfort of his own palace, which one Tang prince famously did.

    This concept isn’t even unique to China. Macchiavelli’s famous and cliche tome The Prince dedicates a significant amount of space to the idea of co-opting existing political, economic, and cultural systems on the conquest of a princedom which belongs to a different culture, religion, or what not, and by doing so making an easier time of the power transition. That the Tang, the Qing, or the Yuan would do says nothing about whether or not the royalty “saw themselves as Han” after X centuries in power, it simply testifies to the efficacy of a particular political tactic – as one sees in Persia, in Greece, in many places over the world. After Mehmud II conquered Constantinople he christened himself Caesar of the Romans and carried out a legitimizing campaign to justify to his subjects that he was a worthy successor to the Byzantine emperorship which itself had to contrive itself as successor to the Roman caesers. Does that mean Mehmud considered himself a Greek? Psh, no, no more than the Li family having a fabricated “Han” lineage proves that the Li family unequivocally viewed themselves as “Chinese.”

    At any rate, my own view is that like drops of different colored ink put into a glass of water the cultural interchanges between the nomadic steppes and northern China have been so elaborate, mutual, and complex that to assume that one side always unilaterally “assimilated” the other is total bullshit. And this is why I am far more sympathetic to Barat’s contributions to this discussion because in the intellectually suffocating state that is the PRC the “Han assimilates unwashed nomads” narrative is backed by the insurmountable power of the state whereas the counter idea, that the Tang were fundamentally Altaic, a proposition that has its own problems, has no forum in which to voice itself. The truth lies in the middle, for certain, and by giving a forum for Barat to speak, even if his ideas are flawed, goes far in leveling the playing field against state-backed narratives and insecure and unnecessarily defensive and smug Chinese-Americans like Caomengde.

    Posted 30 Aug 2010 at 1:05 am ¶
11. Caomengde wrote:

    “insecure and unnecessarily defensive” Hahaha..
    You never cease to amuse me, my man!

    Note:

    Li and Yang family basically share the same culture and tradition as Yuwen Clan, being that they came from the same place (Wuzhen, one of the Six Garrisons). Btw, Six Garrison cities were themselves are mix of Han settlers and Xianbei tribesmen.

    Yuwen Tai went as far as making everybody take Xianbei family names after he established his powerbase in Shaanxi. This was a reaction to Emperor XiaoWen’s Sinicization campaign where all Xianbei nobles were required to change their surnames to Han Chinese family names and speak Chinese. In fact Six Garrison rebellion was itself a reaction to the aftermath of XiaoWen’s Sinicization campaign.

    However, Neither Tubo-Xianbei Wei or XiongNu-Xianbei Yuwen ever denied their Xianbei heritage. Yuwen Tai aggressively embrace his Xianbei heritage and give Xianbei names to his followers including Yang and Li family.

    But it’s rather telling that immediately after Yang Jian usurped the throne of Northern Zhou and started Sui dynasty, both Yang and Li family restored their surnames of Yang and Li before Yuwen Tai’s reform.

    In contrast to previous Xianbei found dynasty like Wei or Northern Zhou, both Sui (Yang) and Tang (Li) claim native Chinese descent (even if they might not be).

    Btw Porfiriy, I love your selection bias.

    “So a Tang emperor could be perfectly content with MARKETING a bullshit “Chinese” heritage and MARKETING via his obsequious Han Chinese ministers writing Chinese edicts while at the same time truly be himself and be at home by living in a yurt and solely interacting with Turkic royalty in the comfort of his own palace, which one Tang prince famously did.”

    While you bring up the example of ONE Tang prince’s antic, you conveniently forget to mention how Li Shimin (The Emperor)’s attitude and reaction to this prince.

    Anyway, as always, thanks for making my day.

    Posted 31 Aug 2010 at 12:01 am ¶
12. Caomengde wrote:

    Btw, Tang, Yuan and Qing are clearly different animals not to be lumped together.

    Yuan had strictly classification/hierarchy system based on race:
    1.Mongol
    2.Semu (literially “colored eyes”, Non-Mongol Central Asians, Muslims, encampussing anyone from Russians to Marco Polo)
    3.Han (Northern Chinese including Khitan and Jurchen)
    4.Nanren (Southern Chinese, those who were ruled by souther Song, conquered last in the chronological order)

    Yuan court abolished the Civil Exam system for most of its duration effectively ending any chance of Han literati participation in governance. Instead Yuan rulers brought in mostly Central Asian Muslims as administrators. Last emperor of Yuan revived the Civil Exam system, but it was too late. Unemployed Han literati joined rebels in droves.

    Again please read above poem by Li Bai, greatest poet in Tang time. Writing something like that in Qing dynasty is liable to have your whole clan executed (dogs, cats and trees included, and I am not kidding).

    As Tom pointed out, China is clearly different from Anatolia. While Turks arriving from the Central Asia contributed very little in term of genetic material (as we now know, most west Asians descended from those who have been living there for a long time), the ruling elite fundamentally changed the culture and language of Anatolia.

    In fact same thing could be said of Xinjiang. When Turkic tribes like Uyghurs and Karluqs arrived in Tarim basin, they introduced their language and custom to the region while at the same time adopted sedentary lifestyle of the original inhabitants: Tochrian and Iranian speakers. Today’s Uyghurs is only partially descended from the Uyghurs of the steppe while retained much of their genetic heritage of pre-Turkified Tarim as confirmed by current round of human genome mapping.

    Posted 31 Aug 2010 at 12:55 am ¶
13. Porfiriy wrote:

    Alright, let’s recap here:

    - Kahar Barat makes a number of statements and observations, with a partially tongue-in-cheek insinuation, that many of the dynasties established from military aristocracies during the the period time in question are not as Chinese as they are frequently depicted, and, in fact, show enough characteristics to be considered “Altaic.”
    - You sashay into the discussion and in a distinctively insecure and contrived manner that is naturally dismissive and immediately condescending of this silly uppity Uyghur make some piss-poor analogy to the “Fitzgerald” clan and the Normans in England.
    - Your observations about Normans and Europeans are proven not only to be ill-informed but also on second examination illustrate the exact opposite of your point, that conquering ethnic groups, such as the Normans, which you brought in for comparison’s sake, are actually quite resilient when it comes to retaining their own culture and heritage.
    - Conveniently and embarrassingly sidestepping around and completely avoiding the fact that your “Norman history” is shitty, you conspicuously yet inexplicably change gears and start belting off adaptive political tactics the Li dynasty took when maneuvering into the spaces of royalty at the beginning of their empire, taking leaps and citing these political strategies as some sort of definitive proof that the Li’s saw themselves as “Chinese”
    - It gets pointed out that these types of political tactics have been used inside and outside China centuries before and after the Tang dynasty. It’s very clear that all over the world the usage of these “localization tactics” says nothing, absolutely nothing about a particular ruling elite’s “desire” to voluntary have themselves sucked into the local culture

    See, the problem here is that since you’re someone who indulges so much in your self-perceived intelligence and wit you’re entirely losing sight of the whole reason this exchange is occurring in the first place. “Context” I believe is the hackneyed phrase that is relevant here. Your contributions here are framed, defined, and contextualized within the purpose of your arrival, namely, a smug, know-it-all grinning dismissal of Kahar Barat for being some sort of silly idiot. However, to overthrow Barat’s assertions about not taking for granted some sort of fully fledged “Chineseness” of the Tang emperors and to acknowledge that Altaic languages and cultures played a considerable and significant rule in the Tang empire, the burden of proof is on you, as you have to somehow prove that the Li’s were completely void of considerable Altaic influences and were trying to do everything in there power to live, breathe, copulate, and die as “Han.” Since I’m not making the assertion here, I don’t have to prove anything beyond pointing out the mutual influences between Altaic and sedentary cultures manifested among the Tang – which is easy, since it’s the truth.

    Everything you have mentioned is either completely wrong (lulz) or does absolutely nothing to justify your condescending jackassery attitude towards Barat. Durr, look at the Fitzgeralds? Not only did you use a completely irrelevant timescale but when we actually bother informing ourselves about the Normans they constitute absolutely no counterpoints to Barat’s ideas. The Li’s pulled together a “Chinese” lineage to justify their rule? So what? Proves nothing about identity politics in China… in Persia, in Turkey, in Germany, or anywhere else. Context, context, context. As much as you want, so badly, to turn this into a back and forth diarrhea extravaganza over Wikipedia facts the bottom line is whether or not Kahar Barat is the goofy dumbass you think he is… that you want him SO BADLY to be. If that’s the context, then the ball was, has been, and is in your court, and your tripping around like the Special Olympics.

    Now, let’s turn to your latest tripe. In text that carries increasingly poor grammar and syntax (hahaha lol) alongside a cover-your-ass affected air of “you make my day” cool and awkward use of colloquial English (“my man?” mmmmkay buuudy! and enough with the btws for fucks sake), you once again say. Absolutely. Nothing. Again, in the context if this discussion in which everything grows out of this “Barat is a retard” assertion you came into, the jockeying over the naming or heritage says absolutely nothing about the crystalized “Han identity” of the Tang and in fact reinforces that during that time period names, identities, and self-conception of ethnicity were fluid, rapidly evolving, unstable, and, most importantly, beholden to political expedience, not some sort of taken-for-granted and universal desire to be-be-be Han. This leaves Barat’s conclusions still wide open and your earlier assertions that the Tang dynasty was “no doubt a Chinese enterprise” flat on your back. And, god damn, yet again your next point is not only irrelevant to your cause but supports the opposite. So who the hell cares that Li Shimin was mad at a yurt-inhabiting, mutton-eating prince? This proves that Altaic identity was strong enough to worry an empire-building charismatic leader? If Li was so upset or insecure then by God, Altaicness must have really been something substantial to cover up, not exactly a “no doubt a Chinese enterprise,” rather, a “shaky and unsure attempt to mimic a Chinese enterprise in light of members of the royal family preferring, quite logically, their own ways.”

    I read the Li Bai poem. So what? Non-sequitor. 500 years from now they will see histories of World War II that refer to Axis and Allies. And if they’re morons like you, they’ll take that to mean that Germans and Japanese people belonged to one ethno-cultural identity and that Americans and Russians belonged to another. Hu and Han indeed. I mean, seriously, what’s a poet writing a poem going to do, use two elegant categories to describe a battle between two sides, or belt off all the esoteric tribal criss-crossing and factional backstabbing that was the norm for that period? Jesus Christ.

    And finally, the trusty fallback for insecure Chinese culturalists: genetic categorizations! Your almost making yourself into a cliche by falling back to this old and tired trope. Just like using modern and/or anachronistic terms like “Chinese” in describing events of the 7th century, now you introduce genetic surveys which neatly cut gradients into “groups” of disparate populations, thinking long interacting and merged populations can be put into these convenient lego bins. I’m not even going to bother with this hogwash until you site your sources. Pbbth.

    Posted 31 Aug 2010 at 3:45 am ¶
14. Caomengde wrote:

    Porfiriy,

    Lighten up buddy! You need to find yourself a nice Uyghur woman and get laid. All these crusty bile stuck in your pipe can’t be good for your health.

    Respectfully yours,

    MengDe.

    Posted 31 Aug 2010 at 4:27 am ¶
15. Porfiriy wrote:

    Yeah, nice one. Douchebag.

    Posted 31 Aug 2010 at 5:14 am ¶
16. Caomengde wrote:

    No Problem, Man!

    I just hate to see a nice young man such as yourself, full of spunk, suffer like this. It’s not right.

    Respectfully yours,

    MengDe.

    Posted 31 Aug 2010 at 5:38 am ¶
17. Porfiriy wrote:

    Mhm, keep it coming, douchebag. Good to see you’re finally getting a native speaker to proofread your insults.

    Posted 31 Aug 2010 at 6:06 am ¶
18. Caomengde wrote:

    “Good to see you’re finally getting a native speaker to proofread your insults.”

    Hahaha, you are a hoot! Always appreciate your intelligent output.

    MengDe likes this!

    btw (I know… I know.. can’t help myself) I apologize for my incoherent grammar. I am a product of American public school system, you know.

    Also I would like to apologize for speaking less than perfect English because I am only a first generation, you need to give me another 8 centuries to acculturate myself. Meanwhile I still guilty of things that first generation Chinese-Americans do, like scoring high on SAT, do well in school and take away well-paying job from native-borns.

    Sorry, I am so Sorry. In another 800 years, I will be indistinguishable from the rest of the Americana, I promise!

    Sincerely Yours,

    MengDe

    Posted 31 Aug 2010 at 7:01 am ¶
19. Porfiriy wrote:

    Oh yes, oh yes, keep it coming. American public school, eh? Not surprising. You see, the problem I’ve noticed, having gone to American schools myself, is that every pimply-faced twat who gets forced to read “A Modest Proposal” their sophomore gets their eyes opened to the joys, the fun, and the usefulness of the art of sarcasm. Sadly, where our teachers fail is in instructing we young Americans that sarcasm really is an art, an Olympic-level challenge in the world of wit and writing, and not every smarmy dolt like yourself can wield it properly. And now, with the cost-reducing properties of the Internet they can go online and systematically convince themselves that they’ve somehow mastered the skill. Case in point, you.

    Take this. This supposedly self-effacing sarcasm. It’s awful. There’s no context. It doesn’t critique anything. It doesn’t jiu-jitsu any point that I’ve made. It’s precisely what any amateur with a callow brain would do when they think there should be sarcasm – take something and…uh… run with it, with no apparent or insinuated point or lesson. It’s not sarcasm. It’s affected wit. Which is great, because it underlines the fact that your a self-promoting idiot.

    In addition to being a stereotype. Irony is not funny when… uhm… it’s true. High SAT and silly job defined by its income rather than its social contribution, yup, I’m sure it’s all true. But something that is *definitely* true, you probably got your MBA at some West coast “Ivy League” like Berkeley or Stanford where you learned smarmy self-promotion as the pre-imminent skill in this human life, even on anonymous blogs where in the self-indulgent spirit of ethnic self-victimization you perceive some sort of unacceptable assault on that fundamental Chinesness you share with the jackbooted assholes who run Xinjiang . But sadly you didn’t get an MFA in writing because you don’t know how to use sarcasm. Idiot.

    Posted 31 Aug 2010 at 8:05 am ¶
20. Caomengde wrote:

    Did you get your pipe clean yet?

    Best Wishes,

    MengDe

    Posted 31 Aug 2010 at 10:20 pm ¶
21. Porfiriy wrote:

    Mmm, mmm, very good young padawan. Keep it coming. You’re almost there. Baby steps, baby steps. I would’ve said, “Btw, did you get your pipe clean yet?”

    Idiot.

    Posted 31 Aug 2010 at 11:04 pm ¶
22. Caomengde wrote:

    Following is a excerpt from comments section on an article about Taiwan’s ethnic composition that I feel is relevant here:

    所以說族源都是多元的，
    只是因共同的語言文化認同而形成一族群，
    刻意去強調某部份並否定其他部分都是種偏差，
    像沈建德等人用偏差對付過去統治者的偏差，
    造成的結果就是意識型態衝撞

    Translation:

    Therefore ethnic origin is always diverse, only identifying with shared language and culture allows formation of an ethnic group,
    to intentionally over-emphasize one part and deny the rest is a kind of bias,
    People like ShengJianDe http://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E6%B2%88%E5%BB%BA%E5%BE%B7 use their own bias to counter the past ruler (KMT)’s bias,
    the result is just clash of ideologies.

    Posted 01 Sep 2010 at 1:57 am ¶
23. Porfiriy wrote:

    Absolutely, positively, 100% correct. Ethnic categories are just perpetually contested and ultimately baseless categories that are used and abused for political purposes.

    That being said, it perfectly supports the idea that you are a total d-bag for continuing trying to impose such a modern and irrelevant national-statist identity – “Chinese” being the exact word you used – to the Tang empire. It’s totally irrelevant and useless in a earnest discussion of history, and it’s more stupid than even Barat’s assertion of Tang “Altaicness” because at least Barat is an iteration above and is using an already ambiguous high-level language category with far less implications and requirements than an ethno-national term like “Chinese.”

    Second, no, it is not “just a clash of ideologies” because such talk glosses over the fact that in a world of competing, conflicting political ideologies and identities the power differential behind these ideologies is absolutely enormous. Some ideologies have military might, cultural power, religious biases and counter biases, and economic capabilities that advantage or disadvantage them relative to other cultures.

    Case in point: Uyghurs talking about history and Chinese people talking about history. The point that you absolutely cannot and never will get through your god damn thick skull is that by sharing and even advocating Barat’s views I am not necessarily endorsing a point for point correctness of his assertions. But the fact of the matter is the Chinese narrative – YOUR narrative – of dynasties being “Chinese” from time immemorial and those unwashed hairy barbarians literally stumbling over each other to be the first to get to China’s doorstep and be Sinified by a benevolent civilization – that kind of narrative, those kind of stories have the support of a good chunk of a billion people as well as the military and political might of a authoritarian government that has obvious political interests in a “Han civilizing mission” trope.

    On the other hand, Uyghurs have nowhere – NOWHERE – to air their views, as erroneous or correct as they may be. They stand on the fringes, being interviewed by political dissidents like Wang Lixiong or translated by obscure blogs on the edge of the universe like this one.

    And that’s why you’re a dickface, because as one would totally expect you entrance into this conversation – look at your first god damn comment – had nothing to do with contributing to the exchange between Uyghur and Chinese thinkers, or in examining the ephemeral nature of both Chinese or Uyghur identities. Instead, you were a jackass and had this smarmy tone that was more interested in establishing the stupidity of an uppity Uyghur who didn’t know his place. A Uyghur trying to salvage some dignity from history? Bwahahaha, how droll.

    Jackass.

    Posted 01 Sep 2010 at 3:39 am ¶
24. Caomengde wrote:

    Btw (hehe) am I the only one whose comment is being moderated now or is this a new feature?

    Posted 01 Sep 2010 at 4:23 am ¶
25. Porfiriy wrote:

    The software automatically puts comments with links in it in a moderation queue but you sure as hell WISH you were a victim don’t you? Pbbbbtttth.

    Posted 01 Sep 2010 at 4:52 am ¶
26. Tom wrote:

    Hi you both.
    I am firmly on Porfiriys side regarding the need to give people like Kahar a forum. I look at the site everyday to see if there is something new.
    Regarding the discussion I believe it got out of hand.
    It seems that Caomengde is not your run of the mill Chinese nationalist. He actually tries to argue and seems to know his stuff. For me it was quite interesting to follow.

    Basically it seems to me Chinese historiography is too ideological to be taken completely seriously. And maybe even Caomengde would agree. The problem is not whether the Tang were Altaic. This point can be argued but not if you are a historian in China and want to keep your job. It makes me suspicious if only one point of view is allowed.

    Historians everywhere are the prostitutes of the social sciences and tend to rewrite the past according to the powers that happen to be. But China is really an extreme case. It is pathetic to argue that the Taklamakan mummies show supposedly Asian features or that Xinjiang has continuously been a part of China for 2000 years. But what is worse is that you are not even allowed to publish a differing opinion. And that doesn´t only extend to history. Why were the records of the mikro tremors of the Wenchuan earthquake never published? Is it because they would show the same patterns as that of other dam induced earthquakes?
    Or why is there no honest discussion of the desertification of China? The reasons are obvious but better never ever cite the following reasons:

    1. Introducing agriculture on a vast scale in places that cannot be farmed.(OK that has changed in theory but not in practice. Why? Because the relevant people (party bosses) in the grassland are all Chinese and they help their relatives. In a wet year you get a brilliant harvest and who cares if the next year is dry and all the topsoil blows away? Nobody wants to live in these cold treeless plains anyhow all his life. All except the natives but they don´t count. They are not “cultured”. They are primitive barbarians. Before they aren´t properly educated and made into Chinese they will be at best cared for like children. But never given a real say in these affairs.

    2. Extreme cultural bias of the sedentary Chinese towards the Nomads. Resulting from that the destruction of mobile pasturing which is the only way to use those lands.Fencing in on a vast scale although rainfall patterns are patchy and the animals have to be moved.

    3. In Xinjiang crazy water use by the bintuan. If you know what is better for you don´t ever mention it. The bintuan are mostly upstream closer to the glaciers but they don´t use “Kanats”. Instead open channels. Differently to the Kanats there are gigantic evaporation rates. So they drill wells and drill them ever deeper. Xinjiang will soon run out of water. Why? Because just like in the steppes the Chinese have a higher culture and know better than the natives.

    4. The green wall. It would be funny if it wasn´t so sad. It is just a figment of Chinese cultural imagination that a wall of trees will stop the desert. If you want to get ahead in Chinese academia better not point out that it is criminal to waste valuable ground water to water trees in places that have never had them. But if you lower the water table you will most assuredly destroy the grass which is the only thing keeping the soil in place.

    Talking to the heads of Geography departments in Chinese universities is like going down the rabbit hole in Alice in Wonderland. I don´t even think they believe what they tell you about the green wall or some other patent nonsense. But it brings them nice positions and even invitations to the West as our luminaries want to visit China in return and get feted by their Chinese counterparts.
    After you talked to the big professor, there will be be a tug at your sleeve and some lowly assistant will invite you to have tea with him. And lo behold not all people in Chinese universities are stupid or corrupt. They just don´t get anywhere. If they publish at all they publish in completely obscure journals and will never be translated into English.

    The people who could read their stuff in the West have spent the better part of five years learning Chinese and piled up huge debts. To get ahead in Academia they need access to China. And you only get a visa let alone an invitation to a university if you don´t become to obnoxious. That is the reason why Chinese censorship by now extends to the West.

    And that is why we need people like Porfiriy. He is one of the very few who knows his stuff, knows Chinese and opens his mouth. And you should appreciate that as well Caomengde. Even if you don´t always agree with him.
    The rise of China is anyhow inexorable and China undoubtedly has a lot to give to the world. But Chinese culture is neither better nor worse than Uighur culture, just different.

    During Qing times the minorities were left alone and although Tibetan, Mongol and Uighur nationalists don´t want to hear that they profited from the peace and were for the most part quite content. What keeps China from respecting them and giving them meaningful autonomy again?

    There´s a lot to learn from them for you as well. Vive la difference.

    Posted 03 Sep 2010 at 10:21 am ¶
27. Arjun wrote:

    Tom:
    The shelter belts were planted to protect the railroads and highways from being swallowed by shifting sand dunes; and also to form sand barriers around the cities. Yes, the CCP had done horrendous things in the past, but it will be naive to think that they have never learnt a lesson from the past mistakes.

    Posted 04 Sep 2010 at 7:43 am ¶
28. Tom wrote:

    These are impressions from just two years ago. An invitation by a University in the West of China. Sorry, not more specific as I want to go there again. Also I met some good people who I don´t want to expose.

    Two weeks of being shown the goodies.
    Crazy stuff. Green belt presentation. Anybody could see that not only was the sand simply making a detour around the “belt”they had no answer and no control how much water was being pumped up. But a nice vegetable garden was to be seen that was being watered from the source as well. And of course a Chinese tended this beautiful vegetable garden that was indirectly destroying what little pasture was left for the animals of the natives. Talk about lowering the water table.

    Another Alice in Wonderland experience: Chinese professor proudly showing off Australian!!!!!!!!!! cows to be hearded by Mongols. Backward Mongols don´t have high yield cows.
    In an unguarded moment definate signs of exasperation of the Mongol herder who was thus blessed by the goodness of the Chinese.
    Nobody could answer the following questions in a way that made sense:
    1. As the cows are high yield they will never get by just eating local grass. Is it economical at all?
    2. The climate is in the winter extemely harsh. The cows have to be indoors all the time 8 months of the year. Same question regarding feed.
    3. Knowing the distances out west these Australians cows would be just viable near big cities and in semi factory conditions.
    So why foist them onto an unhappy Mongolian herder? Why believe they might in any way contribute to the betterment of the life of isolated herders hundreds of Kilometers from the next outlet for milk?
    Because that was the way it was presented to us. And it was quite obvious that nobody dared to contradict the Chinese professor who had lot´s of Beijing money to battle desertification. The emperor is naked but there is no child pointing this out. These were just two episodes of a two week trip into Lala land.

    Finally I know as well that theoretically the Chinese state has learned something. In fact since 1998 and catastrophical floods the usage of grassland for agriculture is theoretically forbidden. Theoretically that is.

    In practise it is Chinese cadres who call the shots and they have never seen a green lush meadow that didn´t tempt them to till it. Peking is far, a tractor is cheap and if you are lucky you can get a few harvests before the soil blows away. And what is much much worse: Theoretically again there is this ban of tillage and the cutting down of trees and even the collection of certain plants from the steppes. I know all that.

    But party functionaries know that ultimately Peking won´t judge them on something that is as hard to quantify as grass cover. They are judged by the rise in BNP. And you get that not by restricting, but by increasing the number of Kashmere goats, planting cities in the desert that make no sense and so on. Build anything anywhere, increase production of whatever. Main thing another rise in BNP. Apres nous le deluge. If there´s no money you manipulate land prices, then get a state owned bank which your buddy leads to take the land as collateral for a loan and with this credit you build a monstrosity like Ordos city. Who cares if the foundations for the skyscrapers suck up all the ground water for tens of kilometers around and you have to keep pumping it up and wasting it with the high evaporation rates in the desert?

    The cadres get their ten percent growth, a pat on the back from above and enough corruption money to buy their mistress another apartment. The local Mongols have no say and anyhow their way of life is to primitive for modern times.
    Thousands of lakes, springs, creeks and even rivers have disappeared all over the West and keep disappearing. Anybody who can ready sattellite images knows that and also that it is not getting better but even worse. Chinese water use in the Steppes and Deserts is crazy. But never ever point out that Chinese ways might not be the right ways. If you want to know the cultural factors involved read this book by an American anthropologist: Beyond Great Walls by Dee Mack Williams.
    The poor man will never get an assignment in China again.
    And the sad thing is it is such a stupid waste. Why not recognise that the natives have learned in many centuries to cope with their forbidding environment and their utter lack of water? That they bred the hardiest life stock imaginable, dug the Kanats and build houses like in Kashgar that keep cool in the winter and warm in the summer? And not waste unbelievable amounts of energy building shoddy multi story housing that will need air conditioning to keep cool in the Summer?

    Finally, I might say so again: Yes the Chinese are not more stupid than people anywhere else and of course you can find reasonable and knowledgable people. But these are not the ones that get ahead.

    Even in a place like Chinadialogue the ethnic background of the environmental catastrophy is carefully avoided. We don´t want to offend our Chinese partners, who share our concern for the environment.

    These kind of pieties obscure the real picture. Unless the Chinese state allows native input into policy making again there won´t be any change for the better. They will just keep imposing top down solutions dreamed up by egg heads with the right connections. No doubt applauded by a good many colleagues in the West with whom they have exchange progams.

    Posted 05 Sep 2010 at 11:43 am ¶
29. Arjun wrote:

    Hi Tom:
    What you elaborate certainly seems logical and makes sense. Just wanted to point out that battling sand is indeed difficult, but reports indicate that shelter belts have worked to a large extent, even though not entirely. Do you, btw, have any alternative suggestion, or is this just non-constructive criticism?
    One more point about evaporation. Evaporation rate is dependent on temperature and is far smaller at lower temperatures that one finds near the galciers. Introductory Physics courses will tell you that cold air does not absorb or hold much moisture. But you are right that farther down the stream, evaporation will become greater.

    Posted 05 Sep 2010 at 10:25 pm ¶
30. Tom wrote:

    Thanks for the question. No problem with the ciriticism. Shelter belts are viable whereever there is enough precipitation. If there isn´t you are just depleting groundwater. You can´t go against nature forever. You might as well construct something fixed that doesn´t need water. But even if shelter belts are good ideas in certain places they are strictly localised solutions.

    The problem that we are talking here about has dimensions that absolutely boggle the mind. Huge, huge areas that you can´t direct from Beijing. You can just create the conditions to make the grass or shrubs grow but you cannot grow it. Not like in New England, Europe or mainland China. Very hard to understand for somebody from a settled society. But that doesn´t stop veritable professors about babbling about the need to fertilize the pastures. And then bring up groundwater to let the grass grow. Inner Mongolia, Tibet and Xinjiand together are roughly half the size of the Contintal US and bigger than the European Union. But no more than fifty million people live there. And most are concentrated in a very small percentage of the area. The rest is either desert, semidesert or steppe. Except the very driest region those areas were used by humand since at least two thousand years. There is a reason why none of these areas ever took on chinese cultures. Look at Korea, Vietnam and Japan. And look at the areas on the other side of the great wall. Plant growth under natural conditions there is a fraction of what it is in mainland China.

    One result of this long history is that adult Chinese are laktose intolerant i.e. 90 percent can´t digest milk. But it is ultimately milk that makes these huge spaces livable. The interior of Tibet, the steppe regions of Xinjiang, parts of Gansu, Inner Mongolia everywhere people switched to a diet based solely on milk as soon as it got warm. Meat and fat was only for the time no grass grew.

    Incidently I believe that this a large part of why there have been all these milk scandals in China. Except for the minorities and children nobody can drink milk in China. I looked closely at the people directing all these companies that were involved in the scandal. From what I gathered they were all ethnic Chinese. Imagine you are a farmer who can´t use his own produce. Who can´t drink a glass of milk without getting horrible stomach cramps. And I most certainly believe that the milk wasn´t from ethnic herders. You could never ever economically gather the (comaratively) little milk that steppe cows give. The fuel outlay to drive hundreds of Kilometers and to keep the stuff refrigerated doesn´t allow that. It isn´t even possible in Mongolia itself. Even there they have to rely on a mild version of factory farms to get milk to the population of big urban centers. I think the tempation to adulterate something that is essentially alien to you is much bigger than let´s say with rice or millet. But that is by the way.

    Traditionally you had 4 to 6 Kinds of animals (Horses, sheep, goats, cows and camels or yaks) and an unbelievable variety of milk products. Products that the new people in power, all the cadres from mainland China, couldn´t digest.
    These four kinds of animals all like different kinds of grass and they all have to be grazed in a certain sequence. It is not at all like Chinese prejudice has it that they just move around. There is a very elobarate system of spring, summer, autumn and winter pasture. And it is a lonely affar. Vegetation is so sparce for the most part that single family units have to make these decisions. (Coordinated of course. Before monasteries and aristocrats coordinated then the commune and then in the name of eficciency but really better control and ethnic prejudice the over riding structures were destroyed)

    Suffice it to be said, that before the eighties you had the big communes where still the ancient wisdom prevailed. (But huge problems with tilling nonviable areas). Ever since they try desparately to make the land productive in a Chinese sense. That is giving out land titles, decreeing fences a.a.o. The worst are the kashmere goats. A gold mine for the bureaucrats and some dealers a nightmare for nature. They rip out the grass with the roots. But chinese policies had very delibaretly forced much to many goats onto the herders.
    Altogether they have succeeded in destroying the old land use patterns. You would first have to tear down the fences to start to make some sense.

    But it will never happen. Not for nothing is the symbol of china the great wall.
    Another thing is of course that winter pastures are the most crucial ones. But they were also the most productive. Now chinese farmers use almost all of them. And thereby have greatly diminished value the rest of the land.
    After having destroyed the old way of doing things the chinese still can´t use the land. Milk is the key on surviving in these vast empty spaces. Or you have to import all your food except meat. We are talking here about distances that even the fabulous chinese road builders haven´t been able and won´t be able to crack. About huge areas of the West (by far the majority) with less than one inhabitant per square mile!!!!!
    Now the solution is: empty out the West of the native nomads. It is happening in Inner Mongolia at this very moment and is spreading to Xinjiang and Tibet. Bascially the Chinese argue that the Nomads are to stupid to limit the number of animals. They conveniently forget that it was their policies
    that destroyed the old balance. So rather than tearing down the fences and opening the winter pastures for grazing they kick out the natives.
    Better not use the land at all than let it be used the old way.
    And of course all things being equal that doesn´t stop the odd chinese cadre to ingnore instructions from Beijing and convert the last winter pastures into fields as soon as the herders are out. Winter pastures will last longer as they are usually more moist but even they will eventually blow away in a really bad drought.
    Chinese dissimulation, the inability to see what is plain for an outsider to see is astonishing. Since at least ten years there is tremendous pressure by the Koreans and the Japanese to do something about the dust. They even forced Beijing to agree to an intergovernmental panel. As it is impossible to distinguish on a satellite picture between dust (sign of environmental stress) and sand (natural phomenon) the Chinese first tried to blame the dust on Mongolia. There have been countless delegations from Korean and Japan in Mongolia and finally one from the UN to look at conditions in the Mongolian steppes. They all without a doubt came to the conclusion that the problem is Chinese and only Chinese made. Still the Chinese goverment insists on including Mongolia as a culprit.
    If you want to know what happened on the ground in the last forty years read the chinese novel “Wolf Totem”. That is an excellent book if you forget the weird part of the Chinese having to become more like Wolfs. Chinese nationalists have picked up on the Wolf theme and distorted the real message of the book. It is the story of the destruction of man and nature by a foreign elite. I heard the story from the other side.
    Finally one more thing I want to relate:
    A friend of mine, a PHD student from Britain was in Hohot to learn more about land use in the semi desert. That what his thesis was about. He was of course feted by the professors and shown around. He had the same Alice in Wonderland experience like I did. And to his great amazement those professors who knew all about the mikrometers a blade of grass may grow in a certain timespan didn´t know the first thing about traditonal land use!!!! Absolutely nothing. They lived in Inner Mongolia and didn´t know anything about the historical existence of its people. They blithely dismissed it as outdated. They had lot´s of technological solutions like importing high yield cows that pleased their superiors in the province government. And other crackpot ideas like fertilizing the desert. Just as me he had the impression that they were more interested in getting ahead than in really looking at the problem.
    I don´t need to mention there weren´t any “natives” among the professors. But there are some inner Mongolians in the geography department. But they have to shut up lest they be accused of inciting “ethnic” disharmony or even splittism.
    Finally read “Beyond great Walls” One year in the life of an American anthropologist who speaks perfect Chinese in an inner Mongolian village where there is a station manned by Chinese scientists who study the grassland. So to speak the modern version of Wolf Totem.

    Posted 06 Sep 2010 at 8:53 am ¶
31. CaoMengDe wrote:

    Arjun,

    There are certain type of people in this world that will always see glass half-empty. I had to attend “How to deal with difficult people” seminar to understand this.

    But people like Tom and Porfiriy, despite their focus on negativity, do reveal certain truth in their ranting. They could serve as watchdog or canary in a mine by highlighting existing problems. I do wish higher authorities in China would take note.

    But knowing human nature, societies as a whole usually do NOT take corrective measures until disasters strike.

    What I do find interesting is that Tom and Porfiriy seem to think that certain ethnicity have monopoly on stupidity. The closest equivalent that I could think of is some Chinese exchange students railing against stupidity of White people for all the lush open air golf courses in Phoenix and Palm Springs and extravagant pool parties in Las Vegas. And their efforts are probably just as effective.

    Posted 08 Sep 2010 at 1:14 am ¶
32. Porfiriy wrote:

    Oh ho ho! CaoMengDe’s shriveled persona returns for more. Last time I checked, the ball was in your court, no? Whatever happened to that aborted wanhui mianzi attempt? Oh, you slinkered away without a peep because you ended up looking like an opportunistic douchebag overeager and desperate for a chance to exult in being victimized. Oh woe is me! I’m being censored! Right, you would think your comments are worth censoring. Asshole. I sure as hell don’t.

    More tripe – as expected. As usual, I’m going to have to take this blow by blow, eyes-a-rollin’.

    So, for example, CaoMengDe as stereotype, seriously, you would be stupid enough to let your guard down. “How to deal with difficult people” seminar?! If you were anyone else, I’d write this off as someone being sardonic but, living caricature that you are, yes, you absoultely, positively did attend a “how to deal with difficult people” seminar. It totally fits within this jackass self-promoting MBA toting suit archetype that you are (unintentionally, of course) pigeonholing yourself in. You WOULD attend such a facetious and pretentious seminar, after all, you probably have other ostentatious displays of self-worship like “How to be persuasive” seminars or “How to negotiate that big deal” seminars on your resume. Screw that shit. Some people bring personal experience in Xinjiang to the discussion of Uyghur issues. Some people, like Tom, bring relevant expertise on geographical, biological, historical, or cultural matters. You bring in your pretentious “how to succeed” seminar self-help bullshit into the discussion, and, as has been amply demonstrated, it’s absolutely fucking worthless. Gtfo and go back to selling your crap to people you dupe with your seminar skills, douche.

    That being said, I think it would strike all of use as imminently unsuprising that CaoMengDe would use the phrase “knowing human nature” in all seriousness. After all, you’ve already clearly established your poor grasp on the art of satire. But yeah, I’m sure you sold a lot of trinkets after your “Get to know human nature” seminar.

    As for me thinking quote “that certain ethnicity [sic - TOEFL anyone] have monopoly on stupidity,” that’s clearly bullshit, on multiple levels. Let’s articulate this. First of all, you have a pretty established record of sashaying into the discussion of this blog when and only when you have an opportunity to delight in how stupid Uyghurs are for trying to be dignified in a wholly undignified situation. If anyone thinks an ethnicity unilaterally and unconditionally “have monopoly [sic]” on stupidity, it’s YOU. Let the record show that CaoMengDe’s thoughtful service to us in *this* string of comments was to show us how stupid and silly Kahar Barat is, AND, demonstrably, how awesomely intelligent and hipster-cool CaoMengDe is. Thanks! We needed that. The discussion is highly enriched as a result.

    Second, it is precisely and only this “desire for ethnic victimization” mindset that you, as a Han-American, have AMPLY demonstrated repeatedly that leads to this language, this “Boo hoo woe is me” reaction to Porfiriy thinking that “certain ethnicity have [sic] monopoly on stupidity.” My first response to that is to assert that the target of all my criticisms on this blog has been the government and its behavior in the form of policy as well as its misbehaviors in the form of the other social ills it begets such as corruption, censorship, lack of rule of law, etc. I DON’T conflate the government and the Chinese ethnicity. But if YOU do, that says a lot. A whole lot.

    My second response to that is: what business-seminar axiom discounts entirely the possibility of a significant portion of a named group of people holding worldviews and opinions that are unsavory? And what business-seminar axiom precludes ones right to criticize them for holding such beliefs? Because I, as a world citizen with vested interests in the form of Uyghur friends, and with certain values vis-a-vis right to speech, expression, governmental participation, DO in fact believe that the system that has been OPTED INTO by the Han Chinese people is flawed and SHOULD be criticized. And if the government should be criticized for its ill behaviors, the Han Chinese, are partially culpable in their support for the system – which cannot be measured, given the fact that China is a country closed to honest research, but can be observed in the mobs of Urumqi Han Chinese who roamed the streets carrying out revenge killings and calling Wang Lequan to resign for being too soft. What mindset would immediately dismiss a critical opinion without thought or basis? An instinctively defensive one – one that you subscribe you, as much as you “hehehe” to try to brush it off. Asshole.

    Funny enough, this observation goes both ways. I’m American. Want to criticize us Americans for the actions of our President who heedlessly invaded Iraq? GO AHEAD. I’m not going to bitch about it because I’m not so eager to be persecuted as you are. Go ahead. In fact, I’ll participate. We Americans were stupid for voting him in. We’re stupid for pouring so much money into the war as our infrastructure crumbles. I’m not going to cry like you. Whiney prick. As if a cultural or national worldview can’t be unsavory. Look at me go! Germans in the 1940s? They were assholes. British people in the 19th century? They were assholes. We Americans and our manifest destiny? We were assholes. No, this is not about poor Han and their prize-baby the PRC being “victims” just by virtue of being Han – even though you want it SO… BADLY… to be that way. When a national ideology is douchey, then people of conscience can call it out. And I hope to do that, whether its China, or America, or whatever.

    Which brings me to my next point. How the fuck do you know what ethnicities nationalisms and ideologies (I corrected your terminiology – I’m much better at describing my opinions than you are, since you’re an idiot) I consider “stupid?” This is a Xinjiang blog, you moron. You’re only going to see my critical observations of the PRC government and the Han people whose interests they represent. You can make calls about what groups of people I consider stupid and which ones I don’t after you’ve seen my opinions on “War in Iraq” blogs and “EU economic policy” blogs and “Aid in Africa” blogs. But you haven’t. You presumptuous asshole.

    And good job talking about me to another person. My teenaged sister also expresses displeasure for other people by talking across them to different individuals. But an overlap between you and a prissy pre-adolescent girl is quite unsurprising to me. Where’d you learn that, in your “passive-aggressive techniques to save face after looking like a clueless dolt” seminar?

    Jackass.

    Posted 08 Sep 2010 at 3:39 am ¶
33. CaoMengDe wrote:

    Still no luck in getting your pipe cleaned, eh?

    C’mon Porfiriy, you deserve better than this. You gotta believe in yourself.

    Posted 08 Sep 2010 at 6:28 am ¶
34. Porfiriy wrote:

    Mhm, mhm, very good. Keep it coming. Sehr gut. Remember what they taught you at the “Feign Wit for Profit” seminar, if at first your trite, irrelevant, and shamelessly juvenile insult doesn’t succeed, repeat it over and over again.

    Herp derp derp pipe herp derp derp herp herp derp innuendo derp derp derp clean derp derp herp derp.

    Fucking idiot.

    Posted 08 Sep 2010 at 6:36 am ¶
35. CaoMengDe wrote:

    夷狄禽兽，人面兽心.
    李世民

    Rough translation:

    Barbarians are animals, They have faces of men but hearts of beasts.
    Li Shimin.

    Li Shimin must be a self-hating Altaic.

    Posted 08 Sep 2010 at 9:46 am ¶
36. Porfiriy wrote:

    Citation needed.

    “Higgled piggledy ziggle zoo-boop cha-wowza!”
    -Albert Einstein

    Posted 08 Sep 2010 at 4:48 pm ¶
37. CaoMengDe wrote:

    资治通鉴/卷197

    http://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hans/%E8%B3%87%E6%B2%BB%E9%80%9A%E9%91%91/%E5%8D%B7197

    The Khan of Xueyantuo (薛延陀) (Seyanto, Se-yanto, Se-Yanto) or Syr-Tardush came to ask for marriage alliance. Tang court debates the merit.

    Officials advising Li Shimin that he should grant the marriage as he previously promised because it’s important to maintain trust with barbarians:

    褚遂良上疏，以为：“薛延陀本一俟斤，陛下荡平沙塞，万里萧条，余寇奔波，须有酋长，玺书鼓纛，立为可汗。比者复降鸿私，许其姻媾，西告吐蕃，北谕思摩，中国童幼，靡不知之。御幸北门，受其献食，群臣四夷，宴乐终日。咸言陛下欲安百姓，不爱一女，凡在含生，孰不怀德。今一朝生进退之意，有改悔之心，臣为国家惜兹声听；所顾甚少，所失殊多，嫌隙既生，必构边患。彼国蓄见欺之怒，此民怀负约之惭，恐非所以服远人、训戎士也。陛下君临天下十有七载，以仁恩结庶类，以信义抚戎夷，莫不欣然，负之无力，何惜不使有始有卒乎！夫龙沙以北，部落无算，中国诛之，终不能尽，当怀之以德，使为恶者在夷不在华，失信者在彼不在此，则尧、舜、禹、汤不及陛下远矣！”上不听。
    是时，群臣多言：“国家既许其昏，受其聘币，不可失信戎狄，更生边患。”

    Li Shimin disagrees:

    上曰：“卿曹皆知古而不知今。昔汉初匈奴强，中国弱，故饰子女、捐金絮以饵之，得事之宜。今中国强，戎狄弱，以我徒兵一千，可击胡骑数万。薛延陀所以匍匐稽颡，惟我所欲，不敢骄慢者，以新为君长，杂姓非其种族，欲假中国之势以威服之耳。彼同罗、仆骨、回纥等十余部，兵各数万，并力攻之，立可破灭，所以不敢发者，畏中国所立故也。今以女妻之，彼自恃大国之婿，杂姓谁敢不服！戎狄人面兽心，一旦微不得意，必反噬为害。今吾绝其昏，杀其礼，杂姓知我弃之，不日将瓜剖之矣，卿曹第志之。”

    Rough translation:

    You guys are knowledgeable about the past but do not understand the present. In the beginning of Han, XiongNu was strong and 中国 (hehe) Middle Kingdom was weak. Therefore it was reasonable to simply appease XiongNu with daughters and gold.

    Today 中国 Middle Kingdom is strong, barbarians weak. Merely a thousand of my soldiers could take on tens of thousands of barbarian riders. That’s why Xueyantuo is careful and obeys my desire and dare not to be arrogant.

    Now they have new ruler who wants to borrow Middle Kingdom’s prestige to subjugate his subjects who are not his kind (Kurluk,Uyghurs and Basmyls etc).

    彼同罗、仆骨、回纥(Uyghur) etc with tens of tribes and each over many tens of thousands troops, could easily band together and destroy Xueyantuo’s power. The reason, they have not done so is because Xueyantuo’s khan was picked by Middle Kingdom.

    If now Xueyantuo’s khan takes my daughter as wife and take position as my son-in-law,he would make the other tribes cower in fear.

    戎狄人面兽心，一旦微不得意，必反噬为害。

    Barbarians has faces of men and hearts of beasts, once they do not get what they want even if it is small things, they will always bite.

    If today, I refuse the marriage and show disrespect to its Khan, all other tribes would know that I have abandoned Xueyantuo. It will not be long till they will gang up on Xueyantuo and divides it among themselves. (incidentally, this was exactly what happened).

    Posted 09 Sep 2010 at 12:04 am ¶
38. Porfiriy wrote:

    Hmmmmmmmmmm? Where is “夷狄禽兽，人面兽心.”??????

    “Dat’s some DAMN good chicken wings!!!!”
    - James Joyce

    Posted 09 Sep 2010 at 12:32 am ¶
39. CaoMengDe wrote:

    舊唐書/卷194上 (old book of Tang, chapter 194)

    http://zh.wikisource.org/zh/%E8%88%8A%E5%94%90%E6%9B%B8/%E5%8D%B7194%E4%B8%8A

    Eastern Khaganate of Göktürks have been defeated. Tang court discuss what to do with many who surrendered. Most officials favor breaking up the tribes to settle them among Henan and Hebei in scattered settlements that they might be assimilated. Only 溫彥博 suggest to keep the tribal structures intact and settle them among the frontiers. Li Shimin were about to follow his advice.

    頡利之敗也，其部落或走薛延陀，或走西域，而來降者甚眾。詔議安邊之術。朝士多言突厥恃強，擾亂中國，為日久矣。今天實喪之，窮來歸我，本非慕義之心。因其歸命，分其種落，俘之河南兗、豫之地，散居州縣，各使耕織，百萬胡虜可得化為百姓，則中國有加戶之利，塞北可常空矣。唯中書令溫彥博議請準漢建武時置降匈奴於五原塞下。全其部落，得為捍蔽，又不離其土俗，因而撫之，一則實空虛之地，二則示無猜心。若遣向河南兗、豫，則乖物性，故非含育之道。太宗將從之。

    Li Shimin ‘s advisor 魏征 argues:

    秘書監魏征奏言：「突厥自古至今，未有如斯之破敗者也，此是上天剿絕，宗廟神武。且其世寇中國，百姓冤仇，陛下以其降伏，不能誅滅，即宜遣還河北，居其故土。匈奴人面獸心，非我族類，強必寇盜，弱則卑服，不顧恩義，其天性也。秦、漢患其若是，故發猛將以擊之，收取河南，以為郡縣，陛下奈何以內地居之！且今降者幾至十萬，數年之間，孳息百倍，居我肘腋，密邇王畿，心腹之疾，將為後患，尤不可河南處也。」

    “Turks have never been so thoroughly defeated as today. This is punishment from heaven, Ancestral temples showing their power. They have raided 中國 Middle Kingdom for generations, are hated by populace. Since Your majesty granted their surrender and decided against annihilating them, it’s better to settle them back near their homeland in North of the River.”

    匈奴人面獸心，非我族類，強必寇盜，弱則卑服，不顧恩義，其天性也

    “Xiongu have faces of men but hearts of beasts, they are NOT our kind, They will rob when they are strong, surrender when they are weak. Possessing no gratitude, such is their nature” ……

    Posted 09 Sep 2010 at 2:25 am ¶
40. Porfiriy wrote:

    Woah, woah, hold your horses there lone ranger. You can try to dodge the question all you want with a barrage of Chinese characters and piss-poor “rough translations,” but this discussion is at a total standstill until you answer this question:

    Where is “夷狄禽兽，人面兽心?”

    “A civilization should be judged by the quality of their ladies’ underwear.”
    -Virgil

    Posted 09 Sep 2010 at 2:33 am ¶
41. CaoMengDe wrote:

    What you mean you didn’t like

    戎狄人面兽心，一旦微不得意，必反噬为害。

    or

    匈奴人面獸心，非我族類，強必寇盜，弱則卑服，不顧恩義，其天性也

    Posted 09 Sep 2010 at 3:05 am ¶
42. Porfiriy wrote:

    Yeah, you prick, I didn’t like

    戎狄人面兽心，一旦微不得意，必反噬为害。

    or

    匈奴人面獸心，非我族類，強必寇盜，弱則卑服，不顧恩義，其天性也

    because it’s not

    夷狄禽兽，人面兽心

    which is what you quoted Li Shimin as saying. And so until you give me a god damn source, you make shit up, and are a pile of crap.

    If you admit you were totally full of shit, however, of course there are things to be said about Sima Guang and the Old Book of Tang. But let’s establish how much of a weasel-like asshat you are, first, then we can move on.

    “When in doubt, make shit up!” – Mikey Tugglebotham, life coach and founder of the famous “How to bullshit your way to success!” business seminar.

    Posted 09 Sep 2010 at 3:48 am ¶
43. Porfiriy wrote:

    Where is 夷狄禽兽，人面兽心?

    “To dream the impossible dream…to fight the unbeatable foe…”

    -Ronald Reagan on landing on the moon before the end of the 80s

    Posted 10 Sep 2010 at 4:07 am ¶
44. Porfiriy wrote:

    CaoHuShuo:

    Pengyou, there’s nothing sneaky about this. No big-nosed gwai-lo trickery here. You said Li Shimin said “夷狄禽兽，人面兽心.” I ask for a source. Pretty straightforward. Where is the source.

    Sure, I’ll get to your OTHER quotes, but Sima Guang is a patient man, he can wait a few more days if necessary. Where is your source?

    “We kill Chinese peasants because we love them.” – Japanese Commandant Tokugawa Ieyasu on the 1935 occupation of Yunnan

    Posted 11 Sep 2010 at 9:09 pm ¶
45. Ishchi wrote:

    What, exactly, is the point of all this counter-insulting?

    Just ignore him, porfiriy… People like him aren’t worth the time.

    Posted 15 Sep 2010 at 3:21 am ¶
46. Porfiriy wrote:

    You’re right. You’re right, when it comes down to it. I just have a low tolerance for smugness. I think anyone could’ve submitted the same observations Cao has made, yet without the douchebaggery, and I’d have loved to engage such a hypothetical commenter in a serious discussion. But as for condescension toward and immediate dismissal of any Uyghur thinkers – I got ten boatloads of that when I lived in Xinjiang and I just can’t tolerate it.

    Especially when the smugness is so painfully and obviously unmerited. :(

    Posted 15 Sep 2010 at 4:46 am ¶
47. Ishchi wrote:

    I know, I know… Trust me, I can’t tolerate it either.

    Except that when you think about it, people like that probably aren’t going to be able to do much anyway (in terms of influencing Uyghur-Han affairs). He can post all he likes, but from his rhetoric, anyone with half a brain will see that he’s an idiot, and paying his comments heed only gives him the attention and recognition that he doesn’t even deserve.

    You, on the other hand, are in a position to make a significant impact with the articles you put up on your blog. Wouldn’t it be better to ignore the douchebaggery and just use the time gained to focus on writing more articles?

    I, for one, would love to see some more mention of Uyghur language ;-)

    How about an update on the available textbooks/materials? A few new ones have come out recently.

    Posted 16 Sep 2010 at 2:44 am ¶
48. M-shot wrote:

    Caomengde.. what a joke… he thinks he knows things…hahaha

    Posted 22 Sep 2010 at 9:43 pm ¶
49. ZhenWang wrote:

    I thought caomengde gave good translations. Given that Chinese can’t be translated into English without losing some details, and let’s not argue about old Chinese text.

    However, Li Bai, was not born outside of china at that time. His own writings prove that.

    Also I found it funny how Kahar, Wang Lixiong and Porfiriy uses the word “Chinese” loosely. All your arguments are invalid because of that false assumption. I think you need to draw a fine line between Han people and Chinese people. If you use the word “Chinese” refer it as the people under the Chinese government rule and if you use the word “Han” refer it as the Han ethic that lived under many governments. Since when did the Han along with other ethics in china have been rounded up in a blender and spitted out with a uniformed label?

    The ruler(don’t know if he’s han or whatever) of xinjiang pissed MaoZeDong off by executing his brother, so he took the region over after he finish dealing with nationalist party. Now the area belongs to China, it’s simple and done. Now everyone lives in that area is Chinese no matter you like it or not. Why do we have the turn American Indians?
    Inva

    Aside from this subject. I wonder why when it comes to china, a ethic conflict always have to comes to politic independence? It’s exactly like how a few powerful westerners putting more Jews in middle east, make it a country and kick everyone else who is not jew out of it. And what do you have today? Why don’t they do it in some empty land in Europe or America? Oh wait, it’s their “holy land” so f*** everyone else’s believe because us westerners understand Jews better (not saying I’m a western).

    Last be not least I can’t believe how anyone would show approval to someone who make comments like:

    “that certain ethnicity [sic - TOEFL anyone] have monopoly on stupidity,”

    Where did your years of education go? Just because of that I would pay 100X more respect to CaoMengDe because he didn’t play any race card. Nothing but a bunch of bigots here. Have fun deleting this post :)

    Posted 24 Sep 2010 at 5:50 am ¶
50. Porfiriy wrote:

    Mm, yes, these would be very good observations if they weren’t so…erm… bad.

    You don’t refer to people under “Chinese government rule” as Chinese. Ethnic self-identities don’t correlate with political inventions. Various ethnic groups that have (oh, unfortunately) ended up due to historical circumstances in the PRC, and especially those who actively and consistently oppose the imposition of the term “Chinese” upon them, are no more “Chinese” than the millions of Han under the Yuan dynasty were “Mongol” or the Qing dynasty were “Manchu.”

    Let’s make it clear that the concept of “being Chinese” is a modern thing. The CCP has had to define what it means to be “Chinese” or “Zhongguoren” particularly as it took the reigns of the region that we today call China in the wakes of both the Qing and Nationalist governments. As with almost every dynasty that came before one of the most important tasks during the early PRC era was to create a system legitimizing the inclusion of imminently non-Chinese peoples into this newly created polity (younger than the USA by almost a century and a half – lulz). From this politically saturated circumstance arose this, again, modern, again, recent idea of “Zhonghua minzu” to which Uyghurs and Tibetans and Mongolians were said to belong – from time immemorial, to boot. Make no bones about it, the inclusion of a people into this body politic, this “Zhonghua Minzu” is precisely what we are talking about when we refer to what it means to “be Chinese” in the PRC. To be a Zhongguoren is to be part of the great Zhonghua minzu family, to support the party and the socialism, the “Scientific Development Concept” and the “Harmonious Society” principles which party itself identifies as its guiding ideology. A vast majority of Uyghurs and Tibetans wholesale, consciously reject this. They are not Chinese, and they would say they are not Chinese. That is the difference between a protester in Urumqi and a protesting factory worker in Guangdong; a Uyghur voices his utter rejection of the political framework that is offered to him by the Han, a Cantonese worker is airing economic grievances but has nothing to say about whether or not he belongs to the modern Chinese nation-state project. One is not Chinese, one is. It’s perfectly fair for intellectuals to use the two terms interchangeably because the idea of “China” belongs entirely and completely to the Han.

    Not even going to bother lifting a finger about any references to Native Americans or Jews. How do you know I’m not a militant supporter of an independent Lakota nation? I probably just got back from petitioning the government to grant the Lakota independence. Oh, I can do that and the FBI won’t come and murder me. Psh. Screw you. Any references to sins of “America” are spurious particularly in light of the fact that you have no idea to what extent I am an activist for disenfranchised or stateless people worldwide. I am American, but I am certainly not America, and if you can’t parse that distinction, you’re an idiot. Shut your mouth until you follow me around for a few months and know what I do or do not do about “Indians” or the “Middle East.”

    Last be not least I can’t believe how anyone would show approval to someone who make comments like:

    “that certain ethnicity [sic - TOEFL anyone] have monopoly on stupidity,”

    You must be talking about CaoMengDe since I was quoting him word-for-word when I was saying that. Derp.

    Have fun deleting this post :)

    You flatter yourself. I don’t delete posts. And if I did, this pile of doggie dung wouldn’t even be worth it.

    Posted 24 Sep 2010 at 10:51 am ¶
51. CaoMengDe wrote:

    Porfiriy,

    Displaying your charming personality again, eh? Remember to pay attention to the plumbing condition of you pipe now ya hear?

    MengDe out.

    Posted 25 Sep 2010 at 6:20 am ¶
52. Porfiriy wrote:

    Hi Cao,

    Where can I find the source for “夷狄禽兽，人面兽心”?

    I mean, now that you’ve proven you’re still following the comments and aren’t off busy making the big sale, or, err, getting your “pipe cleaned” because that’s a really clever way to say “have sex” for sixth graders.

    Douche.

    “Political power grows out of the barrel of Cao Mengde’s pipe.”

    - Chinese revolutionary Chiang Kai-shek

    Posted 25 Sep 2010 at 7:44 am ¶
53. Lily wrote:

    “Naturally, Han characters are quite backwards compared to phonetic writing systems…China, just as the Chinese people created by Chinese characters don’t mesh with the rest of the world, wherever they go, they make Chinatowns.”

    I lost my respect for the guy when I read that. Battling racism with racism is not the way to go.

    Posted 11 Dec 2010 at 10:38 am ¶
54. Curse of Westphalia wrote:

    I found that ZhenWang made a good point. I think what he was trying to say was that Chinese refers to nationality (now, I’m not talking about nationality as defined by USSR and PRC, which equated/equates nationality and ethnicity). Basically, it is what you find on your passport. For example, there are Hispanics in America, yet many of them are citizens of the USA.
    My point is that China is a multiethnic nation. The matter of self-determination opens another can of worms, and I believe that it is near impossible or just impossible to discuss it impartially or to find a solution. China is not the worst case in this. Just think of Chechnya, Belgium (Flemish vs. Walloons), the various insurgencies by Tibeto-Burmans in NE India, Biafra conflict in Nigeria, Western Sahara dispute, West Papua insurgency, etc. Hence, the Uyghurs, Tibetans, Mongols etc. are separate ethnicities from the Han and each other, but they are all citizens of the PRC, having been born and raised within its borders.
    If you want to dispute the borders of the PRC, that is also another can of worms. Basically, back in the empire days, borders were ill-defined, and political relationships between states and within states took many forms. In the case of China, Xinjiang/East Turkestan, when under Qing domination, was ruled by local begs and khojas. Tibet was in a Cho-yon (priest-patron) relationship with China. Then comes the Europeans (not blaming you guys, just stating a historical fact) and they basically exports and imposes their Westphalian definition of nation-states in East Asia. Japan saw the writing on the wall and jumped on the bandwagon early. China and Korea and other, though, being continental powers, found it harder to accept. Then an de facto ultimatum was laid out for all in the region – you either establish unequivocal control over the regions you claim and abolish the traditional (or as the Europeans would see them – archaic) ties, or you lose control of those territories. The Chinese realized that if they were going to hold on to their empire and secure their boundaries, Tibet and Xinjiang must be brought into the fold firmly. The Qing dynasty earlier wanted to retreat from Xinjiang and establish an easily defensible border near Jiayuguan, but a survey of the land discovered that no natural features existed to allow for easy demarcation and defense. In contrast, the mountain ranges surround Tibet and Xinjiang provided natural barriers – Himalayas and Karakoram to the south, Pamirs to the West, Tian Shan to the NW, etc. Nobody knew or cared about natural resources back then in what the Chinese considered barren hinterlands.
    And just to buttress my argument about territorial integrity – China lost Outer Mongolia because it moved a little too late to assert firm, Western-style control over its borderlands. This is partly due to the Russian’s support for OM independence in the 1910s and 20s, when China was too weak and divided internally to worry about the borderlands. This incident probably strengthened China’s later and continuing resolve to hold Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Tibet.
    Now, China will never let those lands go unless the state is destroyed. Without those lands, China will just be a coastal rump power without much strategic depth. It will also be bereft of necessary resources for development and strengthening. China has never forgotten how the West invaded and humiliated it. It has never forgotten how the West fears it as the “yellow peril,” treating it as an existential threat in need of containment and subjugation. China cannot afford to be divided and weakened now – all that progress that has been achieved so far will be lost.
    Perhaps in a century, when everyone arguing on this forum is dead, our descendants will look back and consider how China was regarded now, and compare it to how China is in their time. Who knows what the future holds?

    Posted 01 Mar 2011 at 5:52 pm ¶