Anybody know how British text book talk about Opium War?

99 views
Skip to first unread message

LeeYih Chiew

unread,
Feb 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/8/96
to
Is there anybody out there familiar with the history text book of secondary and
primary school text book in Great Britain?

Can you describe how the text book talk abut the war, and the consequence. If you
have the information.

Thank you.


* Humiliate tehm before they leave hong Kong!

Glenys

unread,
Feb 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/8/96
to
In message <4fbj4i$1...@independence.ecn.uoknor.edu> LeeYih Chiew wrote:

> Is there anybody out there familiar with the history text book of secondary and
> primary school text book in Great Britain?

I doubt if there is anything in primary school history books.
Secondary schools will only study China if that is one of the options
that the school has chosen. To choose to study the Far East would
be unusual - history is frequently limited to pre-historic, Greek,
Roman, England, Europe, and then modern history in the 20th century.
Added to this would be the history of the USA, Australia and India.
Very few schools would know anything about the Opium Wars.


> * Humiliate tehm before they leave hong Kong!

You aren't doing very well up to now!


--
Glenys
--------

Glenys

unread,
Feb 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/9/96
to
In message <4fgfmp$1...@berlin.infomatch.com> Glen Fisher wrote:

> gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk (Glenys) wrote:
>
> >In message <4fbj4i$1...@independence.ecn.uoknor.edu> LeeYih Chiew wrote:
>
> >> Is there anybody out there familiar with the history text book of secondary and
> >> primary school text book in Great Britain?
>
> >I doubt if there is anything in primary school history books.
> >Secondary schools will only study China if that is one of the options
> >that the school has chosen. To choose to study the Far East would
> >be unusual - history is frequently limited to pre-historic, Greek,
> >Roman, England, Europe, and then modern history in the 20th century.
> >Added to this would be the history of the USA, Australia and India.
> >Very few schools would know anything about the Opium Wars.
>

> Bigot.

Why bigot? How can a school system study the history of the whole
world? I should imagine that in most countries schools first study
the history of their own country, then their own continent, then the
history of the countries from which there are a lot of immigrants.
After that, it's a matter of choice what other areas should be covered.
In the UK some, but not the majority, may choose to study China.


--
Glenys
--------

Unknown

unread,
Feb 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/10/96
to
gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk (Glenys) wrote:

>In message <4fbj4i$1...@independence.ecn.uoknor.edu> LeeYih Chiew wrote:

>> Is there anybody out there familiar with the history text book of secondary and
>> primary school text book in Great Britain?

>I doubt if there is anything in primary school history books.
>Secondary schools will only study China if that is one of the options
>that the school has chosen. To choose to study the Far East would
>be unusual - history is frequently limited to pre-historic, Greek,
>Roman, England, Europe, and then modern history in the 20th century.
>Added to this would be the history of the USA, Australia and India.
>Very few schools would know anything about the Opium Wars.

Bigot.

>> * Humiliate tehm before they leave hong Kong!

>You aren't doing very well up to now!

Whakco.


Fei Li

unread,
Feb 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/12/96
to
gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk (Glenys) wrote:

>In message <4fgfmp$1...@berlin.infomatch.com> Glen Fisher wrote:
>Why bigot? How can a school system study the history of the whole
>world? I should imagine that in most countries schools first study
>the history of their own country, then their own continent, then the
>history of the countries from which there are a lot of immigrants.
>After that, it's a matter of choice what other areas should be covered.
>In the UK some, but not the majority, may choose to study China.

I have to agree with Glen that no school system can cover the history
of the whole world. I remember learning histroy in China at middel and
high schools. We covered more or less the entire Chinese history, but
were selective in world history. Ancient Egypt and India were mentioned
in a paragraph or so. Our English history started from Cromwell, French
Napoleon, German Bismark, Russian Lennin, American 1776. So I never knew
about the Magna Carta, 1066, the Mayflower and all that until much later.
I, of course, would like to learn about the history of all peoples, but
sometimes one just does not have the time and resources.
Cheers

Fei

--
**********************************************************
* Fei Li, | (804)-865-8237 ext.320 *
* High Technology Corp. | f...@htc-tech.com *
* 28 Research Drive | http://www.htc-tech.com/~fli *
* Hampton, VA23666 | *
**********************************************************


Shi Huang-Ti

unread,
Feb 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/13/96
to
gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk (Glenys) wrote:
>4fgfmp$1...@berlin.infomatch.com> Glen Fisher wrote:
>gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk (Glenys) wrote:

>4fbj4i$1...@independence.ecn.uoknor.edu> LeeYih Chiew wrote:

>>Is there anybody out there familiar with the history
>>text book of secondary and
>>primary school text book in Great Britain?

>I doubt if there is anything in primary school history books.

>Secondary schools will only study China if that is one of >the options that the school has chosen. To choose to study >the Far Ea=
st would be unusual - history is frequently >limited to pre-historic, Greek,Roman, England, Europe, and >then modern history in th=
e 20th century.Added to this would
>be the history of the USA, Australia and India.Very few >schools would know anything about the Opium Wars.
> Bigot.

>Why bigot? How can a school system study the history of
>the whole world? I should imagine that in most countries >schools first study the history of their own country, then >their own co=


ntinent, then the history of the countries from >which there are a lot of immigrants. After that, it's a

>matter of choice what other areas should be covered.In the
>UK some, but not the majority, may choose to >study China......Glenys

Naturally if your mother had stolen some properties from her
neighbour she will be too ashamed to tell you all about it
too.So I dont expect the Brit Govt to tell british students
all about the thefts by the british crown all over the world
for three centuries, including drug trafficking. It was a dark
period in the UK's past and the very least you can do to
atone for her sins is not try to justify her criminal actions.

Glenys

unread,
Feb 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/13/96
to
In message <4fos8c$4...@lantana.singnet.com.sg> Shi Huang-Ti wrote:

> gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk (Glenys) wrote:
> >4fgfmp$1...@berlin.infomatch.com> Glen Fisher wrote:
> >gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk (Glenys) wrote:
>
> >4fbj4i$1...@independence.ecn.uoknor.edu> LeeYih Chiew wrote:
>
> >>Is there anybody out there familiar with the history
> >>text book of secondary and
> >>primary school text book in Great Britain?
>
>> I doubt if there is anything in primary school history books.
>> Secondary schools will only study China if that is one of
>> the options that the school has chosen. To choose to study

>>. the Far East would be unusual - history is frequently

>> limited to pre-historic, Greek,Roman, England, Europe, and

>> then modern history in the 20th century.Added to this would

>> be the history of the USA, Australia and India.Very few
>> schools would know anything about the Opium Wars.

>> Bigot.

> >Why bigot? How can a school system study the history of
> >the whole world? I should imagine that in most countries
>schools first study the history of their own country, then

>their own continent, then the history of the countries from

>which there are a lot of immigrants. After that, it's a
> >matter of choice what other areas should be covered.In the
> >UK some, but not the majority, may choose to
>study China......Glenys
>
> Naturally if your mother had stolen some properties from her
> neighbour she will be too ashamed to tell you all about it
> too.So I dont expect the Brit Govt to tell british students
> all about the thefts by the british crown all over the world
> for three centuries, including drug trafficking. It was a dark
> period in the UK's past and the very least you can do to
> atone for her sins is not try to justify her criminal actions.

Schools are told about it - but only about the important bits, like
India, Australia and America. I'm sorry if it hurts your self
esteem, but what happened in China wasn't considered very important.
Nobody's trying to hide it, it's just that it wasn't a major
happening in UK history, even though it obviously was in yours.

Nor is anybody trying to justify it. Where do you get that
idea from? I hardly think that explaining why the subject
is not taught in schools equates to justifying the UK's actions.

--
Glenys
--------

Qian

unread,
Feb 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/13/96
to
Glenys (gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk) wrote:

: In message <4fbj4i$1...@independence.ecn.uoknor.edu> LeeYih Chiew wrote:

: > Is there anybody out there familiar with the history text book of secondary and
: > primary school text book in Great Britain?

: I doubt if there is anything in primary school history books.
: Secondary schools will only study China if that is one of the options

: that the school has chosen. To choose to study the Far East would


: be unusual - history is frequently limited to pre-historic, Greek,

: Roman, England, Europe, and then modern history in the 20th century.
: Added to this would be the history of the USA, Australia and India.
: Very few schools would know anything about the Opium Wars.

From my son's history book, there are something about China in sino-japan
war and WWII, but not opium war. In my Lab, the British PhD research students
do not really know much about the opium war. They confirmed that they were
never told about that dirty drugs trafficking war. After I told them the rough
picture, they just kept silent. The reason why the Japanese try to change their
history text book is that they do not want their following generations to be
aware of what they did in the warII. The British should have similar reason
about the their behaviour in the history. It's understandable that nobody likes
his kids to know his dirty stuff if he still know what shame means.

In their history book, the typical way they teach their kids about
colonial war and other evil behaviours is that: "the things we did are wrong
from modern point of view, BUT they were right then". See, in this way, they
easily make themself qualified to talk about the human rights and civilisation
to the people they enslaved and robbed without any shame. Note: I'm not
arguing for the Governments who violate human rights.


:
: > * Humiliate tehm before they leave hong Kong!

: You aren't doing very well up to now!


: --
: Glenys
: --------

I agree with Glenys. But I would think that colonialism is largely
responsible for many countries not doing very well. I do not think the Britain
can be humiliated by handing over HongKong. That's just because the dirty
contract is gonna expire. The real humiliation to them should be something
they did to others and they still think it was right then. According to their
principle and logic, no matter what you are doing now, you can always say it
was right after a couple of decades. Isn't it convinient?! Maybe we should
learn from them to deal with international fairs by following their principle
and logic when we are the number one again!!!

Q Chen

Eddy Tanumihardja

unread,
Feb 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/13/96
to
Shi Huang-Ti (Lo...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
: too.So I dont expect the Brit Govt to tell british students

: all about the thefts by the british crown all over the world
: for three centuries, including drug trafficking. It was a dark
: period in the UK's past and the very least you can do to
: atone for her sins is not try to justify her criminal actions.

True. When I was walking through the museums in Europe, I came
across many artifacts from the Orient. When I checked up their
origins, more often than not, they were the treasurers from the
European "adventurers", a number "graciously" or "generously"
donated by the adventurers or their families/estate to the museum
for the enjoyment/enrichment/etc of the general public.

Only a few were noted as war plunders. My colleagues from India
was telling me that the Portuguese returned the plunders they
looted from India years ago, but not the British. Somehow, I
can't see the British dismantling their Crown Jewels, yet, just
to return them to India.

But just remember that few countries have spotless records when
it comes to innocence from bullying. If these exist, it is
usually because they were too weak to bully others.

China, from before the Han Dynasty to Qing Dynasty had also
been guilty of robbing the riches of her neighbours, either
in the form of tributes or otherwise. I am sure the people
of Tibet, Yunnan, Si Chuan, Manchuria, Xin Jiang etc know
all too well.

ET
--
+-----------------------------------------+
| email : k6t...@class.iss.nus.sg |
+-----------------------------------------+


Glenys

unread,
Feb 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/13/96
to
In message <4fpr98$7...@bignews.shef.ac.uk> Qian wrote:

> Glenys (gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : In message <4fbj4i$1...@independence.ecn.uoknor.edu> LeeYih Chiew wrote:
>
> : > * Humiliate tehm before they leave hong Kong!
>
> : You aren't doing very well up to now!
>
>
> : --
> : Glenys
> : --------
>
> I agree with Glenys. But I would think that colonialism is largely
> responsible for many countries not doing very well.

It is also responsible for many countries doing very well indeed, for
example the USA, Australia, Hong Kong.

> I do not think the Britain
> can be humiliated by handing over HongKong. That's just because the dirty
> contract is gonna expire. The real humiliation to them should be something
> they did to others and they still think it was right then. According to their
> principle and logic, no matter what you are doing now, you can always say it
> was right after a couple of decades.

I think you've got it backwards. Regarding the Opium Wars, people said it
was right at the time. After some decades people then said it was
wrong. That is still what everybody is saying today.


> Isn't it convinient?! Maybe we should
> learn from them to deal with international fairs by following their principle
> and logic when we are the number one again!!!

^^^^^^
What do you mean "again"?

--
Glenys
--------

Phil Askey

unread,
Feb 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/14/96
to
In article <4fsseu$s...@crl7.crl.com>, k...@crl.com (Guy Clinton Greenwood) wrote:
>The Brits are leeches of the world, they have sucked the life blood out
>of the world better than any of their European rivals. Spain though does
>deserve runner up, with Spain taking up the rear.
>
>Speaking of the spineless Brits

My, thankyou so much... do I know you ?

Maybe you shouldn't generalise about a nation...

Phil
--
Phil Askey | email://ph...@ipso.net
Internet Consultant | http://www.ipso.net/users/phil/me/index.htm
| phone://44/1223/376000; fax://44/1223/376150
The IP Systems Operation| smail://62 Burleigh St/Cambridge/CB1 1DJ

Shi Huang-Ti

unread,
Feb 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/14/96
to
gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk (Glenys) wrote:
>In message <4fpr98$7...@bignews.shef.ac.uk> Qian wrote:
>> Glenys (gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>>1...@independence.ecn.uoknor.edu> LeeYih Chiew wrote:
>
>> * Humiliate tehm before they leave hong Kong!
>> You aren't doing very well up to now!

>>I agree with Glenys. But I would think that colonialism
>>is largely responsible for many countries not doing
>>very well.

>It is also responsible for many countries doing very
>well indeed, for example the USA, Australia, Hong Kong.

Hahahaha, America and Australia were former penal colonies
where Britain dumps poor convicts who stole a loaf fo bread
for their families because they were starving. I am sure
the USA is now the strongest nation in the world because
that they suceeded in kicking out the british early in their
history. As for the Australians, I am advised that the faster
they can "get rid of the bloody pommie poofters the better".
Hong Kong is now propsering despite the British blood blodgers,
HK is doing well because of the hard work of the Chinese
people not because of some british assholes there who sit
on their hands and expect a fat check every month. Shameful.

>I think you've got it backwards. Regarding the Opium Wars,
>people said it was right at the time. After some decades >people then said it was wrong. That is still what everybody
>is saying today.

>>Isn't it convinient?! Maybe we should learn from them
>>to deal with international fairs by following their
>>principle and logic when we are the number one again!!!
^^^^^^

>What do you mean "again"?....Glenys

In case you haven't notice Britain is now at the bottom of
the dung pile. The Pound is a joke and so is the monarchy.
How you guys will *ever* be number one again is also a joke.
Its like asking Garcia of the Greatful Dead to rise again.


Guy Clinton Greenwood

unread,
Feb 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/14/96
to
The Brits are leeches of the world, they have sucked the life blood out
of the world better than any of their European rivals. Spain though does
deserve runner up, with Spain taking up the rear.

Speaking of the spineless Brits, how many other countries have deserted
their own citizens the way they are doing in Hong Kong?

________________________________________________________________
Happiness is Being an American | Guy Clinton Greenwood
In America Speak English and Chinese | K...@Crl.com 王 凱
在 美 國 說 英 語 和 漢 語 | 平 安 長 壽 身 體 健 康
________________________________________________________________
English﹕The language which unites America's people as AMERICANS
[Big5 encoded]

Glenys (gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In message <4fpr98$7...@bignews.shef.ac.uk> Qian wrote:

: > Glenys (gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk) wrote:


: > : In message <4fbj4i$1...@independence.ecn.uoknor.edu> LeeYih Chiew wrote:
: >
: > : > * Humiliate tehm before they leave hong Kong!
: >
: > : You aren't doing very well up to now!

: >
: >
: > : --
: > : Glenys
: > : --------
: >
: > I agree with Glenys. But I would think that colonialism is largely

: > responsible for many countries not doing very well.

: It is also responsible for many countries doing very well indeed, for
: example the USA, Australia, Hong Kong.

: > I do not think the Britain


: > can be humiliated by handing over HongKong. That's just because the dirty
: > contract is gonna expire. The real humiliation to them should be something
: > they did to others and they still think it was right then. According to their
: > principle and logic, no matter what you are doing now, you can always say it
: > was right after a couple of decades.

: I think you've got it backwards. Regarding the Opium Wars, people said it


: was right at the time. After some decades people then said it was
: wrong. That is still what everybody is saying today.


: > Isn't it convinient?! Maybe we should
: > learn from them to deal with international fairs by following their principle
: > and logic when we are the number one again!!!
: ^^^^^^
: What do you mean "again"?

: --
: Glenys
: --------

Matthew

unread,
Feb 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/14/96
to
Exactly!

Wasn't Captain Perry was demoted after signing the Treaty
of Nanking because he was satisfied with taking HK which
was a small island without any natural resources.
This by itself already illustrated how worthless HK was
in the eyes of the British at that time.

It's a well known fact that HK's economy started to pick up
because of 2 events : the civil war in China forcing a lot of
capital flows into HK, and that HK benefited from the UN
embargo on China during the Korean War. Can't really see
British role here.

matthew


k...@crl.com (Guy Clinton Greenwood) wrote:

>The Brits are leeches of the world, they have sucked the life blood out
>of the world better than any of their European rivals. Spain though does
>deserve runner up, with Spain taking up the rear.
>
>Speaking of the spineless Brits, how many other countries have deserted
>their own citizens the way they are doing in Hong Kong?
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Happiness is Being an American | Guy Clinton Greenwood

> In America Speak English and Chinese | K...@Crl.com =A4=FD =B3=CD
> =A6b =AC=FC =B0=EA =BB=A1 =AD^ =BBy =A9M =BA~ =BBy | =A5=AD =A6w =AA=F8 =B9=D8 =A8=AD =C5=E9 =B0=B7 =B1d
> ________________________________________________________________
> English=A1RThe language which unites America's people as AMERICANS

Matthew

unread,
Feb 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/14/96
to
Correction : Was Captian Napier who signed Treaty of Nanking.

Unknown

unread,
Feb 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/14/96
to
Shi Huang-Ti <Lo...@singnet.com.sg> wrote:

>gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk (Glenys) wrote:
>>In message <4fpr98$7...@bignews.shef.ac.uk> Qian wrote:
>>> Glenys (gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>>>1...@independence.ecn.uoknor.edu> LeeYih Chiew wrote:
>>
>>> * Humiliate tehm before they leave hong Kong!
>>> You aren't doing very well up to now!
>

>>>I agree with Glenys. But I would think that colonialism
>>>is largely responsible for many countries not doing
>>>very well.

>>It is also responsible for many countries doing very
>>well indeed, for example the USA, Australia, Hong Kong.

>Hahahaha, America and Australia were former penal colonies


>where Britain dumps poor convicts who stole a loaf fo bread
>for their families because they were starving. I am sure
>the USA is now the strongest nation in the world because
>that they suceeded in kicking out the british early in their
>history. As for the Australians, I am advised that the faster
>they can "get rid of the bloody pommie poofters the better".
>Hong Kong is now propsering despite the British blood blodgers,
>HK is doing well because of the hard work of the Chinese
>people not because of some british assholes there who sit
>on their hands and expect a fat check every month. Shameful.

>>I think you've got it backwards. Regarding the Opium Wars,


>>people said it was right at the time. After some decades >people then said it was wrong. That is still what everybody
>>is saying today.

>>>Isn't it convinient?! Maybe we should learn from them
>>>to deal with international fairs by following their
>>>principle and logic when we are the number one again!!!
> ^^^^^^

>>What do you mean "again"?....Glenys

>In case you haven't notice Britain is now at the bottom of
>the dung pile. The Pound is a joke and so is the monarchy.
>How you guys will *ever* be number one again is also a joke.
>Its like asking Garcia of the Greatful Dead to rise again.


Right on, my friend. Britain is indeed in a pigshit-hole.


>


Unknown

unread,
Feb 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/14/96
to
gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk (Glenys) wrote:

>In message <4fos8c$4...@lantana.singnet.com.sg> Shi Huang-Ti wrote:

>> gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk (Glenys) wrote:
>> >4fgfmp$1...@berlin.infomatch.com> Glen Fisher wrote:
>> >gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk (Glenys) wrote:
>>

>> >4fbj4i$1...@independence.ecn.uoknor.edu> LeeYih Chiew wrote:
>>
>> >>Is there anybody out there familiar with the history
>> >>text book of secondary and
>> >>primary school text book in Great Britain?
>>
>>> I doubt if there is anything in primary school history books.
>>> Secondary schools will only study China if that is one of
>>> the options that the school has chosen. To choose to study

>>>. the Far East would be unusual - history is frequently
>>> limited to pre-historic, Greek,Roman, England, Europe, and
>>> then modern history in the 20th century.Added to this would
>>> be the history of the USA, Australia and India.Very few

>>> schools would know anything about the Opium Wars.

>>> Bigot.

>> >Why bigot? How can a school system study the history of
>> >the whole world? I should imagine that in most countries
>>schools first study the history of their own country, then
>>their own continent, then the history of the countries from
>>which there are a lot of immigrants. After that, it's a
>> >matter of choice what other areas should be covered.In the
>> >UK some, but not the majority, may choose to
>>study China......Glenys
>>
>> Naturally if your mother had stolen some properties from her
>> neighbour she will be too ashamed to tell you all about it

>> too.So I dont expect the Brit Govt to tell british students
>> all about the thefts by the british crown all over the world
>> for three centuries, including drug trafficking. It was a dark

>> period in the UK's past and the very least you can do to

>> atone for her sins is not try to justify her criminal actions.

>Schools are told about it - but only about the important bits, like
>India, Australia and America.

Of course they are important, since places like India, Australia and
America are places that the Brits had succesfully colonized.
As for China, the Brits could only nibble around its edges, despite
trying to colonize china unsuccessfully for a few hundred years.
Of course, the Brits would not talk about it, since they failed to
colonize china.

> I'm sorry if it hurts your self
>esteem, but what happened in China wasn't considered very important.
>Nobody's trying to hide it, it's just that it wasn't a major
>happening in UK history, even though it obviously was in yours.


That is why the Brits are bigoted. The Brits burned down imperial
buildings in china, looted for treasures in chinese palaces. Of
course, the Brits would not talk about it.

On the other hand, British history is not considered important
whatsoever in China. I am not trying to hurt you pride.

Chiew Lee Yih

unread,
Feb 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/14/96
to k6t...@iss.nus.sg
k6t...@iss.nus.sg (Eddy Tanumihardja) wrote:
>Shi Huang-Ti (Lo...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
>: too.So I dont expect the Brit Govt to tell british students

>: all about the thefts by the british crown all over the world
>: for three centuries, including drug trafficking. It was a dark
>: period in the UK's past and the very least you can do to
>: atone for her sins is not try to justify her criminal actions.
>
>True. When I was walking through the museums in Europe, I came
>across many artifacts from the Orient.
^^^^^^^
Please don't use this degradation term.
Do you like me to refer you as "Keling"?

When I checked up their
>origins, more often than not, they were the treasurers from the
>European "adventurers", a number "graciously" or "generously"
>donated by the adventurers or their families/estate to the museum
>for the enjoyment/enrichment/etc of the general public.
>
>Only a few were noted as war plunders. My colleagues from India
>was telling me that the Portuguese returned the plunders they
>looted from India years ago, but not the British. Somehow, I
>can't see the British dismantling their Crown Jewels, yet, just
>to return them to India.
>
>But just remember that few countries have spotless records when
>it comes to innocence from bullying. If these exist, it is
>usually because they were too weak to bully others.
>
>China, from before the Han Dynasty to Qing Dynasty had also
>been guilty of robbing the riches of her neighbours, either
>in the form of tributes or otherwise. I am sure the people
>of Tibet, Yunnan, Si Chuan, Manchuria, Xin Jiang etc know
>all too well.


China seized a Buddha tooth and bring it back to China when they
captured a Ceylon (Sri Lanka) King in 15th century.

The King was imprison in Nanjing, (capital of China at that time)
for more than ten years. Later, the Emperor Yong Le pardom him
and let him go home... with the national treasure of Ceylon.

Now, compare that with what whitemen did to South Asian.

I do not mean to say that Chinese is more civilize or something
like that, because I belive all nation have the same share of
bullying weaker nation too.

China has such a long history, but I couldn't recall reading about
Chinese carrying out any genocide like the one European did on
Native American.

Please give me respond,
Thank you.

Chiew Lee Yih

unread,
Feb 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/14/96
to k...@crl.com
k...@crl.com (Guy Clinton Greenwood) wrote:
>The Brits are leeches of the world, they have sucked the life blood out
>of the world better than any of their European rivals. Spain though does
>deserve runner up, with Spain taking up the rear.
>
>Speaking of the spineless Brits, how many other countries have deserted
>their own citizens the way they are doing in Hong Kong?
>

Don't worry, no nation will be strong forever, England is one of
the country in Europe that have the largest percentage of population
in poverty now, and worst of all.... even James Bond, an English agent
speak English that is closer to American accent than English
accent!!!

> ________________________________________________________________
> Happiness is Being an American | Guy Clinton Greenwood

Glenys

unread,
Feb 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/15/96
to
In message <4fsns8$u...@lantana.singnet.com.sg> Shi Huang-Ti wrote:

> gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk (Glenys) wrote:
> >In message <4fpr98$7...@bignews.shef.ac.uk> Qian wrote:
> >> Glenys (gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> >>1...@independence.ecn.uoknor.edu> LeeYih Chiew wrote:
> >
> >> * Humiliate tehm before they leave hong Kong!
> >> You aren't doing very well up to now!
>
> >>I agree with Glenys. But I would think that colonialism
> >>is largely responsible for many countries not doing
> >>very well.
>
> >It is also responsible for many countries doing very
> >well indeed, for example the USA, Australia, Hong Kong.
>
> Hahahaha, America and Australia were former penal colonies
> where Britain dumps poor convicts who stole a loaf fo bread
> for their families because they were starving. I am sure
> the USA is now the strongest nation in the world because
> that they suceeded in kicking out the british early in their
> history. As for the Australians, I am advised that the faster
> they can "get rid of the bloody pommie poofters the better".
> Hong Kong is now propsering despite the British blood blodgers,
> HK is doing well because of the hard work of the Chinese
> people not because of some british assholes there who sit
> on their hands and expect a fat check every month. Shameful.

I'm glad you agree that all these former British colonies are
doing very well.

> >>Isn't it convinient?! Maybe we should learn from them
> >>to deal with international fairs by following their
> >>principle and logic when we are the number one again!!!
> ^^^^^^
> >What do you mean "again"?....Glenys
>
> In case you haven't notice Britain is now at the bottom of
> the dung pile. The Pound is a joke and so is the monarchy.
> How you guys will *ever* be number one again is also a joke.
> Its like asking Garcia of the Greatful Dead to rise again.

Try and understand the postings just a little. The number one
under discussion was CHINA, not Britain. I was questioning
the use of the word "again". Since China has never yet been
No 1, it cannot be No 1 again.
^^^^^

--
Glenys
--------

Glenys

unread,
Feb 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/15/96
to
In message <4ftejs$8...@berlin.infomatch.com> Glen Fisher wrote:

> gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk (Glenys) wrote:

- snip -

> >Schools are told about it - but only about the important bits, like
> >India, Australia and America.
>
> Of course they are important, since places like India, Australia and
> America are places that the Brits had succesfully colonized.
> As for China, the Brits could only nibble around its edges, despite
> trying to colonize china unsuccessfully for a few hundred years.
> Of course, the Brits would not talk about it, since they failed to
> colonize china.
>
> >I'm sorry if it hurts your self esteem, but what happened in
> >China wasn't considered very important.
> >Nobody's trying to hide it, it's just that it wasn't a major
> >happening in UK history, even though it obviously was in yours.
>
> That is why the Brits are bigoted. The Brits burned down imperial
> buildings in china, looted for treasures in chinese palaces. Of
> course, the Brits would not talk about it.

It's not that the British would not talk about it, it's just that is
is not important enough to talk about - at least in this country.

> On the other hand, British history is not considered important
> whatsoever in China. I am not trying to hurt you pride.

Applying your logic, I would call you a bigot because British
history is not taught in Chinese schools. But I won't call you
that because I can see little reason for the Chinese to teach
British history. Just as I can see little reason for the British
to teach Chinese history. Therefore my pride can hardly be hurt
by such sensible behaviour.


--
Glenys
--------

Glenys

unread,
Feb 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/15/96
to
In message <4ftenb$7...@norm.uoknor.edu> Chiew Lee Yih wrote:

> Don't worry, no nation will be strong forever, England is one of
> the country in Europe that have the largest percentage of population
> in poverty now, and worst of all.... even James Bond, an English agent
> speak English that is closer to American accent than English
> accent!!!

You really know how to hurt somebody's feelings!!! The shame ...
the embarrassment ...

--
Glenys
--------

Amos Yung

unread,
Feb 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/15/96
to
In article <4ftdqh$7...@norm.uoknor.edu>, lch...@uoknor.edu says...

Oh please. That only means Chinese has the same track record of
re-writing history to their only delight as of the Japanese.
One notable genocide was carried out in the 7th century against
a small nation in the north west. The reason you didn't hear
much about it was because, unlike the European travesty, this
particular genocide was successful.

Xi Chen

unread,
Feb 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/15/96
to
In article <19960215....@simtec.simtec.demon.co.uk>,

Glenys <gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>It's not that the British would not talk about it, it's just that is
>is not important enough to talk about - at least in this country.
>

Of course, the opium war is not important in British history because it
did too many evil things in their history, like colonism in India, slavery
in North America and genocide of American indians. It would be unfair to
mention one but not another. But if you mention all of them, it will make
today's Chinese Government like Saint.

Michael Lee

unread,
Feb 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/15/96
to
gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk (Glenys) wrote:
>singnet.com.sg> Shi Huang-Ti wrote:

>>Hahahaha, America and Australia were former penal colonies
>>where Britain dumps poor convicts who stole a loaf fo bread
>>for their families because they were starving. I am sure
>>the USA is now the strongest nation in the world because
>>that they suceeded in kicking out the british early in their
>>history. As for the Australians, I am advised that
>>the faster they can "get rid of the bloody pommie

>>poofters the better".Hong Kong is now propsering despite
>>the British blood(y) blodgers, HK is doing well because of

>>the hard work of the Chinese people not because of some >>british assholes there who sit on their hands and expect
>>a fat check every month. Shameful.

>I'm glad you agree that all these former British colonies are
>doing very well.

>>Isn't it convinient?! Maybe we should learn from them
>>to deal with international fairs by following their
>>principle and logic when we are the number one again!!!
^^^^^^
>>>What do you mean "again"?....Glenys

>>In case you haven't notice Britain is now at the bottom of
>>the dung pile. The Pound is a joke and so is the monarchy.
>>How you guys will *ever* be number one again is also a joke.
>>Its like asking Garcia of the Greatful Dead to rise again.

>Try and understand the postings just a little.The number
>one under discussion was CHINA, not Britain. I was >questioning the use of the word "again". Since China has >never yet been No=


1, it cannot be No 1 again. ^^^^^

Correction. China was No 1 when your forefathers were
still huddled in caves and eating wild animals with bare
hands was considered a luxury. Hahahahaha


Glenys

unread,
Feb 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/15/96
to

Nothing could make today's Chinese government look like saints!

But regarding history, did China never colonise anywhere (perhaps
Mongolia?), did they never have any slaves, were they never responsible
for genocide (perhaps Tibet?)

--
Glenys
--------

Glenys

unread,
Feb 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/15/96
to
In message <4fvpqe$f...@lantana.singnet.com.sg> Michael Lee wrote:

> gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk (Glenys) wrote:
> >I'm glad you agree that all these former British colonies are
> >doing very well.
>
> >>Isn't it convinient?! Maybe we should learn from them
> >>to deal with international fairs by following their
> >>principle and logic when we are the number one again!!!
>

> >>>What do you mean "again"?....Glenys
>
> >>In case you haven't notice Britain is now at the bottom of
> >>the dung pile. The Pound is a joke and so is the monarchy.
> >>How you guys will *ever* be number one again is also a joke.
> >>Its like asking Garcia of the Greatful Dead to rise again.
>
> >Try and understand the postings just a little.The number
> >one under discussion was CHINA, not Britain. I was
> >questioning the use of the word "again". Since China has

> >never yet been No 1, it cannot be No 1 again.

> Correction. China was No 1 when your forefathers were
> still huddled in caves and eating wild animals with bare
> hands was considered a luxury. Hahahahaha

I repeat China has never been No 1. That position was shared
by the civilisations of the Nile valley and Mesopotamia.
Didn't you study history at school? Or did you study only
Chinese history?

--
Glenys
--------

Eddy Tanumihardja

unread,
Feb 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/15/96
to
Chiew Lee Yih (lch...@uoknor.edu) wrote:
: k6t...@iss.nus.sg (Eddy Tanumihardja) wrote:
: >True. When I was walking through the museums in Europe, I came

: >across many artifacts from the Orient.
: ^^^^^^^
: Please don't use this degradation term.
: Do you like me to refer you as "Keling"?

Sorry that you felt it to be degrading. In where I speak,
Orient is NOT a degrading term. It came from the latin word
which meant "East", just as "Occident" meant "West". No more,
no less. East of where ? Europe, as the Europeans had to travel
east to reach here. Why are the Europeans called Occidentals ?
"cos they live west of the Asians and are called such by asians.
Why are Americans also called occidentals ? 'Cos they look the same.
Period.

Frankly, I have no idea what is "keling", and I doubt it is worth
knowing.

: China has such a long history, but I couldn't recall reading about


: Chinese carrying out any genocide like the one European did on
: Native American.

Unfortunately, they did. The minority tribes are not pacified
but carrot but often mass-killing to warn others. Furthermore,
if you can recall, migration of nomadic tribes into the west
where partly due to the chinese driving them far away.

Lu Chai

unread,
Feb 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/15/96
to
Hung J Lu wrote:

> In year 221 B.C, China dispatched troops to invade
> the areas in the Deep South. This is a major event
> that Qin Shi-Huang carried out after he unified China.
> The total number of the troops was 500,000 (0.5 million).
>
> Why did China decide to invade the lands in the
> Deep South? The main reason was economical factors:
> Deep South was abundant in resources, including
> rhino, ivory, jade, pearls, silver, bronze, fruits,
> textile, poison, etc.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
cannot agree, at THAT time, such places you mentioned above is regarded
as full of toxic gases from jungles thus not suitable for civilized peo
ple to live.

Ancient Chinese sodiers were among the most home-missing troops. It is
because they do not want to leave their home, their wife and children,
lose their lives for the glory of the king, or empior.

Hung J Lu

unread,
Feb 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/16/96
to

Well, in Han dynasty, the native people near Zhejiang were completely
massacred by the Chinese army (somewhere between Yangtze River and
Huai River). A whole nation was wiped out. Chinese history books don't
even dare to mention the figure. In Qing dynasty, the brutal army chased
and killed the Miao people like crazy. This resulted in the scattered
pattern of the Miao population in Chinese. Those who escaped to Indochina
are now known as Hmong, who, unfortunately, had to escape one more time
due to the Vietnam war, and now are scattered all over the world.
Chinese army did not always win, though. The Yi people were particularly
fierce, and owned their own army and weapon even till the days of
the People's republic. Before that, the Chinese armies did not dare
to enter Yi territories.

China never colonized anywhere? Biggest joke of the last 5 millenia.
China did not exist South of the Yangtze River, north of the
Great Wall. It's really pathetic to see Cantonese people not
realizing that more than half of their ancestors were not even
Chinese. China never colonize anywhere? HA HA HA, what is Guangdong,
then? Cantonese people even carry the non-sinitic voices of their
ancestors, and they think they are 100% Chinese. HA! Tang people,
Tang people, you forget that you are also Tai people. Don't worship
wrong ancestors.

Prime time to practice my Hoklo writing again! There we go:

Year 221 B.C.: The Great Rape of the Deep South
===============================================

G.G.z. der 221 Nii: Bir Vulriog e Naamfhong
===========================================

Dir Gong-Gyoaan zeenh` der 221 nii, Dionggok chut-beng
cimjiamp naamfhong e gokk deurhyng. Je sir dir Ziin
Shix-Hoong (Qin Shi-Huang) tolng'it Dionggok liaul'aur soul
zoex `chutlaai e jid duar dairjix. Beng-gyiah lolngzolng ur
50,0000 laang (0.5 million).

Dionggok sir alnznuaq er veuh kix cimjiamp naamfhong
duardeur `ne? Zulyaux e gyoaanyin sir gengjex yinsoux:
Naamfhong itdair e zugyoaan jin fhongfux, baukuat
sxaigak (sxaigwuu e gak), cniurgyee, boljioq (fuilcuix),
tinzhu, gyyyn, cnedaang, zuilgol luir, phalngzhit luir,
dogpiln luir, dd.

Wirdioq liaul veuh kix konkzhex jiah e zugyoaan,
Ziin Shix-Hoong paix duarbeng cimfuarn naamfhong.
Jit 50,0000 beng bienzoex gwour duar gun` funsxnuax`
loeq naam. Der it gun` pah Guixliim (Gylngse), der rir
gun pah Gylngse dangbakbour, der sahn gun pah Fuan-Gwuu,
(dir ginalrid e Gylngdang gelng`lair) der ssix gun pah Gylngdang
dangbakbour, der gwour gun senh pah Hokkien, Hokkien pah liaul`
goh zualnkix gyoarnzour pah Gylngdang e bourduir.

Zentgol ryyhoo? Jid nii lair` Dionggok tunjiamp liaul Hokkien,
Gylngdang, gah Gylngse bakbour. Cun Gylngse sebour, Gylngse
naambour, gah Annaam itdair voo jiamp `dioq. Jiah cun-e e
soulzair gaux Gong-Gyoaan zeenh` der 214 nii jiah guisiu ribkix
Dionggok.

Gylngdang zur zent'liaul dioq kix hour Dionggok konkzhex
diaau` le. Darnsir Hokkien e zeengxeeng kah hogzab `jid gual.
Leen Hann diaau mar voo zaaidiaur sidzex kix konkzhex Hokkien.
Itdid gaux Jinn diaau Hokkien mjiah waanzoaan bentzoex Dionggok
e jid bourfurn.

Legsul siorng` nalcniur voo xioongssex gaodaix hiah e
bengzut tuexngoul liaul'aur sir laau dir naamfhong iahsir
dylngkix bakfhong. Darnsir wix hiah'nir duar e bourduir
riinsoux knuax `killai, virnaan caixiolng golng ur jid bourfurn
e bengzut doqsir aurlaai naamfhonglaang e Hannriin xettolng
zoulsen.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In year 221 B.C, China dispatched troops to invade
the areas in the Deep South. This is a major event
that Qin Shi-Huang carried out after he unified China.
The total number of the troops was 500,000 (0.5 million).

Why did China decide to invade the lands in the
Deep South? The main reason was economical factors:
Deep South was abundant in resources, including
rhino, ivory, jade, pearls, silver, bronze, fruits,
textile, poison, etc.

In order to control these resources, Qin Shi-Huang
dispatched a large contingent to invade the Deep South.
These 500,000 troops were divided into 5 divisions.
The first division attacked Guilin (Guangxi), the
second division attacked the northeast area of Guangxi,
the third division attacked Fan-Yu (inside today's
Guangdong), the fourth division attacked the northeast
area of Guangdong, the fifth division first attacked
Fujian, then later went to assist the divisions in
Guangdong.

Results? In merely one year, China occupied Fujian, Guangdong,
and the north of Guangxi. The west and south of Guangxi,
and Annam (today's northern Vietnam) were left. These latter
regions were not occupied by China till 214 B.C.

Guangdong fell into China's control after these wars.
But the situation in Fujian was more complex. Not even
Han dynasty was able to fully control Fujian. Only in
Jin dynasty did Fujian become a part of China.

History seems not very clear on the whereabouts of the soldiers
after these wars. But from the large size of the army, it's
not difficult to conceive that part of the troops were among
the first Han ancestors of the Southerners.

-- Ekki

John Reeves

unread,
Feb 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/16/96
to
i generally abstain from the kind of nationalist bullshit that is going down in
this thread, regarding patriotism as the proverbial last refuge for fools and
scoundrels, but...

you may be interested to know that China was indeed "number one", if i am to
concede the term any meaning at all, in the eighth century

Chang'an, modern day Xi'an, was the largest and most cosmopolitan city in the
world, with incense from Indonesia, Japanese silver, exotic fruits from Siam,
Persian carpets, Byzantine coins, Spanish olive oil, and students from all
over the world

i say this not barrack for China, nor to put down any other nation, but rather
to fill in some fascinating details of an age that is generally painted as
simply "dark" and uninteresting

john reeves

anarchist, internationalist


Mark Lee

unread,
Feb 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/16/96
to
Lin Kai Hsiang <twi...@ms2.hinet.net> wrote:

>A friend of mine recently visited China and not only witnessed people
>living in caves and eating wild animals with their hands but sadly also
>discovered a dead female baby. Is this where 5000 years of culture can
>lead ?
>

Nope, what your friend saw was what bad government could do to a culture
that is 5000+ years old. A culture cannot commit any of the atrocities
we talked about in this thread. It was the British people who plundered
and raided. It was the PRC government that let its people live sub-humane
style. British culture or Chinese culture were not guilty of such a
crime.


Qian

unread,
Feb 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/16/96
to
Glenys (gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > I agree with Glenys. But I would think that colonialism is largely
: > responsible for many countries not doing very well.

: It is also responsible for many countries doing very well indeed, for
: example the USA, Australia, Hong Kong.

I don't think you can regard the USA, Austrealia and Canada as independent
ex-colonial country. As you can see, there are obvious differeces between
those countries and countries like India, Pakistan, Burma(sp?) etc. In north
America and Australia, white Europeans systematically wiped out local native
people by slaught and enslaving. Based on that you set up you own regim which
were not colony any more but you expanded territory. They became independent
from their motherland not really from a foreign power. HongKong doing well
is an exemption which would be impossible without Chinese government's
coorpration (supply water, electricity, food...).

: > I do not think the Britain
: > can be humiliated by handing over HongKong. That's just because the dirty
: > contract is gonna expire. The real humiliation to them should be something
: > they did to others and they still think it was right then. According to their
: > principle and logic, no matter what you are doing now, you can always say it
: > was right after a couple of decades.

: I think you've got it backwards. Regarding the Opium Wars, people said it
: was right at the time. After some decades people then said it was


: wrong. That is still what everybody is saying today.

Well, I wish I've got it backwards about the Opium War. At least you still
think the colonialism was right at the time, do you! It's controversail at
least!

: > Isn't it convinient?! Maybe we should

: > learn from them to deal with international fairs by following their principle
: > and logic when we are the number one again!!!

: ^^^^^^
: What do you mean "again"?
: --
: Glenys
: --------

Surely you don't understand. That's why you need to be taught more world
history, especially the history before British Industrial Revolution!!!

Q Chen

bz70...@gamma.ntu.ac.sg

unread,
Feb 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/16/96
to
In article <4fv5rv$l...@sage.cc.purdue.edu>, xc...@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Xi Chen) writes:
> In article <19960215....@simtec.simtec.demon.co.uk>,
> Glenys <gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>It's not that the British would not talk about it, it's just that is
>>is not important enough to talk about - at least in this country.
>>
>
> Of course, the opium war is not important in British history because it
> did too many evil things in their history, like colonism in India, slavery
> in North America and genocide of American indians. It would be unfair to
> mention one but not another. But if you mention all of them, it will make
> today's Chinese Government like Saint.
>
>

Sort of remind me of the Japanese not talking about the 2nd world war in their
tesxt books. Double standards or Different times???
Or maybe the Opium WAr is not EVIL enough???

Stay hot!


F. Xia

unread,
Feb 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/16/96
to
In article <19960215....@simtec.simtec.demon.co.uk>,
gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk (Glenys) writes:
>
> I repeat China has never been No 1. That position was shared
> by the civilisations of the Nile valley and Mesopotamia.
> Didn't you study history at school? Or did you study only
> Chinese history?
>
More precisely it was not really meaningful
to designate a No.1 position to any nation
before world-wide communications reached
the stage of say the middle of last century
simply because everybody was a regional
power at best. Therefore using the old
"great power" gauge the world has seen two
"No.1"'s: Britain and the USA. The next one
might well be a United Europe if they can
get their acts together. And the next one
to that would be the whole world together
if we can get our acts together.

Regards, Fei

Jihong Dai

unread,
Feb 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/16/96
to
In article <4g0j83$r...@news.ccit.arizona.edu> h...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu (Hung J Lu) writes:
Ekki writes:

>Well, in Han dynasty, the native people near Zhejiang were completely
>massacred by the Chinese army (somewhere between Yangtze River and
>Huai River). A whole nation was wiped out. Chinese history books don't
>even dare to mention the figure.

[big snip]

Ekki: I hate to point out a minor mistake in your "wonderfully" bloody
story. Zhejiang (the province) is NOT between the Huai River and the
Yangtze. It is way south of the Yangtze, while the Huai is roughly 100
km north of the Yangtze. So people "near Zhejing" could not bave
been "between [the] Yangtze and [the] Huai," unless you define "near"
broadly.

BTW, I don't like the attitude in your story-telling. It sounds too
simplistic, and it ressembles strongly some kind of propaganda.

Jihong


Wei Xin

unread,
Feb 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/16/96
to
In article <19960215....@simtec.simtec.demon.co.uk>, glenys@

>Nothing could make today's Chinese government look like saints!
>
>But regarding history, did China never colonise anywhere (perhaps
>Mongolia?), did they never have any slaves, were they never responsible
>for genocide (perhaps Tibet?)
>
>--
>Glenys
>--------


How much history knowledge you have? China was clonized by Mongolia,you
understand? Chinese gave up slave system several thousands years ago,when
Qin Dynastry began around 300BC.Where were your ancenster doing at that time?
Comparing British's Ireland problem, Tibet is not a problem. There was an
American film talking about how British goverment used tanks crashed down
Irelish Republican protests, how the police treated the innocent and planted
evidenve to wrong the people.
When British can handle their own problem, then they are qualify to finger
the Chinese goverment.

Chinese goverment is not saint, but comparing British goverment it might be.
I just wonder Chinese asked Japanese apology for WWII,why didn't ask British's
apology for Opium War, 1860 British-French alliance invading, 1900 burning
down Yuan-ming-yuan.


wei

Hung J Lu

unread,
Feb 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/16/96
to
In article <jidai.90...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

Jihong Dai <ji...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>In article <4g0j83$r...@news.ccit.arizona.edu> h...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu (Hung J Lu) writes:
>Ekki writes:
>
>>Well, in Han dynasty, the native people near Zhejiang were completely
>>massacred by the Chinese army (somewhere between Yangtze River and
>>Huai River). A whole nation was wiped out. Chinese history books don't
>>even dare to mention the figure.
>
>[big snip]
>
>Ekki: I hate to point out a minor mistake in your "wonderfully" bloody
>story. Zhejiang (the province) is NOT between the Huai River and the
>Yangtze. It is way south of the Yangtze, while the Huai is roughly 100
>km north of the Yangtze. So people "near Zhejing" could not bave
>been "between [the] Yangtze and [the] Huai," unless you define "near"
>broadly.

Well, thanks very much. It was not a minor mistake, it was a huge
mistake on my part. I misread the word "Tu2 Chu3", I thought it
meant "executed", while in reality it was "marched and located".
The people in question were the citizens of Dong1 Ou1, a type of
Yue4 people who lived in northern Fujian and possibly southern
Zhejiang. In Han dynasty, there was a revolt, and the emperor Wu
decided to exterminate Min3-Yue4. The story is a bit more complicated.
Dong1-Ou1 is really to the north of Min3-Yue4. The Gao1 Emperor
of Han dynasty gave both regions to Wu2-Zhu1 (a native Min person).
Now, apparently Min3-Yue4 attacked Dong1-Ou1 first. Dong1-Ou1, which
we may call "Han collaborateurs" :-) , asked for help to the Han army.
This part of history is a bit confusing, since the term Min3-Yue4
at times refers only to the true Min3-Yue4 and at times includes
Dong1-Ou1 as well. Anyway, Han emperor dispatched army to help the
Dong1-Ou1 people, and destroyed Min3-Yue4 (how exactly, I don't know).
To avoid further problems, the citizens of Dong1-Ou1 were RELOCATED
(not EXECUTED, as I misunderstood) to the region between Yangtze and
Huai. Very good, so, Ou1-Yue4 people decided to move north into Han
territories to avoid further attacks from Min3-Yue4, while Min3-Yue4
people got their kingdom destroyed and had to escape to the mountains.

Not as bloody as I thought... :-)

-- Ekki

lch...@uoknor.edu

unread,
Feb 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/16/96
to gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk
gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk (Glenys) wrote:

>I repeat China has never been No 1. That position was shared
>by the civilisations of the Nile valley and Mesopotamia.
>Didn't you study history at school? Or did you study only
>Chinese history?
>

>--
>Glenys
>--------


Ha! Ha! You must be idiot, during Tang Dynasty, merchant from
Persia (Iran) came all the way to ChangAn (The largest Metropolitan
in China and the world at the time) to buy silk with gold. (yes, gold!)
Those poor fellow have to endure so much hardship in the desert, there
were pirates, poison snakes... all along the famous silk road, (or silk
highway?) just to satisfied the need of rich people back home, (to wear
beautiful clothing).

You know what? Persia at that time is the No. 2 nation in the world,
even the No. 2 is that far away from No. 1, you English have never
achived that kind of glory and you never will!


lch...@uoknor.edu

unread,
Feb 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/16/96
to gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk

I forgot to add something--

Average income of people in Hong Kong and Singapore (ruled by Brits
before) is higher than Britain today.

lch...@uoknor.edu

unread,
Feb 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/16/96
to m...@singnet.com.sg
Michael Lee <m...@singnet.com.sg> wrote:

>>>In case you haven't notice Britain is now at the bottom of
>>>the dung pile. The Pound is a joke and so is the monarchy.
>>>How you guys will *ever* be number one again is also a joke.
>>>Its like asking Garcia of the Greatful Dead to rise again.
>
>>Try and understand the postings just a little.The number

>>one under discussion was CHINA, not Britain. I was >questioning the use of the word "again". Since China has >never yet been No=
> 1, it cannot be No 1 again. ^^^^^


>Correction. China was No 1 when your forefathers were
>still huddled in caves and eating wild animals with bare
>hands was considered a luxury. Hahahahaha
>


I am absolutely agree with you.


Glenys

unread,
Feb 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/16/96
to
In message <16FEB199...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu> Wei Xin wrote:

> In article <19960215....@simtec.simtec.demon.co.uk>, glenys@
> >Nothing could make today's Chinese government look like saints!
> >
> >But regarding history, did China never colonise anywhere (perhaps
> >Mongolia?), did they never have any slaves, were they never responsible
> >for genocide (perhaps Tibet?)
> >
> >--
> >Glenys
> >--------
>
>
> How much history knowledge you have? China was clonized by Mongolia,you
> understand?

How much history knowledge do you have? Why isn't Inner Mongolia free?

> Chinese gave up slave system several thousands years ago,when
> Qin Dynastry began around 300BC.

So there have been no slaves in China for 3000 years? There were
the Shang dynasty, but there were also slaves in Chou, Han, Three
Kingdoms, Western Chin, Toba, Sung, Ming etc. etc.

> Comparing British's Ireland problem, Tibet is not a problem. There was an
> American film talking about how British goverment used tanks crashed down
> Irelish Republican protests, how the police treated the innocent and planted
> evidenve to wrong the people.

Now I know why your understanding of history is a little inaccurate.
You learn it from Hollywood films. That's a bit like saying "I know
there are slaves in China because I saw them in a Bruce Lee film".


--
Glenys
--------

Glenys

unread,
Feb 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/16/96
to
In message <4g1rda$d...@bignews.shef.ac.uk> Qian wrote:

I have previously expressed my view on the colonialism, especially that
of Tibet by PRC. Whatever makes you think that anybody (other than a
PRC citizen) would support that?


> Surely you don't understand. That's why you need to be taught more world
> history, especially the history before British Industrial Revolution!!!
>
> Q Chen

In your narrow-mindedness, do you believe that "world history" equates
with "Chinese history"?


--
Glenys
--------

Glenys

unread,
Feb 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/16/96
to

Yes, but how many people eally enjoy living there?
Myself, I prefer to live in the countryside well away from towns.

--
Glenys
--------

kang...@gold.tc.umn.edu

unread,
Feb 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/16/96
to
ji...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jihong Dai) writes:

>In article <4g0j83$r...@news.ccit.arizona.edu> h...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu (Hung J Lu) writes:
>Ekki writes:

>>Well, in Han dynasty, the native people near Zhejiang were completely
>>massacred by the Chinese army (somewhere between Yangtze River and
>>Huai River). A whole nation was wiped out. Chinese history books don't
>>even dare to mention the figure.

[..]


>BTW, I don't like the attitude in your story-telling. It sounds too
>simplistic, and it ressembles strongly some kind of propaganda.

Well! I hope your excellence can accept my version. :)

"In Han dynasty, the native people near Zhejiang were completely unified
by the Chinese army. A whole nation was not totally wiped out except
those who conducted and supported the movement that impiously split the
holy and inseparable territory of China. ..... " :)


kang...@gold.tc.umn.edu

unread,
Feb 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/16/96
to
Lu Chai <ch...@ecn.purdue.edu> writes:

>Hung J Lu wrote:

>> In year 221 B.C, China dispatched troops to invade
>> the areas in the Deep South. This is a major event
>> that Qin Shi-Huang carried out after he unified China.
>> The total number of the troops was 500,000 (0.5 million).
>>
>> Why did China decide to invade the lands in the
>> Deep South? The main reason was economical factors:
>> Deep South was abundant in resources, including
>> rhino, ivory, jade, pearls, silver, bronze, fruits,
>> textile, poison, etc.

>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


>cannot agree, at THAT time, such places you mentioned above is regarded
>as full of toxic gases from jungles thus not suitable for civilized peo
>ple to live.

>Ancient Chinese sodiers were among the most home-missing troops. It is
>because they do not want to leave their home, their wife and children,
>lose their lives for the glory of the king, or empior.

Then why didn't they rebel the order of their rulers?


Jian Huang

unread,
Feb 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/16/96
to
kang...@gold.tc.umn.edu wrote:
>
> ji...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jihong Dai) writes:
>
> >In article <4g0j83$r...@news.ccit.arizona.edu> h...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu (Hung J Lu) writes:
> >Ekki writes:
>
> >>Well, in Han dynasty, the native people near Zhejiang were completely
> >>massacred by the Chinese army (somewhere between Yangtze River and
> >>Huai River). A whole nation was wiped out. Chinese history books don't
> >>even dare to mention the figure.
>
> [..]
>
> >BTW, I don't like the attitude in your story-telling. It sounds too
> >simplistic, and it ressembles strongly some kind of propaganda.
>
> Well! I hope your excellence can accept my version. :)
>
> "In Han dynasty, the native people near Zhejiang were completely unified
> by the Chinese army. A whole nation was not totally wiped out except
> those who conducted and supported the movement that impiously split the
> holy and inseparable territory of China. ..... " :)

So, if the Chinese History dared not to mention th figure, how could
you wisely find this out? From Japanese history? Well, Japanese are
reall honest. They don't even remember Nanjing massacare, which was only
fifty years ago.

What you described is not like Chinese, but like what Japs did fifty
years ago, yes, those dirty fucking Japs. At lease what they wanted to
do.

Jingsheng

Glenys

unread,
Feb 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/16/96
to
In message <1996Feb1...@alder.cc.kcl.ac.uk> F. Xia wrote:

> In article <19960215....@simtec.simtec.demon.co.uk>,

> gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk (Glenys) writes:
> >
> > I repeat China has never been No 1. That position was shared
> > by the civilisations of the Nile valley and Mesopotamia.
> > Didn't you study history at school? Or did you study only
> > Chinese history?
> >

> More precisely it was not really meaningful
> to designate a No.1 position to any nation
> before world-wide communications reached
> the stage of say the middle of last century
> simply because everybody was a regional
> power at best. Therefore using the old
> "great power" gauge the world has seen two
> "No.1"'s: Britain and the USA. The next one
> might well be a United Europe if they can
> get their acts together. And the next one
> to that would be the whole world together
> if we can get our acts together.
>
> Regards, Fei

I couldn't agree most with your final statement.
But I'm not sure that a United Europe would be
likely to help the "one world" ideal.

The trouble with the EU is that it is too inward
looking, and isn't paying enough attention to what
is going on in the rest of the world.

--
Glenys
--------

Herbert Xu

unread,
Feb 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/17/96
to
Glen Fisher () wrote:
: gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk (Glenys) wrote:
:
: >In message <4fos8c$4...@lantana.singnet.com.sg> Shi Huang-Ti wrote:
:
: That is why the Brits are bigoted. The Brits burned down imperial
: buildings in china, looted for treasures in chinese palaces. Of
: course, the Brits would not talk about it.

Well, I thought on this point, the communists did much better than the
British Army:)

--
A. B <=> True B. A <=> False
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <her...@greathan.apana.org.au>
PGP Key: pgp-pub...@pgp.mit.edu or any other key sites

TuRtLe

unread,
Feb 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/17/96
to
lch...@uoknor.edu wrote:

Not only Tang Dynasty, Chun, Han, Yuen, Ming, Ching....
They were all very big and strong dynasties

Although I don't know whether they were no. 1 or not, who the hell
can really set a reference point telling the ranking of nations in
the world??

: Ha! Ha! You must be idiot, during Tang Dynasty, merchant from

: Persia (Iran) came all the way to ChangAn (The largest Metropolitan
: in China and the world at the time) to buy silk with gold. (yes, gold!)
: Those poor fellow have to endure so much hardship in the desert, there
: were pirates, poison snakes... all along the famous silk road, (or silk
: highway?) just to satisfied the need of rich people back home, (to wear
: beautiful clothing).

: You know what? Persia at that time is the No. 2 nation in the world,
: even the No. 2 is that far away from No. 1, you English have never
: achived that kind of glory and you never will!


--
E-mail: tur...@unixg.ubc.ca tur...@unix.infoserve.ca
Call sign: Victor Echo 7 Victor Sierra India
Give Blood, Save Life!

So what ?

unread,
Feb 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/17/96
to
>gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk (Glenys) wrote:
>
>>I repeat China has never been No 1. That position was shared
>>by the civilisations of the Nile valley and Mesopotamia.
>>Didn't you study history at school? Or did you study only
>>Chinese history?

So what if China is No 1 but most of her people are living in hardwship
and ruled by tyrants and a bunch of evil officers?

The No.1 position would stay for just like a spiky moment over times

Amos Yung

unread,
Feb 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/17/96
to
In article <19960215....@simtec.simtec.demon.co.uk>, gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk+
says...

>
>In message <4fvpqe$f...@lantana.singnet.com.sg> Michael Lee wrote:
>

>> Correction. China was No 1 when your forefathers were
>> still huddled in caves and eating wild animals with bare
>> hands was considered a luxury. Hahahahaha
>

>I repeat China has never been No 1. That position was shared
>by the civilisations of the Nile valley and Mesopotamia.
>Didn't you study history at school? Or did you study only
>Chinese history?
>

No. 1 of what? The first human civilization? The greatest
civilization on earth (at what time?)? Greatest miliatry
power? Gold medal in international beach volleyball?

Or you just have your blood boil when somebody put "Chinese"
and "no. 1" in the same sentence. Better take a look at your
knee. Looks like its jerking.

>--
>Glenys
>--------


Noah Benjamin Ravitz

unread,
Feb 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/17/96
to
Matthew wrote:
>
> Exactly!
>
> Wasn't Captain Perry was demoted after signing the Treaty
> of Nanking because he was satisfied with taking HK which
> was a small island without any natural resources.
> This by itself already illustrated how worthless HK was
> in the eyes of the British at that time.

You're a fool and so were those who persecuted the Captain (wasn't Perry, he
was the American who visited Japan). If nothing else, Hong Kong has the
finest natural harbor in the world, better even than New York Harbor. Those
men of vision who were running the Empire at that time were able to see the
potential of this marvelous naval base, trading center and invulnerable pain
in the ass to the Chinese.
>
> It's a well known fact that HK's economy started to pick up
> because of 2 events : the civil war in China forcing a lot of
> capital flows into HK, and that HK benefited from the UN
> embargo on China during the Korean War. Can't really see
> British role here.

It's a well known fact that British traders made Hong Kong an enormously
wealthy piece of rock long before the Chinese started killing each other (as
if they ever stopped) in 1911 (if I recall aright; I assume you mean Sun
Yat-Sen's time). But since you hate Britain and want to belittle the fact
that they, unlike the Chinese for five thousand years, were able to create
something out of nothing--or were the Chinese scheduled to transform the
worthless rock into a paradise if only the Brits hadn't come? Don't make me
laugh! The Chinese invented paper and gunpowder and have been skating on
credit ever since. What was the last technological advance out of that
benighted pesthole? When they toss out the butchers who lead China then
they'll be worth attention, and not before.


Noah Ravitz

Chris Chou

unread,
Feb 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/17/96
to
In article <4g2oia$m...@norm.uoknor.edu> lch...@uoknor.edu writes:
>
>
>Ha! Ha! You must be idiot, during Tang Dynasty, merchant from
>Persia (Iran) came all the way to ChangAn (The largest Metropolitan
>in China and the world at the time) to buy silk with gold. (yes, gold!)
>Those poor fellow have to endure so much hardship in the desert, there
>were pirates, poison snakes... all along the famous silk road, (or silk
>highway?) just to satisfied the need of rich people back home, (to wear
>beautiful clothing).
>
>You know what? Persia at that time is the No. 2 nation in the world,
>even the No. 2 is that far away from No. 1, you English have never
>achived that kind of glory and you never will!
>

I really think you should read more history books before opening your mouth,
(maybe also think about who is really the idiot) :))
It was not Persia. It was an Arabic empire (Da4 Shi2 empire)
which existed at the same time as Tang.
Moreover, Tang sent a general "Kao (Gao) Hsian (Xian) Chih (Zhih)" westward
and tried to conquere more territory, but..., heyhey, he was defeated by
this Arabic empire. And Tang's westward advance stopped, maybe due to this
defeat and also the domestic problems.

cc
--
~~~
@-@
--------------------------oo0--U--0oo---------------------------

who

unread,
Feb 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/17/96
to Hung J Lu
> -- Ekki

Hi, man,

What the fuck are you talking about?

Are you a Chinese or a Janpanese? Keep you fucking bullshit,
swallow it by yourself.

Matthew

unread,
Feb 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/17/96
to
Noah Benjamin Ravitz <nra...@haven.ios.com> wrote:
>Matthew wrote:
>>
>> Exactly!
>>
>> Wasn't Captain Perry was demoted after signing the Treaty
>> of Nanking because he was satisfied with taking HK which
>> was a small island without any natural resources.
>> This by itself already illustrated how worthless HK was
>> in the eyes of the British at that time.
>
>You're a fool and so were those who persecuted the Captain (wasn't Perry, he
>was the American who visited Japan). If nothing else, Hong Kong has the
>finest natural harbor in the world, better even than New York Harbor. Those
>men of vision who were running the Empire at that time were able to see the
>potential of this marvelous naval base, trading center and invulnerable pain
>in the ass to the Chinese.


Perhaps you misunderstood my words or why did you compare me with
those who recalled Lord Napier after he signed the Treaty of
Nanking. Why I put it here was trying to point out that HK
didn't seem that important to the Brits. And later on when
HK become prosperous they simply attribute the success to
British rule - disregarding other factors which in my
opinion had been more important.

>>
>> It's a well known fact that HK's economy started to pick up
>> because of 2 events : the civil war in China forcing a lot of
>> capital flows into HK, and that HK benefited from the UN
>> embargo on China during the Korean War. Can't really see
>> British role here.
>
>It's a well known fact that British traders made Hong Kong an enormously
>wealthy piece of rock long before the Chinese started killing each other (as
>if they ever stopped) in 1911 (if I recall aright; I assume you mean Sun
>Yat-Sen's time). But since you hate Britain and want to belittle the fact
>that they, unlike the Chinese for five thousand years, were able to create
>something out of nothing--or were the Chinese scheduled to transform the
>worthless rock into a paradise if only the Brits hadn't come? Don't make me
>laugh! The Chinese invented paper and gunpowder and have been skating on
>credit ever since. What was the last technological advance out of that
>benighted pesthole? When they toss out the butchers who lead China then
>they'll be worth attention, and not before.
>
>

So you think they were so great and were able to create a fortune
from nothing. How about others which were formerly under British rule?
If any of these places are prosperous then it must have because
of the marvellous achievements of the British. And if they are in
a mess then it's not the British govt's fault?


Matthew

Ming Yeung

unread,
Feb 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/17/96
to
In article <DMwtz...@bigtop.dr.att.com>,

Chris Chou <ccc...@dogbert.dr.att.com> wrote:
>
>Moreover, Tang sent a general "Kao (Gao) Hsian (Xian) Chih (Zhih)" westward
>and tried to conquere more territory, but..., heyhey, he was defeated by
>this Arabic empire. And Tang's westward advance stopped, maybe due to this

Not 'this Arabic Empire', should be the united troops of Da Shi
and all soldiers from the countries around Turanian Plain, Caucasus and
East Africa.

There's almost no way for Tang Chao to win this battle, given that the
long way of expedition and supply line, the unknown terrain and the
weather, etc etc. (ALmost the same problems the Crusades faced several
hundred years later.)

>defeat and also the domestic problems.

I'd it's both. :)


Ming " BTW, Tang Chao is my favourite band. Long live Chinese Rock !! "


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ming Yeung (kann...@inforamp.net)

URL:http://www.inforamp.net/~kanninan (Netscape 2.0 required.)

---------->>>> N E W L Y U P D A T E D <<<<----------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

|||||||||||||
||||||||| |||||||||||||
|| || || ||
||||||||||||| | ||| ||
|| || || || || ||
|| ||||||| || || || ||
|| || ||| ||| || | ||
|| |||||||||||||||||| || || || |
||||||||| | || |||
|| | || || |
|| || || || ||
| ||||| ||| ||||||||||||||
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


Toh Hwee Meng Michael

unread,
Feb 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/17/96
to
In article <kang0024....@gold.tc.umn.edu>,
kang...@gold.tc.umn.edu writes:
>>Ancient Chinese sodiers were among the most home-missing troops. It is
>>because they do not want to leave their home, their wife and children,
>>lose their lives for the glory of the king, or empior.
>
> Then why didn't they rebel the order of their rulers?
>
You are asking for it, aren't u? Writing on things tat u can't be
bothered to check up. The soldiers did rebel. When the 1st Qin Emperor died,
the Qin Empire ended with his son. The soldiers and workers sent to the borders
rebelled. Thus ended the Qin Dynasty and in its ashes , the Han Dynasty was
borned.

Toh Hwee Meng Michael

SE3 - Tan Yew Hock

unread,
Feb 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/17/96
to
Glenys (gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In message <4g2oq0$n...@norm.uoknor.edu> you wrote:
: > Average income of people in Hong Kong and Singapore (ruled by Brits
: > before) is higher than Britain today.

: Yes, but how many people eally enjoy living there?

This is a very strange question.
You are presuming we don't enjoy living in Singapore? Any reason for
saying that?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tan Yew Hock
email: s3y...@class.iss.nus.sg
Institute of Systems Science
(Part-time Student '95-96)
-------------
*for love and peace and international understanding*

"Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..."
-- Jesus Christ (Matt 5:44)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

bihg

unread,
Feb 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/17/96
to
who (w...@ucla.edu) wrote:
: > -- Ekki

: Hi, man,

~{Ub?IA/5DC;C{C;PT5D~}w...@ucla.edu, ~{;X<R8zDcBhLV8vC{6y5XV75D~}
~{TY@4Mf!#~}