Anybody know how British text book talk about Opium War?
LeeYih Chiew
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
> 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
> 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
--------
Desconegut
>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
>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
>4fgfmp$1...@berlin.infomatch.com> Glen Fisher wrote:
>gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk (Glenys) 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
> 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
: 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
: 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
> 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
>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
>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!
>>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
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
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
Desconegut
>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.
>
Desconegut
>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
>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.
>
>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
>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
> 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
> 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
> 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
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
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
>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
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
> 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
: 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
> 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
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
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
>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
: > I agree with Glenys. But I would think that colonialism is largely
: 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
> In article <19960215....@simtec.simtec.demon.co.uk>,
> Glenys <gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>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
>
> 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?
>
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
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
>Nothing could make today's Chinese government look like saints!
>
>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
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:
>
>>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.
>
>
>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
>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
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
>>>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
> 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
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
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
>In article <4g0j83$r...@news.ccit.arizona.edu> h...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu (Hung J Lu) writes:
>Ekki writes:
>>Well, in Han dynasty, the native people near Zhejiang were completely
>>massacred by the Chinese army (somewhere between Yangtze River and
>>Huai River). A whole nation was wiped out. Chinese history books don't
>>even dare to mention the figure.
[..]
>BTW, I don't like the attitude in your story-telling. It sounds too
>simplistic, and it ressembles strongly some kind of propaganda.
Well! I hope your excellence can accept my version. :)
"In Han dynasty, the native people near Zhejiang were completely unified
by the Chinese army. A whole nation was not totally wiped out except
those who conducted and supported the movement that impiously split the
holy and inseparable territory of China. ..... " :)
kang...@gold.tc.umn.edu
>Hung J Lu wrote:
>> In year 221 B.C, China dispatched troops to invade
>> the areas in the Deep South. This is a major event
>> that Qin Shi-Huang carried out after he unified China.
>> The total number of the troops was 500,000 (0.5 million).
>>
>> Why did China decide to invade the lands in the
>> Deep South? The main reason was economical factors:
>> Deep South was abundant in resources, including
>> rhino, ivory, jade, pearls, silver, bronze, fruits,
>> textile, poison, etc.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>cannot agree, at THAT time, such places you mentioned above is regarded
>as full of toxic gases from jungles thus not suitable for civilized peo
>ple to live.
>Ancient Chinese sodiers were among the most home-missing troops. It is
>because they do not want to leave their home, their wife and children,
>lose their lives for the glory of the king, or empior.
Then why didn't they rebel the order of their rulers?
Jian Huang
>
> ji...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jihong Dai) writes:
>
> >In article <4g0j83$r...@news.ccit.arizona.edu> h...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu (Hung J Lu) writes:
> >Ekki writes:
>
> >>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
> 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
:
: 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
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 ?
>
>>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
says...
>> 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
>
> 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
>
>
>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
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
>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
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
>>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?
>
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
: In message <4g2oq0$n...@norm.uoknor.edu> you wrote:
: > Average income of people in Hong Kong and Singapore (ruled by Brits
: 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
: > -- Ekki
: Hi, man,
~{Ub?IA/5DC;C{C;PT5D~}w...@ucla.edu, ~{;X<R8zDcBhLV8vC{6y5XV75D~}
~{TY@4Mf!#~}
se7en
> years ago, yes, those dirty fucking Japs. At lease what they wanted to
> do.
> Jingsheng
Your words and the way you said it definitely reflect a lot about
your race.
When criticize you say: hey what about XXX? He'd done worse things!
What a pity, 5000 years of glory turn out to be a pile of rots.
se7en
> Are you a Chinese or a Janpanese? Keep you fucking bullshit,
> swallow it by yourself.
Hi Ekki
Isn't it interesting to see that everytime when questions are
raised about the behaviour of China, past or present, one would hear
senseless barking from the Low self esteems.
If they do not have the courage to look at history from various perspectives,
so be it.
Regards,
Tan
Tom Schmal
gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk 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?
>
During the middle ages in Europe when the largest centers of
*civilization* were villages no bigger than football stadiums, when all
but a handful lived in mud huts and ate grues except maybe on the holy day
when the meals might have included meat so rotten it was smothered with
garlic to cover the stench, when less than one man in ten thousand could
read, when lives were ruled by superstition and fear and robbers and
sicknesses and ignorance, China was entering yet another golden age - the
Tang Dynasty.
Tang China - with its cities of millions...huge marketplaces, commerce,
transportation systems...the invention of paper and drawing instruments,
fine porcelan and poetry and flower-arranging were the arts...civil
service and schools...a postal system...great sea-trade with peoples in
Indonesia and India and pilgrimmages of learning to the holy lands of
learning. It was the centuries of safety and progress, of population
tripling, of a far-flung empire that ranged from Vietnam to Korea to Iran.
During the 6-8th centuries there was simply nothing even remotely close in
civilization on earth to the power and the magnificance that was China.
--
Tom Schmal
Whatever we see or feel or do is the effect
of whatever we have seen or felt or done.
Noah Benjamin Ravitz
>
> 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.
Perhaps I did, though I understood you as tending to deny the British role in
developing HK. If you're not then I did misunderstand.
>
> >>
> >> 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?
>
Well, they did make a fortune from nothing. The Chinese had HK forever and
did nothing--they laughed to think tthe worthless piece of rock was all they
had to give up. The fact that not all th Brits agreed on HK's value is
unimportant; what matters is what happened once they took control.
I'm not British and have no hidden motives but the fact is the world is a
better place for their rule. Or are their former colonies now better off for
the UK's absence? Do you really think HK will prosper under the Chinese
butchers? No, but it suits your politics to malign Britain so you do. Too
bad your hide will never learn the difference between the power of the dollar
and the power of the whip.
Noah Benjamin Ravitz
> Matthew
Wing Ng
Glenys <gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>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
>> 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
>
>by the civilisations of the Nile valley and Mesopotamia.
>Didn't you study history at school? Or did you study only
>Chinese history?
From the fall of the Roman Empire to the French Revolution,
some 1300 years, China was undoubtedly #1. It was quantitatively
#1, it had the biggest GNP per capita, as well as the biggest
GNP period, during those years, and it had the most advanced
technology, and government system.
Wing
>
>--
>Glenys
>--------
>
Desconegut
>In message <4g2oq0$n...@norm.uoknor.edu> you wrote:
>> gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk (Glenys) wrote:
>> >In message <4ftenb$7...@norm.uoknor.edu> Chiew Lee Yih wrote:
>> >
>> >> Don't worry, no nation will be strong forever, England is one of
>> >> the country in Europe that have the largest percentage of population
>> >> in poverty now, and worst of all.... even James Bond, an English agent
>> >> speak English that is closer to American accent than English
>> >> accent!!!
>> >
>> >You really know how to hurt somebody's feelings!!! The shame ...
>> >the embarrassment ...
>> >
>> >--
>> >Glenys
>> >--------
>>
>> I forgot to add something--
>>
>> Average income of people in Hong Kong and Singapore (ruled by Brits
>> before) is higher than Britain today.
>Yes, but how many people eally enjoy living there?
>Myself, I prefer to live in the countryside well away from towns.
How many people prefer living in London? Not many.
Many poeple prefer living in HK, and whenever they have the chance,
they would go to the countryside resorts, in southern China.
Desconegut
How about the colonialism of Northern Ireland, Falkland Islands......
by you British assholes? Why don't you guys get the hell out of those
places?
Desconegut
>Michael Lee <m...@singnet.com.sg> wrote:
>>>>In case you haven't notice Britain is now at the bottom of
>>>>the dung pile. The Pound is a joke and so is the monarchy.
>>>>How you guys will *ever* be number one again is also a joke.
>>>>Its like asking Garcia of the Greatful Dead to rise again.
>>
>>>Try and understand the postings just a little.The number
>>>one under discussion was CHINA, not Britain. I was >questioning the use of the word "again". Since China has >never yet been No=
>> 1, it cannot be No 1 again. ^^^^^
>>Correction. China was No 1 when your forefathers were
>>still huddled in caves and eating wild animals with bare
>>hands was considered a luxury. Hahahahaha
>>
>I am absolutely agree with you.
Glenys
> gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk (Glenys) wrote:
>
> >In message <4g2oq0$n...@norm.uoknor.edu> you wrote:
>
> >> gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk (Glenys) wrote:
> >> >In message <4ftenb$7...@norm.uoknor.edu> Chiew Lee Yih wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Don't worry, no nation will be strong forever, England is one of
> >> >> the country in Europe that have the largest percentage of population
> >> >> in poverty now, and worst of all.... even James Bond, an English agent
> >> >> speak English that is closer to American accent than English
> >> >> accent!!!
> >> >
> >> >You really know how to hurt somebody's feelings!!! The shame ...
> >> >the embarrassment ...
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >Glenys
> >> >--------
> >>
> >> I forgot to add something--
> >>
> >> Average income of people in Hong Kong and Singapore (ruled by Brits
> >> before) is higher than Britain today.
>
> >Yes, but how many people eally enjoy living there?
> >Myself, I prefer to live in the countryside well away from towns.
>
> How many people prefer living in London? Not many.
Yes but at least in the UK we have a choice. We do not need to
live in London, since there are a lot of alternative places. Hong
Kong and Singapore are more limiting.
--
Glenys
--------
cafe
History would tell us that the Koreans, Tibeteans, Vietnamese,
and various minorities people now incorporated within China
have felt well and truely colonised.
Regards, Mei-Su
Michael Lee
>4g5mql$n...@berlin.infomatch.com> Glen Fisher wrote:
>>gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk (Glenys) 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
>>is closer to American accent than English accent!!!
>>You really know how to hurt somebody's feelings!!The shame
>>the embarrassment ... Glenys
>>I forgot to add something-- 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?
>Myself, I prefer to live in the countryside well away
>from towns.
>> How many people prefer living in London? Not many.
>Yes but at least in the UK we have a choice. We do not
>need to live in London, since there are a lot of
>alternative places. Hong Kong and Singapore are more
>limiting....Glenys
Not anymore, my dear. With so many Asians buying up London
properties like they are supermarket specials these days,
they do have a choice to either rent them out to poor
Britons or stay there as and when they choose to visit
London and the very least you can do is to welcome them.
BTW With the collapse of the property speculation bubbles
during the last days of the foolish Thatcher era, now known
as the Iron Lady's folly, at least over 300,000 house
owners lost their properties as a result of refinancing of
their houses to speculate in the stock market. So how can
they choose where to stay except maybe in council flats.
Lin, Xu
>
> 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.
>
> years ago, yes, those dirty fucking Japs. At lease what they wanted to
> do.
>
> Jingsheng
Please visit the NanJing Massacre Memorial on line at:
http://www.arts.chuk.hk/NanjingMassacre/NM.html
Lin, Xu
>
> 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
Who's the one who sold tons of drugs to Chinese and take home
golds and silvers measured in tons? Learn more history before you
humuliate yourself.
Michael Lee
>In article <19960215....@simtec.simtec.demon.co.uk>,
>gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk 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.
>During the middle ages in Europe when the largest centers of
>*civilization* were villages no bigger than football stadiums, when all
>but a handful lived in mud huts and ate grues except maybe on the holy day
>when the meals might have included meat so rotten it was smothered with
>garlic to cover the stench, when less than one man in ten thousand could
>read, when lives were ruled by superstition and fear and robbers and
>sicknesses and ignorance, China was entering yet another golden age - the
>Tang Dynasty.
>Tang China - with its cities of millions...huge marketplaces, commerce,
>transportation systems...the invention of paper and drawing instruments,
>fine porcelan and poetry and flower-arranging were the arts...civil
>service and schools...a postal system...great sea-trade with peoples in
>Indonesia and India and pilgrimmages of learning to the holy lands of
>learning. It was the centuries of safety and progress, of population
>tripling, of a far-flung empire that ranged from Vietnam to Korea to Iran.
>During the 6-8th centuries there was simply nothing even remotely close in
>civilization on earth to the power and the magnificance that was China.
>Tom Schmal
>Whatever we see or feel or do is the effect
>of whatever we have seen or felt or done.
Right on Tom. Eat your heart out Glenys, you old, ignorant,
frustrated Chinese basher.And your generousity towards
Asians is only somehow surpassed by your extreme poor
knowledge of Asian values. We want stability instead of
chaos that people like you have tried to force on us for
over the last four hundred years since the magnificent Ming
Dynasty.
Philip Lum
>>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 absolutely agree with you.
And the best sunday lunch was a sabre tooth tiger steak eaten
rare with bare hands,plus wild berries and unboiled pond
water for their just desert. hahahahaha.
Glenys
> Right on Tom. Eat your heart out Glenys, you old, ignorant,
> frustrated Chinese basher.And your generousity towards
> Asians is only somehow surpassed by your extreme poor
> knowledge of Asian values. We want stability instead of
> chaos that people like you have tried to force on us for
> over the last four hundred years since the magnificent Ming
> Dynasty.
I have not been written anything about Asian values so how can
I have displayed poor knowledge?
As regards stability, I'm sure that's what was being searched for
during the Tai Ping rising of the 1850s, the Reform movement of
1898, the revolution of 1911, the communist revolution, the
cultural revolution, TAM ........
Nobody forced these on you, you did it all on your own.
--
Glenys
--------
Matthew
under Chinese rule than otherwise. However when you said
it's only British rule and nothing else that made HK shines
as it does today, then specifically what is so important
which makes that difference. If people in HK had not been
as hardworking as they did, plus the influx of capitals in
the 50's then I don't think anything else could help.
Nor does it help to say that Chinese are butchers. After all
so are many many others.
matthew
Matthew
It's Chinese rule, isn't it?
matthew
Charles (Joe) Stahelin
Lots of articles but no useful response to the question set out as the
Subject of this thread seems likely to appear.
Suggestion: Foyles Bookshop in Charing Cross Road, London, UK, used to
maintain a very extensive stock of second-hand books and used to be the
first approach of students looking for text books at a reasonable price.
Perhaps a student now studying in London could take time out to find out
from Foyles if they are approachable via the internet and,if they are
on the net, post their e-mail address to this thread so that he
enquirer can put his question direct.
I am old and out of date and present-day students may be aware of better
sources. The publication of similar sources on a wide basis on the
net would be a service to students everywhere.
The nations of the world now send students widespread to overseas seats
of learning. In many cases a student working in one country will
know students working in other countries and, if they cannot afford to
buy from the bookshops and other sources, would be able to mail a friend
asking that friend to ferret out the required information provided they
can tell the friend where to find it.
Students' Unions everywhere could usefully create directories setting
out the special knowledge and research details of their own
establishments, publish them on the internet and update them at
reasonable intervals. A hell of an undertaking, but what a service !
A constructive use of the internet.
--
Charles (Joe) Stahelin
EricW83541
far worse than that of China's. So you British better shut the fuck up and
spend more time on your country rather than on having sex with children.
Test
> 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).
I only accept Mongolian as No. 1, not Chinese or Persian in the past.
See how big was their empire? Chinese or persian land is peanut comparing
to their.
Tim
>
> 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!
--
"To see tomorrow's PC, look at today's Macintosh."
-BYTE, October 1995
Hung-jen Yang
lch...@uoknor.edu wrote:
: 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,
H.Deng
> > history, especially the history before British Industrial Revolution!!!
> >
> > Q Chen
>
> In your narrow-mindedness, do you believe that "world history" equates
> with "Chinese history"?
>
>
Then, in your "wide"-mindedness, the world history should equal British
"glorious" histoy which you learnt from your english school history
textbook. According to my many many year experience in lecturing
in UK Universities. I feel regret to say that you are not only
one of that sorts of persons here who are fillied with the
ignorance of outside world and prejudice in your pre-occupied or inherent
mind that is related to your "civilized" culture and "democratic", "justice"
, and "freedeom" political systems.
If you do not know what is your own problems, then mirror yourself like
the Queen said in her 1994 Christmas speach.
There are too many to list. I see nothing superior here but the individalism,
selfshiness, nationwide drug abusing, racial attacks, rocketed-speed
crime rate. Power-struggle inter-parties and intra-parties. police's
power misusing, innocent citizens being fooled, deceived, misled/guided
by the politicans and the "freedom" media ....
H. DENG
> --
> Glenys
> --------
qc0...@cnsvax.albany.edu
are sure you guys are talking about the same topic? :)
qwc
Suping Lu
> Well, they did make a fortune from nothing. The Chinese had HK forever and
> did nothing--they laughed to think tthe worthless piece of rock was all they
> had to give up. The fact that not all th Brits agreed on HK's value is
> unimportant; what matters is what happened once they took control.
>
> I'm not British and have no hidden motives but the fact is the world is a
> better place for their rule. Or are their former colonies now better off for
> the UK's absence?
The United States used to be the colony of UK, and it has been
and still is better off with UK's absence. I hope you are not American
either! Thanks!!
Charles (Joe) Stahelin
...........most of the bits that we all have seen many times have been
deleted........
>all along the famous silk road, (or silk >highway?) just to satisfied
the need of rich people back home, (to wear >beautiful clothing).
I think this is incorrect. Most of those who travelled the Silk Road
were the commercial travellers of their day travelling on their own
initiative with a view to finding anything they could sell at a profit.
Undoubtedly some will have been sponsored and given a list of
commitments but the whole thing was mainly for personal gain.
>
>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!
Who is arguing about what ? This goes back to a time when the known
world was smaller than it is now and the top dog controlled his own
kennel totally unaware that there were several other kennels around the
corners. Was the world not believed to be flat with edges waiting for
the unwary to drop off them ? It seems pointless to try to make
national capital on a world basis out of the events of those days.
--
Charles (Joe) Stahelin
Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK
who
Hi, man,
Let me tell you. The addr should be
http://www.arts.cuhk.hk/NanjingMassacre/NM.html
I prefer another one.
http://www.cs.umn.edu/~dyue/wiihist/index.html
You can also go to this addr
http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/index.html
Do go there no matter if you have known something about it!
Dear. Chinese in Taiwan, DO NOT DO WHAT THE JAPS WANT YOU TO DO!
Noah Benjamin Ravitz
So, who bought these drugs? I suppose the Brits came ashore and crammed
those opium pipes up Chinese snouts. No, if it weren't them, then
Yunnan Province or the Shan States would have supplied the demand. Why
blame others for your weaknesses? This is the same folly the US
makes--if we didn't buy the drugs then Colombia, Peru, whoever, wouldn't
grow them. The Opium War was your own fault. Probably Commissioner Lin
wanted to corner the trade for his friends.
Noah Benjamin Ravitz
>
> I never did say HK would be more prosperous if it were
> under Chinese rule than otherwise. However when you said
> it's only British rule and nothing else that made HK shines
> as it does today, then specifically what is so important
> which makes that difference. If people in HK had not been
> as hardworking as they did, plus the influx of capitals in
> the 50's then I don't think anything else could help.
>
Oh, the British aren't unique. Any capitalist ethos combined with a little
appreciation of the sea would have created HK as a haven. If J. P. Morgan
had bought the island then it might even be a better place. The fact is, the
Chinese did not have or did not exhibit these qualities. Certainly the
Chinese work like dogs but if you're not Marxist then labor is not the be-all
and end-all of an economy, you give brains a little credit. And HK was
wealthy long before the 1950s.
> Nor does it help to say that Chinese are butchers. After all
> so are many many others.
I call a spade a spade. When the communists are out then I'll lay off.
Noah
Noah Benjamin Ravitz
Hooray!
> selfshiness
As opposed to the selfless Chicoms; give me selfish any day!
nationwide drug abusing
what can I say? People can abuse a good thing. I suppose China has no drug
use.
racial attacks
There is no more xenophobic nation on earth than China.
rocketed-speed crime rate.
Regrettably we don't shoot as many peple as you; it might help.
Power-struggle inter-parties and intra-parties
As opposed to the harmony of China's one-party system, I suppose.
police's power misusing, innocent citizens being fooled, deceived,
misled/guided
> by the politicans and the "freedom" media ....
>
Tiananmen Square?
Noah
Noah Benjamin Ravitz
Yes, I am American. We're better off with the Brits, but thank God they
moved the Indians out; I don't fancy pemmican.
Noah
Noah Benjamin Ravitz
My browser says this address is invalid, no DNS entry. Correction
please?
Qiang Gao
Who said China never colonised anywhere? China colonised China, sure, if not
elsewhere. If China had not colonised China, it would still be just a bunch of
tribes. Geez, what a genius discovery I have made!
Q. Gao
lzh...@students.uiuc.edu
The chinese historians had their professional morality. They
worked hard to document the reality. They already documented
the best we human being ever had and in these documents
lots mas were documented pricisely. You are discrimatingand
devaluating the works that the chinese historians did. shame
on you.
lzh...@students.uiuc.edu
lzh...@students.uiuc.edu
ancient chinese made invation to neibourhoods like Tang-Korean
war, The major ancient situations were the minors went to
"Zhong-yuan" and became to be chinese and then the Chinese
territory became larger. The miners were "tong-hua".
cafe <ca...@wellconnected.com.au> wrote:
>History would tell us that the Koreans, Tibeteans, Vietnamese,
>and various minorities people now incorporated within China
>have felt well and truely colonised.
>Regards, Mei-Su
Matthew
to outlaw drug trafficking. If anyone indulges in drug abuse,
then it's his own fault not that of those who sell to them?
matthew
Noah Benjamin Ravitz <nra...@haven.ios.com> wrote:
>Lin, Xu wrote:
>>
>> Noah Benjamin Ravitz 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.
>> >
Matthew
doesn't know?
matthew
lzh...@students.uiuc.edu wrote:
>Land is the major natural resources. your idiot.
>
>
Matthew
with the regime you referred to as butchers. Doesn't that
make you feel disappointed? What place does Britsih occupy
nowadays in the arena of world politics and economics?
It's correct that I'm don't feel satisfied with British
rule here, nor am I pro-communist. But you are as well so
anti-Chinese which makes you belittle the status which they
occupy today. So, when you likened me to a bull in your
earlier msg, didn't you think about yourself also.
matthew
Noah Benjamin Ravitz <nra...@haven.ios.com> wrote:
H.Deng
I will vote you for a judge! OK!
> It seems incredible that H Deng would choose to live in a country
> with such extremes of unpleasantness.
"extremes"?!, that is not what I cooked up, those are sourced
from UK everday TV, UK Newspapers and the UK inter-parties
accusation in the parliamentary debates and the UK natives
complaints.
That is not my unpleasantness(because it is not my country), boy!
If you are incapable of
understanding what I meant, then get out of my post!
BTW, how did you know I chose to live in "a country with..."
if you do not know, you better close your mouth! I do not
mean to hurt anybody. just state the facts!
If you are unhappy about what I said about your country,
Mrs/Ms (sorry, I do not know your English name, but
at least, it seems to me that
your name does not sound an english), I could not
help you, sorry.
I can only guess that he/she
> finds it better than the place he came from.
That is not your business! boy/girl!
Am I staying in your country?!
>
> What on earth could that place be like ?
>
no where, everywhere is more or less the same but different degree
h.deng
>