Comments on: From imperial subjects to national citizens

By: stevelaudig

stevelaudig — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:05:58 +0000

Perhaps I am missing something as regarding what “history” is and “part of” is. but as chronicle of events, say history, may present disputes as to what happened. Then the historian must engage in evidence weighing, credibility, authenticity, and can give his opinion, draw a conclusiong, as to a “fact” Booth shot Lincoln, Mudd’s involvement was as a doctor facing an injured stranger. Asking the question “is Tibet part of China?” calls for an opinion only as “part of” hasn’t been defined. Then whatever opinion is given “it is” “it is not” “it is unclear” is used to justify, legalize, recognize whatever [it is early saturday morning and there are fireworks out side and I've not had quite enough caffeine to want to engage this in any final way] that the current Chinese state has legal authority over the territory and people/s present in the territory. That is a legal point and that’s a bit different. Call me naive on this but don’t call me any other names! Happy Belated New Year/s [Western and Chinese]. I came across this blog and it is of interest to me as Tibet, Taiwan, Gaza, the Hawaiian Islands [relax] and praps others present legal sovereignty issues that can easily be discussed at one sitting. My lens is history and international law.

By: On the Wrong Side of History… | Jottings from the Granite Studio

On the Wrong Side of History… | Jottings from the Granite Studio — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 09:01:21 +0000

[...] For another, “History,” in the service of competing claims in the here and now is a tricky ally. When it is used to forecast the future it can be even trickier. At the very least, when history [...]

By: stoogie

stoogie — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 13:30:37 +0000

@Everlasting

good question. The answer is ….. that is politics for you

By: Everlasting

Everlasting — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 04:21:09 +0000

Why, when the Manchus fell from power, weren’t the other peoples that made up the former Qing, such as the Mongols, Tibetans, or Uighur, “entitled” to rise up and declare their independence as well, like the Han did? That was a question I often wondered when studying early 20th century Chinese history.

What I always found odd was that many early 20th century revolutionaries like Sun Yatsen and Zou Rong, possessed an obvious, often vitriolic disdain for the non-Han groups of the Qing dynasty. Many of Sun Yatsen’s early speeches focused heavily on the “otherness” of the Manchus, and how Han Chinese were oppressed by them. Yet when the Qing disintegrated, and the Han majority assumed power, there seemed to be an about-face. The groups which had long enjoyed privilege under the old Qing order, such as Manchus, Mongols and Tibetans, were no longer cast as the “other,” but rather as belonging to China — a “China” constructed by the Han majority. No longer did Sun emphasize the alien nature of the Manchu, they were now an integral part of his republic.

By: wu ming

wu ming — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 05:30:30 +0000

cao meng de – it is indeed wu ming like “no name” or “anonymous,” but i chose it a couple of years before zhang yimou’s movie came out.

as for scott “america does not control the [puppet] government of iraq” loar, my sole response is merely to point out to those watching this thread to the number of american military bases (or military presences in foreign bases, or american carrier fleets) scattered across the globe, and their proximity to major oilfields. i don’t have the time to engage in a mindless flamewar with someone so disconnected from reality.