Writing Out The Non-Han - South China Sea

[Raphael]

No doubt kids in Aborigine ghettos have to find more modest ways of entertaining themselves, like traditional songs and rhymes. It's unfortunate that even these have to be outdated, sounding like they came from the 19th century.

 

[amidamaru]

No doubt kids in Aborigine ghettos have to find more modest ways of entertaining themselves, like traditional songs and rhymes. It's unfortunate that even these have to be outdated, sounding like they came from the 19th century.

shows you clearly have no idea about Australia's indigenous population lol

majority of aboriginal people, Koori as they like to be called, in fact are no different to any of the white australians... we grow up together, play together, friends with each other, some even date each other.. like the same music, sports, movies etc...

there are no aboriginal ghetto's as you say.... there are aboriginal communities, specially in the northern territory, arnhem land, they make it what they make it... houses are built for them for free, they get paid money for doing nothing, a fair few work too... so really whats the problem? lol

you goose

 

[Raphael]

lol, is that all you have? a euphemism?

i say ghetto, you say community ... telegraph says ghetto too:

Sydney's notorious Aboriginal ghetto to be demolished - Telegraph

i've never been to oz, but i have been to nz where the native maori tend to be concentrated in poverty enclaves. whenever i brought this up, a kiwi's first line of defence would usually be 'this is nothing - if you want to see marginalization of the native community, go to australia'.

 

[amidamaru]

lol, is that all you have? a euphemism?

i say ghetto, you say community ... telegraph says ghetto too:

Sydney's notorious Aboriginal ghetto to be demolished - Telegraph

i've never been to oz, but i have been to nz where the native maori tend to be concentrated in poverty enclaves. whenever i brought this up, a kiwi's first line of defence would usually be 'this is nothing - if you want to see marginalization of the native community, go to australia'.

and if you want to go somewhere where everyone is a dog and worthless if your not han.. go to china lol

ohh your reffering to redfern, as i said, they make it, how THEY make it... they didnt take care of their neighbourhood, why is it there area turned to crap and other areas didnt?? they were all allocated funding specially in recent years, they let it get run down, they were often violent and brought a lot of it on themselves... they cant control their alcohol, and a lot just seem to not work, get paid anyway, and soon as they get paid they buy cheap wine and get drunk and get into fights, do drugs etc... that happens everywhere, but nice of you to be racist by referencing koori's only, then obscurely trying to blame it on the white man, and forgetting to mention there are suburbs of every major city in the entire world like that?

if ANYTHING, aboriginals and aboriginal communities get MORE funding then ANY other resident of australia... there is aboriginal ONLY job... they get paid more, with more government schemes, when on welfare, there are areas which is aboriginal land, only aboriginals can live there, the government paid and built them all brand new houses, they didnt have to pay rent or anything... and they were that lazy , instead of chopping firewood, they pulled the floorboards out from the house and burnt that during winter.... as i said, largely,they only got themselves to blame.... they can work if they chose to work, nothing is stopping them. every koori i know has never had trouble getting work when they wanted it, and i know quite a lot of them.

kiwi talk crap to have a dig at us, we would say, if you want to see abuse of animals, go to new zealand and ask the sheep.

and when i say aboriginal only live in the aboriginal land that is allocated for them, for cultural and heritage reasons... white fella doesnt live there because the koori want it to be aboriginal only

 

[3Idiots]

According to that logic, India did not even exist before the British created it, out of many independent kingdoms.

"India is merely a geographical expression. It is no more a single country than the Equator."

- Winston Churchill

So what right do you have over places like Kashmir, Northeast India, and the one third of India that is currently controlled by Naxalites?

Territory has always shifted throughout history based on geopolitics. India has no historical claim to any territory that currently lies within the Indian Union, since India never existed before the arrival of the colonialists.

Poor Winston Churchill .. he would be twisting in his grave .. as to how his name is being spoiled by Chinese Rats and Lizards.

Winston Churchill was a known India-hater, supported Imperialism (no wonder Chinese Dragon loves him .... he would have loved to have british in China, No?).

Anyway this is what I found to support the oft-quoted words from our Chinese Lizard:

India

QUOTE:

"

India," Winston Churchill once barked, "is merely a geographical expression. It is no more a single country than the Equator." Churchill was rarely right about India, but it is true that no other country in the world embraces the extraordinary mixture of ethnic groups, the profusion of mutually incomprehensible languages, the varieties of topography and climate, the diversity of religions and cultural practices, and the range of levels of economic development that India does.

And yet India is more than the sum of its contradictions. It is a country held together, in the words of its first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, "by strong but invisible threads.... About her there is the elusive quality of a legend of long ago; some enchantment seems to have held her mind. She is a myth and an idea, a dream and a vision, and yet very real and present and pervasive."

"

 

[ao333]

I checked, China was provinces of Mongolia, Manchukuo and Japan recently.
We called our enemy as 北狄... like it.

Vietnam was a colony of Han China, Manchu China, France, Soviets/US, Japan. Vietnam inherited its entire history and culture from its northern patron. I don't understand how it's in any position to talk back. If it weren't for Chinese, recorded Vietnamese history would be 1800 years short.

As for the Indians, they're much more significant. I'd say that in terms of civilization, the Indus was earlier and its successors were more advanced than comparable Chinese civilizations at the time. What's also true is that India as a country never existed until the British arrived and decided to name it so. Many countries in Asia and Africa were formed after Western colonialists left with Westphalia philosophies, and India was one of them.

To be fair, the concept of a modern nation or state didn't exist until 300 years ago. To say that India was never a country is like saying 18th century Europeans didn't have the internet.

A fair comment nevertheless is that the Indian subcontinent has been unified under foreign powers (Mongol 330 & Raj 90) for twice as long as the Indians have ruled it themselves. (Maurya 130 Republic 70) -- 420 vs 200

The Chinese in comparison has been unified under foreign powers for much shorter (Mongol 100 Manchu 270) vs (Xia,Shang,Zhou,Qin,Han,Jin,Sui,Tang,Song,Ming,ROC,PRC ~3700 years) -- 370 vs 3700

Ratio of foreign-Indian rule in India proper: 2.1
Ratio of foreign-Chinese rule in China proper: 0.1

This means that for every year Indians ruled themselves, they were slaves to foreigners for more than 2 years. For every year that the Chinese ruled themselves, they were slaves to foreigners for less than a month.

 

[EastSea]

Vietnam was colonies of Han China, Manchu China, France, Soviets/US, Japan. Vietnam inherited its entire history and culture from its northern patron. I don't understand how it's in any position to talk back. If it weren't for Chinese, recorded Vietnamese history would be 1800 years short.

.

My post is just answer to the idiot, arrogant chinese guys on forum, Chinese have to look at themselves first before insulting others. It's truth, China are ruled by invaders in long time in his story, no difference.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Vietnam was colonies of Han China, Manchu China, France, Soviets/US, Japan. Vietnam inherited its entire history and culture from its northern patron. I don't understand how it's in any position to talk back.

Its your judgement. But their choice to follow it or not.
Like many of question your ritualistic tendency of following bizarre racial ethnic hierarchies of supremacy despite coming from nation often called 51st state of.........

If it weren't for Chinese, recorded Vietnamese history would be 1800 years short.

How would you know?, unless you"ve seen an alternate reality of the events

As for the Indians, much more significant. I'd say that in terms of civilization, the Indus is earlier and its successors are more advanced than comparable Chinese civilizations at the time.

What's also true is that India as a country never existed until the British arrived and decided to name it so. Many countries in Asia and Africa were formed after Western colonialists left after rooting Westphalia philosophy, and India was one of them.

To be fair, the concept of a modern nation or state didn't exist until 300 years ago. To say that India was never a country is like saying 18th century Europeans didn't have the internet.

OK!

A fair comment nevertheless is that the Indian subcontinent has been unified under foreign powers (Mongol 330 & Raj 90) for twice as long as the Indians have ruled it themselves. (Maurya 130 Republic 70)

There is not single foreign empire except British perhaps that unified entire parts of Modern day India.

So your above comment is more ignorant rather than fair.

Ratio of foreign-Indian rule in India proper: 2.1
Ratio of foreign-Chinese rule in China proper: 0.13

This means that for every year Indians ruled themselves, they were slaves to foreigners for 25 months. For every year that the Chinese ruled themselves, they were slaves to foreigners for 1 month.

Retarded judgment based on retarded interpretation of incomplete facts already addressed above.

 

[peaceful]

I checked, China was provinces of Mongolia, Manchukuo and Japan recently.

1. did mongolia eventually gain any single inch of land from Chinese? No, they lost half of their land.
2. did manchu eventually gain any single inch of land from Chinese? No, they lost all their land and ethnic identity.
3. Japan? where is it now?

We called our enemy as 北狄... like it.

on the morning of 12th July 1984, 4000 of your troops get killed by Chinese with almost zero Chinese causality.

did the regime in Hanoi ever tell you that?

My post is just answer to the idiot, arrogant chinese guys on forum, Chinese have to look at themselves first before insulting others. It's truth, China are ruled by invaders in long time in his story, no difference.

it seems the regime in Hanoi is doing pretty well on brainwashing you guys,

 

[peaceful]

A fair comment nevertheless is that the Indian subcontinent has been unified under foreign powers (Mongol 330 & Raj 90) for twice as long as the Indians have ruled it themselves. (Maurya 130 Republic 70) -- 420 vs 200

The Chinese in comparison has been unified under foreign powers for much shorter (Mongol 100 Manchu 270) vs (Xia,Shang,Zhou,Qin,Han,Jin,Sui,Tang,Song,Ming,ROC,PRC ~3700 years) -- 370 vs 3700

Ratio of foreign-Indian rule in India proper: 2.1
Ratio of foreign-Chinese rule in China proper: 0.1

This means that for every year Indians ruled themselves, they were slaves to foreigners for more than 2 years. For every year that the Chinese ruled themselves, they were slaves to foreigners for less than a month.

Since when Manchu are considered foreigners?

You also need to honestly tell the huge difference between the British and Manchu:

1. indians speak english because their foreign masters want them to do so, their foreign masters won't speak their language and contribute to their culture. because the culture of india simply doesn't exist at that time, their language is just a mix of hundreds of dialects without any real contribution to the human society.

2. Manchu emperors spoke Chinese, they learned Chinese history and culture, they contributed to it. as of today, Manchu no longer use their own language and they have basically merged into Han Chinese. Why?

ever heard about Kangxi and Qianlong? how many Han Chinese emperors contributed more to Chinese cultural than these two?

it is also stupid to link the indus civilization with india.

is that a continuous civilization like the Chinese civilization?

majority of aboriginal people, Koori as they like to be called, in fact are no different to any of the white australians... we grow up together, play together, friends with each other, some even date each other.. like the same music, sports, movies etc...

liar. what is the life expectancy of whites and aboriginals?

there are no aboriginal ghetto's as you say.... there are aboriginal communities, specially in the northern territory, arnhem land, they make it what they make it... houses are built for them for free, they get paid money for doing nothing, a fair few work too... so really whats the problem? lol

oh yes! they get jailed for free just because they have more than 6 beers at home in NT!

what a bloody liar!

 

[shuntmaster]

That's what Nehru thought in 1962.

But Arunachal Pradesh is still with India. Thanks for AP and you can keep Aksai Chin, the barren land as a tip

 

[shuntmaster]

1. culturally, there was nothing there. show me any evidence that they once had cultural or art achievement that is ever remotely comparable to ours.

2. Buddhism was developed in China, it is wonderful, unique not because it was originally from india, it is because 1000 years of continuous development in China made it unique. plus, Buddhism has already been abandoned by indians.



we laugh at monkeys, we don't talk to monkeys.

sorry.



山东猪头，何必舔阿三臭脚？有病要治。

India spiritually colonised china for over 2000years..

Every time a China see's the statues of the guardian lions in front of their buildings, they will realise the Indian influence.

 

[NiceGuy]

on the morning of 12th July 1984, 4000 of your troops get killed by Chinese with almost zero Chinese causality.

did the regime in Hanoi ever tell you that?


it seems the regime in Hanoi is doing pretty well on brainwashing you guys,

Oh, those men are just poor trained soliders bcz our best forces still in Cambodia to fight against Pol Pot-Thai royal forces, but they still killed up to 959 well trained, well equipped PLA troop

In May 1981 and again in April 1984, fierce fighting broke out between the two side. China's military regions took turns engaging the Vietnamese.The Survey says that in one 100-day battle, Chinese forces captured more than fifty elevated locations.

The flames of war engulfed this remote southwest border county for a full decade. Laoshan, near the port of Tianbao thirty kilometers from Malipo, was the site of a battle known throughout the country.

The 959 PLA soldiers and support militia who died in the battle are buried at Malipo Martyrs Cemetery, and the remains of others were returned to their hometowns after cremation. The dead come from 19 provinces. The youngest was only 16, and some of the soldiers had only been enlisted for three months when they died in battle.
Three decades after the Sino-Vietnamese War

When our best forces finished their mission in Cambodia, PLA was scared to death and ran for they life from Laosan mt. in 1992.

 

[gpit]

Vietnam was a colony of Han China, Manchu China, France, Soviets/US, Japan. Vietnam inherited its entire history and culture from its northern patron. I don't understand how it's in any position to talk back. If it weren't for Chinese, recorded Vietnamese history would be 1800 years short.

As for the Indians, they're much more significant. I'd say that in terms of civilization, the Indus was earlier and its successors were more advanced than comparable Chinese civilizations at the time. What's also true is that India as a country never existed until the British arrived and decided to name it so. Many countries in Asia and Africa were formed after Western colonialists left with Westphalia philosophies, and India was one of them.

To be fair, the concept of a modern nation or state didn't exist until 300 years ago. To say that India was never a country is like saying 18th century Europeans didn't have the internet.

A fair comment nevertheless is that the Indian subcontinent has been unified under foreign powers (Mongol 330 & Raj 90) for twice as long as the Indians have ruled it themselves. (Maurya 130 Republic 70) -- 420 vs 200

The Chinese in comparison has been unified under foreign powers for much shorter (Mongol 100 Manchu 270) vs (Xia,Shang,Zhou,Qin,Han,Jin,Sui,Tang,Song,Ming,ROC,PRC ~3700 years) -- 370 vs 3700

Ratio of foreign-Indian rule in India proper: 2.1
Ratio of foreign-Chinese rule in China proper: 0.1

This means that for every year Indians ruled themselves, they were slaves to foreigners for more than 2 years. For every year that the Chinese ruled themselves, they were slaves to foreigners for less than a month.

You are mostly true.

However, you can not parallel Mongol or Man rules over China with that of British over India in the following points:

Mongols and Mans were willingly and self-motivated to be sinicized and called themselves China.

Mongols named their dynasty’s name Yuan, according to a famous Chinese philosophical book Daode Jing or the Scroll of Daoism. In their announcement of establishment of Yuan Dynasty, they proclaimed that all previous “our” (Chinese Han) ancestral emperors based on so and so reasons and logics, and did so and so to establish new Dynasties, so must the Mongols do to follow ”our ancestors’” footsteps as a natural law.

In fact, Qing Dynasty (Manchu) was more sinicized than Yuan in terms of political, economic and education systems. Many those Manchurians couldn’t even write in their own language but felt extremely honored in mastering Chinese Han philosophy, poems, calligraphy and history.

In contrast, when/after British ruled Indian region, no British emperor wanted to neither be Indianized, nor take pride in (or attempt to do) doing so, never wanted to be part of India. Rather the reverse is true. No British emperor would name its country/dynasty after Indian philosophy (good for the Brits, or British will filled with different castes) or religious scripts. No Brits would love to replace English with Indian language but again the reverse is true. Just see how many Indians taunting Chinese bad English, and be proud of themselves with good English.

With respect to Vietnam, really it doesn't contribute much to world civilization as such. Only mentionable thing is it repelled US invasion. Even that depended on helps from Soviet and China. And more worthlessness about it is so many spineless and history-less Viets LONGING to lick US boots now...

India spiritually colonised china for over 2000years..

...

Glad Chinese wisemen never got influenced by your caste spirit. Please don't "2000 years", 2 seconds are more than enough.

 

[NiceGuy]

With respect to Vietnam, really it doesn't contribute much to world civilization as such. Only mentionable thing is it repelled US invasion. Even that depended on helps from Soviet and China. And more worthlessness about it is so many spineless and history-less Viets LONGING to lick US boots now...

We're the only one found out the way to defeat mighty Mongol, maybe bcz Chinese copied "super art of war " from VN , that's why they could defeat Mongol after that

And we're the only one can make "art of spy" to perfect level when US-China never can do like our spy