Talk:Chinese imperialism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A few things:
- For starters, a lot of people are going to disagree that any current act of China constitutes imperialism. I don't necessary agree but it's nevertheless an existing, consistent, and popular school of thought.
- It's a bit simplistic to lump Xinjiang, Tibet, etc. together as the only examples. Chinese civilization is the continuous story of a civilization originating in the North China Plain going out to assimilate foreign peoples. A more comprehensive description of Chinese history is certainly needed.
- The concept of tributary states is probably not the same thing as imperialism. And Taiwan was never actually a tributary state.
- Border conflicts is stretching it... and it's not like China even has a border with Thailand anyways.
I'm going to start by making a few changes. If anyone wants to help out, please do. -- ran (talk) 22:27, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
China isn't an empire anymore right? Don't you need an emperor? What is the goal of creating this article?--Amerinese 17:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
- That is simple minded (no offense). See the Imperialism article and there seems no necessity of an Emperor at all. Furthermore, territory within the United States, such as Texas or Hawaii, has been elsewhere listed on Wikipedia as evidence of Imperialism. It could be argued that Tibet etc. is an example of successfuli imperialism because people accept it as Chinese territory. Finally, Wikipedia shouldn't have double standards. These lists of Imperialism exist for other nations, especially the US and Europe. See the Imperialism page for more details.
- I believe this article needs some copyedit. — Instantnood 22:22, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- It should also include material from the China section in Suzerainty. I can do it myself when I get around to doing a lengthier rewrite, but if anyone wants to do it, go ahead. --Yuje 02:57, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
- I believe this article needs some copyedit. — Instantnood 22:22, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Encouragement
The PRC has a policy of encouraging Han migration to Tibet and Xinjiang, which I believe is important in understanding the views of Tibetans and Uighurs. Your edit hides that.
Lapsed Pacifist 18:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- In the past, it was by force, since people were not free to choose their employment. If the government wanted you to go to Kashgar, you went. Today it's a market economy, so people go their on their own accord, to become hotel operators, shop owners, construction workers, even sex workers.
- As for encouragement (I suppose you mean the financial kind?), as I said I've asked about the issue on the Chinese Wikipedia. It has generated a very interesting discussion, but several people who are knowledgeable on the subject agree that cadres, etc. who are offered financial incentives (more like recompensation) are posted there for a few years and then taken back. The program isn't indefinite and they don't stay there forever.
- So to say that the PRC is "encouraging" is to represent a complex situation with a unique special case that is not representative. People were forced in the past, and they're free to go in the present. That is what's causing the demographic transformation of Xinjiang and Tibet. -- ran (talk) 18:14, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Survived VFD
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chinese imperialism --DavidStevenson 21:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Macau
Macau was a small penninsula with two islands attached which altogether is less than eighty square kilometres... and it was granted to the Portugese in the Sixteenth century, thus it is hardly accurate to call it a territory lost to Portugal in the nineteenth century. In fact, at that point its character was closer to a ghetto than a colony, and the Portugese's behaviour there over the years showed this.
- It was not granted as such. The Portuguese moved in and the Ming government let them stay. It was part of China until the mid-19th century when Portugal piggy backed on the victories of the Western powers and made China sign it over. So it was lost in the 19th century. Lao Wai 17:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)