Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Franklin, I'm very sorry, you are right. I was reading the preposition as "of" for two reasons. 1) It's a really common mistake and completely forgivable, and, 2) the alternative (what was actually written) is so completely ludicrous that it wasn't even on my radar. I guess the entire mess would have been avoided if agency was attributed to a subject. That's really what I was trying to get at either way. Was the Hanification a goal before the Han Dynasty? What did the Hanification mean before modern times? Or, before contemporary times? Either way, there is a strong teleological error in the statement.
Nevertheless, I sincerely apologize for my misreading and continued confusion. Mea culpa. And, thanks for the correction.
But, all of that aside, do you take issue with the core of my issues regarding the Hanification always being the goal in the subcontinent?
no need to apologize...
you had a take on something, and i was literally - "huh" i don't understand where that is coming from..."
so i figured i must be missing something...
and if i am missing something - i want to find out what i am missing...
re:
But, all of that aside, do you take issue with the core of my issues regarding the Hanification always being the goal in the subcontinent?
i would say to state something has always...
or to argue that something has not always...
are two sides of the bullshit coin... -- as in its kind a worthless thing to argue
always is an imprecise qualifier....
if you disagree - i would challenge you present 1 thing that has always existed in a certain state or form..
and come on -- we really can agree that Whitney Houston will not always love me.....
but on a serious note --
historical precedence
i don't see how it is relevant to genocide, oppression, discrimination taking place at the current time...
we can use it to understand the root of present situations...
but it is never going to validate those things when they do take place....
as to the hanification of the region that we call the PRC
what is it like 92% of the population are Han...
it is pretty much already hanified....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinesethe current gov of the area is communist
and that ideology doesn't really place value on diversity and the individual...
the areas where we have reports of this type of discrimination...
the border areas, the outskirts....
traditionally speaking - these areas were the ones furthest from the emperor's court
and the ones with the least amount of direct control from the central authority....
historically - the further from the central court - the more corruption in ancient times...
and the minorities in the area might be less likely to see themselves part of the "unified whole" and might want to do their own things...
so maybe crackdown and suppression of different minorities and also the outlying regions has been going on for a long time...
is it hanification or solidifying control over the territory claimed by the central government....
no matter the motivation - the acts still occur....
as to lack of evidence...
even people on this board have reported that small uprisings/protest happen all the time throughout china
they are quickly subdued...
and they are not widely reported... (to most likely prevent more large scale widespread unrest from happening - like arab spring type stuff...)
so technically for most people inside and outside china there is little or no evidence that these small uprising/protest happen in china
but we know that they do - even though we lack the ability to know how widespread the issues actually are...
so to say other things have no widespread evidence
is not really a proof or disproof of existence...
and we can all conclude that with the evidence that we do have
and erroring on the side of probability and morality
that yes these things are occurring
but to what extent- we can not say
but it might be also safe to say that it is probably worse than what we have heard...
Franklin