Franklin wrote:
my understanding of the english language would be that if you wanted to anthropomorphize the landmass
the correct way to write that would be:
"long term "Hanification" has always been the goal of the Chinese subcontinent."
when he wrote:
"long term "Hanification" has always been the goal in the Chinese subcontinent."
my understanding is that -- in the Chinese subcontinent
would indicate the location the action was taking place in
but like I said -- I am not an expert...
this is very interesting, learning something new about english today
can you give me any examples- where the subject of a sentence/statement
is written -- "In XXXXX"
where XXXXX would be the one preforming the action (of the verb)
I can't think of any...
thanks
Franklin
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?
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?
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....
Steve James wrote:Nice to see that ya'll resolved the grammar issue by finding out what the other person meant --which is always more important than the grammar, because words can be unclear.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....
In this case, I think the problem is that "hanification" is something that someone does or is doing. So, it has to be assumed that the "Han" are doing something. The video points out that the idea of a "Han" people is relatively recent, and doesn't go back to the Yellow Emperor or indicate a genetic link. Therefore, "someone" is doing something called Hanification. However, as you point out, if a population is 90% Han, it's already hanified.
My Taiwanese teacher would speak in terms of a Chinese identity of which the Han were the majority and dominant "ethnic" group. Otoh, he would say that the PRC is "not" Chinese; it's communist. And that the communists were the ones seeking cultural control and domination for purely political reasons.
At any rate, hanification and controlling terrorism are different issues. In Germany, there used to be "blood laws", and you were German only if you had German blood. But, that was a specific way to define German identity, and it could determine the rights of a non-German --no matter how culturally German he was. (Btw, I'm not suggesting that is what's happening in China. I'm just pointing out that "Xification" in a predominantly "X" nation is not a unique paradox.
Anyway, here's the important aspect from my perspective.
n China there are 55 minorities. Most of them have their own languages and culture. They are all bi-lingual and speak their own dialects or languages at home....
Do you really believe that if there was a genocide going on in the close neighbourhood that people would even dare to speak up?
The problem is that you're speaking for them. And, the fact that some are complaining doesn't mean that it's not happening. I didn't read that they were claiming genocide. I thought it was about attempts to erase their cultures.
even if the gaol is something we deem as "OK"
if the result is genocide...
maybe still not that good huh?
Steve James wrote:even if the gaol is something we deem as "OK"
if the result is genocide...
maybe still not that good huh?
Well, the question is whether "genocide" is the "goal" of hanification. So, from my perspective, it isn't genocide because it isn't about genes. Ok, it may be that the PRC simply executes millions of people to get rid of them, but that's an extraordinary assertion --and when the claim accompanied by or based on anti-Chinese, anti-Han, or anti-communist sentiment, I don't accept it as a strong argument.
Otoh, I do think that the camps are an indication of the PRC government's goal of bringing the entire population under control, not kill them off. I still don't think it's a "good" practice --and I compared it to the practice of "Americanizing" Native Americans by educating them to be culturally more like White Americans. That used to involve the destruction of cultures that could not be isolated. Most people have to visit a reservation to see any authentic representation of Native people. That is, unless you call naming a car, helicopter, team, or some product a representation. Anyway, I believe that the Chinese are equally capable of attempts to eradicate ethnic cultures. I don't think it's "good." Otoh, I don't think providing universal education (or healthcare) the way some countries do is "bad."
Yes, if a Uighur or member of some other ethnic minority in China says there are atrocities, I don't dismiss it because I think the PRC "wouldn't do that" or because the media is anti-China. In general, I object to anyone telling me what someone else (or I) think or who to hate. And, if I knew for a fact there were extermination camps running 24/7, what would I do? ... The same thing as if someone on the internet said the same.
in general how would you label the act(s) of institutions of power that seem to target groups of people based on ethnicity, race, culture, gender, etc
Steve James wrote:in general how would you label the act(s) of institutions of power that seem to target groups of people based on ethnicity, race, culture, gender, etc
I wouldn't label them further than to say that all human societies are capable of doing so. A specific example would be the US where people identify so much with a particular political party/position that they feel free to target each other. So, if I were to generalize, I would say that these institutions are self-destructive. Cambodians massacred Cambodians, if you see my point. Americans do the same, and I'd say that the Chinese are also guilty.
Now, whether the categories used to target (oppress, repress) people are valid is often a cultural decision. Many people in the US are willing to restrict the rights of lgbt people or others. Some think it's a patriotic or religious obligation. What can I say, history shows Christians killing Christians, Muslims killing Muslims, and Chinese doing the same.
I'm not saying that all of these are equivalent. But, I don't think it's being virtuous to say that I'm against genocide, ethnocide, racism, gender discrimination. You know. To me, it's like saying I'm against rape, theft, or murder.
i am going to assume that your views on rape, theft, and murder - would be similar to mine
and that we would both put - genocide, ethnocide, racism, gender discrimination.... rape, theft, or murder
firmly in the "f$ck that Sh$t" category....
GrahamB wrote:I'll let you two argue about the grammar, but historically it's not true if you take it he did mean "always" literally - The Ching Dynasty, for example, was not about the Hanification of the Chinese subcontinent. Quite the opposite. The dynasty was founded by the Manchu Aisin Gioro clan in Manchuria.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests