[Patrickov]

I am not familiar with China's history but how do you reckon such a large space and population becomes homogeneous?

I admit that I kind of evade that matter, as places outside China proper are not as homogeneous as one may expect. Also, the Chinese have themselves been conquered a few times. The difference between them and other conquered ethnicities is that they more often than not succeeded in assimilating whatever tribes conquering them instead of the other way round. The Turks narrowly escaped it by going West; the Uighurs... well, until now; and the Mongols by being the most self-aware.

[Heisenberg]

I am not familiar with China's history but how do you reckon such a large space and population becomes homogeneous?

How do you reckon China became 91% Han?

China's territory is not homogeneous. The vast, vast majority of the Han population inhabits the same core boundaries it has inhabited for millennia. Western China has significantly larger populations of ethnic minorities. The steppes of Tibet and Xinjiang are largely uninhabitable, very sparsely populated, and historically nomadic so it's hardly surprising the native populations don't compare with the much more fertile lands in the east of the country which have had permanent settlements for thousands of years.

Compare this population density map with any historical map of ths Chinese dynasties and you'll see what I mean:

The Republic of China and People's Republic of China era marks the return of Han rule over the whole territory of China. The Han didn't control their homelands north of the Yangtze including the original territory of the Yellow River for about 600 of the last 1,000 years.

I'm not sure what your point is. The rulers of the Qing dynasty were Manchus, a tiny ethnic group from northern China. The (vast) majority of the population was still Han.

Once you take China's 4,000 years of actual history into account, this claim from Patrickov just looks like rabid anti-Chinese nonsense:

They didn't embark a "global conquest" not because they didn't want to.
They just weren't capable.

[Patrickov]

Once you take China's 4,000 years of actual history into account, this claim from Patrickov just looks like rabid anti-Chinese nonsense:

You are making a false accusation with no explanation.

I am Han Chinese and study of Chinese History is semi-compulsory in Hong Kong. I am also very fond of reading Chinese history works, especially the ancient ones, even now.

I have also given good reasons to explain that the Chinese have significant geographical challenges that made them incapable to pursue global domination, but they do think their nation is the "centre of the world", "Kingdom of Heaven" (天朝上國), and would like to assert suzerainty for wherever they could exert control. Clearly Xi Jinping is a strong believer in this.

Not just me, most of us Hongkongers are anti-Chinese Chinese for very good reasons -- the Mainlanders have been given chances but refuse to improve themselves, instead believing in the exact same glory of the past

Now that they have the means to exert more influence around the world, you will see their true colours very soon, and you will start to thank your race before you want to admit it.

[fuser]

Which civilization didn't thought of themselves as center of the universe in one way or another, ffs. I have no idea why people actually make that claim about China as if that's uniquely evil or something.

[Heisenberg]

@Patrickov Your whole "I am Han Chinese, trust me, we're evil and need to be stopped" schtick reminds me of that "Latinos for Trump" guy who said Latin American immigration to the USA had to be stopped because otherwise there would be a taco truck on every corner, lol.

Not just me, most of us Hongkongers are anti-Chinese Chinese for very good reasons -- the Mainlanders have been given chances but refuse to improve themselves, instead believing in the exact same glory of the past

This is rich coming from a guy who wants Hong Kong to be recolonised by the British Empire.

I have no idea why people actually make that claim about China as if that's uniquely evil or something.

It doesn't even make sense on its own terms, given that the way it has manifested over several thousand years is in the form of a civilisation that is largely uninterested in the outside world. By contrast, the Anglo concept of "Manifest Destiny", was very specifically a justification for expansion and conquest.

[skinster]

I still find it hilarious that Westerners believe Pompeo when he talks about "genocide of Muslims". Have you not looked at his time in office and within the CIA?

It is utterly absurd, but also really funny too.

The good news is only liberals in the West and pseudo-leftists fall for this shit and even there there's not so much interest since the Western world is on fire currently because of a pandemic (according to the same groups ).

Here you can see some of the reality of Uighur life in China.

[noemon]

China's territory is not homogeneous.

Right, China is only 91% homogeneous which according to you that is not homogeneous. Okay.

I'm not sure what your point is. The rulers of the Qing dynasty were Manchus, a tiny ethnic group from northern China. The (vast) majority of the population was still Han.

Do you have any source or evidence that the ethnic group ruling China for the majority of the time the past millenium was "tiny" and that the Han were "vast" as you claim?

The Later Jin (1616–1636) and Qing dynasty (1636–1912) were established and ruled by Manchus, who are descended from the Jurchen people who earlier established the Jin dynasty (1115–1234) in China.

Manchus form the largest branch of the Tungusic peoples and are distributed throughout China, forming the fourth largest ethnic group in the country.[1] They can be found in 31 Chinese provincial regions.

Manchus have been ruling China for the past 600 out of 1000 years while the last time the Han were in charge was in the 1500's, the Han took over China in 1912 after a 500 year hiatus and the Han now represent 91% of the population. They are proactively suppressing the Tibetans, the Uyghurs and others while the Chinese have enjoyed a relative isolation from the rest of the world.

Sun Yat-sen, a Han, led a revolution that overthrew the Qing Dynasty in 1912. He was the first President of the Republic of China. The Republic of China and People's Republic of China era marks the return of Han rule over the whole territory of China. The Han didn't control their homelands north of the Yangtze including the original territory of the Yellow River for about 600 of the last 1,000 years.

I had not even realised that Hong Kong has been distinct from China for far longer than the Han have been ruling China.

Has Hong Kong ever been a part of Han China?

It doesn't seem so.

[Heisenberg]

Do you have any source or evidence that the ethnic group ruling China for the majority of the time the past millenium was "tiny" and that the Han were "vast" as you claim?

Would you care to do your own reading on this topic, since you admitted earlier in the thread that you are unfamiliar with Chinese history? Any of the many articles on Wikipedia about the subject will serve as a good introduction, and I'm sure you can find plenty of books on the topic if you are so inclined.

The Qing dynasty was founded after an invasion by a confederation of (Manchu) Jurchens to overthrow the Ming dynasty, which was in decline. Manchus are not originally from China "proper", but from Manchuria, as the name suggests. Even the majority of the Qing army was Han (by the mid 17th century the Han made up about three quarters of the elite force known as the Eight Banners). Once they overthrew the Ming, the Qing rulers retained the (majority Han) ruling infrastructure.

It's not exactly unprecedented in history for a ruling class to be a different ethnicity to its subjects, especially in hereditary absolute monarchies. The Mughal rulers in India were Persian, after all.

Manchus have ben ruling China for the past 600 out of 1000 years while the last time the Han were in charge was in the 1500's, the Han took over China in 1912 after a 500 year hiatus and the Han now represent 91% of the population.

Here's an idea: how about you back up your unspoken claim here, which is that the Han eradicated hundreds of millions of Manchus over the course of the past century without anyone noticing.

[Patrickov]

I had not even realised that Hong Kong has been distinct from China for far longer than the Han have been ruling China.

Has Hong Kong ever been a part of Han China?

It doesn't seem so.

Sorry Sir, wrong interpretation.

Hong Kong was under Han rule for about 2,000 years before the British came.

Actually being so southerly means most of the Han settling there was rather free from pestering from northern nomadic people.

As the Song was being conquered by Mongols, two of the Chinese child emperors actually settled in Hong Kong, and one of them actually died in the territory.

Even though the Han has been conquered for 600 of the last 1,000 years, one thing I have to clarify: The Han was being so resilient that most ethnicities that actually conquered them got assimilated into the Han rather than otherwise.

The Chinese state just before British conquest was established by the Manchus, but by the time the West came, Manchus were more or less a thing of the past already.

There is no need to establish our (Hongkongers) separate identity by making distorted claims like "we had never been under Chinese rule before".

We are simply rejecting China because we have seen better.

Here's an idea: how about you back up your unspoken claim here, which is that the Han eradicated hundreds of millions of Manchus over the course of the past century without anyone noticing.

The Manchus more or less assimilated themselves into the Han. It's actually a very common process for conqueror ethnicities in China.

In fact, even the Japanese invaded China based on some very Chinese belief (thinking they were the centre of civilization)

[Patrickov]

This is rich coming from a guy who wants Hong Kong to be recolonised by the British Empire.

You find it absurd, but the problem is the Chinese rulers and their collaborators are MUCH MUCH WORSE.

As much as I approve Trump, I have no hesitation to point out that Chinese rulers and their collaborators are of the same kind as Trump supporters or Brexiters in the United States and United Kingdom respectively.

[Patrickov]

Timeline for Hong Kong under Han Rule

c. 210 BC first conquest by Chinese
c. 206 BC the Chinese garrison led locals and break off from the central dynasty, but they are effectively still Han
c. 110 BC return to central Chinese rule
c. AD 180 local governor becomes semi-independent, still Han Chinese
AD 226 that local governor taken over by a larger break-off state. Still Han Chinese.
AD 280 return to central Chinese rule under a new dynasty
AD 317 the central Chinese rule retreats to the Yangtze (Hong Kong still under it)
AD 331 a local county containing now Shenzhen and Hong Kong was established
AD 420 / 479 / 502 / 557: Change of Han Chinese dynasties
AD 589 return to central Chinese rule under a new dynasty
AD 618: Change of Han Chinese dynasty
c. AD 910 another local governor becomes independent, still Han Chinese
AD 971 return to central Chinese rule under a new dynasty
AD 1227 the central Chinese rule retreats to the Yangtze (Hong Kong still under it)
AD 1278 An emperor visited Hong Kong escaping Mongol pursuit, dying there. His brother escaped elsewhere
AD 1279 Final conquest by Mongols, who nevertheless retained Han system and Han administration in China
AD 1368 Return to central Chinese rule under a new dynasty
AD 1644-1661: Conquest by Manchus, who nevertheless retained Han system and Han administration in China
AD 1840: British conquest
AD 1941-1945: Japanese conquest
AD 1997: Return to central Chinese rule under a new dynasty