Oh, wear to begin with your CCP-based history.

First, the PLA sent almost 1 million troops across the Yalu in a surprise attack (300,000 in the first wave alone)…the UN forces (mostly Americans) directly opposing them across the river was only 90,000, spread out very thin. It took two more human waves (estimated at another 500,000) in order for the PLA to push the UN forces back down the peninsula and eventually capture Seoul. Once the UN forces gathered themselves they stopped the PLA/NK advance at the 37th parallel and then retook Seoul. The PLA/NK attempted 2 more failed advances to capture Seoul before truce talks began. At best, it was a draw.

However, if the US had done the right thing (and treated the PRC like the enemy it was) by bombing PRC territory directly, I believe Korea would be governed by the south today…and mainland China would be governed by the RoC.

Oh, Vietnam kicked the PLA’s ass…you’re just proud too admit it…or too dumb to realize it.

I wouldn’t say that whoever kills the most enemy necessarily means they are the victors of the war.. rather whoever achieves their political goal is the winner..and this goal varies between the two sides.

As to the Korean war.. it was both a draw, loss and victory in several ways..

it was a draw as neither sides never managed to secure the entire peninsula for themselves

it was a loss because the Chinese lost so many men while the US had not faced anything less than a victory for a long time.

domestically in CHina it was a victory as the Korean war forced the US to recognize the CCP as the official ruling party of mainland China (prior to the korean war, the US did not recognize Mao’s government), also the war came in time just after the communist revolution thus the CCP used this conflict to get people’s attention away from domestic problems and onto fighting a superpower. the PRC somehow managed to keep inflation down after the war as well.

As for bombing the PRC territory during the war, well I don’t think the US wanted to drag the possibility of having direct conflict with the USSR (whom they feared more than the PRC).. any involvement with the USSR could open up another front in Europe which was still devastated by WW2, and could the American populace stomach the possibility of fighting China, N.Korea, and the USSR in Asia while fighting the Eastern Bloc in Europe?

As for Vietnam, well they fought two wars with China..one in 79 and 88..

the reason why China entered that war will probably be up in debate for a while as it varies..

but if u go by the official declaration that they wanted to launch a “punitive” invasion, then the PRC certainly did it as they did do some damage to the vietnamese provinces up north..

but if u go by the declaration to get the Vietnamese to withdraw from Cambodia, than it was a loss for the PRC because Vietnam still held on to it and expelled (or to some they would think it was a withdrawl) the PRC military forces out of Vietnam.

but 2 important lessons were learned from that war..
1. the Soviets did not send any military assistance to Vietnam
2. there were major flaws in the tactics the PRC military used as their supplie lines were severely strained most of the time.

I’m going to bring up some points on Tibet issues. Generally speaking I’d rather see Tibet independant but here are some thigns that are interesting because many of you are not taking an objective view of this, its either purely based on “repressive regime” or “liberating these people that has always been part of us”

Tibetan society prior to the Communist take over did consist of serfs, slaves and masters. The slaves were treated as nothing better than meat. This is information you can find from non Chinese sources. When the Chinese did invade tibet this past century, the majority of Tibetans DID welcome the Chinese army as they were liberated from their masters, of course those who owned the slaves weren’t too happy as they were expelled.

NOW, this newly found liberation doesn’t necessarily mean they wanted the Chinese to stay in Tibet, just like how the Iraqi’s welcomed the British liberation from the Ottoman empire, only to expell them within a short time.. the Tibetans soon disliked the Chinese government.

PRC policy towards the minorities during the Mao period can best be described as clumsy. During the civil war in China, the communist Chinese tried to win minority support in order to get allies against the nationalists.

Now after the war here is what the problems come out..

1. How do you create policies equal for everyone when there are radically different cultures? The Yi’s owned slave, the Tibetan women had multiple husbands, the Chinese eat pork, the Huis dont eat pork, etc. If you create one policy that appears to favor one group, it angers another group.

2. Where to draw the line on what is accepted practice and what should be banned? Many of the minorities in Yunnan practiced human sacrifice.

Because of these reasons it was difficult creating policies for the minorities.. also it wasn’t helped further during Communization during the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution as the Muslims were forced to eat in communes where they were fed pork, and land was taken away and re distributed. And during the Cultural Revolution, they were against religious institutions and many of Tibets monastaries etc have been destroyed, particulary by the Red Guards who were over zealous.

During Dengs time, they attempted to rapproach with the minorities but it was too late for some as the memories are built in. He allowed flexibility with culture and religion (religions that physical gods are not allowed, meaning ones that actually “live” such as the Dalai Lama).

as of current the pros and cons of minority status are..

pros:

– Minorities receive affirmitive action benefits, meaning many universities have quotas for minorities to get in.

– All minorities except the Zhuang do not have to go thru the one child policy

– the Government sends money for minority education. A case here was when several University of Hawaii students, one of which consisted of a Native Hawaiian and another an American Indian came to Tibet asking the Tibetans what kind of assistance they were given, and were surprised by how much federal finance they received in construction of private schools, etc when they themselves received little.

Cons:

– the one main problem that has ALWAYS been an issue with every minority region has been Han migration into these areas, which now result in the minorities becoming minorities in their own area.

– i have firm belief that often many companies in these regions do not hire minorities and tend to favor Han Chinese employees.

– Although many minorities can get into a university with a lower GPA than a han Chinese, it would still require them to take the class in Mandarin as there is not many universities and professors taht teach with minority language. This is a disadvantage for those minorities who can’t speak Mandarin.

– Other than the Zhuang minority areas and Korean YanBian province, most minority regions developed much slower than the rest of China, particularly in the coastal areas where living standard and economy has grown rapidly.

Now as for the historical Arguements…

-Tibet has been independant vs Tibet has always been part of China..

well it doesn’t matter because it could be argued either way, as Tibet and China’s history has been intertwined for centuries, even during the days when the Tibetans were known as the Chiangs, back during 200 AD. There were times when Tibet was under CHina, there were times when Tibet had control of many Chinese provinces such as Gansu, Yunnan, etc. There were times when the two were enemies, and there were times the two were allies.. as with any two countries.. circumstances change during time. The question is where to draw the line on historical claims?
Should we say that Alaska and Hawaii should be their own country because they have had native populants that were there for centuries prior to White americans coming in? or do u go even further, for example when all the islands in Hawaii had its own chiefs and fought with each other and each island should be seperate? In the Chinese example.. boundaries constantly fluctuated.. if using historical claims.. then the Cantonese can claim that they should have their own country as the Northern Chinese regarded them as southern barbarians and not part of CHina, and China would be reduced from between the Great wall and Yangtze and its western boundaries to Gansu.

-Tibetan culture is becoming extinct

Had the cultural revolution went on, yes it might have, but it didn’t go on. the Tibetans are reviving it right now and have been since the late 80s. Also many who get involve with the Tibetan issue know little or nothing of Tibetan Culture. If Tibetan culture “did” became extinct, it would still live in Bhutan, as the Ngalops of Bhutan preserved ancient Tibetan culture and language better than the Tibetans themselves who have constantly absorbed in Chinese, Jungar, and Mongol elements.

-some one mentioned about Tibetan culture v Chinese culture in comparison to aboriginal v Australia.

Well to be honest, Chinese culture and Tibetan culture are worlds different. but they are NOT on the same level. Prior to the introduction of buddhism, the Tibetans were nomadic and based on ancient Indian and Chinese texts, savage and routinely raided Indo-european, Burmese, and Chinese settlements around them. After the conversion to Buddhism from Indian missionaries, the Tibetans became buddhist and adopted Sanskrit writing, but they were still largely nomadic. The Chinese have had their own writing system and sedentary life style longer than the Tibetans imported theirs.

-Taiwan belogns to the taiwanese

This isn’t part of the Tibet discussion but I might as well bring it here. Technically speaking, those Chinese in Taiwanese who speak Taiwanese are nothing more than Hakka and Fukkienese, primarily speaking, what they speak and what the Chinese in Fujian speak is pretty much the same and most of the Taiwanese on that island are from Fujian province. If one wants to use the historical arguement, then Taiwan belongs to the Gaoshan people who were the original inhabitants of the people.. give them back their homeland, and you’ll end up kicking at least 85% of Taiwan’s population.

I also noticed how few any of you even brought up Xinjiang, or Eastern Turkestan, a region which has suffered as much if not more than the Tibetans. Perhaps it is because it’s populants are muslim and/or that the west has no interest in this area and has shown little media about it in comparison with Tibet. For example the last Tibetan uprising was in the late 80s.. the last uprising in Xinjiang was in the mid 90s, much more recent and much more deadly.

if anyone wants to discuss in detail the PRC’s policies with minority, the history with any of china’s minority and zones, feel free to ask. The minorities and minority regions of PRC and the former USSR is my area of interest and I indulge in studying most of the races that live within those boundaries

some of the hello’s i know.. most don’t really translate exactly as hello but is used to the same effect

French – bon jour
korean – annyoung haseyo
turkish – selam
kazakh, uzbek, tatar – salam
turkmen – essalam
vietnamese – ciao (pronounced like jao)
mandarin – ni hao

putting aside the PRC’s foreign policies as I too feel that if the Taiwanese want independance, than they shall have it…

Your brand of capitalism/democracy sounds just as corny as the quote above. All I seem to hear from China are flowery discriptions about “progress” being made and the countrys need to “maintain unity and order”.

Yeah.. China has often made alot of over statements on its economy and society especially during the Mao era, but this rhetoric has decreased during the Reformer’s era, no longer do you see things like “great leap forward” or “hundred flowers campaign” after the 80s occuring often. I wouldn’t say china is democratic but it’s embraced capitalism more or less.

what is important is that while china’s social and economic systems still have many flaws that need to be ironed out, we are doing exactly that. just look at the progress we have made already. in little more then two decades, we have transformed china from a poor and backward secretive communist state, not very unlike the n.korea of today to the prosperous and vibrent nation of today, and china is still changing for the better with every day passed, to become a more open and free nation. it is not incredible at all to predict that in another 20 years china could become the most open, free and prosprous nation in asia.”

Okay this is going to be long.. but based on what I’ve read in Brugger and Reglars “politics, economy and society in contemporary china” it would appear that the PRC did not seriously consider changing it’s economy system to the capitalist mode until the late 60’s, 70’s when China opened up to the world.
To put it bluntly when the leaders of China visited Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore they were shocked that the “inferior koreans” had a better economy, and as well as Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan who were “the same blood”. Which made them finally realize that it was their own policies that kept them stagnating. But because the Maoists (those who followed Mao’s policies) were overall conservative towards the current policies, the economy did not change much until Deng Xiao Ping (a reformer who was a rival of Mao and the Maoists) pretty much forced his way to the top by skillfully eliminating the power of the Maoists within the Communist party.

Although a bit reluctant, he experimented with the idea of open market and capitalism on a few select cities in 79, all of which were in Southern China.. these cities were Shen Zhen (right across of Hong Kong), Zhuhai, Shantou, Hainan, and Xiamen (right across Taiwan). As a result of this, within years, the province of Guang Dong (where these cities are located at) went from being one of the poorest to one of the richest. Eventually Deng opened up all the coastal cities, and eventually in the rural side, the communal system was abolished and land transferred back to private hands.

As a result of open market there were several problems.

1. State owned factories could not compete with foreign companies who oftened paid better, produced better quality goods, etc. As a result state owned factories had to lay off people (and in several cases close down). Those who depended on the communist system of welfare and pension were screwed and many who were unemployed lacked the skills foreign companies wanted. As a result there is, and still is much unemployment in numerous areas.

2. Prior to the Deng period, the Communist government would try to control the flow of rural people to the urban areas. with the relaxment of migration (it still does exist though), created the worlds LARGEST migrant work force.. numbering between 100-200 million. Who are these migrant work force? Mostly people from the rural side, often illiterate and/or lacked major skills looking for jobs and bouncing around from city to city. These are the people who most often are willing to work in the sweatshops or do menial labor. Also another related result is migration of rural women to the urban side, it is deep in their mentalities that it is better to live off in the city than in the country to do farm work. They too are often found working in sweat shops and menial jobs. When i visited Beijing to meet a friend, I was surprised to find how almost every building had an elevator girl working long hours, simply pushing buttons. I felt bad, but then many of them had weak grasp of CHinese literary language..what sort of jobs could they possibly find if they lacked skills (non prostitution jobs that is).

3. As a result of migrant workers.. there is increasing conflict between Urban people and migrant workers as they compete for jobs in the city.

4. the open market system has created a big class gap between urban people and rural people. Pretty much most people in the major cities live somewhat closely to their Taiwanese counter part while the migrant workers, several minority regions and rural regions live far behind.

In order to show how fast the urban areas have rapidly moved.. the area I was staying at did not exist 3 years ago, based on the testimonies of several american business men I knew who were working in China. Most of the cars, and there were many appeared to be at most 6 years old and it appeared that many people were able to afford Volkswagen and Audi (which are pretty abundant). Its a crying shame to see that they were driving cars nicer than what I drive and having better cell phones than mines. Supposedly 10 years ago, most of this traffic was mostly bikes. Much of the traffic was due to a majority of the streets in Beijing designed for bike traffic, which as a result, many streets were narrow, and there were hardly any areas for vehicle parking.

Wow, thanks for the lesson in democracy! Problem is that Taiwan a country of 18 million has an ecomomy that puts your 1 billion people to shame on a per capita level.

Taiwan has the benefit of having lesser mouths to feed as well as having good trading links with the worlds largest economy among others. Properly increasing the living standards of 1 billion will require stabilized population growth while the economy grows, but then that requires population control (the 1 child policy, which is applied to all Han Chinese and minorities that have a population of over 10 million, which is only the Zhuang minority).

Then why dont you try and opening up the internet in China so the people can speak for themselves instead of having people like you speak for them?

it’s not that hard trying to find more people from china and to ask them of their opinion. The internet there didn’t seem that restrictive.. I was able to go on Google there durign the time they were claiming to block it from that country. Of course I dont have the time to check every single site to see what was blocked and what isn’t.

same here, hope his conditions improve.

There are still Greek speaking peoples in modern Afghanistan (!) who claim descendance from his troops believe it or not.

You must be thinking of the Tajiks (one of the Northern Alliance members) who are also found in Tajikstan. I also heard they claim descent from Alexander’s troops but their language is basically an older form of Persian. (whether Persian and Greek share many similarities I don’t know, although I do know Lithuanian has many similarities with Greek).

Thats pretty interesting.. over where I live, there are numerous people of Portugeuse background and they all do seem to figure out Spanish pretty well, and I was wondering if the same could be done vice versa.

In another similar case, I also noticed Turkish people are able to understand what Kazakhs and Uighurs are saying but also, not the other way around.

since we’re going into anthropology now..

I agree with Icarus that the Greeks have generally been typical Medditeranean stock, meaning stockier body, darker skin and darker hair. and there are some Greeks who are blonde and some who look more middle eastern.

For the Turks.. historically Turkic people have been more open to physical assimilation but the culture has stayed mostly intact..
as an example.. Karim Tatars have blonde hair and blue eyes, Kazan Tatars can range from slavic looking to mongol looking, Uighurs are usually inbetween Mongol and Persian looking, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz and Sakhalar are mongol to tungus looking. yet despite the wide differences in physical features.. the culture is relatively the same..especially with strong emphasis on musical oral tales of Batirs, wrestling, and usually a proud history of military history. Lingiustically they haven’t changed too much and the Turkic languages are more like dialects (with the exception of Chuvash). I’m currently studying Sakha language (the language of Turkic people living in the Russian Far east in the far far north by the arctic areas) and surprisingly could figure out many Turkish words. The Anatolian Turks (those in Turkey) are only from the Oguz group, meaning their closest relatives are Azerbaijani’s and Turkmens.. Azerbaijani’s appear to look very similar to Turkish people.. and Turkmen (who are probably the ancestors of Turkic armies that moved to presentday Turkey) look actually a bit similar yet different (Turkmen sometimes have eyes similar to that of east asians)