The chinese must have a self-esteem problem if they consider someone who killed and subjugated them one of their heros. 

A lot of Chinese "heroes" have killed and subjugated Chinese people, so that's not really a criteria.

But when you consider that Genghis didn't really have much use for China or it's culture (beyond the wealth he extorted from it) it does seem kind of odd to consider him a Chinese hero. Khubilai Khan yes, but Genghis, no. 

Originally posted by Gubukjanggoon This place was a little dead...so I decided to add a discussion China has been saying that Ghengis Khan is a Chinese National Hero...What are your thoughts

           exactly which china have you heard saying that genghis khan is their national hero?

Chinese nationalists are very funny indeed

My answer to the first question: no, surely he wasn't and isn't a Zhongguoren.

Do they really think Genghis is a national hero?

Will Mexico make Cortes a hero now

Or that Japanese general of Nanking become the hero of China because it defeated the outnumbering chinese.....

"1.  He's a Mongol"

Irrelevant, is Napoleon not a french hero since he is not french?

"  I think he defeated Han Chinese Dynasties to set up his own Yuan dynasty..."

No he didn't set up any dynasty nor conquered any dynasty, he merely weakened them. The Yuan is set up by Kublai which was my major argument against putting Genghis as a legitimate chinese emperor of any sort. And certainly even if he was a chinese he doesn't qualify been a hero.

The Chinese consider Khubilai a hero for a very simple reason--he made China the richest, most powerful country on earth for a time. And even though he wasn't Han Chinese, he embraced Chinese culture and governed according to Chinese principles,which means he wasn't all that much different than any other Chinese emperor.  

have u ask every chinese ppl that Ghengis Khan is a Chinese National Hero???

i dont think so...so dont say so sure about it.....i mean we r all different...ones idea of what hero should be doesnt apply to other ppl......u should change ur post to does some chinese ppl consider Ghengis Khan is a Chinese National Hero...and this is what u said:China has been saying that Ghengis Khan is a Chinese National Hero. u used china thats kinda too broad...

hero has no border-line it really depends on ur idea of what hero should be like....well he most done something good for china...i suppose.

Toothlog, please post according to the grammar rules, this is not a chatting place.

To everyone: it's not Ghenghis nor Genghis Khan, it's Chinggis Kha'an.

If these are the criterias of being a chinese national hero...:

1. Ethnicaly being a non-Chinese

2. Launching several devastating invasions into China

3. Killing perhaps millions of Chinese lifes

... well yes, then I guess Chinggis is a Chinese national hero

/Mikael

in what way?

Sorry everyone, but posters here have no clues of what historical perspective is! You are thinking like nationalist pricks with a 20th Century brain

First Chinese people have been ruled by lots of non-Han people (Turkic, Mongol, Manchu). Same thing for other peoples (European, Indian, etc.). For example, Western Europe was populated by some original tribes (like the Basque people), then the Celts came, then the Roman came and ruled, then the Germanics invaded, then the Vikings, then the Slavics, etc. This mixture created the French, the Brittish, the Germans, the Polish, etc. Would you say that Charlemagne is a French or a German king? It is a Frankish/Germanic ruler who reigned over Celts, Romans, etc. His empire has been divided according to languages (Old French in the West and Old German in the East) and was at the origins of France and Germany. But both the French and the German are proud of him!

Chinese people are proud of Gengis Khan as Turkic people are. All Turkic leaders like Timur Lang or the Indian Moghuls have said that they are direct descendants from Gengis Khan who is a Mongol! The genius of Chinese civilisation is that it can swallow any foreing rulers: the Yuan kings became more Chinese than the Chinese were!

"1. Ethnicaly being a non-Chinese

2. Launching several devastating invasions into China

3. Killing perhaps millions of Chinese lifes"

While I have no disagreement for Genghis not been a Chinese let alone a hero, but your argument is lousy, ethnicity is unimportant, many conquerers in the past killed people including their own ethnicity and raids are common among themselves too, mongols raided other mongols often in history.

"But that is like saying, since the yuan rulers were mongol and since mongols once ruled russia, the Russian Empire is actually a CHinese one. "

No, because the Yuan never ruled Russia, the golden horde did.

fusion_wonder: So what? Do you think the Chinese will never forget Mongolian crimes committed in the 13th century and will sue Gengis' descendants at the International Court of Justice?

I like Alexander, Cesar, Napoleon, Gengis, Timur, Giap, the Tang & the Ming dynasties, etc. because for the World History, they were great men, although some committed atrocious crimes. The Chinese by considering Gengis as a Great Man are also great even if at that time Gengis submitted China. But this, a nationalist like you with a small brain will never understand! It is like these f*cking Chinese football fans who rioted because the Chinese football team lost against Japan. Nationalist bastards are in every country.

No, he only defeated the Jin (but didn't subjugate it) and the Xixia (was destroyed completely after his death), he never conquered China, he wasn't on bad terms with the Southern Song either.

Europe? What are you talking about? He never campaigned in Europe either, only two of his generals made a reconaissance mission in Southeastern Russia. Are you confusing Batu Khan's Eastern European Campaign of 1240 with Sube'etai Ba'atur and Jebe Noyan's Mission of the 1220s?

And nope, the Great Wall wasn't built because of the Mongolian army. It was first built by the northern Chinese warring states for two reasons: to keep the other states away and to prevent the Hu in the north from raiding themselves. Later, Qin Shihuangdi united all the existing fortifications as a defence against the Xiongnu.

Gubuk, Mongolian culture preserved better than in Mongolia(we called the Outer Mongolia). Please read another topic thread I posted in this forum .

 Rather 2 different cases, Napoleon was educated in a french school, served in a french regiment, adopted the french culture and nationality before he raised into power.  He is still a corsican but by the time he was in power he wasn't a foreigner in the eye of the people, he was "Le petit Caporal" from the POV of his soldiers. If he was viewed as a foreigner he would never have been accepted. Ghengis is altogether another history, the guy was an invader in china and a very cruel one at it. Now saying he is a chinese hero is at most very strange.

If white men can worship a Middle Easterner as savior of their souls,

If Europeans can praise the Roman Empire that wiped out their native cultures, then the Chinese can say "Ghengis Khan's an awesome guy"

True.  But still

Mongolia still too.

sure......... Chenjisi Han was not a Han chinese. But his was the ancestor of today's mongol chinese, which has more people than those of Outer Monglia. He was in a part of history of Chinese nation..

What is Your Question Again?

Genghis Khan belonged to Chinese Mongols and Mixed blood Chinese Mongols together with those mongols in Mongolia.

This is pretty funny topic.  Chinggis Khaan is Chinese national hero? Don't you think it is kinda too early for April fools day?

I wonder what Chinggis Khaan would've thought about this Chinese claim?

"Ghengis is altogether another history, the guy was an invader in china and a very cruel one at it. Now saying he is a chinese hero is at most very strange. "

My point was to Gubukjanggoon that been a foreigner doesn't they can't be the nations hero if you didn't notice.

hannibal says :Genghis Khan belonged to Chinese Mongols and Mixed blood Chinese Mongols together with those mongols in Mongolia.

You can also say Chinese will become more Mongolian...

I do not understand some posters here.

Just an exemple: Julius Cesar was a Roman and Rome invaded most parts of Europe. Is it contradictory to the fact that the Russian emperor called himself "Tsar" (Cesar) or the German leader "Kaiser" (Cesar)? I remind you that the Roman legions fought against the German tribes (who were Barbaric for Romans).

I think the term 'gook' includes all east asian peoples. It was a term used a lot by Americans in the Vietnam war, thats why most people associate the word with the Vietnamese.

Temujin:

My point is that it is perfectly understandable that Chinese people consider Gengis Khan as a national hero, although Mongols under his rule have slaughtered many Chinese 700 years ago.

Just like the German king called himself "Kaiser", in tribute to the great Cesar, who has slaughtered many Germanic people more than 1000 years ago.

but Chinese don't call their ruler Khan...

besides, numerous barbarians served Rome, and ultimately those barbarians conquered Rome, it's only natural they style themselves with their booty...

Temujin:

>but Chinese don't call their ruler Khan...

Bravo, great argument! You should be awarded the Nobel prize for your contribution to this forum well known among historians.

>besides, numerous barbarians served Rome, and ultimately those barbarians conquered Rome, it's only natural they style themselves with their booty...

and another Nobel prize for psychological history

so how does the fact that almost EVERY Steppe people called their ruler Khan or Khagan fit in your kaiser-theory? maybe because it's just a simple LANGUAGE thing?

Oh, so it is natural for Bosnians to consider Milochevic a hero 700 years from now... And Chinese will call Tojo a hero a few years from now...

The Chinese so hated the Mongol rule that in less than a century of it they rose up and overthrew the Yuan dynasty. Now they want to glorify a man who started all that...

By the way Caeser was a title, although it was derived from Julius Caeser's name. All Roman emperors used it. The probable reason why it entered the German language is that there was no such term before they learnt it from the Latins. After all, they were all barbarians that did not know what was an "empire".

So I don't think Kaiser is a direct invocation of Roman heritege.

I said Chinese hated Mongol rule:

Are peasents not the majority of "Chinese"?

Arn't Yuan the "Mongols"?

Stop distorting my words for your own purpose.

By the way quite a lot of Frenchmen supported Vichy in Nazi-Occupied France - but wasn't the liberation a patriotic war waged in name of French nationalism???

"Yeah right, that's why Ming destroyed all what was foreign, killed and drove out all foreigners. "

they didn't, just those that are hated by the commoners ming killed alot of the hated Han too, so whats your point? 

"I said Chinese hated Mongol rule:

Are peasents not the majority of "Chinese"?"

And your wrong because the Chinese revolted against the regime not directed against a ethnic group in particular.

"Arn't Yuan the "Mongols"?"

sure, so your saying that when the peasants overthrew a regime they hate the regime's race? Sorry but that makes absolutly no sense. So the Chinese also hate the Han race for overthrwoing the Han government?

"Stop distorting my words for your own purpose. "

I didn't distort anything, you should learn to speak better, and its not for any purpose but historical accuracy which you propaganlalists distort all the time.

"By the way quite a lot of Frenchmen supported Vichy in Nazi-Occupied France - but wasn't the liberation a patriotic war waged in name of French nationalism???"

So the french revolution means the French people hate the French race? Nonsense as usual. 

You are distorting my words. I said "Chinese so hated the Mongol rule that they rose up and overthrew the Yuan Dyansty." What do you not understand? Are not Yuans Mongols, and the peasents Chinese? What are trying to disprove? That Yuan was not Mongol and peasents were not Chinese? You should learn to think straight... or read. 

Is French Revolution a "Nationalist War"? I don't think so. Did they believe in World-Wide Brotherhood of Mankind? Yes...

Think about it: did not the Ming pose itself as a Chinese regieme bringing back things Chinese and crushing the barbarians (Mongols) ? Is that not why they shut the doors to the outside world?

Yes ofcourse when a race is under an oppression by another race, especially a minority, the former hates the latter.

1. Catholic Irish hated British

2. French hated Germans.

3. Chinese hated Japanese

4. Natives hated "Palefaces"

Iraqis overthrew Saddam Hussein, does it mean they hate themselves... no. Americans are oppressing Iraqis (or atleast in their opinion)... does that mean they hate Americans, at least in general? yes...

There are instances where a person of race 1 hits another of race 2. Race 1's and race 2's in the area line up behind "their" kind and start bashing eachother. If a race 1 beat up a race 1 would race 1's be all hitting eachother? I don't think so, unless it is gang-wafare.  

Nazi Germans hated the Jews because they were living in "their" land. Does it mean that they hate other Germans for living in their land? I don't think so.

Stop trying to pretend that racial hatreds don't exist and that they have historically been a factor for rebellions, wars and massacres.

It is you who are distorting history - rebellion against Yuan was racially motivated - was there ever a dynasty in China that was so short lived? Why did this dynasty end so quickly when there were just the same amount of famines, floods etc? Racial difference and clash.

Why does Tibet want independence? Race and Culture.

Why does Chechenya want independence? Race and Culture.

Why does Palestine want independence? Race and Culture.

"What do you not understand? Are not Yuans Mongols, and the peasents Chinese? What are trying to disprove? That Yuan was not Mongol and peasents were not Chinese? You should learn to think straight... or read. "

I do not understand your foul ranting. I'm trying to disprove that Chinese didn't start the rebellion because of the mongols as you incorrectly imply. Which part of that don't you understand? You should learn to get a brain, then think, then learn to talk.

"It is you who are distorting history - rebellion against Yuan was racially motivated - was there ever a dynasty in China that was so short lived? Why did this dynasty end so quickly when there were just the same amount of famines, floods etc? Racial difference and clash. "

Dead wrong, Evildoer, if you are so poor in Chinese history don't even talk about it, there is nothing I'm distorting, its just your pure incompetence in Chinese history in general. do you want the passage in primary sources why the rebellion started? Even worse is the fact that you cling to your petty assertion to the extent that you provided any valid argument at all. The rebellion started because of the poor condition in the society pure and simple, there is nothing directed against the mongols as a race until the very end by Zhu Yuan Zhang.

"Stop trying to pretend that racial hatreds don't exist and that they have historically been a factor for rebellions, wars and massacres. "

, you're hopeless, its so difficult to talk to losers who ties politic with every historic arguments. There is nothing I'm pretending, the facts are straight forward, the people rebelled against because of a corrupt regime, not because of racial hatred in the begining, what does it take to sink this through your thick skull. Its a shame you're too incompetent to read primary sources, but obviously you're not up to the level of debate, you just blindly claim something without basis.

"was there ever a dynasty in China that was so short lived?"

Yes, the Qin and the Sui are even shorter lived, so your wrong as only to be expected from an incompetent amateur like you.

" Why did this dynasty end so quickly when there were just the same amount of famines, floods etc?"

It ended just as fast as any other dynasty that has flood and famine, in fact because the Yuan was able to gain the support of the land owning class it outlasted other dynasties which had famine, so wrong again.

Since you're coupled with ignorance and stubborness(a combination that I loath), and pretty much has no knowledge of the Yuan whatsoever, I recommend you read Eberhard's history of the Chinese people on the section on Yuan dynasty and see why the rebellion actually started. I would gladly give a figure for the land tillage decrease, starvation statistics, famine level, and disease rate all of which are based on empirical data unlike your baseless history distorting bullsh*t that gains no foothold in the Yuan area of study done by the international scholars. You can compare these figure with other dynasties and see how Yuan is one of the worst in such terms. Peasants are careless to who rules as long as the regime gives them prosperity, and this the Yuan is completely devoid of such and that was why the peasant rebelled. Your claim that uneducated peasants could actually hate a "barbarian" when most of them couldn't even read just revealed your pure ignorance not only on the Yuan but on the social structure of imperial China as a whole. And ironically you claim I'm distorting history when its you who brings up politics on virtually every discussion that we had and feel shameless in your mistakes dispite been corrected by proven sources.

There were famines and floods million times during Tang, Han, Ming and Ching dynasties, so why didn't people rise up and overthrow? Because they were Chinese...  By the way some Mongols wanted to kill off all Chinese and use the land as pasture... Kublai stoped them. So you can basically see how Mongols treated the Chinese - as sword/arrow fodder.

The Germans were able to secure France better because of Vichy collaborators... how does that prove that the majority of French did not have Germans? Hmm... some rich collaborated with Japanese during Sino-japanese War, so it must have been Chinese loved Japanese!

LOL Yuan lasted 1279-1368...  you call that long? Rather pathetic isn't it? What about Ming, Song, Tang, Ching and all that? Were they so blessed that they had no floods and famines... that must be it.

Uneducated Southern "white-trash" country folk of America have the greatest hatred toward Blacks .... is ethnic hatred only confined to those highly-educated? Is not not easier to incite hatred among the ignorant and the stupid?

Note that most of the members of terrorist groups of IRA and UDA in North Ireland come from working-class, ill-educated and squalid neighbourhoods.

Any idiot can hate a Mongol if he is riding around spelendour when common people of his race is starving to death. Unless of course you are full of Maoist propaganda...

I have better books to read then that on China... China isn't the most interesting country anyway.  Long and dull...

You think you can rip politics out of history... oh good there should be no dictators, no democracies, no officers, no commanders, no village chiefs, no decisions, no wars, no events... etc. Good luck in writing politic-free history.

I think you should watch your mouth and stop the "foul ranting"...

Those who use the word bs do it beause they are it...

"There were famines and floods million times during Tang, Han, Ming and Ching dynasties, so why didn't people rise up and overthrow? Because they were Chinese... "

No, because there were properity and order during these regimes, another sign of your ingrorance. Every dynasty except 3 has whats called Zhi Shi, translated simply as period of prosperity. Han has Wen Jin, Ming Zhang. Tang has Zheng Guan, Kai Yuan Zhi, Qing have Kang Qiang Zhi. The only 3 that doesn't have any period of prosperity is Qin, Jin and Yuan, and out of these three Yuan lasted the longest.

 "By the way some Mongols wanted to kill off all Chinese and use the land as pasture... Kublai stoped them. So you can basically see how Mongols treated the Chinese - as sword/arrow fodder."

Wrong again, it wasn't during Kublai's time.

"some rich collaborated with Japanese during Sino-japanese War, so it must have been Chinese loved Japanese! "

The flaw of your argument is "some" while in the case of Yuan virtually all supported the regime. And for the fourth time, the peasant didn't rebel because Yuan was mongol, they rebeled because they were suffering, its as simple as that, why are you stubbornly resisting depite the fact you have no source to back your rubbish up what soever?

"Any idiot can hate a Mongol if he is riding around spelendour when common people of his race is starving to death. Unless of course you are full of Maoist propaganda... "

He hates him because he is rich and harsh not because he is a mongol.

 "Unless of course you are full of Maoist propaganda... "

Sorry, but the only propagandalist here is you, despite the fact that you have absolutely no bases for your claim while all of mine are based on empirical data, you're just a incompetent historian, stubborn loser, and a time waster.

"I have better books to read then that on China... China isn't the most interesting country anyway.  Long and dull... "

I've already presented my sources, you don't have to read it but the fact remains that you have no sourcfes and all your guess work are nonsense. You've just admitted you've read little on Cnbhina, so why the bloody hell are you still persisting on your clumsy argument?

"You think you can rip politics out of history... oh good there should be no dictators, no democracies, no officers, no commanders, no village chiefs, no decisions, no wars, no events... etc. Good luck in writing politic-free history. "

No, I'm citing historical works by competent historians unlike you, its funny you haven't figured out who really is riping politics out of history in here(in case you're too stupid to know, its you)

"I think you should watch your mouth and stop the "foul ranting"..."

I would watch it when you speak something other than baseless trash. And start reading books, I don't feel like arguing with a moron that don't even know this topic at all tand claim he is right.

You did not provide sources either... too bad for thou! Plus, you just contradicted your own words. Before you said only the rich upper class supported Yuan. Now you say the majority supported Yuan. Are the majority the rich and the upper class?

I admit I read little - but what evidence do I have that you know more?

Excuse me, but I am not a propaganda... calling humans propaganda is hilarious.  Unless I have writing and pictures posted on me front and back I am not a propaganda.

You just accused me of mixing politics with history. Now you accuse me of ripping it out from history. Contradiction again.

What makes me believe your sources exist? I could say, I read a book on Yuan by... say Alfred Wheeler (invented name), and I can just invent some examples. Is that not the same for you? Give me a tangeable evidence in form of a website.

"You did not provide sources either... too bad for thou! ""

"I recommend you read Eberhard's history of the Chinese people on the section on Yuan dynasty and see why the rebellion actually started."

Difficult reading?

P

"lus, you just contradicted your own words. Before you said only the rich upper class supported Yuan. Now you say the majority supported Yuan. Are the majority the rich and the upper class?"

No, there is nothing contracting in my statement, The majority I'm reffering to is the majority of the upper class, they makes up 1/10th of the population, but has the power.

"I admit I read little - but what evidence do I have that you know more? "

Easy, I read parts of Yuan Shu and already suggested to you sa source on the origin of the Yuan which you didn't feel like reading, not my problem you're ignorant and lazy at the same time.

"You just accused me of mixing politics with history. Now you accuse me of ripping it out from history. Contradiction again."

Contradiction to what? You have no sources, what I said is fact.

"What makes me believe your sources exist? I could say, I read a book on Yuan by... say Alfred Wheeler (invented name), and I can just invent some examples. Is that not the same for you? Give me a tangeable evidence in form of a website."

" http://rds.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=a+History+of+china+by+wolfram+eberhard/v=2/SID=e/TID=H037_119/l=WS1/R=1/H=0/MI=free/IPC=us/SHE=0/*-http://rdre1.yahoo.com/click?u=http://www.gutenberg.net/etext/11367&y=02F1A2ED37900267&i=482&c=9310&q=02%5ESSHPM%5BL7~%3FWvlkpmf%3Fpy%3F%7Cwvq~%3F%7Df%3Fhpsym~r%3Fz%7Dzmw~m%7B6&e=utf-8&r=0&d=wow-en-us&n=E9DK5H4VM53K309N&s=7&t=&m=4147B55B&x=01304248C43CEDE4 - http://rds.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=a+History+of+china+by+wolfr am+eberhard/v=2/SID=e/TID=H037_119/l=WS1/R=1/H=0/MI=free/IPC =us/SHE=0/*-http://rdre1.yahoo.com/click?u=http://www.gutenb erg.net/etext/11367&y=02F1A2ED37900267&i=482&c=9 310&q=02%5ESSHPM%5BL7~%3FWvlkpmf%3Fpy%3F%7Cwvq~%3F%7Df%3 Fhpsym~r%3Fz%7Dzmw~m%7B6&e=utf-8&r=0&d=wow-en-us &n=E9DK5H4VM53K309N&s=7&t=&m=4147B55B&x= 01304248C43CEDE4 "

Happy?

You said "virtually all" Chines - stop playing around with your words.

You don't understand what is contradiction? You just accused me before of mixing politics and history. Then you accused me of ripping history from politics. How can I be seperating and mixing at the same time?

You make accusations without professional evidence. Bring the professional evidence for your insults jk.

I will look into the site when I have time - I have to sleep now 11:48

"You said "virtually all" Chines - stop playing around with your words."

No i didn't say "virtually all chinese", i just said "virtually all", and i was refering to the rich, I'm not playing around with words, you just have to learn how to read.

"You make accusations without professional evidence. Bring the professional

evidence for your insults jk.

"

Wrong again, Eberhard is in fact a professional historian, once again you have shown your ignorance and stubborness, what that doesn't surprise me the least bit. 

"I will look into the site when I have time - I have to sleep now 11:48"

Good look at it so you woouldn't be as stupid as you already are. Come back tommorow and I'll crush the rest of your bullsh*t.

Too bad, you never mentioned the rich in the sentence or in the sentence before neither did you use a pronoun to reference them thus naturally "virtually all" means virtually all Chinese.

I was talking about "insults" and not your theory... How about thou teachest thouself how to read?

I said I will read it tomarrow... how is that avoiding?

"Too bad, you never mentioned the rich in the sentence or in the sentence before neither did you use a pronoun to reference them thus naturally "virtually all" means virtually all Chinese"

No,l since we are talking about the rich, it clearly means the rich, not my problem you don't understand it.

"I said I will read it tomarrow... how is that avoiding? "

You are avoiding the whole topic since I mentioned sui, Qin and jin were all shorter dynasties than Yuan, thus your statement of Yuan been short lived because its mongol is already proven invalid, and you're constantly avoiding it.

"True, the Han, Tang, Song and Ming lasted more than the Yuan, but they never controlled the total area now controlled by the PRC. "

Neither did the Yuan, xing jiang was not part of the Yuan empire.

           when one gets desperate, he picks on the most petty things and makes fun of it....including spelling mistakes...

            mate...warhead and i have been around this forum too long and we're not unfamiliar with losers like you.

Licking who's butt? A loser like him doesn't have anything to lick butt with he is a butt.

And I didn't know you could tell the future, you must be a psychic or just an ignorant loser. And from what you've about mongolia been more progressive than PRC, its clear you're the later.

What did he lose in? In being stupid? And did you win?  It apparantly seems so.

I am such a loser that I can confuse you into calling me propaganda... I am shocked and awed by my loserliness.

Oh and by the way Brits did well in fighting Opium War - look at Hong Kong, how more civillized, advanced, sophisticated it is to China.  Isn't that your logic?

"What did he lose in? In being stupid? And did you win?  It apparantly seems so. "

Yes

"Oh and by the way Brits did well in fighting Opium War - look at Hong Kong, how more civillized, advanced, sophisticated it is to China.  Isn't that your logic?"

yes, hong kong is more sophisticated, advanced, and civilized than China thats a fact, so what are you trying to prove? You bring up random topics like you always do.

You were justifying Chinese takeover of Outter Mongolia, since int became much more prosperous. Thus British are also justified in taking over Hong Kong and in their whole Opium War.

Thus they should have kept Hong Kong. Thus they should have taken over whole China and civillized it like they did in Hong Kong. Dosn't this resemble your arugment?

"You were justifying Chinese takeover of Outter Mongolia, since int became much more prosperous. Thus British are also justified in taking over Hong Kong and in their whole Opium War. "

China never took over outer mongolia and become more prosperous you idiot, if you are talking about inner mongolia, there is nothing about taking over, the territory is formally recognized to be part of China. If you are talking about the 18th century, all countries in the world are taking over others when they have the chance, China is one of the least agressive ones for your stupidity.

"Thus they should have kept Hong Kong. Thus they should have taken over whole China and civillized it like they did in Hong Kong. Dosn't this resemble your arugment?"

If they could treat the Chinese as equals of British which they didn't yes, they should

Note my sentence again. By "it" I was describing Mongolia. Note that the noun closest to "it" is  Mongolia. Do you need a grammer lesson? And were you not just saying that China made Mongolia under its control more prosperous???

I was talking about Hong Kong becoming more prosperous by the way not Brits.

Well, Hong Kong was taken over during 19th century so Brits have a good claim. Hong Kong is British according to your logic.

Bring your proofs of inequality. A lot of Hong Kongers detest Chinese takeover, that is why so many of them immigrated. Did they have a system to vote governors? Yes... Do they now have a system to vote for their representatives? I don't think so.

Don't swear. By the way he speaks English perfectly - he is only trying to manipulate my senteces. He only makes "mistakes" when he will profit by twisting up my words.

English isn't my first language either - note that I speak it somewhat... irregularly.

"Note my sentence again. By "it" I was describing Mongolia. Note that the noun closest to "it" is  Mongolia. Do you need a grammer lesson? And were you not just saying that China made Mongolia under its control more prosperous???"

I don't need any grammer lesson, its you that need to learn how to read, you clearly mentioned "outer mongolia" are you having memory problems coupled with stupidity and poor reading?

"I was talking about Hong Kong becoming more prosperous by the way not Brits.

Well, Hong Kong was taken over during 19th century so Brits have a good claim. Hong Kong is British according to your logic. "

No, because the British agreed to return it after 99 years, it was a lease not a gain. learn some history before you act stupid again.

"A lot of Hong Kongers detest Chinese takeover, that is why so many of them immigrated. "

And alot don't while the far majority didn't migrate.

"Did they have a system to vote governors? Yes... Do they now have a system to vote for their representatives? I don't think so. "

Oh well, they are lucky that they could vote at all.

"Don't swear. By the way he speaks English perfectly - he is only trying to manipulate my senteces. He only makes "mistakes" when he will profit by twisting up my words."

I'm not manipualting anything. You just can't speak and stupid enough to not remember what you say.