Posted on 03/05/2006 6:51:08 PM PST by gusopol3
Interesting. Though the Manchus in the first millenium after Christ were clubbed with Mongols etc. as northern barbarians
Legend has it that Xiongnu (what mongolians/manchurians/turks/etc. are called) and Han chinese are from the same people initially. That was the legend for thousand of years and recently was proven that they share the same root in Gansu, China, and possibly even caucasians.
Han Chinese today is made up of many, many races. The difference between a Han Chinese and the "minorities" is what they choose to assimilate or not. That's all. Talk to a Southern Chinese and you'll find him/her to be quite a bit different than a Northerner, even though both are "Han".
Anyway, the article is pretty silly in that it attempts to make it sound like the manchurians were trying to get back their "country" or something, but when in effect, when they conquered the Han, they became the Han (assimilation). Similar situation happened to Genghis Khan (to a lesser extent than the manchurians) when it controlled China.
As far as the claims to xinjiang and Tibet goes -- MACHURIANS were the ones that originally conquered them completely 300 years ago. Not sure why people blame the Han for this, but it was the manchurians. That's where the historical claim for those area came from for China. A big part of Xinjiang was more or less in Chinese control for centuries (even before the manchurians' reign). Tibet was not part of China until the manchurians took over.
ok, valid point about the Manchus -- but the Tibetans and Uighurs are not Chinese and assimilation will be cultural genocide for them
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.