The idea of ancient white overlords in China is something that I've seen black power cretins claiming, too, although it's far rarer. I think, if I remember the basis of the yarn, it's that Dravidians (who're black Africans too FYI) had some super-culture in the Times Before History (Harappa) that spread civilization to the Chinese. The Chinese, being racist of course, destroyed this evidence of the influence of peaceful black overlords on their ancient forefathers- just as the racist Greeks and Romans did after they stole black Egyptian culture.
I can't even remember where I saw this (I think it was when I was Googling the Black Athena fable for shits & giggles one night, and I came across this), but I thought it was hilarious.
Originally Posted by Oswiu ...Gumilev was writing about this in the seventies, and quoting Russian translators of Chinese sources from the late Nineteenth Century.
I believe there IS grounds to suppose very ancient contacts with the Middle Kingdom. That the very dynasties should have come from the western nomads is unsurprising, as this has happened many times in the historical period.
I'm actually wondering if the author of the quoted material has read Gumilev's work on the Huns...
There is no Caucasoid/West Eurasian influnce in the Chinese, but plenty in the Uyghurs.
My 23andMe results
I've talked to Chinese about this sort of thing before and the reaction is usually a sort of mild amusement (amongst those who know anything about China's history). Most of them aren't even aware that there're some whites who engage in this sort of pseudohistorical nonsense.
Nomads rode in and took over China whenever it was in crisis. The nomads were then absorbed, distorted, crippled and expelled/exterminated in national reawakenings.
To suggest that civilisation appeared there SOLELY due to western influences does not necessarily flow from these circumstances at all.
If anything, the West is experiencing the same as China did in its weak stages now. The Barbarians are swarming in. Where the nordicist would see the regular barbarian irruptions as an indication of the BASIS of Chinese civilisation being foreign, I just see a parallel to our own nasty phase. Happily, though, we see that China recovers each time...
To take the theoretical nordicist's position is to invite a similar appraisal of OUR civilisation. Was OUR statehood founded by Pakistanis? By this logic, a historian a few centuries by now might say this same!
As for no genetic impact - where would we expect to find it? In the proletarian citizens of the People's Republic? Or in the old aristocrats who were murdered or expelled (several times down the millennia)?
For the ultimate origins of statehood in China... well, I doubt we have the necessary data. What I've read seems to indicate a greater involvement of the 'Rong' - a now extinct people, probably of Tibetan stock... But the ultimate credit must go to the agricultural pioneers. ANd these DO seem to have been the preserve of the 'Black Haired Ones' themselves.
Emperors, Khans and Party Chairmen come and go, but the basis for any of it is still the organisation of the farmers and grass roots administrators who hold back the huge rivers and make the harvest possible.
Last edited by Osweo; 01-15-2011 at 08:52 PM.
The Chinese were keeping written historical records about 2,000 years before Alfred during the Zhou Dynasty (founded c. 1,000bce). They know their own indigenous history quite well, or do westerners with a racialist agenda know it better than they do? Put yourself in the shoes of a Chinaman in the know, such as Sima Chien. Chinese states, by their own native records, emerged in the wake of poltitical collapse the Zhou Dynasty. These states began to war amongst each other when the power of the kings of Zhou began to wane, hence the term Warring States Era (a period of prolonged civil war several centuries long), when the [feudal] states arose... The era of the feudal states ended when one feudal lord, Ying Zheng, the future Qin Shih Huang Di (First Emperor, aka one of the most influentuial men in world history) arose to crush his rivals and unify the Chinese nation for the first time in history.
Europe still exists in a feudal mindset. It awaits its own Second Emperor (Augustus was the first) to obliterate dissension and unify the continent. The ancient Chinese put their tribal problems behind them 30 centuries ago; north and south means little to them since all are part of the Sinic nation.
When will Europe do the same? You people here, and on forums like SF and SK, love to yell to each other about north and south being better or worse. Germanic vs. Romance. Hahaha. Chinamen in their coolie hats did centuries ago what you louts are still yammering about (i.e. unified their homeland and became a force to be reckoned with in the world). Northern Chinese used to have a term for the southern Chinese that translates into English as something like "barbarian in the south." Now there's little difference between Chinese in the north and south as far as they're concerned since the once "racially pure" pre-Han from about the Yangtze river area absorbed and assimilated the other peoples in their feudal and imperial wars.
Last edited by Cato; 01-16-2011 at 01:36 AM.
I'm not a 'Westerner with a racialist agenda', I'm a russophone reader of Eurasianist histories that are very sympathetic to the Chinese, in fact.
As such, I know your Sima Chien better as Сыма Цянь, indeed. He's from around Hannibal's day - nothing too impressive in age.
The development of statehood in China takes us beyond the historical period.
If Chinese try to tell you that this is all nicely recorded and known about, they're fobbing you off with patriotic feel-good nonsense.
..to present some evidence
that might substantiate your glib characterisation?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)