Istoria Chinei!

[ https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/-p2lhxUqMMQ?feature=oembed - Pentru incarcare in pagina (embed) Click aici ]

[ https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/4qDdRd-m-fY?feature=oembed - Pentru incarcare in pagina (embed) Click aici ]

Edited by grrrrr, 21 March 2018 - 16:05.

heroes3, on 23 septembrie 2012 - 13:26, said:

Dupa mitologie, istoria Chinei nu are inceput, a existat dintotdeauna.
Dupa un timp, apare Imparatul Galben.
Din punct de vedere al abordarii mitologice, putem aprecia ca spre deosebire de alte popoare, care au un mit fondator,o legenda a creatiei in cazul Chinei lucrurile stau diferit.
In sensul de singuaritate, intrucat chinezii traiesc cu credinta ca tara lor, China este un fenomen natural permanent.
China nu are un erou fondator.
Imparatul Galben, restaureaza China fara a crea un imperiu, acesta este motivul pentru care istoria chineza apare ca un proces de revigorare a unor principii care exista in mod natural, o alternanta de perioade glorioase urmate de perioade de haos si apoi de eforturi pentru restabilirea armoniei pierdute.
Istoria Chinei este ciclica, urmeaza acelasi tipar de secole, perioade de haos si perioade de armonie.
Imperiul de multa vreme divizat, trebuie unificat;de multa vreme unificat, trebuie divizat....repetitie la infinit.

Signed_on_ice, on 05 mai 2018 - 11:11, said:

Nu prea: primii ''imparati mitici'' sunt de fapt niste sefi de trib foarte ''darwinist-evolutionisti'', ei descopera apoi invata pe oameni sa iasa din pesteri, sa poarte haine, sa faca foc, sa cultive plante, sa lucreze metale etc.

Imi place ca te straduiesti sa popularizezi istoria Chinei.

O poza cu dedicatie pentru cine mai crede in superioritatea asiaticilor. As fi preferat pe Isus in locul lui Marx ( fezabil in viitor avand in vedere ascensiunea crestinismului acolo ) , insa fiecare pasare piere pe limba ei.

[ https://qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/rts1pt1r-e1525418115396.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=3200 - Pentru incarcare in pagina (embed) Click aici ]

grrrrr, on 07 mai 2018 - 08:53, said:

Valabil pentru toate popoarele, insa in cazul Chinei, au dat skip peste partea aceasta.

AMDG, on 07 mai 2018 - 10:13, said:

Topicul este despre istoria chineza.
Ce crezi ca ar trebui discutat pe acest topic?
Despre cuiul in care era atarnata poza lui Marx?
Cine limiteaza China la niste draperii rosii, pesemne atat poate.

AMDG, on 07 mai 2018 - 10:13, said:

Pana nu trec crestinii macar de 20% din total nu zic hop.
Si si atunci, sunt nenumarate ocaziile cand chinezii au pierdut 30-50% din populatie in diverse tulburari...
Oricum, si koreenii s-au oprit pe la 35% sau asa...
Existau protestanti entuziasti care visau la prima tara galbena majoritar crestina dar nu s-a materializat...

Signed_on_ice, on 07 mai 2018 - 10:38, said:

N-am inteles.

Edited by grrrrr, 07 May 2018 - 11:45.

grrrrr, on 07 mai 2018 - 11:46, said:

Chinezii nu recunosc un inceput al istoriei lor.
Ei subscriu tezei eternitatii Chinei

Edited by Signed_on_ice, 07 May 2018 - 11:48.

Signed_on_ice, on 07 mai 2018 - 11:47, said:

In masura in care a existat o facere a lumii si-n mitologia lor, nu prea e asa.
Vezi legendele despre Cei 3 Puri, Pan-Gu, Fuxi-Nuwa etc.

Edited by grrrrr, 07 May 2018 - 11:50.

In mitologia lor, China este prezentata ca fiind centrul universului.
Centrul este de regula si etern.

Signed_on_ice, on 07 mai 2018 - 12:01, said:

Inca odata, au si destule legende ale unui inceput.

Da, cea cu oul.

Si Fuxi si Nuwa, si Cei 3 Puri...

Marriage as Political Strategy and Cultural Expression: Mongolian Royal Marriages from World Empire to Yuan Dynasty
De George Qingzhi Zhao
Interesanta carte.
Mongolii si dinastia lor in China, si casatoriile asa cum erau in vremea lor.
Cateva detalii.
Dinastia Gingisida a avut cica o mortalitate imensa, din mai multe motive:
- consangvinitate mare
- asasinate numeroase
- neadaptarea la alte climate
Aceasta mortalitate a contribuit mult la slabirea dominatiei lor.
Tot ea a impins dinastia spre adoptarea altor religii, si acest fapt slabind in timp coeziunea imperiului.
Altfel, mongolii aveau maniere mai degajate si mai egalitare intre sexe, ceea ce-i deranja teribil pe chinezi.
A existat doar o asimilare superficiala a mongolilor la cultura chineza si per total nu se poate vorbi de disparitia lor pana dupa instalarea dinastiei Ming.
Imparatii Ming nu-i persecuta nici nu-i destituie dar ii obliga sa-si ia soti/sotii chinezi si sa urmeze obiceiurile chinezesti.
Pana la asta, nu se prea intampla asa ceva, decat cu mongolii saraciti sau izolati in localitati chineze.

Ce e interesant insa e asa numitul grup etnic ''Semu''.
Adica ''ochii colorati''.
In ierarhia imperiului mongol, erau urmatorii dupa mongoli.
De fapt erau un conglomerat.
Mai mult uiguri si turci dar si persani, ceva arabi, chiar ceva indieni si ceva slavi.
Insa printre ei, cei cu ochi de culoare deschisa erau destui cat sa se atribuie grupului intreg aceasta caracteristica.
E drept ca uigurii au si azi destul de multi blonzi intre ei.

Edited by grrrrr, 14 June 2018 - 11:16.

De ce erau ei importanti in ochii mongolilor? De ce i-au facut pe ei mongolii tovarasii lor de dominatie?
Pai din aceste motive:
- multi din ei fiind turanici, mongolii ii vedeau ca pe niste rude
- erau la baza migratori ca ei in general
- nu erau din etniile majoritare mari cum erau chinezii, deci aveau interesul sa tina cu mongolii pana la capat
- nu erau un grup compact deci nu prea puteau fi niste rivali structurati si periculosi

Cum decurgea convietuirea?
Pai mongolii si Semu erau varfurile, ceilalti erau baza.
Atat varfurile cat si baza trebuiau sa-si pastreze caracterul etnic si cultural. Mongolii nu doreau ca populatia sa se uniformizeze, din motive evidente, ei fiind un popor mic.
Daca aveau loc casatorii intre mongoli si supusi partea non-mongola trebuia sa urmeze obiceiurile mongole.
Nu prea erau casatorii intre mongoli si Semu.
Intre Semu si alte neamuri insa mai erau.
Mai ales intre Semu si koreeni, aparent.
Multi mahari Semu isi luau koreence.
De altfel, koreencele aveau mare trecere si la mongoli.

Edited by grrrrr, 14 June 2018 - 11:30.

Vietnam and the Chinese Model: A Comparative Study of Vietnamese and Chinese Government - de Alexander Woodside
foarte interesant - vietamul era foarte sinizat cultural si social; inclusiv dinastia era de origine chineza plus o gramada de mahari de-a lung istoriei, chiar la scurt timp dupa independenta de chinezi; dar mult mai cool si mai relativisti ca si chinezii cu protocolul si viziuna politico-sociala; de pilda imparatii viet chiar ziceau ca notiunea ca ei ar fi ''fii al cerului'' e absurda, iar poporul ii barfea chiar in prezenta oficialilor...
societatea, clasele erau mult mai relative/fluide
e o poveste medievala faina cu niste mormoloci care se nasc intr-o balta si sunt revendicati de pestele-pisica, mandarinii ii dau dreptate lui, broastele is disperate, iar un intelept local zice sa astepte calea naturii, si desigur in timp mormolocii se fac broaste si mandarinii is rusinati
zic eu ca e un exemplu fain de cum se raportau ei la oficialismul chinez

Edited by xyz_forever, 04 August 2018 - 15:47.

https://multimedia.s...O-ForbiddenCity
viata la curtea imperiala chineza, mai ales concubinele

despre neo-confucianism
asta e un citat important
While it is clear that Zhu Xi was passionately involved in the politics of his day, his friend and critic Chen Liang contended that the world was a more empirically complex place than Zhu’s system implied. “I simply don’t agree with [your] joining together principles and [complex] affairs [as neatly and artificially] as if they were barrel hoops” (Tillman 1994: 52).
The nub of the debate revolved around the proper understanding of the notion of “public” or gong,gongli, public benefit. Here Chen broke with Zhu and suggested that good laws were needed just as good Neo-Confucian philosophers trained in a metaphysical praxis such as daoxue. “The human mind-heart (xin) is mostly self-regarding, but laws and regulations (fa) can be used to make it public-minded (gong)….Law and regulations comprise the collective or commonweal principle (gongli)” (Tillman 1994:16).
Such arguments for pragmatic political theory and even an appeal to the beneficial outcomes of carefully constructed legal regimes were never well received in the Neo-Confucian period, even if they did point to some genuinely diverse views within the Song Confucian revivals.

Deci neo-confucianistii pur si simplu nu credeau ca un sistem legal bine structurat poate functiona inainte ca cetatenii sa-si descopere principiul etern in ei.

Si o anecdota simpatica despre aventurile unu filozof confucianist in ''descoperirea principiului lucrurilor''

Centuries later in the mid-Ming dynasty, Wang Yangming (1472-1529) sharpened what he took to be Lu’s critique of Zhu Xi. Wang’s philosophy was inextricably intertwined with of his eventful life. Wang also had the richest life of any of the major Neo-Confucian philosophers: he was a philosopher of major import, a poet, a statesman and an accomplished general. Wang began as a young student by attempting to follow Zhu’s advice about how to gewu or investigate things. With a group of naïve young friends they went into a garden to sit in front of some bamboos in order to discern the true principle of bamboo. The band of young scholars obviously thought that this would be an easy task. One by one they fell away, unable to make any progress in their quest to understand bamboo principle. Wang was the last to give up and only did so after having exhausted himself in the futile effort. Wang recounts that he simply believed that he lacked the moral and intellectual insight to carry out the task at hand; at this time he did not question Zhu’s master narrative about how to engage the world as a Confucian philosopher.
[...]
Wang, dezamagit de limitele logicii in descoperirea principiului bambusului, a zis ca emotia trebuie sa conduca cautarea principiului.
Femeile intelectuale chinezoaice au inceput si ele sa se bage in speculatii asupra emotiei, desigur...
Cucerirea manciuriana insa a stopat net inceputul de afirmare feminina in filozofie si s-a revenit la un rigorism rigid.

Iar in Korea
In short, the Korean scholars realized that as elegant as it might be, there were problems with Zhu’s account of the nature of principle. The problem was put this way in a famous metaphor: how could a dead rider (principle as a purely formal pattern) guide the living horse of vital force? In other words, the Korean scholars understood clearly that the whole sensibility of the daoxueproject was suffused with an emphasis on cosmic process. Hence, if process was so essential to the working of Zhu’s system, how could principle, as a critical philosophical trait, itself be without the living creativity of process?
Yulgok is often portrayed as a proponent of a qi-monism wherein Yulgok defends the primacy of process sensibilities in daoxue by augmenting the role of vital force at the expense of principle. While Yulgok does indeed have all kinds of illuminating insights into the role of vital force, he never abandons a deep concern for the role of principle. Yulgok forthrightly links the notion of principle creatively with the equally important concept of cheng or the self-actualization of the mind-heart. In making this strong linkage, Yulgok is able to defend the thesis that principle itself is a vital manifestation of the living creativity of the Dao as the ceaseless generation of the myriad things.

Edited by xyz_forever, 18 August 2018 - 16:56.