朝鲜和越南为什么不乖乖在中国当个省而要独立出来成为一个国家呢？（下） [英国媒体]

why are Korea and Vietnam independent nation instead of being parts of china?

朝鲜和越南为什么不乖乖在中国当个省而要独立出来成为一个国家呢？（下）



May 28th, 2017, 11:33 PM
Hakka Nyin
because mongol are no body now, this is not the age of horse and nomads, their warfare skill are pretty useless now, and they are only 1.5 million mongols in mongolia

因为蒙古人现在已无躯体，这不再是马匹和游牧民族的时代了，他们的作战技能现在相当无用，在蒙古他们只有150万蒙古人。



May 29th, 2017, 02:01 AM
Vaderfan
How can China build anything on islands that don't belong to them?
Also looking at your recent posts you should first learn what a rheotorical question is.

中国怎么能在不属于他们的岛屿上建造任何东西呢？此外，看看你最近的帖子，你应该首先了解什么是流变学问题。

May 29th, 2017, 05:59 PM
Dreamhunter
And which potential invader are you defending against, in grabbing islands & sea territory that are not yours in SCS, and building airports & naval bases there? Maybe the Philippines then aye..
Safeguard Chinese civilisation from whom, pray tell us? Well, if you're thinking of US, then your argument is soft as jelly & does not hold water even as much as a little leaky coffee powder sieve can. Becos US is already in Okinawa, South Korea & Taiwan, and they can invade you from those places anytime they want, if that is what they want.
There is everything wrong with that.

在占领不属于你们的岛屿和海域，以及在那里建造机场和海军基地时，你要防御哪些潜在的入侵者？也许是菲律宾。
请告诉我们你们要保护中国文明不受谁的伤害？好吧，如果你想到的是美国，那么你的论点就像果冻一样柔软无力，即使是一个漏水的咖啡粉筛子也不那么有说服力。因为美国已经在冲绳、韩国和台湾了建立了基地，如果他们高兴的话他们可以随时从这些地方入侵你们。
所以你说的这一切都是有问题的。

May 29th, 2017, 08:06 PM
Haakbus
In the spirit of your signature, I can add another wall (of text) to that list.
Where is your evidence that China, an expansionist empire at the time, didn't have any intention of getting control over the southern part of the peninsula?

看到你的网名名称，我想在在这个列表中添加另一个墙（文本）。
中国当时是一个扩张主义帝国，他们没有任何意图控制半岛南部的证据在哪里？



May 29th, 2017, 10:36 PM
Haakbus
In 108-107 BC, Han set up four commanderies to control the northern regions of the peninsula: Lelang (centered in Pyongyang), Xuantu (northeastern regions of the peninsula), Lintun (uncertain), and Zhenfan (uncertain)
In 82 BC, due to local resistance, Lintun and Zhenfan were abandoned, with some of their territories incorporated into Lelang and Xuantu.
In 75 BC, also due to local resistance, Xuantu was removed from the northeast to modern Liaodong.
In 204, the territories beyond the southern part of Lelang which had been abandoned due to local resistance were incorporated into the Daifang commandery (modern Hwanghae province in North Korea).
About this time Xuantu was moved further west to Fushun because Koguryo was preventing effective governance.
Xuantu was eventually destroyed by a rising Koguryo in 302, followed by Lelang and Daifang in 313.
Even when these commanderies were in existence, their actual power and territory varied a lot over time, generally becoming smaller and smaller as local raids made government very difficult. Whatever the case, it's obvious Han and later dynasties had a lot of trouble keeping control over those regions.

公元前108-107年，汉族设立了四个郡部控制半岛北部地区：乐浪郡(以平壤为中心)、、玄菟郡(半岛东北部)、临屯郡(不确定)和真番郡(不确定)。
公元前82年，由于当地的抵抗，临屯郡和真番郡被遗弃了，部分领土并入乐浪郡和玄菟郡。
公元前75年，由于当地的抵抗，玄菟郡从东北撤到近代的辽东。
204年，乐浪南部以外因地方抵抗而被遗弃的领土被并入了带方郡（现代朝鲜黄海省）。
即使有这些郡部存在，他们的实际权力和领土随着时间的推移变化很大，一般都是越来越小，因为地方的袭击使政府管理非常困难。不管怎样，汉代和后世都很难控制这些地区。

May 29th, 2017, 10:54 PM
heylouis
some of the words are not accurate here.
it is well know the four commanderies did not co-exist for notable time.
and it is well known in fact the han commanderies (i mean in the whole han empire) changed by time for quite a lot of times.
it is not accurate to say "abandoned" commanderies, they just changed and emerged.
especially for the time of year 204, we knew the administration structure of daifang happened because the Gongsun family performed an administration reform within their half independent regime during this three kingdom era.
it is quite inaccurate to say due to resistance, daifang was established. in fact, gongsun was quite expanding at the time. daifang was his home base to remotely control the samhan at that time.
Koguryo is almost the only and one single true reason that the domainate power changed from han/jin/tang to Koguryo.
after Han dynasty, or say after tang dynasty, when Koguryo was past tense, it is rather difficult to say the chinese dynasties have difficulties to control those northern part of korea.
because the common sense chinese dynasties under western scholarship context simply were not there...
would you say liao or jin had difficulties to control the northern area of korea?
anyway, let us not forget at least the Hamgyong was not officially korean until ming, which was a result of the trading of choson loyalty.
i mean the relative peace between china and samhan/choson/korea was because the non-threatening feature of samhan/choson/korea

你说的这些并不准确。
众所周知，这四个郡部在相当长的一段时间内并不是共存的。
而且历史记载，汉人郡守(我是说在整个汉朝帝国中)在很多时候都是随着时间的推移而改变的。
说是“被遗弃的”是不准确的，它们只是随时情况变化了而已。
特别是204年的那个时候，我们知道的说法瑟吉欧。带方郡的行政结构之所以发生变动，是因为公孙家族在这三个王国的半独立政权内进行了一次行政改革。
这是非常不准确的，实际上是因为叛乱带方郡才成立的。事实上，公孙氏家族在当时相当膨胀。那时候，带方郡是他远程控制三韩（译者注：古代朝鲜半岛南部有三个小部族，它们是马韩，辰韩、弁韩，合称三韩。三韩后来演变成百济和新罗，换句话说，三韩部族才是是百济和新罗的直系祖宗，高句丽和现代朝鲜人以及韩国人半毛钱关系没有，除了古代一直碾压新罗和百济，然后太嚣张了被中国教训一下之外，最后被唐朝和新罗联手灭了。三韩一直使用汉人语言和文化习俗，对中国称臣，和汉四郡贸易往来，后来吸收中国东迁至韩半岛南部的汉人移民和日本列岛西渡至韩半岛的日本人，才形成了韩民族）的基地。

高句丽几乎是唯一的（中国介入朝鲜北部）真正的原因，从汉到晋到唐朝高句丽一直就不安分。
汉代以后，或者说唐朝以后，高句丽变成了过去式，不能说中国王朝很难控制朝鲜北部地区。
因为要是按照西方学术背景的说法中国传统朝代根本不存在。
你说辽还或者金想要控制朝鲜北部地区有困难吗？
无论如何，至少让我们不要忘记，直到明朝， 咸镜道（译者注：昔日朝鲜八道之一，古时一直是辽、金的地盘。明朝的时候，朝鲜派了群大儒，专门在辽、金史书中抠字眼找证据说这地盘史书上都没说是他们的，可见根本不是辽、金的领土。明成祖表态，既然都是一家人了，给你就给了吧，同意将铁岭以北、公崄镇，也就是今天朝鲜咸镜北道吉州以南的地盘和人民让给了朝鲜）才正式成为朝鲜族的地盘。
我的意思是说，中国和三韩、朝鲜之间的相对和平，是因为三韩朝鲜对中国不具威胁性的特点。

May 29th, 2017, 11:00 PM
HackneyedScribe
Heylouis wasn't justifying anything, where did this come from?
Heylouis was talking about the Han dynasty, why are you bringing Tibet into this? That happened during the Qing, Not the Han, seriously. And the reasoning is faulty. Just because you have a reason to annex or not to annex one place, does not mean that said reason must be the same for every place and time.
It's a complete strawman argument all the way through.

（这层和后面回复的基本都是某个一直用现代西方思维和政治套用解读中国历史的家伙Dreamhunter，因为部分内容敏感未翻，后面他也一直在上跳下窜）楼上的HeulouIS没有为什么东西找理由辩护，你这堆乱七八糟的说辞是从哪里来的？
Heylouis说的是汉代，你为什么要把西藏扯进这里来？那是发生在清朝的事情，而不是汉朝的事情，请你认真对待讨论。你的推理全是错误的。仅仅因为你有兼并或不兼并一个地方的理由，并不意味着每个地方和朝代都必须用相同的理由。
这是一个彻头彻尾的的胡搅蛮缠。

May 30th, 2017, 02:33 AM
notgivenaway
Korea and Vietnam were always different cultures. It's like saying why was Scotland independent of England. Or Denmark independent of Norway. Because they were different cultures with different traditions.

朝鲜和越南一直是不同的文化。这就像在说为什么苏格兰应该从英格兰独立。或者从丹麦独立的挪威。因为他们是不同的文化，有着不同的传统。



May 30th, 2017, 05:49 PM
heylouis
history is not a voting machine.
you appear to have a illusion this is about nowadays politics, but the thread is asking about why the history path took a way we now knew. it is not about contemporary politics.

历史可不是选举机器。
你似乎有一种错觉，认为这是关于当今政治的，但问题是，为什么历史的道路会走我们现在知道的这样。这与当代政治无关。

May 30th, 2017, 06:12 PM
Dreamhunter
People are people, whether they live today, or they lived in the past. What we are seeing today is the result of what people wanted in the past. I thought that, that shud be fairly clear already.
Now, who is the one still under an illusion.

人就是人，不管他们是活在今天，还是活在过去。我们今天看到的是人们过去想要的结果。我想，这句话已经很清楚了。
现在，是谁还活在幻想中。

May 30th, 2017, 06:22 PM
heylouis
definitely not the history fact.
in this logic, the future is a result of what people want now. well, 1. people all want differently 2. it simply is not the fact that nature would satisfy what human want.

绝对不是历史事实。
按照你的这个逻辑未来是人们现在想要的结果。1、人们都想要不同的东西。2、自然并不会满足人类所需才是事实。

May 30th, 2017, 06:31 PM
Dreamhunter
All I am saying is that, what the people wanted has quite often, if not always, been a fairly strong & substantial influencer.
I mean, how wud hv the kings & commanders of ancient Korea & Vietnam managed to galvanise & motivate their soldiers into big battles of liberation against certainly no little armies of foreign occupation, if the Korean & Vietnamese peoples themselves had wanted to remain under foreign hegemony or overlordship.

我要说的是，人们想要的东西，如果不是经常性需求的话，往往会产生一个相当强大和重要的影响力。
我的意思是，如果朝鲜和越南人民自己想要继续处于外国霸权或重叠的统治之下，那么古代朝鲜和越南的国王和指挥官们是如何设法激励和发动他们的士兵参加大规模解放战争的，当然不是少数外国领导的军队。



May 30th, 2017, 11:46PM
heylouis
i might had been wrong to take your word "overlordship", because its meaning is quite unclear.
but anyway the statement is against the fact.
as i stated, the history is more complicated than simple assertions that people want this or people want that.
the fail of Yuan or Qing dynasty is just like other fail of regimes located in chinese lands, that they failed to manage the administration of the country, either for economical reasons or for corruption and farm land owership issues (again, an economic issue, but much more fundamental and important than other aspects).
the so called nationalism might played as the triggering factor, but it is not the root reason.
apparently, you use such "example" because i am chinese. you can hardly "win" with this kind of aggressive trap. nevertheless, it proves that you are not aimed at discuss the real and specific cases of historical facts. very strawman
the so called tribute relationship between china and korea/viet nam in fact serves for mutual benefit, for both of the regimes. korea/viet nam gained trading previlege with china, as known, the tribute goods sent to china always got repay with prices much higher than the market value. china got benefit that korea/viet nam acted as peaceful neighbors, but not aggressive attackers. it is proven in history, it is very costful to battle with a long distance neighbor along chinese borders.
whether those are good for the people of viet nam/korea is for discuss. normally it is kind of not bad. but in ancient times, there hardly is a real means that their people's will to be reflected on the diplomatic relationship.
the near modern history changed the situation, because china simply was no longer the main trading power in eastern asia. and the monarch kind of regime is out of date here. also more importantly, it is the important step to end tribute state for western powers(modern japan included) to start the colony times. these factors form an invisible hand and manipulated the geopolitics of eastern asia. it is a tendency one (person/country/nation, okay to put anything here) cannot fight, and it is hardly simply the will of vietnam/korea people or that of chinese people.

我可能误解了你的“重叠”一词，因为它的意思很不清楚。
但无论如何，这个说法与事实不相符。
正如我所说的，历史比简单的断言——这是人们想要的结果或人们想要的那样——复杂得多。
元朝或清朝的失败，就像中国土地上其他政权的失败一样，因为经济原因、腐败和农地所有权问题(同样是一个经济问题，但比其他方面更为根本和重要)而未能好好管理国家。
所谓的民族主义可能只是触发因素，但不是根本的原因。
显然，你用这样的“例子”是因为我是中国人。你很难用这种侵略的圈套“赢”得辩论。然而，这证明了你并不是在讨论真实和具体的历史事件。你只是精力过剩（俗称吃饱撑的）。
所谓的朝贡关系，实际上是为了双方的利益，朝越两国都获得了贸易优势。众所周知，给中国的贡品总是以远高于市场价值的价格被中国反过来偿还了。而朝鲜/越南作为和平的邻国，而不是咄咄逼人的进攻者，则让中国从中受益。历史证明与中国边境线上的一个远距离邻国作战，这是非常昂贵的。
这些对越南/朝鲜人民是否有好处是值得讨论的。通常情况下这并不是坏事。但在古代，几乎没有真正的手段来反映他们的人民对这种外交关系的意愿。
近现代的历史改变了局面，因为中国已经不再是主要的贸易大国了。君主制在东亚地区已经过时了。更重要的是，结束西方列强(包括现代日本在内)开启殖民地时代是结束朝贡体系的重要一步。这些因素形成了一只看不见的手，操纵了东方的地缘政治。这是一种趋势(人/国家/民族，可以说是几乎所有事情)人们无法对抗，而且这绝不仅仅只是越南/朝鲜人民或中国人民的意愿。

May 31st, 2017, 12:47 AM
Dreamhunter
Okay, HeyLouis. Just to cut a long story short, Korea & Vietnam managed to break out, and China failed to keep them in.

好了，楼上的。这个长故事简单总结一下，就是朝鲜和越南（忍受不了）爆发了，中国没能留住他们。

May 31th, 2017, 12:50 PM
heylouis
i don't feel sorry for that.
don't think you can wave emotions here.
use your smart mind on more proper things other than attemps of provoking

我对此并不感到遗憾。
不要以为你能在这里挑动民族情绪。
用你聪明的头脑去做些更恰当的事情，而不是煽风点火的挑衅。

May 31st, 2017, 01:01 AM
Dreamhunter
Huh. Hurrr. Who was provoking. I did not know that anyone was feeling provoked.

哟，呵呵。谁在挑衅。我可不知道有谁被激怒了呢。