Talk:Chinese expansionism

Some things

A few things:

1. For starters, a lot of people are going to disagree that any current act of China constitutes imperialism. I don't necessary agree but it's nevertheless an existing, consistent, and popular school of thought.
2. It's a bit simplistic to lump Xinjiang, Tibet, etc. together as the only examples. Chinese civilization is the continuous story of a civilization originating in the North China Plain going out to assimilate foreign peoples. A more comprehensive description of Chinese history is certainly needed.
3. The concept of tributary states is probably not the same thing as imperialism. And Taiwan was never actually a tributary state.
4. Border conflicts is stretching it... and it's not like China even has a border with Thailand anyways.

I'm going to start by making a few changes. If anyone wants to help out, please do. -- ran (talk) 22:27, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

China isn't an empire anymore right? Don't you need an emperor? What is the goal of creating this article?--Amerinese 17:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

That is simple minded (no offense). See the Imperialism article and there seems no necessity of an Emperor at all. Furthermore, territory within the United States, such as Texas or Hawaii, has been elsewhere listed on Wikipedia as evidence of Imperialism. It could be argued that Tibet etc. is an example of successfuli imperialism because people accept it as Chinese territory. Finally, Wikipedia shouldn't have double standards. These lists of Imperialism exist for other nations, especially the US and Europe. See the Imperialism page for more details.

Even more to the point, there is a such thing as history. The topic of Chinese imperialism does not have to refer to modern-day China, nor does it have to imply that modern-day China is an empire. It was an empire (or various different empires) for thousands of years. LordAmeth (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe this article needs some copyedit. — Instantnood 22:22, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

It should also include material from the China section in Suzerainty. I can do it myself when I get around to doing a lengthier rewrite, but if anyone wants to do it, go ahead. --Yuje 02:57, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Encouragement

The PRC has a policy of encouraging Han migration to Tibet and Xinjiang, which I believe is important in understanding the views of Tibetans and Uighurs. Your edit hides that.

Lapsed Pacifist 18:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the past, it was by force, since people were not free to choose their employment. If the government wanted you to go to Kashgar, you went. Today it's a market economy, so people go their on their own accord, to become hotel operators, shop owners, construction workers, even sex workers.

As for encouragement (I suppose you mean the financial kind?), as I said I've asked about the issue on the Chinese Wikipedia. It has generated a very interesting discussion, but several people who are knowledgeable on the subject agree that cadres, etc. who are offered financial incentives (more like recompensation) are posted there for a few years and then taken back. The program isn't indefinite and they don't stay there forever.

So to say that the PRC is "encouraging" is to represent a complex situation with a unique special case that is not representative. People were forced in the past, and they're free to go in the present. That is what's causing the demographic transformation of Xinjiang and Tibet. -- ran (talk) 18:14, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Survived VFD

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chinese imperialism --DavidStevenson 21:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Macau

Macau was a small penninsula with two islands attached which altogether is less than eighty square kilometres... and it was granted to the Portugese in the Sixteenth century, thus it is hardly accurate to call it a territory lost to Portugal in the nineteenth century. In fact, at that point its character was closer to a ghetto than a colony, and the Portugese's behaviour there over the years showed this.

It was not granted as such. The Portuguese moved in and the Ming government let them stay. It was part of China until the mid-19th century when Portugal piggy backed on the victories of the Western powers and made China sign it over. So it was lost in the 19th century. Lao Wai 17:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

By the same logic, Manchuria was not lost in 1931. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

POV

I just reverted this blatant POV. As common knowledge within the boundaries the Russian Federation, ethnic-Russians and the indigenous peoples of Siberia are both considered Russians. - 210.0.204.29 03:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of text

This chunk of text has been deleted, and I can't find a reason here or or in the edit history:

"The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China (established 1949) have since attempted, with varying degrees of success, to re-incorporate some areas that fell outside of Chinese control before and after the collapse of the Qing Dynasty. The PRC's control over Tibet, East Turkestan, and Inner Mongolia, (the first two of which contain majority non-Han populations), is seen by some locals and outsiders as modern-day imperialism, as are subsequent organized campaigns of Han immigration into these regions. This is often described by critics as demographic swamping, aimed at destroying the uniqueness of those regions, but defended as the innocuous, routine and benevolent importing of labourers and professionals into sparsely populated and poorly developed regions by supporters. Finally, the PRC's territorial claim over Taiwan, which is still controlled by the Republic of China, is also seen as an example of imperialism by critics. In all these cases supporters consider China's policy to be that of defending the PRC's right to succeed the ROC as well as defend the territorial integrity of China. "

Anyone object to its reinsertion?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say pretty much every sentence has problem.

[PRC] attempted, with varying degrees of success, to re-incorporate some areas that fell outside of Chinese control.

What is this area "outside of Chinese control"? The regime change lead to disintegration/succession/loss of territorial control?

defended as the innocuous, routine and benevolent importing of labourers and professionals

When/where did China claim this?

... by supporters ... and ... by critics ...

Who are they? scholars? anon wiki editor? What did they actually say? --Voidvector (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Tibet springs to mind as one country that had pretty much slipped out of Chinese control by the time of the formation of the PRC. The PRC regime often portrays its "development" of countries like East Turkestan and Tibet as benevolent. Many have spoken both against and in favour of this "development"; I don't foresee a major problem in sourcing these viewpoints.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

How does anti-secessionism and territorial reclaims equate to imperialism? --Voidvector (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Imperialism is often disguised as "anti-secessionism and territorial reclaims ". China wouldn't be the first. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

So how would you differentiate China from say Canada? Both are combating secessionist and both have controversial territorial claims. --Voidvector (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Apart from some minor factors such as scale and methods, I wouldn't. I'd be happy to contribute to an article on Canadian imperialism; the principle is the same. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If you plan to make significant changes i.e. with citation then go ahead. I personally don't like unsubstantiated statements especially bad ones. The word imperialism was not even coined until 1800s. You don't call Roman Empire conquests as "imperialism", it's called "imperial expansion". To me, the article right now is is a poor attempt at branding the Chinese people as imperialistic. --Voidvector (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It makes little difference when a word was coined, if it is accurate. I have no problem calling Roman imperialism what it was. I find it difficult to understand how the current article content could be regarded as "a poor attempt at branding the Chinese people as imperialistic"; it doesn't cover any of the military adventures or attitudes to subject peoples of the current regime. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, you are welcome to add content provide it is cited. In fact, I have no problem if you add object content uncited, such as chronology of diplomatic or military instances where China gained territory. Now when talking about subjective content, such as controversial claims and matter that can be interpreted differently by different people, I like to see citations and preferably mentioning of the interpretation from both sides.

Right now the article has unsupported claims mentioned as "by supporters" and "by critics". You know I am both a supporter and critic of China depending on topic, I can easy write my own BS into this article, but I don't as this is an encyclopedia. --Voidvector (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Merge into History of China, and become a Redirect to Imperial China, which is a disambiguation page. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Chinese imperialism → Territorial expansions in the history of China — The current article is an poorly written article on a contentious topic. The content has not changed significantly since May 8, 2005. And this content has no citation whatsoever.

I believe the article should be refocused for it to be improved properly, this is because 1) Imperialism is a word that was coin only in the 1800s, when referring to imperialistic acts by the Romans and Mongols Wikipedia simply use conquests or campaigns. 2) Imperialism is a policy/philosophy, unless the country had colonies or openly acknowledged imperialism, calling it imperialistic would be an interpretation, which could easily be disputed/NPOV in both source and content for both historical and modern regimes.

The proposed title strives to be neutral. I wish to model the name after Territorial acquisitions of the United States or Overseas expansion of the United States, however it is difficult as this topic will cover multiple regimes/dynasties. Open to suggestion however. — Voidvector (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support given the content of the article. If the article continues to be about territorial expansion, as the country grew northward, southward, and westward under different dynasties to reach its current boundaries, then I think it is appropriate to call it "territorial expansion" in comparison to US expansion westward or the gradual growth of any other nation on the planet. I am not, however, opposed to the term "imperialism" being used in the context of Chinese "sinocentric world order" suzerainty/tributary activities. The above comment that imperialism is a specific philosophy & policy, and that if the nation in question did not intentionally, consciously seek to be imperialistic, then it's not imperialism, is an intriguing and convincing point.LordAmeth (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Note, however, that considering yourself the benevolent center of the universe, radiating justice in all directions, is an imperialistic action; compare Mission civilisatrice and White man's burden. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• merge these isolated and disconnected bits into History of China. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)\
  • Redirection to Imperial China would be fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Imperial China, I 've merged dabs Empire of China, Chinese Empire into "Imperial China". And I think Chinese imperialism has traditionally been meant for "Imperial China" in academic literature.--Loop 9 (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Loop 9. I originally intended to oppose as I thought there were articles describing other imperialisms. There aren't, they just redirect to British Empire etc. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 06:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete name I agree that this material is covered elsewhere in the Wikipedia, and in a less POV way. Any nuggets of content have already been merged. The current title is a poor choice, so why redirect? --Bejnar (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I removed the requested move template. Don't think its right to move it to Territorial expansions in the history of China (based on Territorial acquisitions of the United States). If anything it should be redirected to Territorial evolution of China modelled on Territorial evolution of the United States. These two as well as Overseas expansion of the United States are subarticles to United States territory. There are no China equivalents e.g. Chinese territory (this is a redirect to a names page) or Territory of China. Now considering that this is English Wikipedia it is entirely natural that its coverage of the USA is far more indepth and specialist than that of China, then all those topics are dealt with more or less in History of China and each of the Chinese dynasty articles.--Loop 9 (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Infact Territorial acquisitions of the United States has also been moved to Territorial changes of the United States.--Loop 9 (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Remove "Recent tensions" sections

Tensions aren't an example of imperialism. Disputes aren't imperialism.

For example: If you discuss the South China Sea or Indian Border Disputes, you should open a new page titled "Vietnamese imperialism" or "Filipino Imperialism" or "Indian imperialism". This article looks like it's trying to paint China in a negative light rather than actually try and discuss imperialism. Why do you only call it imperialism if China does it? AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Because to most people the nine-dash line looks a bit sillier and more expansionistic than Vietnam, the Philippines or India's claims. Of course, feel free to write an article on Filipino imperialism explaining how no reputable researchers or journalists have accused the Philippines of being imperialist with regards to the South China Sea question. Doanri (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Should be deleted

This article should be deleted. Whatever we think of Chinese foreign policy, the title "Chinese imperialism" is inherently POV. There is no agreed definition of imperialism, and certainly no agreement among historians that China is or ever has been an imperialist power by any definition. Constant Pedant (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Subject meets WP:N so far so any attempts to delete the article are going to be futile. NavjotSR (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Modern expansionism

Most of the material in the modern expansions in section is not properly sourced. The citations offered for the material do not even mention the word imperialism. Either new citations should be produced or the section should be removed. 188.141.3.145 (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The section has sources, and those sources seem to accurately describe the claims made in the article. Just because the article doesn't characterize them them with the word "imperialism" doesn't mean the information isn't sourced. Issues of expansionism are also quite relevant in a section entitled "Modern Chinese expansionism". Plandu (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Its WP:OR to suggest its expansionism or imperialism without the terms or definitions of those terms being included in the citations. 188.141.3.145 (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Which is why trying to make this article NPOV is a hopeless task and why it ought to be abolished. Constant Pedant (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Map of National Shame

The article mentions the publication of several "Maps of National Shame" and lists the territories in said maps--but where is a copy of the map itself? I really want to see that! 147.226.213.152 (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Mistake of the "Lost territories claimed by China" section

The PRC dont claim that much territories anymore. Most of them were already settled with neighboring countries. The only lost territories that still claim by China is the South Tibet and Taiwan. The section has so many misinformation. Not even the Qing dynasty claimed they want Outer Manchuria and Sakhalin island back lol. --Someone97816 (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Seconded, here's a list of the PRC's actual claims. The other ones should be removed. -Artanisen (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Add Inner Mongolia (Southern Mongolia)

Southern Mongolia is a territory that originally belongs to Mongolia. It was annexed by the Chinese and renamed "Inner Mongolia". So it should be mentioned in this article. -Artanisen (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Expansionism

This article includes expanding territories, redeeming territories, and expanding influence, which are not the same under Expansionism. Vacosea (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I simplified and merged the sections under PRC. The title of this article should also be changed to territorial evolution, because losses are mentioned here as well. Vacosea (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)