Trashing the Truth, Part 6 - The Yuanmingyuan
If you are not familiar with the history and circumstances of the destruction of China's Yuan Ming Yuan, you might want to read this article as background:
Jewish Opium and British Imperialism: The Wanton Destruction of China's Yuanmingyuan Click Here. Click Here.
The tale of Yuanmingyuan has been hyped up over the last 100 years."
It's difficult to know where to begin the critique. First, this tragic destruction is immediately denigrated by the poster telling us it is just a 'tale', like a fairy story we tell our children at bedtime. Moreover, it's been "hyped" and therefore embellished during the past 100 years, and we all know what happens to a story when it is repeatedly retold.
"Imagine you are a 30-something living in Southern China during the last decade of the Qing Dynasty. You were the 15% of the Chinese who could read and write. What impact would that burning of the Yuanmuingyuan have on you? Very little. If you were an illiterate peasant even less."
Our Jewish poster dismisses this great tragedy with an obscene and vile (and fabricated) claim that the literacy rate at the time was only 15% and, since few could read, the loss of countless books, many of which were thousands of years old, was no big deal.
And of course, for the remaining 85% who were "illiterate peasants", the loss meant nothing.
"What happened was typical of the looting and burning that goes on pre-Modern modes of warfare (and even now), where armies are relatively small and not mobilized from vast swathes of the population.
In 1204 the Crusaders sacked Constantinople, thousands of priceless Roman/Greek artifacts destroyed, sacking of Rome by Visigoths in 410, the destruction of Nalanda by the Turks in 1100 AD, the list goes on and on. How is the burning of Yuanmingyuan any different from these incidents? How does it stack up with Nalanda?"
So, this total destruction of a nation's cultural heritage happens all the time, and so what? No big deal. We're given examples of other tragedies, to derail us even further into evaluating comparative losses and suffering.
Note the comment in the first paragraph about 'relatively small armies not mobilised . . .' - stupidly irrelevant comments introduced only to obfuscate and confuse, to create so much clutter that the main thread can no longer be intelligently examined.
"Now compare that with Second Sino-Japanese War. The objective of the Japanese was to occupy China and to turn it into a colony just like it did with Korea / Taiwan. Had they succeeded, you would most likely be speaking Japanese.
And it shows by the resistance the Chinese put up. During the Boxer Rebellion, the Qing Imperial Army field 70,000 men compared to 50,000 field by Expeditionary unit (excluding the Russians). During the Second War World, the Japanese sent 4 Million into China, the Nationalist fielded 5 Million."
Then, we're led into a barrage of a dozen irrelevancies about the Sino-Japanese war, Japan's objectives, speaking Japanese, the claimed size of various armies in different countries at different times.
Ostensibly, these "facts" are meant to enlighten us with a broader picture, but surreptitiously their only intent is to confuse, to sufficiently cloud the issue at hand as to make debate impossible.
"Lastly, this is way off topic. Bringing in an event that happened 150 years ago shows that someone is just using it as an opportunity to appear as an expert "China Hand" which he is not.
And finally, we're dismissed because this occurred 150 years ago - too ancient to be of interest or usefulness. And then we're simply insulted by the claim that this topic was introduced by some kind of smart-ass, wanting to boast of his knowledge of China.
We need to be focused, to deal with ideological attacks like this. Consider the glaring hypocrisy in this poster's comments.
If China's tragedies were really nothing special after all, and if they are "old news" anyway and should be forgotten, then why are the Jews' tragedies so special that they are never forgotten?
Why don't the Jews finally forget about their "holocaust"? If my 'ancient' miseries are irrelevant, why aren't yours? If all nations, including China, are pressured to build holocaust museums, why don't we pressure Israel to build an opium museum?
Clearly, one of the main objectives in writing comments as above, is to denigrate all tragedy, all loss, all human suffering, by everyone other than the Jews. I don't make this claim lightly. This pattern appears constantly, far too often to be coincidence.
China's Yuanmingyuan - Part 2
"China's Yuanmingyuan contained all of the most precious relics and treasures of the entire 5,000 years of history of one of the world's most ancient civilisations, and it is that that was looted and destroyed..."
"Are you that sure the palace contained ALL of it?"
Here we go again. We're given a doubt that the Yuanmingyuan contained "all" of the precious relics. For all we know, many may have survived. Therefore, not such a big deal as presented. Again, denigrate the loss; minimise the effect.
"China in its long history has seen too many tragedies before and AFTER the burning of Yuanmingyuan. Natural disasters, fires, you name it."
Now we're told that China had seen many tragedies from natural events and other causes. No evidence presented for the claims, since none exists, but a dishonest attempt to minimise the loss.
This argument is especially insidious because it attempts to equate an unconscionable destruction of a nation's cultural heritage for the purpose of forcing colonial submission, with accidental fires, floods and other natural disasters.
"The Diamond Sutra, perhaps the most important of these eventually found its way to Britain too, but that is another story."
And then to send us even further off course, we have some bizarre and irrelevant reference to an ancient Indian book that "found its way" to England - but "that's another story".
"The riches found in the Dunhuang Caves in Gansu were "discovered" in 1907, almost 50 years after."
Now we're told that other treasures were discovered in China after this massive destruction, so once again no great loss. Yes, some things may have been 'damaged' or lost, but more have since been discovered and there may be many more yet.
"In 1900 the Boxers burnt the Hanlin Academy, the real repository of cultural and academic works. The Cultural Revolution in the 60's...."
And to further denigrate the loss of the Yuanmingyuan, we're told that the Chinese themselves destroyed equally valuable cultural artifacts like the library at Hanlin Academy. But the claim is in serious doubt; the British tried to blame the Chinese, but then also claimed they themselves burned it "for safety's sake and not for spite".
And in any case, there appears to be no dispute that the British carried out and destroyed the most valuable artifact there - the 22,000-volume encylopedia, the Yung Lo Ta Tien. And, in true neocon fashion, the British claimed they destroyed it 'to preserve it'.
This poster's comments are doubly repugnant. On one hand, falsely telling us that since the Chinese themselves destroyed other of their treasures, there is no blame for foreigners to do the same. And secondly, to present such a false claim, trusting the readers to be either ignorant of the facts or too lazy to do their own research.
The same is true with the foolish and totally unwarranted claim about China's cultural revolution; the Chinese destroyed their own culture, so who cares if we did it too? All in all, no big deal.
China's Yuanmingyuan - Part 3
"I dislike the hyperbole and your "5000 years"."
The attack begins with the writer's dislike of 'hyperbole' - an accusation of embellishment and exaggeration in calling the Yuanmingyuan the greatest collection of culture in the world at the time, and representing 5,000 years of Chinese history.
Not only that, but the length of China's history is also called into question. It would seem that no nation is permitted to compete with Jewish fantasies of being the world's oldest nation - God's Chosen People.
"The Yuanmingyuan was a Summer Palace or retreat, while the Forbidden City was the actual seat of power since the Ming and if you like, for some 800 years if we include the Mongolian dynasty. I would imagine at least half the bulk of that wealth was kept "downtown"."
Then the Yuanmingyuan is dismissed as simply a Summer Palace, something trivial, just a place to frolic in the summer. No big deal. And anyway, the Forbidden City was the real seat of power, and therefore surely at least half of China's cultural wealth would be "kept downtown". Lovely.
The writer has no evidence to offer for the claims he makes, and none exists. But it's enough to create doubts in the minds of uninformed readers, to leave them unsure of the extent of the cultural tragedy.
And then, to assist in muddying the water, we again have multiple irrelevancies introduced about the period of time the Forbidden City was actually the house of government, and the inclusion of the "Mongolian dynasty".
Typical irrelevancies used to create confusion, to deflect and derail the debate and, of course, to trivialise China's loss.
"As for the 10 millions items, I'd rather doubt it, and put it within the Chinese propensity for hyperbole."
Then another scurrilous accusation about the Chinese character: there weren't really so many cultural artifacts in this museum as claimed, because the Chinese have a great tendency to lie. This accusation would appear to apply equally to groups other than the Chinese.
Moreover, many people doubt the Jewish version of their "holocaust", especially the claims about the number of deaths. If some Jews can so repugnantly trash the tragic claims of other nations, why is the questioning of Jewish claims condemned as immoral?
"Again where is the proof that the seat of power was officially transferred during the summer. I want to see the proof."
And to finish, we have another total irrelevancy - a demand for proof that the seat of power was transferred to the Yuanmingyuan during the summer, as if that relates to the destruction that occurred.
No reason offered, but it is a useful way to put us on the defensive, to derail our train of discourse, and to send us off on another wild goose chase and lose sight of the topic. It's always the same.
An article mini-series in 7 parts: