Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

One corner of China’s internet is insisting that the Tang Dynasty never existed

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 190 posts

Re: One corner of China’s internet is insisting that the Tang Dynasty never existed

#161

Post by graemep »

ericmay wrote: post #101
colechristensen wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't particularly need calculations, just have friends around the world or even a couple hundred miles away, get on a video call to prove the world is round. Whatever your pet theory of how the sun moves across the "flat" earth can be contradicted with a couple of facetime calls.

I’ll do you one better, you shouldn’t even spend any time engaging in a debate with people who believe the earth is flat because they don’t want to change their mind. It doesn’t really matter if the earth is flat or not, for them it’s about being part of a community of people who believe in something that society tells them is wrong. There is no changing minds besides the 1 in a million you hear about and so all the…

No but its nice to do relevant observations of basic science yourself. Its fun and satisfying.

My daughter did the shadow stick experiment when she was 14 (for GCSE astronomy), we have lived in different countries so have observed the differences in constellations for ourselves, and we speak to people around the world anyway.

Re: One corner of China’s internet is insisting that the Tang Dynasty never existed

#163

Post by irdc »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #145
EdwardDiego wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I spotted the same thing, and there's never a source given. Allegedly his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather (or 15th great-grandfather for short) was totally Han, the son of the scourge of the Xiongnu - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Guang A timely reminder that, damn, China is olllldddd.

> A timely reminder that, damn, China is olllldddd. China proper starts about 1000 BC, so China is quite a bit younger than Europe. (Whatever "Europe" is.)

If you define Europe as Sumer or Egypt, then yes. If you define Europe as Rome, then no. The earliest deciphered Greek writing dates from 1450 BC (Linear B) but that civilisation fell in the Bronze Age collapse and there is no (written) continuity with Europe as it stands today.

As far as I'm concerned we're all equally ancient descendants from LUCA.

Re: One corner of China’s internet is insisting that the Tang Dynasty never existed

#164

Post by [deleted] »

culi wrote: post #20
graemep wrote: post #11

Its a Chinese equivalent of the phantom time theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time_conspiracy_theory Its just as silly as phantom time and covers almost exactly the same period. The motive is possibly racist which makes it more sinister.

And it's taken about as seriously as "birds don't exist" or "the earth is flat". CNN is just doing straight up orientalism. Exoticizing a normal aspect of a culture that if you think hard enough happens in western cultures just as often if not more

[deleted]

Re: One corner of China’s internet is insisting that the Tang Dynasty never existed

#165

Post by OroPla »

What kind of phenomenon are we dealing we here with, though? How does it compare to our varieties of:

- birds aren't real

- Flat Earth

- Atlantis (did Plato made it up or not?)

- years 800-1000 were completely made up so some guy could be crowned king in the year 1000

- DNA evidence shows ancient Egyptians are Eastern Europeans

Re: One corner of China’s internet is insisting that the Tang Dynasty never existed

#166

Post by thataccount »

cosmicgadget wrote: post #142
thataccount wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Inflating death rates to claim something is a pandemic is not very different. It was at worst a "bad flu," which is what many Q posts were indicating. You don't need a lockdown for a "Bad flu". You also don't need masks. 2. You seem to think I need to do better than this, but if this were a trial what I have provided is sufficient to establish motive. The dude wanted to be famous, and didn't mind who died to get h…

> It was at worst a "bad flu," Incorrect. > The dude wanted to be famous Hilarious on the heels of "I just won this trial I made up".

Nuh uh is not a conversation, and it is clear he was tracking how famous he had become. The reason he was not on trial in a common way is because he was pardoned—which in this case it is clear is because he was involved in crimes against humanity.

Re: One corner of China’s internet is insisting that the Tang Dynasty never existed

#167

Post by expedition32 »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #68
jmclnx wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everywhere in the Wikipedia articles is this phrase "had Han ethnic origins". Looks like China Editors are trying to change history. At least that is based upon what the CNN article is saying.

I spotted the same thing, and there's never a source given. Allegedly his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather (or 15th great-grandfather for short) was totally Han, the son of the scourge of the Xiongnu - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Guang A timely reminder that, damn, China is olllldddd.

For a few hundred years European archaeologist Indiana Jones types visited every remote corner of Asia ironically disproving Euro centrism and the Bible in the true spirit of scientific enlightenment and writing much of Chinese history (also looting some artefacts unfortunately). One of the few good things to come out of colonialism.

Re: One corner of China’s internet is insisting that the Tang Dynasty never existed

#168

Post by doginasuit »

MBCook wrote: post #91
doginasuit wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it is healthy for society in the long run to have pockets of divergent belief. Most of the time it is groundless and fades away. Every so often it gains traction. If it is based in reality, we gain a better understanding. If it is misleading, it vitalizes a competing and more correct understanding. The more interesting phenomenon is that we are able to agree on anything at all, it's not exactly our strongest in…

How could it be healthy to not even agree on the most basic facts of history like whether hundreds of years actually happened or the shape of the earth?

I don't think these particular fringe beliefs are directly useful, and they have a real cost in terms of confusion. I also don't expect them to last since they are easy to disprove.

But they belong to a bigger trend which questions the value of experts and institutional knowledge. This could either send us into a dark age, or challenge a better class of experts and institutional knowledge. My money is on the latter. Few things improve without some kind of challenge.

Re: One corner of China’s internet is insisting that the Tang Dynasty never existed

#169

Post by cosmicgadget »

thataccount wrote: post #166
cosmicgadget wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was at worst a "bad flu," Incorrect. > The dude wanted to be famous Hilarious on the heels of "I just won this trial I made up".

Nuh uh is not a conversation, and it is clear he was tracking how famous he had become. The reason he was not on trial in a common way is because he was pardoned—which in this case it is clear is because he was involved in crimes against humanity.

Nuh uh is a fact, it doesn't require a conversation.

This DOJ would definitely be prosecuting him, that isn't saying very much.

Re: One corner of China’s internet is insisting that the Tang Dynasty never existed

#170

Post by thataccount »

cosmicgadget wrote: post #169
thataccount wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuh uh is not a conversation, and it is clear he was tracking how famous he had become. The reason he was not on trial in a common way is because he was pardoned—which in this case it is clear is because he was involved in crimes against humanity.

Nuh uh is a fact, it doesn't require a conversation. This DOJ would definitely be prosecuting him, that isn't saying very much.

You are right about things not requiring a conversation--with you.
Post reply on HN