Ian_Lee Posted March 2, 2004 at 12:31 AM Report Share Posted March 2, 2004 at 12:31 AM I am always perplexed by the fact that why Taiwan was discovered so late in Chinese historical record. Chinese were believed to immigrate to Taiwan since the late 15th Century. The Portuguese colonized the island in the early 16th Century and the Dutch acquired it from the Portuguese in the earlier 17th Century. But Chinese did not settle in Taiwan in a large scale until Koxinga captured it from the Dutch. However, China had been in extensive contact via sea with Japan, Ryukyu, Korea and SE Asia at least 1,000 years earlier. During the early Tang Dynasty (700 A.D.), Japan had already sent thousands of students to China for study by sea. On the reciprocal side, Tang also sent Buddhist monk to Japan by sea. By that time, the coastal ports used might lie farther to the north, i.e. port cities in Shandong. But in the Song Dynasty (950 - 1200 A.D.) when maritime trade flourished, the principal coastal ports were -- Zhangzhou and Quanzhou -- which both were located at Fujian that are right across Taiwan. How come Song and Yuan records scantily mentioned Taiwan? Though it is understandable that due to the Kuroshio current, it was easier to sail from China Mainland to Japan. But wouldn't it be possible that some ships might accidentally wind up anchoring in Taiwan, i.e. shelter from typhoon? Strange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quest Posted March 2, 2004 at 07:38 AM Report Share Posted March 2, 2004 at 07:38 AM Chances are they knew about it long time ago, but it was inhabitted by "dangerous" indigenous people. Chinese didn't like islands back then, it was useless to the government, and average Chinese did not even bother going to some strange "barbaric" place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wuliao Posted March 2, 2004 at 12:32 PM Report Share Posted March 2, 2004 at 12:32 PM Chinese have never been a really a SEAfaring people. I think southern Chinese didnt move around that much by ships either. Face it, Westerners always had (ever since the Vikings) and still have a greater taste for adventure. Chinese just park their behinds on a cushy spot and refuse to move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian_Lee Posted March 3, 2004 at 07:02 PM Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2004 at 07:02 PM Chinese didn't like islands back then, it was useless to the government, and average Chinese did not even bother going to some strange "barbaric" place. But same criterion applies to Hainan Island. Hainan Island is almost the same size of Taiwan. The only difference is that it is half the distance closer to Mainland. However, Hainan Island had already been settled by Han immigrants as early as Western Han Dynasty (100 B.C.) and divided into two prefectures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quest Posted March 3, 2004 at 07:14 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2004 at 07:14 PM Chinese didn't like islands back then' date=' it was useless to the government, and average Chinese did not even bother going to some strange "barbaric" place.[/i']But same criterion applies to Hainan Island. Hainan Island is almost the same size of Taiwan. The only difference is that it is half the distance closer to Mainland. However, Hainan Island had already been settled by Han immigrants as early as Western Han Dynasty (100 B.C.) and divided into two prefectures. Perhaps Hainan Island was a good base for the naval invasion of Vietnam? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nnt Posted March 3, 2004 at 09:42 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2004 at 09:42 PM Perhaps Hainan Island was a good base for the naval invasion of Vietnam? Hainan never played an important role in these invasions, although one of its governor did participate (under the Yuan dynasty) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSkillet Posted March 4, 2004 at 05:04 PM Report Share Posted March 4, 2004 at 05:04 PM Chinese have never been a really a SEAfaring people. Really? I have to take issue with - sure they weren't a seafaring in-terms of conquest people - but look at the disporia - all the way across South East Asia - from Indonesia to the Malay Peninsula, they all didn't get there overland. No sir, the Chinese took to the water. (And that's not even mentioning the evidence that the Chinese may have been the first non-natives to visit California and the North American west coast) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian_Lee Posted March 4, 2004 at 07:32 PM Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2004 at 07:32 PM I agree with Tskillet that Chinese are seafaring people. In Tahiti, 4% of the population are Chinese (excluding those mixed blood). In Hawaii, Polynesian history showed that Chinese participated in the inter-island war in 1790s between the tribal chiefs. If Chinese are not seafaring people, how could they travel to mid-Pacific so far and so long ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wuliao Posted March 5, 2004 at 01:06 AM Report Share Posted March 5, 2004 at 01:06 AM Those were individual people and they didnt get very far did they? If the ethnic and national characteristic of the Chinese is to be more adventurous and seafaring, then history would be very different. Even today Chinese are not perceived to be risk takers except possibly in business and gambling. How many Chinese are doing adventure tours? How many Chinese are there in motor sports? Are the Polynesians qualified as a SEAfaring people since they got to the islands? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tokyo_girl Posted March 5, 2004 at 01:03 PM Report Share Posted March 5, 2004 at 01:03 PM Those were individual people What sort of argument is this? Show me a person who is not an individual person... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nnt Posted March 5, 2004 at 05:35 PM Report Share Posted March 5, 2004 at 05:35 PM Those were individual people What sort of argument is this? Show me a person who is not an individual person... I think he meant individual initiative vs government policy. Compared to European or American fleets, Asian fleets (at least before the end of the 19th century) did not go very far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian_Lee Posted March 5, 2004 at 06:48 PM Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2004 at 06:48 PM Nnt: Admiral Zheng He's maritime trips in early Ming (14th & 15th Century) reached as far as present day Ethiopia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nnt Posted March 5, 2004 at 08:27 PM Report Share Posted March 5, 2004 at 08:27 PM Ian Lee: True, but Zheng He was an exception, not the rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tokyo_girl Posted March 6, 2004 at 02:39 AM Report Share Posted March 6, 2004 at 02:39 AM So were they a seafaring people rather than a sea faring nation? Chinese capitals tended to be a faire distance from the sea, it is not so surprising it was not a preoccuptation of governments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nnt Posted March 6, 2004 at 06:15 AM Report Share Posted March 6, 2004 at 06:15 AM I don't think it's a matter of capital's distance to the sea (Take the case of Japan for example). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quest Posted March 6, 2004 at 11:54 AM Report Share Posted March 6, 2004 at 11:54 AM there was simply no incentive, other than the elixir of life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSkillet Posted March 8, 2004 at 07:14 PM Report Share Posted March 8, 2004 at 07:14 PM they didnt get very far did they? Well, you don't really have to go too far to get to Taiwan, do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathrobe Posted March 21, 2004 at 04:52 AM Report Share Posted March 21, 2004 at 04:52 AM This is a rather interesting paper by an American academic comparing Hainan, Taiwan, and Luzon -- and why Taiwan is more similar, historically speaking, to Luzon than it is to Hainan. http://www.international.ucla.edu/cira/paper/Wills.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geek_frappa Posted March 21, 2004 at 05:16 AM Report Share Posted March 21, 2004 at 05:16 AM Why was Taiwan discovered so late in Chinese history? ancient china people were busy fighting each other. if china explored more and bickered less, then most of North America and South America would be speaking Chinese fluently... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blob Posted March 21, 2004 at 07:39 PM Report Share Posted March 21, 2004 at 07:39 PM ancient china people were busy fighting each other. if china explored more and bickered less, then most of North America and South America would be speaking Chinese fluently... And the world superpower may be an America that got independent from China a couple of hundred years ago, Who knows, UK might have been a chinese colony then...And this forum might be named: English Language & Culture forums instead??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and select your username and password later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.