Thread by @GiveMeRumRaisin

And I have to make another vine in this thread because the author of this article talks about something Westerners poorly understand: so-called "Chinese" influence in East Asia. Anyone writing this kind of narrative should be embarrassed for lacking rigour and for being lazy.

Of course, this author (among many others on here) too is enamoured with the UNSTOPPABLE RISE OF CHINA. He seems to think that Japan is embarrassed by the Taika Reforms, a so-called "Chinese import" from the Tang Dynasty.

Do you know exactly WHO the Tang are? If you do, you would understand that these administrative imports are not "Chinese" (whatever that means) but they are MONGOLIC in nature. Since they came from the kingdom of Baekje, it is also proto-Korean flavoured.

Did you ever bother to read Yuan Dynasty demographic records? There's a mountain of evidence against the so-called "Han Chinese". Most of the "Chinese" netizens who got mad over the Japan era name are mad at Japan disregarding the reforms of their masters, not their own.

These Westerners seem to love making China to East Asia's Rome but the truth is: most "Chinese" people cannot claim descent from the glory of these dynasties, and these importations being "Chinese", a 20th century identity constructed on easily broken straw, is questionable.

@Vajra_Enthusias With regards to continuity, it is true but up to a certain point: the Xinhai Revolution. The simultaneous rejection and overthrowing of the imperial institutions as well as the formation of a new "Chinese identity" which also rejects continuous regional institutions and norms.

@Vajra_Enthusias I feel like I said something stupid/inconsistent, so let me rephrase. There are continuous regional institutions and culturess since even the time of the Qin that have persisted throughout the millennia, but they are rejected by this new "Chinese" identity.

@Vajra_Enthusias It doesn't serve as an encapsulation as Rome may have been, but as a wholesale rejection/integration instead.