Every country has an origin story, but some are more complicated than others. Here’s why China isn’t as big as you think.
每个国家都有一个起源故事，而有些国家的起源故事相对更复杂。这就是中国不像你想象的那样大的原因。
您的位置：首页 > 历史历史
为什么中国如此之大
Why China is So Damn big
2022-11-24
互联网
913
收藏
举报
译文简介
每个国家都有一个起源故事，而有些国家的起源故事相对更复杂。这就是中国不像你想象的那样大的原因。
正文翻译
Every country has an origin story, but some are more complicated than others. Here’s why China isn’t as big as you think.
每个国家都有一个起源故事，而有些国家的起源故事相对更复杂。这就是中国不像你想象的那样大的原因。
评论翻译
作者自己的评论：
johnnyharris
Hey friends, thanks for watching and thank you to everyone who has offered insight, correction, and context about the history section of this video. I really value this community in helping keep me accountable on the information I share and have definitely learned a few things that I could have done better in our research. I especially appreciate the comments that were written in good faith with an effort to expand the perspective and accuracy of this topic. I’ve got a lot of videos coming up and it’s feedback like this that makes me double down on rigor and accuracy. See you soon, Johnny.
嗨，朋友们，感谢所有那些观看，提供见解，纠正，和视频历史背景的人。我很珍惜这个网络社区，它帮助我对所分享的信息保持负责的态度，我也的确学习到了一些本可以让我做得更好的事情。我特别感谢那些真诚的评论，不仅扩展了视角也提高了话题的准确性。我还有很多视频要做，是大家的反馈让我在视频的严谨性和准确性上加倍努力。期待与你们再见，Johnny
joseignaciocaamanocristoba7518
An important correction, the cradle of Han civilization and the Chinese state structures is the Yellow River or Huang He (黄河), not the Yangtze River. The Yangtze basin had since ancient times harbored many cultures that were in contact with those of the Yellow River basin, but Han culture, and the Shang and Zhou dinasties, were born by the margins of the Yellow River. The Yangtze basin would be culturally assimilated in the late Zhou, Qin and Han dinasties.
一个重要的纠正，汉文明和中国国家架构的摇篮是黄河，不是长江。自古以来，长江流域就孕育很多与黄河流域有联系的文化，但是，汉文化，商朝和周朝，都是诞生在黄河边。长江流域的文化在周朝末期，秦汉时期被同化了。
Voyzornee Den
Through out the history of China, many regime leaders wanted a unified China. Qin Shi Huang, emperors of Han, Tang, etc. This is a concept that has been around for at least 2000 years in China
纵观中国整个历史，很多政权领导人谋求统一的中国。秦始皇，汉朝皇帝，唐皇帝...都是如此。这种统一观念至少存在了两千年。
Day
I noticed you basically had to cut the Qing dynasty out of existence to make your narrative work, as well as use a much reduced version of the Tang dynasty map. Because otherwise it'd make obvious that Xinjiang has been involved in a Chinese tug of war for a long time (first Chinese expansion into Xinjiang was in the Han dynasty), or that Tibet was first absorbed into the concept of 'China' by the Qing (albeit not very successfully).
我发现你为了方便叙述，删减掉了清朝，还用了一张简化的唐朝地图，否则就会明显看到xj与中国之间的长期拉锯战（中国版图首次扩张到xj是在汉朝），而xz第一次被纳入中国的概念是在清朝。
davidroberts6531
I've watched other videos by Harris and enjoyed them, so being an "old China hand" I decided to check this out. I previously lived in China for a total of 20 years (starting from 1988-89 at Peking University). I am a fluent Mandarin speaker/reader and have a degree in history with a focus on China. I am also a lawyer by training and practiced law in China for 13 years. As numerous comments have pointed out, the video is riddled with errors and material omissions that undermine its flawed narrative. Quite literally anyone who knows anything about China will immediately be turned off by this. Even the most diehard anti-CCP Hong Kong protestor, if they're being honest, must admit that the video's narrative is historically inaccurate and misleading. This video is the very definition of "malpractice" and gross negligence in terms of conveying information. If I did something similar in my prior career, I would have been disbarred.
我很享受Harris的视频，因此作为了一个中国通，我决定来看看这个。我之前住在中国有20年了（从1988-89年住在北京开始），我能说一口流利的普通话，阅读中文，还有一个专注于中国史的历史学位。我也是一个训练有素的律师，在中国从业13年了。正如很多评论指出的，这个视频充斥错误和素材遗漏，这削弱了本就有缺陷的叙述。确切的说，任何对中国有一些了的人都会厌恶这个视频，即使是最反gcd的死硬分子，也必须承认这个视频的叙述是不准确，有误导性的。在传递信息方面，这段视频定义什么叫做“胡作非为”和“严重过失”（主要表达视频内容错得离谱）。如果我在之前的职业生涯中犯了类似的错误，我早就被吊销执照了。
yufei7107
Dude how can you skip the last Chinese imperial empire (Qing Dynasty) and the first nationalist republic (ROC) who actually hold the key to this damn question?
老兄，你怎么能略过最后一个中华帝国（清朝）和中国第一个民族主义共和国（中华民国）？—事实上这也是问题的关键所在
stevenl5049
The concept of a unified China has been the goal for each dynasty for over 2000 years. The last Qing Dynasty had a border that is far greater than that of the PRC, the ROC has, and still claims a border far larger than that of the PRC. The goal for unity and assimilation has been an idea and been in practice for millennia and is not a Communist narrative. Mind you that China has always represented more than just the Han ethnicity as minorities throughout the history of China has overthrown Han governments and created their own dynasties. Example, Yuan Dynasty with the Mongols and the Qing Dynasty with the Manchus. All of the minorities has always had a united China as their main goal. All you have been doing is manipulating history and offending an entire culture and their history for the sake of views and clickbait. You have the talents to create meaningful videos like you have in the past, please return to that because this will be your downfall. You have lost a subscriber.
2000年来，统一是每个王朝追求的目标，最后一个王朝清朝拥有的边界比中华人民共和国和中华民国大得多，并且宣称的边界也比中国人民共和国大得多。统一和同化融合的目标不只是想法，而是千年来的实践，这不是共产主义的叙事。注意，中国代表的不只是汉族，纵观中国整个历史，少数民族也推翻过政府，创造过自己的王朝。例如，蒙古人建立的元朝，满族人建立的清朝。所有少数民族也将统一中国作为目标。而你（指up主）为了浏览量和点击率，在操纵历史，冒犯中国文化。请回到从前，你可以创造更有意义的视频，你已经失去了一个订阅者（指答主自己）。
gcbao
Important missing pieces in the video summarized: - Conception of China's legitimate borders by most Chinese today comes from the Qing Empire, which was actually larger than modern China and included Mongolia and Taiwan. The Qing was huge, way bigger than the Roman Empire for instance. - China right before communism was the Republic of China, ruled by the Chinese Nationalist Party (the Kuomintang of Taiwan today), which was...nationalist and wished to unite China and restore Qing Empire borders. Chinese nationalism wasn't just a CCP idea. - Chinese civilization started in the Yellow River Basin, around the river north of the Yangtze. Edit: Points one and two are not meant to challenge Johnny’s overarching message that a nation’s borders change and are somewhat arbitrary and that therefore people shouldn’t be so attached to them. Rather, my point is that many modern Chinese conceptions of China’s legitimate borders didn't just spring up from nowhere. Johnny inaccurately suggests that the CCP just invented these borders out of thin air, omitting relevant history. Some folks here might think they're clever in pointing out that the Qing Imperial family was Manchu, not Han. Actually, this is a fact probably even poorly educated Chinese know. But being “Chinese” isn’t synonymous with being Han. Like ”American,” “Chinese” can be a demonym referring to a multiethnic nation. This is why Chinese history encompasses the several non-Han dynastic periods, such as Yuan and Qing, whose non-Han rulers became sinicized while also adding to and shaping Chinese culture. It is like how America didn't stop being America in the eight-year period it didn't have a White president. Moreover, those who fixate on this “Manchu technicality” betray an essentialist attitude on race and ethnicity (a rather anti-liberal and racist attitude). Race and ethnicity, after all, are on a spectrum, without clear demarcation. Point three refers to a puzzling mistake in the video because the fact that Chinese civilization began in the Yellow River Valley is something people learn in their middle or high school world history classes. A mistake like this makes one question how well Johnny researched his previous videos. But one supposes he can be given the benefit of the doubt; he’s a one-man production team after all, making his videos prone to the occasional oversight, and yet many of his videos appear well researched. Anyway, borders will always change. History is cyclical (while also being linear), and China will continue to change, receding and expanding, fracturing and uniting. The Chinese, relatively speaking, largely know this and are used to it. But the US will fracture as well; it’s a nation not as exceptional as some people want to believe. Something tells me lots of people here are going to be very uncomfortable with that.
总结视频里重要遗漏部分：
中国人接受的合法边界来自于清朝，它包含了蒙古和台湾，事实上比现代中国要大。清朝的版图是巨大的，远大于罗马帝国。
共产主义之前的中国是中华民国，由中国国民党统治（今天台湾的国民党），也是民族主义政党，它想统一中国并恢复清朝的疆界。
中国民族主义不只是中国共产党的理念。中华文明始于长江以北黄河流域。up主认为一个国家的边界会改变，是任意的，因此人们不该
执着于此。观点1，2的意思不是质疑这点。而我的观点是现代中国人对中国合法边界的概念并非是凭空出现的...(下面的评论就是答主质疑up主不研究相关历史，就污蔑gcd掠夺土地创造边界的)有些人觉得自己很聪明指出了清朝皇室是满族人，而不是汉族人。事实上，在中国这是一个文盲都知道的事实。但中国人并不等于就是汉族人。
像美国人一样，中国人指的是多民族共同体。这就是为什么中国历史包括元朝和清朝。这些朝代统治者也被同化，加入并形成了今天的中国文化。就像8年的黑人总统时期，美国依旧是美国，并没有因为总统是非白人而改变。
此外，那些执着于“满族统治"的人违背了对待民族和种族的基本态度（这些人是种族主义和反自由主义的）。各种族，民族，说到底，是同一个谱系的，并没有清晰的划分。观点三：视频中的错误令人费解，因为中华文明起源于黄河流域，这是中学或高中课本就学过的东西。
像这种错误让人怀疑之前的视频是否经过调查。但人们往往从质疑中获得益处。毕竟他（指up）是一个人制作的，可能会出现偶尔的疏忽，
之前的视频倒是做的不错，总之，国家的边界疆土会变化，历史会循环（同时也是线性）。
天下大势，分久必合，合久必分，相对来说，中国人，更清楚这点。美国是一个国家，也会分裂，没有人们想象的那样特殊，这个观点可能会让很多人不舒服。
Klexy Puncher
Would love to see a series of "Why US,UK,Australia,New Zealand and any other countries in the world is so damn big". Based on his logic, a lot countries wouldnt exist ans that includes US.
想看看 “为什么美国，英国，澳大利亚，新西兰或者其他任何国家”这么大？按照up的逻辑，很多国家包括美国都不会存在。
Curtis Suda
As a Japanese-American, I have a deep appreciation for historical facts and how easily they are forgotten. I find this to be the case among the majority of my fellow Americans, particularly with respect to the injustices faced within its own borders from days of Manifest Destiny, slavery and Jim Crow, Japanese-American internment during WWII, the American War (as is it described in Vietnam), and the Iraq War. I am ashamed that an American purporting to be a shining light of sorts would feed this extremely ethnocentric view of the world. A cursory review of Wikipedia or any other Western media for your sources is not grounds for attempting to dismiss the dominant Eastern culture that has existed for millennia and influenced others in countless ways. I wish my views were more broadly shared by my compatriots but many lack the understanding and mental fortitude to speak their minds.
作为一个日裔美国人，我深深体会历史事实是多么容易被遗忘，我发现大部分我的美国同胞就是如此，尤其是在自己国境内遭遇的不公，诸如天命昭昭时期（19世纪中后期;被美国人广泛持有的一种信条：扩张美国在北美洲的领土;扩大美国政治;），黑奴时期，二战日裔美国人被拘禁时期，越战和伊拉克战争时期。对于自称人类灯塔的美国人会灌输如此种族主义的观点，我感到羞愧。对维基百科和其他西方媒体的回顾并不是你试图摒弃东方文明的理由，
这种主导东方的文明存在了千年并以各种方式影响了其他国家。我希望我的观念能被同胞更广泛分享，但很多人无法理解，没有勇气说出自己的想法。
Mapor4
The "european playbook" was not new to the chinese, the reason so much of china is Han Chinese is because China has been assimilating cultures for thousands of years, and after showing 20 maps of chinese borders I don't think you can argue china didn't have defined borders before the 1700s
“欧洲的剧本”对中国人来说并不新奇，汉人如此多的原因是千年来中国一直在融合各种文化，在展示20多张中国边界地图后，我认为你不改质疑中国在18世纪之前就定义了其边界。
Anmol Jain
With these glaring inaccuracies and misleading cherry-picking of facts from China's long civilisational history, I really wish he doesn't attempt making such videos on India and its civilisation and history 'cause that is bound to be even more difficult for him to grasp the diversity of the subcontinent given the fact that he couldn't understand a relatively homogenous Chinese civilisation.
鉴于这么明显的错误和误导性有选择的事实，真的不希望up主再做关于印度文明和历史的视频。他甚至不理解中国这种相对同质化的文明，更别说掌握次印度次大陆的多样性了。
Samuel Natalius
This strategy is not unique to China. In Indonesia, we were taught that European powers has divided the society in order to take over it (devide et impera) and therefore national unity is essential, while in reality there was no such thing as Indonesia before European colonisation as it was a bunch of different kingdoms and sultanates. This narration and the assimilation strategy are considered profound tools to "prevent the country being divided and controlled by foreign powers again". I believe many Asian countries also apply this strategy to maintain their existence as well, and it's not necessarily a bad thing.
这种策略并非中国独有，在印度尼西亚，我们知道欧洲列强为了控制社会，采用分而治之的策略，因此国家统一至关重要，事实上在欧洲殖民之前，并没有印度尼西亚这个国家，因为当时这里知识一群王国和苏丹国。这种叙事和同化策略是的意义深远的工具—有效防止国家分裂和被外国操作。很多亚洲国家应用这个策略来保证延续，这不一定是个坏事情。
Cook Adequacy
Hey Johnny, I would like to point out that the message of a United China historically is one that the Nationalist Party (or Guomindang) and their leaders (in particular Jiang Jieshi) supported. You could look up their founder’s Three Principles to get an idea of this - or perhaps Jiang Jieshi’s speeches. The short of it is, this was a very popular idea among most political groups dominant after the collapse of the Qing dynasty. So, not a Communist idea, but a nationalist idea.
你好，Johnny， 我想指出统一这一思想是国民党和它的领导（尤其是蒋介石）支持的。你看查阅下中山先生的三民主义，或者蒋介石的演讲。简言而之，这是清朝灭亡后政党中的主流思想，因此这不是个共产主义的理念，而是民族主义的理念。
原文地址：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ2oOp040f0
johnnyharris
Hey friends, thanks for watching and thank you to everyone who has offered insight, correction, and context about the history section of this video. I really value this community in helping keep me accountable on the information I share and have definitely learned a few things that I could have done better in our research. I especially appreciate the comments that were written in good faith with an effort to expand the perspective and accuracy of this topic. I’ve got a lot of videos coming up and it’s feedback like this that makes me double down on rigor and accuracy. See you soon, Johnny.
嗨，朋友们，感谢所有那些观看，提供见解，纠正，和视频历史背景的人。我很珍惜这个网络社区，它帮助我对所分享的信息保持负责的态度，我也的确学习到了一些本可以让我做得更好的事情。我特别感谢那些真诚的评论，不仅扩展了视角也提高了话题的准确性。我还有很多视频要做，是大家的反馈让我在视频的严谨性和准确性上加倍努力。期待与你们再见，Johnny
joseignaciocaamanocristoba7518
An important correction, the cradle of Han civilization and the Chinese state structures is the Yellow River or Huang He (黄河), not the Yangtze River. The Yangtze basin had since ancient times harbored many cultures that were in contact with those of the Yellow River basin, but Han culture, and the Shang and Zhou dinasties, were born by the margins of the Yellow River. The Yangtze basin would be culturally assimilated in the late Zhou, Qin and Han dinasties.
一个重要的纠正，汉文明和中国国家架构的摇篮是黄河，不是长江。自古以来，长江流域就孕育很多与黄河流域有联系的文化，但是，汉文化，商朝和周朝，都是诞生在黄河边。长江流域的文化在周朝末期，秦汉时期被同化了。
Voyzornee Den
Through out the history of China, many regime leaders wanted a unified China. Qin Shi Huang, emperors of Han, Tang, etc. This is a concept that has been around for at least 2000 years in China
纵观中国整个历史，很多政权领导人谋求统一的中国。秦始皇，汉朝皇帝，唐皇帝...都是如此。这种统一观念至少存在了两千年。
Day
I noticed you basically had to cut the Qing dynasty out of existence to make your narrative work, as well as use a much reduced version of the Tang dynasty map. Because otherwise it'd make obvious that Xinjiang has been involved in a Chinese tug of war for a long time (first Chinese expansion into Xinjiang was in the Han dynasty), or that Tibet was first absorbed into the concept of 'China' by the Qing (albeit not very successfully).
我发现你为了方便叙述，删减掉了清朝，还用了一张简化的唐朝地图，否则就会明显看到xj与中国之间的长期拉锯战（中国版图首次扩张到xj是在汉朝），而xz第一次被纳入中国的概念是在清朝。
davidroberts6531
I've watched other videos by Harris and enjoyed them, so being an "old China hand" I decided to check this out. I previously lived in China for a total of 20 years (starting from 1988-89 at Peking University). I am a fluent Mandarin speaker/reader and have a degree in history with a focus on China. I am also a lawyer by training and practiced law in China for 13 years. As numerous comments have pointed out, the video is riddled with errors and material omissions that undermine its flawed narrative. Quite literally anyone who knows anything about China will immediately be turned off by this. Even the most diehard anti-CCP Hong Kong protestor, if they're being honest, must admit that the video's narrative is historically inaccurate and misleading. This video is the very definition of "malpractice" and gross negligence in terms of conveying information. If I did something similar in my prior career, I would have been disbarred.
我很享受Harris的视频，因此作为了一个中国通，我决定来看看这个。我之前住在中国有20年了（从1988-89年住在北京开始），我能说一口流利的普通话，阅读中文，还有一个专注于中国史的历史学位。我也是一个训练有素的律师，在中国从业13年了。正如很多评论指出的，这个视频充斥错误和素材遗漏，这削弱了本就有缺陷的叙述。确切的说，任何对中国有一些了的人都会厌恶这个视频，即使是最反gcd的死硬分子，也必须承认这个视频的叙述是不准确，有误导性的。在传递信息方面，这段视频定义什么叫做“胡作非为”和“严重过失”（主要表达视频内容错得离谱）。如果我在之前的职业生涯中犯了类似的错误，我早就被吊销执照了。
yufei7107
Dude how can you skip the last Chinese imperial empire (Qing Dynasty) and the first nationalist republic (ROC) who actually hold the key to this damn question?
老兄，你怎么能略过最后一个中华帝国（清朝）和中国第一个民族主义共和国（中华民国）？—事实上这也是问题的关键所在
stevenl5049
The concept of a unified China has been the goal for each dynasty for over 2000 years. The last Qing Dynasty had a border that is far greater than that of the PRC, the ROC has, and still claims a border far larger than that of the PRC. The goal for unity and assimilation has been an idea and been in practice for millennia and is not a Communist narrative. Mind you that China has always represented more than just the Han ethnicity as minorities throughout the history of China has overthrown Han governments and created their own dynasties. Example, Yuan Dynasty with the Mongols and the Qing Dynasty with the Manchus. All of the minorities has always had a united China as their main goal. All you have been doing is manipulating history and offending an entire culture and their history for the sake of views and clickbait. You have the talents to create meaningful videos like you have in the past, please return to that because this will be your downfall. You have lost a subscriber.
2000年来，统一是每个王朝追求的目标，最后一个王朝清朝拥有的边界比中华人民共和国和中华民国大得多，并且宣称的边界也比中国人民共和国大得多。统一和同化融合的目标不只是想法，而是千年来的实践，这不是共产主义的叙事。注意，中国代表的不只是汉族，纵观中国整个历史，少数民族也推翻过政府，创造过自己的王朝。例如，蒙古人建立的元朝，满族人建立的清朝。所有少数民族也将统一中国作为目标。而你（指up主）为了浏览量和点击率，在操纵历史，冒犯中国文化。请回到从前，你可以创造更有意义的视频，你已经失去了一个订阅者（指答主自己）。
gcbao
Important missing pieces in the video summarized: - Conception of China's legitimate borders by most Chinese today comes from the Qing Empire, which was actually larger than modern China and included Mongolia and Taiwan. The Qing was huge, way bigger than the Roman Empire for instance. - China right before communism was the Republic of China, ruled by the Chinese Nationalist Party (the Kuomintang of Taiwan today), which was...nationalist and wished to unite China and restore Qing Empire borders. Chinese nationalism wasn't just a CCP idea. - Chinese civilization started in the Yellow River Basin, around the river north of the Yangtze. Edit: Points one and two are not meant to challenge Johnny’s overarching message that a nation’s borders change and are somewhat arbitrary and that therefore people shouldn’t be so attached to them. Rather, my point is that many modern Chinese conceptions of China’s legitimate borders didn't just spring up from nowhere. Johnny inaccurately suggests that the CCP just invented these borders out of thin air, omitting relevant history. Some folks here might think they're clever in pointing out that the Qing Imperial family was Manchu, not Han. Actually, this is a fact probably even poorly educated Chinese know. But being “Chinese” isn’t synonymous with being Han. Like ”American,” “Chinese” can be a demonym referring to a multiethnic nation. This is why Chinese history encompasses the several non-Han dynastic periods, such as Yuan and Qing, whose non-Han rulers became sinicized while also adding to and shaping Chinese culture. It is like how America didn't stop being America in the eight-year period it didn't have a White president. Moreover, those who fixate on this “Manchu technicality” betray an essentialist attitude on race and ethnicity (a rather anti-liberal and racist attitude). Race and ethnicity, after all, are on a spectrum, without clear demarcation. Point three refers to a puzzling mistake in the video because the fact that Chinese civilization began in the Yellow River Valley is something people learn in their middle or high school world history classes. A mistake like this makes one question how well Johnny researched his previous videos. But one supposes he can be given the benefit of the doubt; he’s a one-man production team after all, making his videos prone to the occasional oversight, and yet many of his videos appear well researched. Anyway, borders will always change. History is cyclical (while also being linear), and China will continue to change, receding and expanding, fracturing and uniting. The Chinese, relatively speaking, largely know this and are used to it. But the US will fracture as well; it’s a nation not as exceptional as some people want to believe. Something tells me lots of people here are going to be very uncomfortable with that.
总结视频里重要遗漏部分：
中国人接受的合法边界来自于清朝，它包含了蒙古和台湾，事实上比现代中国要大。清朝的版图是巨大的，远大于罗马帝国。
共产主义之前的中国是中华民国，由中国国民党统治（今天台湾的国民党），也是民族主义政党，它想统一中国并恢复清朝的疆界。
中国民族主义不只是中国共产党的理念。中华文明始于长江以北黄河流域。up主认为一个国家的边界会改变，是任意的，因此人们不该
执着于此。观点1，2的意思不是质疑这点。而我的观点是现代中国人对中国合法边界的概念并非是凭空出现的...(下面的评论就是答主质疑up主不研究相关历史，就污蔑gcd掠夺土地创造边界的)有些人觉得自己很聪明指出了清朝皇室是满族人，而不是汉族人。事实上，在中国这是一个文盲都知道的事实。但中国人并不等于就是汉族人。
像美国人一样，中国人指的是多民族共同体。这就是为什么中国历史包括元朝和清朝。这些朝代统治者也被同化，加入并形成了今天的中国文化。就像8年的黑人总统时期，美国依旧是美国，并没有因为总统是非白人而改变。
此外，那些执着于“满族统治"的人违背了对待民族和种族的基本态度（这些人是种族主义和反自由主义的）。各种族，民族，说到底，是同一个谱系的，并没有清晰的划分。观点三：视频中的错误令人费解，因为中华文明起源于黄河流域，这是中学或高中课本就学过的东西。
像这种错误让人怀疑之前的视频是否经过调查。但人们往往从质疑中获得益处。毕竟他（指up）是一个人制作的，可能会出现偶尔的疏忽，
之前的视频倒是做的不错，总之，国家的边界疆土会变化，历史会循环（同时也是线性）。
天下大势，分久必合，合久必分，相对来说，中国人，更清楚这点。美国是一个国家，也会分裂，没有人们想象的那样特殊，这个观点可能会让很多人不舒服。
Klexy Puncher
Would love to see a series of "Why US,UK,Australia,New Zealand and any other countries in the world is so damn big". Based on his logic, a lot countries wouldnt exist ans that includes US.
想看看 “为什么美国，英国，澳大利亚，新西兰或者其他任何国家”这么大？按照up的逻辑，很多国家包括美国都不会存在。
Curtis Suda
As a Japanese-American, I have a deep appreciation for historical facts and how easily they are forgotten. I find this to be the case among the majority of my fellow Americans, particularly with respect to the injustices faced within its own borders from days of Manifest Destiny, slavery and Jim Crow, Japanese-American internment during WWII, the American War (as is it described in Vietnam), and the Iraq War. I am ashamed that an American purporting to be a shining light of sorts would feed this extremely ethnocentric view of the world. A cursory review of Wikipedia or any other Western media for your sources is not grounds for attempting to dismiss the dominant Eastern culture that has existed for millennia and influenced others in countless ways. I wish my views were more broadly shared by my compatriots but many lack the understanding and mental fortitude to speak their minds.
作为一个日裔美国人，我深深体会历史事实是多么容易被遗忘，我发现大部分我的美国同胞就是如此，尤其是在自己国境内遭遇的不公，诸如天命昭昭时期（19世纪中后期;被美国人广泛持有的一种信条：扩张美国在北美洲的领土;扩大美国政治;），黑奴时期，二战日裔美国人被拘禁时期，越战和伊拉克战争时期。对于自称人类灯塔的美国人会灌输如此种族主义的观点，我感到羞愧。对维基百科和其他西方媒体的回顾并不是你试图摒弃东方文明的理由，
这种主导东方的文明存在了千年并以各种方式影响了其他国家。我希望我的观念能被同胞更广泛分享，但很多人无法理解，没有勇气说出自己的想法。
Mapor4
The "european playbook" was not new to the chinese, the reason so much of china is Han Chinese is because China has been assimilating cultures for thousands of years, and after showing 20 maps of chinese borders I don't think you can argue china didn't have defined borders before the 1700s
“欧洲的剧本”对中国人来说并不新奇，汉人如此多的原因是千年来中国一直在融合各种文化，在展示20多张中国边界地图后，我认为你不改质疑中国在18世纪之前就定义了其边界。
Anmol Jain
With these glaring inaccuracies and misleading cherry-picking of facts from China's long civilisational history, I really wish he doesn't attempt making such videos on India and its civilisation and history 'cause that is bound to be even more difficult for him to grasp the diversity of the subcontinent given the fact that he couldn't understand a relatively homogenous Chinese civilisation.
鉴于这么明显的错误和误导性有选择的事实，真的不希望up主再做关于印度文明和历史的视频。他甚至不理解中国这种相对同质化的文明，更别说掌握次印度次大陆的多样性了。
Samuel Natalius
This strategy is not unique to China. In Indonesia, we were taught that European powers has divided the society in order to take over it (devide et impera) and therefore national unity is essential, while in reality there was no such thing as Indonesia before European colonisation as it was a bunch of different kingdoms and sultanates. This narration and the assimilation strategy are considered profound tools to "prevent the country being divided and controlled by foreign powers again". I believe many Asian countries also apply this strategy to maintain their existence as well, and it's not necessarily a bad thing.
这种策略并非中国独有，在印度尼西亚，我们知道欧洲列强为了控制社会，采用分而治之的策略，因此国家统一至关重要，事实上在欧洲殖民之前，并没有印度尼西亚这个国家，因为当时这里知识一群王国和苏丹国。这种叙事和同化策略是的意义深远的工具—有效防止国家分裂和被外国操作。很多亚洲国家应用这个策略来保证延续，这不一定是个坏事情。
Cook Adequacy
Hey Johnny, I would like to point out that the message of a United China historically is one that the Nationalist Party (or Guomindang) and their leaders (in particular Jiang Jieshi) supported. You could look up their founder’s Three Principles to get an idea of this - or perhaps Jiang Jieshi’s speeches. The short of it is, this was a very popular idea among most political groups dominant after the collapse of the Qing dynasty. So, not a Communist idea, but a nationalist idea.
你好，Johnny， 我想指出统一这一思想是国民党和它的领导（尤其是蒋介石）支持的。你看查阅下中山先生的三民主义，或者蒋介石的演讲。简言而之，这是清朝灭亡后政党中的主流思想，因此这不是个共产主义的理念，而是民族主义的理念。
