A Brief History of Bashulia’s National Constitution

By Zhongjing Liu

Extract: As Patrick Henry said in his speech, "The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! " The time when you can still choose is not long. When I was writing an article on Douban in 2008, I said, "The die has not landed yet." However, now the die is cast. At the moment when the die is cast, the position you choose is your position for the next few decades. You will no longer have the opportunity to re-select in the future. It's your turn to choose.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Zhongjing Liu
• Release date: Sep 1, 2018
• ISBN: 9781370563227

Zhongjing Liu

Historian, ex-medical examiner, author of Canons and Chronicles: China's Historical Construction | 《經與史》作者,曾刀下閱屍、現筆下論史

Book preview

A Brief History of Bashulia’s National Constitution

Published by Zhongjing Liu at Smashwords

Copyright 2018 Zhongjing Liu

Lecturer: Zhongjing Liu

Time: Lecture I: 11 April, 2018 / Lecture II: 18 April, 2018

For Chinese version,

Transcriber: Three Horses

For English version,

Translator: Simon of Cyrene

Cover maker: Fuyukawa Mame

Note:

1. In case of any discrepancy between the Chinese version and the English version, the Chinese version shall prevail.

2. For Chinese version, please look at:

"民族发明学31：巴蜀利亚民族发明学--古老文明与近代民族"

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/819022

& 民族发明学32：巴蜀利亚--种族、邦国和民族国家的源流

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/821866

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to your favorite ebook retailer and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

Content:

Lecture I: The Ancient Civilization and the Modern Nation

Lecture II: The Origin of Ethnic Group, State, and Nation-state

Lecture I: The Ancient Civilization and the Modern Nation

There is a slight difference in the definition between the history of mankind itself and the history of human civilization. The so-called history of mankind is the history of the expansion of human populations from East Africa to continental Europe, then the Americas and other relatively remote places. It did not require the existence of high-level civilization itself. That is to say, as long as there were small tribes of dozens of or hundreds of people able to maintain their lives by collecting, hunting or other means, it was enough to constitute the history of human migration and development. Civilization itself has many definitions. I am here to make an arbitrary definition. Civilization means that the human population has developed to a stage not only be able to simply maintain a livelihood but also to form a high-level political organization with primitive state forms, including the military and governing bodies. Only after reaching such a level could the group be called a human civilization. Then we can see that the origin of human beings and the origin of human civilization are two different concepts.

The origin of mankind, for East Asia, spread from the west to the east. It was the African people who had migrated to West Asia and settled there for certain generations that migrated eastward and northward along the coasts of India and Southeast Asia and finally settled in the southern and coastal areas of the East Asian continent. The basic sequence order was from west to east. This was the origins of East Asian humans. The origin of East Asian civilization was also spread from the west to the east in terms of direction, but of course, the time was much later. It also started in West Asia, but it was not simply a tribe that struggled to survive. People there generated the primitive state organization, which produced city-states controlled by organizations such as a temple or a similar primitive religion. They were capable of hosting the collective irrigation activities and transform land that was not suitable for human habitation in the lower reaches of the river or the swamps into places that were suitable for human habitation through water conservancy projects and other such productive constructions. Their ability to accumulate productivity and wealth had greatly exceeded the original primitive human tribes. Only after reaching this stage could we claim that the most primitive prototype of a state and the original civilization had emerged. This breakthrough, with wide consensus, happened in the so-called Middle East or West Asia. Civilizations in other parts of the world were directly or indirectly generated by the stimulation of the first generation of civilization in West Asia.

The oldest civilization in East Asia, represented by the two empires of Shang and Zhou, was undoubtedly the result of the West Asian civilization entering the core of East Asia through Inner Asia, according to the existing archaeological records. However, although they had a clear trait of West Asia judging from their characteristics of civilization, such as the chariots of the Shang people or the bronzes of the Zhou people, and their entry made the civilization of East Asia leap from the so-called stone age to the Bronze Age and the primitive tribal organizations without state forms climb to the advanced civilizations with state forms, it did not mean that they were the earliest inhabitants of East Asia. Obviously, there are many archaeological records showing that people who had traveled northeast along the coastline from India and Southeast Asia had already settled in the East Asian continent long before they appeared. The main difference between them and the later state entities with historical records was that they were still in a relatively scattered state, unable to form a state with military and political institutions. Many ancient myths described this time as a golden age, probably because they did not have a formal state organization, thus avoiding the oppression of state organizations and avoiding the various wars that would arise as the country inevitably emerged.

I mentioned in the last lecture on Zanzibar that it was hard to tell if the first group of people with a state form of civilization who stimulated the East Asian and South Asian subcontinents were truly pure West Asian residents or Inner Asians who accepted part of the West Asian culture. The current evidence is unrecognizable. The question just now is actually equivalent to asking in modern history whether the communist regime in East Asia was established by the Russians like Lenin and Stalin or the Hunanese Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai from Goetland? The West Asians were equivalent to the real origin of the Bolsheviks, Russia, while the Inner Asians influenced by the West Asian culture was like the East Asians who underwent Bolshevik influence and training and were often called the yellow Russians. In the twentieth century, we can distinguish between the real Communist International and their yellow Russian apprentices because of the relatively close time and the preservation of various archives and objective materials. However, just assume that three or five thousand years later, all kinds of documentary evidence have been basically destroyed. Then people can only discuss the matter through scattered archaeological evidence. It maybe difficult for the future archaeologists to judge the relationship between the Communist Party in Beijing and the Communist Party in Moscow?

You can tell from a lot of circumstantial evidence that the two at least the same origin. For example, you can tell it from the flag of a sickle and hammer, which appeared in both the ceremony of the Red Square in Moscow and the ceremony at Tiananmen Square in Beijing. You can also use the carbon-14 isotope or other means to find out that the ruins with the sickle and hammer on the Red Square in Moscow were earlier than the similar sites in other places in Beijing or Shanghai, and then you can reasonably infer that the Bolsheviks originated not from East Asia, but from Russia. These things had existed in Russia for quite a long time before appearing in East Asia. Nevertheless, you can't judge whether Comrade Stalin personally conquered East Asia with a flag of a sickle and hammer or used his indirect means to conquer East Asia through his agent.

With archaeological data alone, you can't tell whether Stalin (in Chinese Si Dalin) was surnamed Si or Stalin. Perhaps he was an East Asian who was named Si Dalin. Perhaps Fei Zhengqing (John King Fairbank) was an East Asian whose family name