- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 25685 Hour
- Reading permission
Talking about the sniffing dog and it pops up on cue
Thank you for your punctuality -- wa sai -- two seconds after I raised the dog tag.
As always, you never fail to show up at the front door when I need a modeling moron to illustrate my points.
By not showing up at the back door, you show you ain't embarrassed by your cluelessness.
Presentation without evidence is speculation, and it is obvious there's no speculation in his work. Similarly, nobody ever said the Chinese had played no major part in the European Renaissance -- they simply had no factual information at the time due to lack of Sino-European communication -- there's nothing "revisionist" in any of Menzies' work as you have claimed here.
The same question goes for you -- what's the title of the second chapter of his book? What exactly are you disagreeing about that you find it proper to dismiss his work as "speculative revisionist historiography" -- you do have the unenviable knack of using big words to say nothing, don't you?
What's important to point out is that to deny the authenticity of his findings without knowing anything about the evidence he has presented is the sure sign of a lazy mind.
Despite of the fact that you are known as one of the lazier and sleazier detractors around these premises, I still want to congratulate you on your audacity to enter through the front door as soon as I raised that dog-tag.
Chinese detractors aren't very different from their Western counterparts -- there are still quite a number of them that believe San Francisco's roads are paved with gold.
Since you are saying you have read it, let me ask you what is the title of the third chapter in his 1434 book?
It doesn't matter what people say of any author -- especially someone like Menzies with the analytical ability to see the connecting dots against the background of a constellation of stars -- it only matters what the author has used as proof and whether such proof can stand the test of time after further investigative scrutiny.
If you point out to a color-blind person that you can see an animal pattern against a background of green and yellow dots, they'll call you names and say you're crazy too. Would that subtract from the FACT that there is indeed such a visible pattern?
They can call him anything but unless there is some substance to the charges, it doesn't subtract a bit from the worth of his findings.
You have just heard that some Chinese historians didn't agree with him, but when these historians voiced their opinions, they only said they weren't aware of it from THEIR own studies. Not one of them said it was impossible.
I know they didn't understand any of his viewpoints in depth because as a submariner, he enjoyed certain professional advantages in his ability to ascertain the value of his findings. For instance, he knew from his experience on the west coast of Africa how the rotation of the earth accounted for the discrepancy between the measured width of the Horn of Africa and the apparent time for his submarine to cross that distance underneath the ocean. From these deductive logic, he could authenticate what Admiral Zheng He recorded as evidence as he had indeed rounded the Cape of Good Hope and traveled to the North Atlantic Ocean by hugging close to the western coastline of Africa. Those records were shown in the scaled maps Zheng He and his four sub-admirals drew from their global circumnavigations.
Remember that Ming China forbade seafaring adventures after Zheng He and so a lot of records were destroyed and lost. Not one of his grand ships has survived -- so does that mean Admiral Zheng's seafaring exploits were just humbug? Of course not.
It is nothing strange that many Chinese historians aren't themselves aware of what went on during the early years of emperor Yung Le, who also finished building the Forbidden City in 1422. Only a man with such broad vistas and willful ambitions could launch and finance such circumnavigation efforts, and in the process making his other exploits believable through the very existence of the grandiose Forbidden City itself.
Fortunately records were kept which upon further scrutiny bore witness to what had transpired in those years. it is almost impossible to destroy all seafaring records no matter how Yung Le's successors tried.
It is nothing strange that some Chinese historians should find it hard to believe that China could do all that during the Ming Dynasty, for possibility thinking is one of the big tests of a great mind -- for example, only M.ao and his cohorts never doubted that with a small band of men they could launch a revolution that would affect the entire globe within a few decades. For one thing the English proficiency levels of these professors were such that it would be highly unlikely that they could fully understand Menzies' writings before they voiced their opinions.
They probably heard from a second-hand source that Menzies said the Chinese discovered America, and in order to hide their own embarrassment, said it was impossible because they hadn't read about it.
Similarly, before Joseph Needham came along no Chinese scholar was aware of the scientific advances China had made in so many fields, because pre-Revolution China had been in such turmoil for such a long time that food and shelter constituted the most pressing problems, not whether China had invented a certain technology.
For example, King Fu Cha's sword was fashioned in all its exquisite beauty 2600 years ago, yet only recently had the scientists been able to confirm that the sword's inner and outer layers were made of different alloys -- a fact which accounted for its astonishingly non-rusted, razor-sharp qualities 2600 years after it had been buried underground.
So being a Chinese historian and not believing Menzies in order to show their "impartiality" is nothing unusual, because none of them have had the practical experience of having been a submariner who had logged many thousands of miles under the oceans.
Gavin Menzies is not out to please anyone with his theories, and the fact that he had earned some income with his books should not be confused with the validity of his arguments, unless you believe you can generalize that anyone who has ever written a book is a liar out to make a buck only. In fact, despite all the name-calling epithets, hitherto no one has ever been able to refute any of his fact-based theories.
Further authentication through archeological research - which will become easier as tools of scientific research improve in sophistication -- will be the only proper road to take, and not outright rejection which would be indicative of an unreasonable frame of mind.