Now national football fans roar: who to replace. What I heard was: The Opium War was because Qi Shan betrayed the country, and Daoguang did not withdraw the forest.
History: Ming died in Chongzhen V.S. Ming died in Wanli
General thesis of history: Ming died in Wanli
History: Truth V.S. Fact
Historiography is from one point of view, historical materials are fact, which is the science of the study of facts.
Truth, it's okay for you to explain these historical issues, but first of all, these explanations are based on historical data, and it is impossible to be separated from historical data, it is impossible to separate from facts.
History: Fact is definitely number one.
Fact: Ming Dynasty
Logic: Based on the fact that the Ming Dynasty died, it is possible to discuss whether the Ming died in Chongzhen or Wanli?
Sentiment: Sometimes we don't discuss something based on logic, we are based on our emotions! This is likely to make us start wrong in the first place.
Early in the ming's death, the feeling is light, and the feelings for the ming that have been there before may be: anti-Qing and restoration.
This allows us to study and discuss more objectively.
Objective discussion; logical discussion: Because of the Ming Dynasty, let's discuss the Ming Dynasty's death in Chongzhen or Wanli?
Do not want Ming to die, have feelings for Ming, with emotional discussion and logic:
If Chongzhen did this, he would either not do so, or change the emperor. Ming is not dead.
If Wanli did this, or did not do it, or changed the emperor. Ming is not dead.
It seems that Ming is saved, and he is very unwilling to die.
Philosophically I believe that the king must end with this
View of history: If a king rises and falls by this, he will die in this way
The specific conclusion I think "Fifteen Years of Wanli" is correct:
Zhu Yuanzhang established a unique political system, which Ming operated according to.
It was also this system that made ming die.
Opium war
Emotional discussion:
Assumption 1: If the Opium War had been, it would have been Lin Zexu from beginning to end. If it is not Qi Shan traitorous. Will we win the Opium War?
Assumption 2: If Daoguang is always reused, it has been reused and trusted from beginning to end. Will we win the Opium War?
Why does Daoguang go from reusing trust to discarding it?
Assumption 2 is worth discussing, and the breeding problem is valuable, but I still have to say that the discussion of this problem should be based on a fact: We lost the Opium War.
Assumption 1 & 2 is a good question, a serious question. 2 makes more sense.
The public is very emotional and very interested in the question.
Assumption 3: Did the King of England call Qianlong Long Live? Was it not that our translator misled Qianlong in order to please Qianlong? If Qianlong is not swayed by our corrupt officials and Qianlong is sober-minded, China will open its eyes to the world and will develop.
The starting point of this logic: unwilling to admit that we defeated this fact in the Opium War, and China lagged behind this fact.
The end point of this logic is set in advance, and regardless of the logical starting point and logical inference, the result I want anyway is: China was defeated for a reason, no matter what the reason, it is certainly not China's own problem, the problem is just a traitor, if the translator at that time did not shoot Qianlong's ass, China would be OK. It's on the right track
Adulterers are in charge
Translations are blind
It's all a historical accident
China has gone downhill by chance, and China has no problems.
I've seen logic more ingenious and also more comical. Assumption 4: If British Envoy Macartney kneels, everything is on track:
1. The UK is ready to do business.
2. China was the first in the world at that time and will always remain the first in the world.
The high magic of this hypothesis lies in two points:
1. Chinese looked at the special lift.
2. All the previous assumptions still say: Although China has no problem as an entity, it is just a traitor: Qi Shan is traitorous, and the translation is faint. Now the question has become a question for foreigners, Macartney, you are not stupid, why don't you kneel?
If you kneel, you have business to do.
If you kneel, The Relationship between China and the UK is established.
If you kneel, history will return to the orthodox track.
Now history is going astray, anyway, it's your problem, your Macartney's personal problem, your barbarian problem.
Talking about the past and the present, I want to talk about the problem of our national football team today.
On the occasion of the release of the movie Changjin Lake, the circle of friends saw a small video, and the same reporter interviewed Wu Jing and Nolan separately. The intention of the two contrasts is obvious, and the results dwarfed by each other are obvious.
I left a message: The last; real; ultimate pair is by no means Wu Jing V.S. Nolan. It is a fan of Wu Jing's fan V.S. Nolan.
Our Chinese men's national football team, losing more and winning less, we lost it was a fact.
If it's hard for fans all over the world to accept a loss, then I think the more high-end fans can look at this problem rationally.
When I talk about history earlier, I want to make a horizontal comparison.
China's view of history, in fact, this is not a historical view, it is a historical drama view, watching drama likes to see Zhongchen V.S. Traitors.
Qi Shan was a traitorous courtier, and he must set up a loyal minister Lin Zexu. And they see the problem this way: it's not that we lost, it's that Lin Zexu was useless. If you use it, you will win.
To use the logic of Chinese fans, especially after the ball is lost, there must be arguments:
If you change whoever goes up, whoever you trade, you can win.
So there is no problem with the Chinese team, the problem with individual players. The problem of the head coach's employment.
If you change who is the head coach, you can definitely win.
Smarter fans, fans who know a little bit about the ball: technical and tactical problems, if you use this formation, this way of playing, you can win.
Anyway, there is no problem with the national football team.
We have a lot of "historians", I'm not saying that their level is the same as our fans, I'm saying that "historians" work the same as our fans, but it's:
1. From the player's point of view: Qi Shan is not good, Lin Zexu is ok.
2. From the coach's point of view: Daoguang is not OK, if it is the Kangxi Emperor. Without saying a word, victory will prevail.
3. From a technical and tactical point of view: too soft, no blood to attack. Kill him and leave no piece of armor.
The "historian's" job becomes to win for this, to find reasons, such as:
1. Lin Zexu Qinglian
2. Lin Zexu has good character
3. Lin Zexu wrote:
Hai Na Bai Chuan has rong nai big wall Standing Thousand Desireless Is Gang
The life and death of a country that profits will not avoid it because of misfortunes and blessings
The sea to the boundless sky as the shore of the mountain to the top of the mountain I am the peak
4. Lin Zexu calligraphy is good
Can this still be won?! Must Win!!!
It seems that this is a binary opposition: loyal V.S. rape Lin Zexu V.S. Qishan
It's actually a love triangle relationship:
The more you depreciate Qi Shan, in fact, it is not to demean Qi Shan but to praise Lin Zexu. The more he regarded Lin Zexu as a god, the more he degraded Qi as a villain.
But in essence, it has nothing to do with these two people, hating Qi Shan is love for China, and Holding Lin Zexu is unwilling to China.
Scolding a player with fans is out of patriotic football. The hope that a player will play is that he can save the national football team. It's the same.
If Lin Zexu can definitely win the Opium War, does Daoguang want to lose?
If the national football team can be qualified with planning, does Li Tie not want to win?
Rise and fall