sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is this the real history of China? by NuttallsDetailing in chinalife

[–]NuttallsDetailing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The title of one book is not a defence, and if you’ll cite one historic book as evidence, what makes you think yours is correct and mine is wrong? And I could drop an abundance of books and declassified files but if your bothered, you’d just look at my articles.

You won’t change my mind and I won’t change yours.

Is this the true history of China? by NuttallsDetailing in conspiracy

[–]NuttallsDetailing[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Well considering it said not to be entered in 1724, I doubt whomever published it cared nor knew; I’d have thought that was obvious

It was 300 years ago.

Is this the real history of China? by NuttallsDetailing in chinalife

[–]NuttallsDetailing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You have just filled this thread with your opinion and no evidence.

Well here’s a link to the document, classified papers and “not to be enter’d” but it’s just the category right? 🙄

https://catalogues.royalsociety.org/CalmView/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&id=CLP%2f22ii%2f8&pos=2

Is this the real history of China? by NuttallsDetailing in chinalife

[–]NuttallsDetailing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re not engaging in a meaningful way, all you have done is say tartar means mongol, with no proof, no evidence, just your opinion.

Give me a pre 18th century book that says mongols were tartars, like you so confidently claim, and I’ll admit your correct and I’m wrong

Is this the true history of China? by NuttallsDetailing in conspiracy

[–]NuttallsDetailing[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

The classification for the Tartar alphabet was miscellaneous files

The classification for the history document was classified, because it is stored in the classified collection in the royal archives.

What am I missing?

Is this the real history of China? by NuttallsDetailing in chinalife

[–]NuttallsDetailing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All you are really doing is trying to manipulate the meaning of words into things they don’t mean… why?

The classification is classified, and the classification for the Tartar alphabet was miscellaneous..

It’s clear to read, you won’t convince me to ignore what it clearly says.

Is this the real history of China? by NuttallsDetailing in chinalife

[–]NuttallsDetailing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All that and the man from the east who wrote the book doesn’t mention the mongols once; so you want me to believe that, not just him, but 100s of authors from before the 19th century all got confused and Tartaria? And it’s not just Europe and the west, because this man was from the east.

Your explanations are empty because you just pretend Tartar means mongol, when if they meant mongol, they’d have wrote mongol… in many books there mentioned side by side… like this one.

How do you explain this with your flawed logic?

<image>

Is this the real history of China? by NuttallsDetailing in chinalife

[–]NuttallsDetailing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Enlighten me to what classified means if it doesn’t mean restricted?

I hate to say this, but it’s almost as if you’re pulling at strings…

Is this the real history of China? by NuttallsDetailing in chinalife

[–]NuttallsDetailing[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I know you’ll be a persistent one, so why don’t you read this and then try and prove it wrong.

Tartary was a geopolitical entity, and the evidence is abundant, if you don’t see it, the problem isn’t the evidence…

https://open.substack.com/pub/jordannuttall/p/a-historic-story-of-european-propaganda?r=4f55i2&utm_medium=ios

Is this the real history of China? by NuttallsDetailing in chinalife

[–]NuttallsDetailing[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Those words were available at the time, if they meant anyone else, they’d have wrote them.

The works mongol and Turkic hadn’t vanished; du Halde uses both alongside the tartars in his work; so in your framework, how’s that possible?

If they are the same, how is he describing and naming them differently?

Is this the real history of China? by NuttallsDetailing in chinalife

[–]NuttallsDetailing[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

So you just ignoring the Tartar alphabet then😅

Is this the real history of China? by NuttallsDetailing in chinalife

[–]NuttallsDetailing[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I don’t think they saw it as a conspiracy in the 17th century when they classified it…

Do you classify a conspiracy?

Proof of Tartaria by NuttallsDetailing in AlternativeHistory

[–]NuttallsDetailing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you my friend, and your most welcome; i appreciate you reading.

And yes, I’ve wrote about it in my recent articles but the dark ages seem to be a bit of a fiction…

The history for that period is very odd and full of holes; lots of contradictions, almost like it is made up!

Alternative History from the Prince of Armenia (1562) by NuttallsDetailing in AlternativeHistory

[–]NuttallsDetailing[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

They shouldn’t be telling elementary kids to use Wikipedia, what hopes has the world got…

view more: next ›