My favorite over-the-top example of this:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/mandarin-chine...
tl;dr: some Chinese "scholars" claim English is a Mandarin dialect and Europe had no history before the 15th century (and Greece, Rome, etc. were fabricated in imitation of Chinese history).
Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris: A fragile temporary alliance of vampires and werewolves.
Obviously.
If you are talking about absolute number, then of course it could be substantial, but that's true for any situation, I.e., there are just more people there.
CCP propaganda has a long, terrible history, to the present day. They require compliance with it and hire people to spread it. The CCP regularly stirs up nationalism, for example over the Nine Dashed Line.
Are you sure about this? Because if the view that humanity developed in china is still popular, despite strong dna evidence suggesting otherwise - I do see nationalistic skewing of facts here.
Factually wrong statement
1. The claim was that Chinese were developed in the China land. Not humanity as a whole
2. People do not take such claim seriously.
Your statement appears that majority or at least large number of Chinese support this ridiculous claim.
This reads "I don't, and I assume others don't, too", which, again, America has proven even the most ridiculous of ideas are believed by _some_, and oftentimes _lots_ of people.
Nobody but you in this thread is speaking in absolutes. _Some_ to _lots of_ US citizens believe the earth is flat.
> Same, one cannot claim Chinese people believe they are evolved from independent source than people living in other countries.
_Some_ to _lots of_ Chinese people _do_ believe this. You keep saying "Nobody actually thinks ___", which isn't true.
I know that. I believe they were roundly mocked on Chinese social media, but the claims are so over the top to be utterly hilarious.
We're practicaly neighbours with the Mormon mission here but they seem all right. Friendly, very clean, tall. It's true that they're all white.
While multiple US examples are probably well known here, I’d like to suggest one from India from circa 2008, the controversy over the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal.
India wanted to dig a “canal” (more like dredge a shipping channel) in the waters between India and Sri Lanka. Religious fundamentalists opposed this because it would involve cutting a natural rock formation. What so special about these rocks? Well they were placed there by Lord Ram and his army of monkeys as chronicled in the Ramayana.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sethusamudram_Shipping_Canal_P...
...unless you mean "civilization" in terms of "not savages" which is totally unrelated kind of dumbness.
Whether this is particularly important is open to debate; I prefer to think that it is relevant (cities allow for specialization) but should not be considered a sign of sophistication.
In North America, the largest city, Cahokia, had 15,000 - 20,000 and peaked around 1100 AD. North America was mostly a stone age culture without a lot of cities.
You had more advanced civilizations in central and south america.
The Aztecs were the biggest. The largest urban area were the two sister cities of Tenochtitlan and Tlatelolco. Again, population estimates are hard to come by, but 200,000–400,000 inhabitants are estimated for Tenochtitlan and half that for Tlatelolco. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenochtitlan
Teotihuacan was the largest city in the Americas during the classical period, beginning to decline around 600 AD and virtually dissapearing by 1000 AD. Peak population of 150-250,000 around 450 AD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teotihuacan
The absolutely fascinating Olmecs (with the enormous heads and jade masks), were the largest before then, but they died out around 450 AD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmecs
Population estimates for their biggest city, La Venta, are about 20,000 people.
Teotihuacan had about 125K around 500 A.D, but again collapsed by around 1000 AD.
In South America, the largest Incan city, Cusco, had a peak population of up to 150,000.
https://www.worldhistory.org/Cuzco/
Tikal, the largest Mayan city, had about 200,000 (Peaking around 900 A.D)
Etc
Hardly any cities anywhere had ever had 1m people at that time. A quick google puts ancient Rome at 450,000, ancient Athens at 200,000, and London in 1500AD at 50,000 (200,000 by 1600AD)
> You had more advanced civilizations in central and south america.
Central America is part of North America.
Tens of millions of Native Americans / indigenous peoples. Much larger area, so cities with tens of thousands, not millions.
> Note that the continent of North America comprises the intermediate regions of the Caribbean, Central America, and Northern America.
The UN uses that scheme because Mexico is part of the Latin America region and makes more sense grouped with them for statistical purposes than with the US and Canada.
Florida, possibly a bit of the plains, and the upper northeast could be said to lack cities, sure. That's a far cry from how I understand your statement. What am I missing here?
I give up.
After a tour de force comment like the one at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27639407 I'm inclined to want more writing from this person, not less.