"What's the use of that, people have been duli for almost a hundred years. An Xiangfei heard me say this and replied with a smile.

"Just take it back again, haha." I'm half-joking, although it's a joke, but maybe in the subconscious of the Chinese people, I really have this kind of thought.

Knowing that as soon as my voice fell, An Xiangfei thought about it and said: "Returning to my country is just a myth in a legend."

"Poof,......" I gave him a blank look, and he didn't pay attention to me, but said to himself.

The special affection of our people towards Mongolia is all due to our "Begonia Leaf" plot. And the various unfriendliness of the Mongolians to our people also originated from this "begonia leaf". The difference is that Chinese people are full of yearning for this begonia leaf, while Mongolia is full of disgust. The fundamental difference between the two lies in the fact that China regards the founding of Mongolia as a state and the lack of territory, while Mongolia sees it as a national liberation and a state duli, and sees itself as completely freeing itself from China's nearly 300 years of "colonial rule" with the help of the Soviet Red Army.

My Mongolian friend Meng He, in the course of talking to me about history, used the concept of "conquering dynasties" repeatedly. "Mongolia also conquered our country in the Yuan Dynasty, why not say that our country is now part of Mongolia?"

The narrative model of this view of the history of the Mongols lies in its national museum. Located northwest of Sukhbaatar Square in the center of the capital Ulaanbaatar, the National Museum consists of 10 branches and records the history of more than 2,000 years from the Xiongnu Dynasty to Mongolia. Details such as the content of the exhibits, the style of the exhibits, and the size of the pavilion can be used to understand what kind of attitude the Mongols had towards their own history.

Different from China's historical view of national unification, Mongolians do not consider themselves to be part of the Chinese nation. This is especially emphasized on the walls of the National Museum of Mongolia. The National Museum of Mongolia narrates its national history in different exhibition halls as follows: the Xiongnu Empire, the Xianbei Empire, the Rouran Empire, the Turkic Empire established by the Turks, the Blue Turkic Empire, the Uyghur Empire and the last Mongol Empire, Mongolia under Manchu rule, Mongolia on the eve of the revolution, Mongolia during Gongchanism and Mongolia after Minzhuization.

All the national museums in the world, behind the seemingly strange and diverse exhibits, actually have the same purpose, that is, to prove to visitors the legitimacy and uniqueness of their own national nation, and the National Museum of Mongolia is no exception. The historical order of the exhibition halls of the National Museum of Mongolia is undoubtedly intended to tell visitors that Mongolia is the legal successor of various empires in Central Asia since ancient times, and that the rulers of various empires in history are either direct ancestors of the Mongols, or are inextricably linked with the Mongols. For more than 2,000 years, the descendants of the inhabitants, founders, and rulers of Central Asia are the Mongols today. The National Museum of Mongolia tells people not only about the Mongols' representation of national legitimacy, but also about their attitudes towards foreign rulers. The Manchus or our country are used here as an aggressor and are used to criticize.

The exhibition hall of the Turkic dynasty was jointly built by Mongolia and the Turkish Agency for International Cooperation, which represents the Turkish government, because the descendants of the founders of the Turkic Empire are the current Turks. The Mongols could face the rule of the ancient Turks, but they could not face the rule of the Manchus or our people.

It stands to reason that from the conquest of Inner Mongolia by the Qing army in 1636 to the fall of the Qing Dynasty in 1911, the Qing generation ruled Outer Mongolia for nearly 300 years, which was much longer than the 70 years of indirect "rule" of the Soviet Union. But if you go to the National Museum of Mongolia, you will find that the 300-year-old fifth exhibition hall, "Mongolia under Manchu rule", is less than one-third of the "Mongolia during the Gongchanist period", and is the smallest of the ten exhibition halls.

The exhibits in the fifth hall highlight only two themes: military and torture instruments. The former emphasizes the Qing Dynasty's military conquest of Mongolia; The latter deliberately highlights the cruelty and darkness of Manchu rule by means of pictures and physical torture instruments. In fact, those who know a little about Mongolian history can see the bias of the statement of the National Museum of Mongolia by making a simple comparison.

After the Soviet Union took control of Mongolia in 1921, it confiscated the property of Buddhist monasteries, destroyed monasteries, arrested lamas, and basically destroyed Tibetan Buddhism. After the Mongolian rebellion against the Soviet Union in 1932, the Soviet authorities began to purge and persecute Mongolia. In two decades, 36,000 people died or went missing, compared to 730,000 in Mongolia at the time. In just two decades, nearly 5 percent of the country's population has died unnaturally. Culturally, Mongolia suffered the same fate as Vietnam, where the traditional Mongolian script was changed to a Russian-style Slavic script, cutting off the inheritance of their own culture.

The above data are all from the National Museum of Mongolia, and the comparison shows that the fifth exhibition hall describes the brutal rule of Mongolia by the Qing Dynasty, which is only a large and empty macro discussion, lacking the support of historical evidence, but it accounts for almost one-third of the entire fifth exhibition hall; The true brutality of the Soviet rule over Mongolia is hidden in the exhibits of Mongolia's industrial mass production during the Gongchanist period, which is lightly brought down. This is clearly using zhengzhi to interpret history and the present to interpret the past, which confirms Croce's famous saying that "all history is contemporary history".

In the seventh exhibition hall, "On the Eve of the Revolution", there is a description of the Mongols' resentment against our merchants, which is recorded as follows: "Our merchants flooded the countryside to buy leather, wool, camel hair and other commodities from herdsmen at low prices, and then sold these commodities at high prices, forcing the Mongols to go into debt.

The National Museum of Mongolia has an ulterior motive for accompanying an unsourced image of a Mongolian being tortured in shackles, alluding to the brutal rule of our people over Mongolia. Here, the Manchu government and the Han merchants were treated as Chinese people.

After the Xinhai Revolution in 1911, Outer Mongolia declared autonomy, and the 8th Hutuketu became emperor. In 1919, the Beiyang government sent General Xu Shuzheng to Mongolia, dissolved the autonomous government, and returned Outer Mongolia to China. "With so few people in Mongolia, they can't compete with our people, and they have asked Russia, Japan, Britain, France, and the United States for help, but they have all been refused." The National Museum of Mongolia recalls this history.

In the description of the National Museum of Mongolia, there is no such word as "fenl", and the word they use to describe the troops of the Beiyang government is "ruqin". "One of the impressive photographs of the Beiyang Army parading in the square, with the soldiers looking proud, and the English picture next to it read: A celebration of the revocation of Mongolian autonomy by our government.

This is one of the few photographs in the gallery that is illustrated in English. This is quite strange, compared with other pavilions, the English commentary of this pavilion is pitiful, and only when it comes to the content of "my ** team qinlue", there will be English pictures. I therefore suspect that there is some history that the Mongols do not want foreign tourists to know.

One of the photos of Xu Shuzheng with Mongolian princes and nobles may confirm my thoughts. The neutral person in the photo is Xu Shuzheng and the Mongolian nobles, the right and the back are the Beiyang generals, and the national flags of various countries are behind them. At the very least, this suggests that Xu's intervention and abolition of Mongolian autonomy at that time were supported by some of the Mongolian upper echelons and the international community, which may have embarrassed the current Mongols, so the English introduction was kept silent. ”

This book was first published in the King of Books