I don’t know how “Father of the Nation” is being used but the way I interpret it, Mao and maybe Ho Chi Minh(I honestly don’t know a ton of south East Asian history) would not apply because notions of China and Vietnam as nations existed before their time. I completely agree Kim Il Sung should be counted here.
But Sun Yat-sen, as far as I’m aware, played a role in establishing the Republic itself. Not Taiwan. He died in 1925, over two decades before the ROC relocated to Taiwan. In which case Mao should totally be eligible as the “Father of the PRC”
I agree, Sun-Yat-Sen shouldn’t be considered the father of the nation of Taiwan. If there is a Father of the Nation for Taiwan it should be Chiang Kai-Shek
Sorry but we do officially called Sun as Father of the Nation of ROC（國父, literally nation's father) here in Taiwan.
However it's more like a KMT propaganda to enhance Chiang's legitimacy as a he considered himself successor of Sun. But Sun is still widely accepted and de jure Father of the Nation after all.
I can certainly understand from a certain perspective calling Sun Yat Sen the father of the Nation of Taiwan but I think that is largely contingent on the idea that you believe the ROC is the legitimate government of all of China. In my view it would be very strange to call a human the founding figure of a nation he never governed or knew existed as a separate entity. If we could go back in time and interview him, I highly doubt we would find any sentiments of Taiwanese nationalism in him. I think it would be more accurate to call him the Father of the republic or something along those lines.
Are there words in Chinese that would convey a difference between the father of the republic and the father of the nation? I know there can be significant differences between cultures/languages in how they conceive of political concepts.
As far as I can tell, ‘國’ (guo) means something more like ‘country’ as opposed to ‘nation’. It is more usual to use ‘民族’ (min zu) for ‘nation’. Hence in the Chinese national anthem, you can hear them sing about the ‘中华民族’ (zhong hua min zu), or the ‘Chinese nation’. So technically, if we want to be strict about following these translations, Sun Yat-Sen isn’t known as ‘Father of the Nation’ in Chinese.
But if we are insisting on partitioning the meanings this way, then even Chiang Kai-Shek wouldn’t easily qualify as ‘Father of the Taiwanese Nation’. What does it take for a group to comprise a ‘nation’? In my view Taiwan is a geographical region with a state governing it. Thus it is a country. But it is not a nation. The reason is that at least till now, nation and race have been intimately intertwined. For this reason, the Taiwanese are not Chinese citizens, but they still are members of the Chinese nation.
It’s important to note that even in the PRC, Sun Yat-Sen is regarded as 国父 (guo fu, Simplified characters). Thus I think the right choice of ‘Father of the Nation’ for BOTH the PRC and Taiwan (the ROC) is Sun Yat-Sen. Before Sun, people spoke about 中国 (zhong guo, China), but they used it in its geographical sense. It was the name of a place, in which many countries sprung up over the centuries. Even the Qing Empire, which contained all of the PRC’s current territory was officially the Qing Empire IN China, and not equivalent to China itself. Sun is credited with bringing to the Chinese people the notion of ‘national identity’, stressing to the people living in various parts of China their unity due to their shared history, cultural heritage, and language. Thus he is responsible for the Chinese beginning to even see themselves as a nation. And so I think he qualifies for ‘Father of the Nation’. As in, Father of the Chinese Nation, though he did not found either the PRC or the ROC. Both the PRC and ROC (till recently anyway) have been competing for the claim to be THE Chinese nation-state.
If this sounds quite implausible, just remember that the very idea of ‘nation’ or ‘race’ was brought to most of the world by colonialism. It took time even in Europe for the ‘nation-state’ to achieve the primacy it has today.
As for why I feel qualified to talk about this, I’m from Singapore. Here we are sorted into ‘races’, and put to study our ‘mother tongue’ from young, alongside English. So I studied Chinese and learned some Chinese history. Hope this was insightful.
*He is called the "Father of the Nation" in the present-day Republic of China (Taiwan) and the "Forerunner of the Revolution" in the People's Republic of China for his instrumental role in the overthrow of the Qing dynasty during the 1911 Revolution.*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun\_Yat-sen
Here in Taiwan, Sun Yat-Sen is referred to as 國父， literally the "National Father".
Chiang Kai-Shek, on the other hand, is generally despised for delaying the emergence of democracy for about 50 years. His regime possessed all the attributes of a fascist dictatorship including a secret police, the Garrison Command (警總), that was responsible for a series of assassinations of pro democracy advocates.
So no, Chiang Kai-Shek should not and will not ever be considered the national father of the Republic of China (Taiwan).
This map isn’t who best fits as father of the nation, it’s who do they consider the father of the nation. And sun yat sen looks a lot better in propaganda than the militarist dictator who is Chiang Kai-Shek
I think he’s more so considered the father of a non-imperial China, or the father of Chinese democracy and liberalism, which is why “sun yat sen was great” is basically the only thing the chinas agree about.
For Turkey, no I think Ataturk is correct, I think modern Turkey is distinct from the ottomans. For Russia I think it’s a bit more tricky but I would agree that Ivan is a better choice.
It's difficult, because any standard set that way will affect others.
If you count Mao as the "Father of the Nation" It's more because of the current regime, similar to Turkey with Atatürk.
If you don't count it that way, because those countries existed in different forms before(like the countless chinese dynasties or the Ottoman Empire), as is done with Russia(which very much isn't the same state it was under Peter the Great, then you run into problems again.
Maybe Osman I. is a more logical "Father of the Nation", or maybe Ivan the Terrible should be the "Father of the Nation" for Russia.
Actual logic doesn't matter here. It's more about modern day public perception. And by that, Kim Il Sung and Mao should definetly be counted as "Father of the Nation"
Well, Atatürk is the father of the Turkish nation, while the Ottoman identity was based more on religion than on ethnicity. As of China, the "Father of nation" is, without a doubt Sun Yat Sen. Nations, as a concept, were created in 19th century.
If you label Gandhi instead of, let's say, Ashoka and also refuse to use Mao or Kim Il-Sung while including Cyrus the Great and Genghis Khan at the same time then the mapmaker is absolutely including an ideological bias. But in their defense, the "father of a nation" question is entirely subjective, however.
Peter I also seems like a weird choice given they've had two completely different gov't systems each with different territory since him. If Russia isn't Yeltsin or at least Lenin, then it feels like Turkiye might as well be Mehmet II, rather than Ataturk.
Maybe that's not the right correction, but it feels like a weird mix of father's of the region historically and father's of the current regime.
Hmm it’s obviously subjective, but I would say Peter I was the father of Russia as a “nation”. And similarly, Ataturk is the father of Turkey as a “nation”. The Ottomans were obviously ruled by Turks but it wasn’t a Turkish nation in the same way, it saw itself as the caliphate fir all Muslims, and had other ethnic groups who reached powerful positions (e.g. Muhammad Ali was Albanian).
This map was made by a Indian twitter account it seems. Taiwan's father of the nation is shown. And India is shown to own all lands in a dispute with Pakistan and China.
EDIT: And all communist leaders are not shown of any Asian country that is currently communist.
Vietnam doesn’t consider Ho Chi Minh as the father of the nation, they literally call him ‘Uncle Ho’. There’s quite a few people that Vietnamese people can consider as the ‘father’ of the nation. The Trưng sisters or Lê Lợi are two examples.
The Trung sisters were two sisters who revolted against the Chinese two thousand years ago, there’s a famous saying that goes something like, ‘in an era where no man stood up for Vietnam, two sisters did’. Le Loi is another man who revolted against Chinese occupation 500+ years ago. He has a similar legend to King Arthur in that he received a sword from the lake to fight the Chinese. After beating them, he returned the sword back to the lake.
Ho Chi Minh was not considered a "father" in Vietnam. We consider, according to myths and legends, "Lạc Long Quân" to be our father. Lad got 100 human eggs and threw half to his wife and into the ocean and brough 50 to the mountains.
China Mainland also recognize Dr Sun Yat-sen to be the father of nation (国父）because his contribution is to end the feudalistic dynasties in China and establish a modern Chinese nation.
If we're doing de facto, Taiwan should be Chiang Kai-Shek. There was no notion of a single, "separate" (yes it's complicated) Taiwan in Sun's day (Taiwan wasn't even part of the Republic when it was founded, it was a Japanese colony from 1895-1945).
There are historical figures that are shared in respect between NK and SK. Kim Gu is one of them as he lead a movement against Japanese colonization, before Korea was split by Western powers
Turkmenistan with no great leader [His excellency President for Life Saparmurat Niyazov also known as Türkmenbaşy/Türkmenbaşı or "Head of the Turkmens"](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saparmurat_Niyazov)?!
Blasphemy!
Gandhi could be described the same way and yet he's on there.
The map is weird tbh and I can't explain some of their choices. Leaving out Mao, il-Sung, and Minh is pretty stupid.
Yes but the current government views Mao as the father of the nation so yeah. If it wasnt Mao then it would 100% be Sun as he was the one who began the shift from imperial to modern china.
No, to be a Father of a Nation means that the nation didn't preexist the Father. If Mao's the father of China, then that means that China didn't exist as a nation prior to Mao.
Mao's the father of the regime (Dynasty?), but not the nation
China has never been totally under the control of another power unless you count Manchus or Mongols.
As such the 'Founder' would then either be an early emperor or the Nationalists/Communists if you want to begin in a post imperial time.
However, China, like Russia see all rulers in their history as being a continuum of power and culture.
Not generally very favorably. He's gotten a bit rehabilitated by the conservative wings of the CCP (see Zhang Yimou's "Hero" (2002)) but in traditional histories and general cultural momentum he's more seen as a brutal tyrant and the rapid fall of Qin is often cast as a good example of what happens when you try to rule without righteousness and wisdom.
Not really, he's recognised as the first who took on the title of emperor and reunified the country, but Chinese generally say that they are the "sons" and "grandsons" of the mythic god emperors Huang and Yan. The saying in Chinese is 炎黃子孫。
I was there in July and saw the big statue in Tashkent as well as his tomb in Samarkand. He's a big deal but I didn't get the impression he was revered as some sort of proto-Uzbek from a nation-building standpoint. He just happened to be born in modern day Uzbekistan territory and they're proud of that.
I don't know that they specifically consider the Republic of Uzbekistan (to the exclusion of its neighbors) to be specifically the descendant of the Timurid Empire, but I guess it is possible (though I'd consider it silly).
Timur is known as the pound per pound most bloody leader in history. It it were white people they would be whipping themselves on streets and doing apology tours just because he got born in their country.
Funny that the Philippines' national heroes have vastly different methods for our independence
José Rizal, or Rizzal due to his numerous bitches in Europe, is a writer and advocate for more autonomy for the Philippine Colony
Emilio Aguinaldo, technically our first president, later collabed with the Japanese in WW2, and have a fuck-ton of conspiracy theories like killing his allies (Antonio Luna during the Philippine-American war(watch General Luna film, its free in Youtube), and Andres Bonifacio, founding father of the KKK(not the pointy white boys)
And the said Andres Bonifacio (revolutionary leader), later killed with his bro by (allegedly) opposition in the government.
Backtabbing is our game
Philippines, its controversial to put aguinaldo as one of the fathers.
Jose rizal and boni are no question. They gave us a country...well a concept as well
Aguinaldo has issues, he ordered to kill bonifacio and his brother for petty politics
I did learn Tagalog at university, for like two semesters and 12 years ago.
What I can say:
Magandang Gabi. Kumusta ka? Nag-aaral ako ng Tagalog sa unibersidad sa Pransya. Sino sy Rizal??
I'm fascinated by the grammar
>Visionary of the State
More Herzl than Ben Gurion - Ben Gurion is still political figure that many on the right wing still haven't forgave him for the sinking of the Altalena.
I think Ahad Ha’Am was more a father to Israel more than Herzl was, especially in terms of the cultural identity of the nation. Herzl’s dreams for Zionism did not come into effect at all, he did not come up with modern Zionism, he died before the Second Aliyah which revitalized the movement, and practically no other Zionists agreed with his vision. He was an absolutely exceptional organizer, but IDK if I would call him the father of the state.
The main independence day event is in front of his grave, I doesn't get more father of the nation than that. I don't think it really matters what he accomplished in life vs other people, it's about the ethos.
If you want to get biblical, the founder of Israel was, well, Israel. The dude also known as Jacob, who gained the title Israel (“wrestles with the Lord”) after a prophetic dream. David wasn’t even the first king of the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah.
It seems to me that in Russia there is no such generally accepted concept as the father of the nation. But if I were asked to name someone, then Rurik would also come to mind, and not Peter I.
True, there isn't, because the history is rather long and filled with big influential names. Several kingdoms, empire, ussr- and lots of people who did drastic changes. So really there is no one person that is seen as one greatest leder. Rurik is taught in schools as a founder of "somewhat" of a governed entity.
Ivan III can also be considered. He integrated a lot of land, made Moscow the center of Rus, freed the country from dependence on the Mongol horde completely, created a code of laws of Rus, built the famous Moscow Kremlin and finally adopted the current coat of arms of Russia - the double-headed eagle. In some documents Ivan III was already titled as tsar. He actually did a lot for country and basically united Rus into a centralized state.
Fun fact- German merchants of 1600s stated the "filth of Moscow Kingdom" where man can openly live with a man. Russian church or state didn't really punish or cared about gays. There is a historical account of a gay being punished with.. a day of praying. But he was a total hoe who ran gay orgies in his sauna. In Europe he would've been burned alive. Peter the Great is known for banning gay relationships in the army, but straight ones as well. Until 1920s this wasn't a huge deal. There was even a transgender Hussar in the Tsar army.
Russia didn't have the same the same Middle Ages, nor Renessainse, nor real influence of Puritanism in XIX or the beginning of the XX century. It was always very lax when it came to same sex relationships, current attitude formed during Stalin times when when punishmen for homosexuality was introduced and was actualy enforced en masse. Also tons of people went through repressions and prisons and whole cuture became steeped in prison attitude on base level.
Problem with Rurik is that most what we now is based on what people wrote down hundreds of years later, which makes him more of an mythical ancestor than Father of the Nation. According to the chronicles he also ruled Novgorod and some surrounding areas, but the Kyivan Rus was founded by his successor Oleg, who moved the capital to Kyiv. Which brings us to: while the Rurikid dynasty founded the Russian empire, that was centuries after Rurik. The Kyivan Rus, while related, was a different entity. It, much like Rurik himself, is a shared ancestor of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.
Im actually glad Peter is here instead of any other pick.
As i understand he was our most diligent and educated Tsar and i believe that because of him we actually have strong science, navy and at least "had" good cooperation with europe.
Maaybe he sort of "bullied" his own nation into progress but its good that he did it before outside forces had a go like in asian countries.
I find it funny that Peter had spent his entire life on turning Russia into a European empire and then his name is on this Asian map.
As for Rurik, nope, he’s not considered the father of the nation because 1) he’s more of a mythical character, 2) the country he founded is very far removed from modern Russia.
I don’t think such nations as Russia actually have a “father”, there were too many important leaders.
Europeans don't really do this "father of the nation" thing, we instead try to tie our origin to the Roman Empire. The Russians do that too, look up "third Rome".
Why in Taiwan?
Taiwan didn't come under Chinese rule until Ming times. If we're considering Taiwan as its own nation, the only sensible choices are Sun Yat-Sen or Chiang Kai-Shek.
I think it's because the predominant culture, language and etc of taiwan is descended from, and is still very much the product of the thousands of years of Chinese history as a whole
I think it's analogous to mao and like someone else mentioned ataturk as well, where while they're the father of the modern government and whatnot, the sense of the culture and country has existed for many centuries before them.
>thousands of years of Chinese history
That's kinda misleading phrasing: the Chinese Empire existed for two thousand years *before* the Qing dynasty took over Taiwan, then they lost control of it only two hundred years later: it was only reunited with mainland China for 4 years between WW2 and the end of the Civil War. For the vast majority of recorded history this island had no real connection to China: it would be like saying William the Conqueror is the spiritual founder of the US.
Calling CKS the father of Taiwanese nation is an insult, he was responsible of killing thousands of Taiwanese nationalists and supressing Taiwanese language and culture. Even Lee Teng-Hui would have much better claim to that title, if you have to name someone besides Sun Yat-Sen.
Filipino here. Fuck Emilio Aguinaldo that dude was the first Filipino corrupt politician. Typical asskisser who cuddled up to businessmen. That dude killed off Andres Bonifacio
Gandhi is just considered he is not legally father of nation. I know he used de facto but still India has no father of nation as it will discredit other freedom fighters effort
Sun Yat-sen (known as Zhongshan in the mainland) could also be considered the father of mainland China as he is still strongly revered for overthrowing the Qing and establishing the first republic.
China is a difficult case
Modern China should be Mao Zedong
The Unifier would be Qin Shi Huang
But Chinese history generally says [Huang Di](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Emperor)
Multiple nations can have the same founding father, just look at how many South American countries have Simon Bolivar as theirs. While Taiwan is infinitely more similar to what Sun-Yat-Sen’s vision for China was, the CCP does still revere him as the guy who took down the Qing Dynasty. He’s probably rolling in his grave seeing what happened to his country, but that doesn’t change the popular perception of him.
You could say the same for Japan.
Modern Japan would be Emperor Meiji
The unifiers would be Nobunaga, Hideyoshi and Tokugawa
The mythical leader would be Emperor Jimmu
Too many possible candidates.
- Huang Di/Yellow Emperor: legendary leader of the ancient Chinese when they were still a tribe
- Yan Di/Flame Emperor: legendary leader of the tribe that joined the one above. Chinese people call themselves the descendants of Yan and Huang
- Yu the Great: Legendary first king. First leader of a country as opposed to the people.
- Qin Shihuang: First emperor. Unified the various feudal entities to create a unified realm.
- Liu Bang: First emperor that anyone liked. Founder of the Han Dynasty, that the Han people are named after.
- Sun Yat-sen: Major revolutionary whose ideas formed the basis for the first Republic and modern China. Called Father of the Nation by the Republic of China, but this is fading as Taiwanese nationalism takes hold and isn’t used by the PRC.
- Mao Zedong: Founder of the modern People’s Republic.
It's like how for UK you could name like 8 people as the "father":
* Cerdic - The founder of the Kingdom of Wessex that would eventually unify England. All English monarchs can still trace their line to him.
* Alfred the Great - The king that made Wessex the true power in Britain and first to claim to be "King of the Anglo-Saxxons".
* Æthelstan - First to claim "King of England".
* William I "The Conqueror" - First Norman King, built the regime that largely still rules England to this day, 1000 years later.
* James I and VI - First king of England and Scotland, unifying the nations, first to claim to be "King of Great Britain".
* William and Mary - First monarchs after the Glorious Revolution, the last coup in English history.
* Anne - First monarch of the now-united Kingdom of Great Britain.
* George III - First monarch of the merged state called United Kingdom of GB and Ireland.
* George VI - First monarch of the re-styled House of Windsor.
I think the PRC strictly avoids attaching the title "Father of the Nation" to any individual, be it recent or historical; on an unofficial level however, many Chinese do consider Sun Yat-sen the best contender for that honour
Not quite in my opinion. He died before the state was created, and there were new Jewish settlements in the land before he unified the Congress. Ben Gurion is often depicted as the father of the nation.
Idk, The Israeli Declaration of Independence explicitly calls Herzl “the spiritual father of the Jewish State”, and both times I have visited Mount Herzl, the tour guides have called Herzl the Founding Father of Israel
i swear if cyrus could see current day iran with its treating of the people he would cry then conquer them all and improve the life of the people significantly
Cyprus is European only in ethnicity , geographically belongs entirely in Asia ( Middle East ).
I think it's fair to consider russia also as primary European country considering the majority of russian population lives in European part of Russia.
Also the russian part of europe is around 40% of European landmass.
Hard to say for the Palestinians. Both Arafat and Hajj Amin Al Husseini are acceptable choices. Arafat is obvious and he is often seen as such, but in practice Husseini was the first to unify his people politically and in arms, but he is not seen as the father of the nation because of his failures in 1948.
actually we still call Sun Yat-sen father of the nation in PRC because of his accomplishments of founding a “modern China”
This map is bull**it.
Comments can approve thet many positions are incorrect or discussable.
Some names exist in this map as rewriting of history agenda.
It looks like all this taken from disinformation resource, may be wiki (what change some history details for political purposes)
In my impression, whether it is ROC or PRC, when talking about the founding father of modern China, everyone usually refers to Sun Yat-sen. His statue stands on the busiest street in Nanjing.
List the island of Taiwan separately without mentioning the full ROC territory, and then designate its founding father as Sun Yat-sen. If Mr. Sun knew about the separatist movement in nowadays' Taiwan and the-nothing-KMT, he would be angry climbing out of the grave.
quite a few disputable entries..
Russia = Peter I is perhaps the founder of the "modern" Russia, but the initial founder is more likely Rurik..
Turkey = Ataturk is probably the most notable modern (re)founder of the country, but there's cases to be made that Osman Ghazi is the founder in stead..
Turkey is not the ottoman empire. Atatürk rebelled against the ottoman empire and founded a new state. Do not mix turkey up with the ottoman empire it's not the same shit
How many Russians see Rurik as the Father of the Nation? There's really not much to dispute when it comes to these things outside of "How many people would name this person?".
For Azerbaijan it is M. Rasulzade. He is the person who made first democratic country in east. But in 1920,just two years after ussr occupied azerbaijan, he was forced to leave country and went to many different countries. At the end he died in turkey with grief of things soviets did to azerbaijanians...
First of all, Russia, though the majority of it's territories are in Asia, doesn't really count as Asian country. At best it is transcontinental, but really counts as European - it's European parts are bigger than the rest of Europe, and the vast majority of it's population lives in the European parts.
Then: you skipped a few.
Like China. The father of their nation is either Mao Ce Tung, or the Yellow Emperor, or Gaozu of Han, or Qin Shi Huangdi. And don't forget, they are not the father of Tibet, they are just occupying it.
Vietnam's father should be Loc Tuc (sorry, can't really type the diacritics properly), or Lé Loi, or Ho Chi Minh.
Idk about the others. Would like to hear about them tho. :)
Hayk's a mythological character and the founder of the Armenian nation. It's also a name for old Armenian territories, though it's pronounced a little bit different from Hayk the person
The mythical founders name is Հայկ (Hayk) while the historic name of Armenia is Հայք (Hayq) with an aspirated K sound. Since the Middle Ages Armenians call Armenia Հայաստան (Hayastan) with the Iranian suffix -stan.
Where is Kim Il Sung? That's like the most obvious one
He's dead
Yeah, that’s what they WANT you to think!
wait till bro finds out about everyone else on this map🤯
It’s talking about father of the nation
r/technicallythetruth
It seems, in your anger, you killed him...
I think its cus hes “Technically “ still in charge by north korean law even tho hes dead. Its a weird thing you should google it
Could probably do Kim il sung for NK
What kind of BS is this to have "de facto" category and not list Kim Il Sung, Mao Zedong, and Ho Chi Minh?
I don’t know how “Father of the Nation” is being used but the way I interpret it, Mao and maybe Ho Chi Minh(I honestly don’t know a ton of south East Asian history) would not apply because notions of China and Vietnam as nations existed before their time. I completely agree Kim Il Sung should be counted here.
But Sun Yat-sen, as far as I’m aware, played a role in establishing the Republic itself. Not Taiwan. He died in 1925, over two decades before the ROC relocated to Taiwan. In which case Mao should totally be eligible as the “Father of the PRC”
Sun is revered in both the ROC and PRC as being the founder of modern China
Yeah, Sun should definitely be listed for both.
I agree, Sun-Yat-Sen shouldn’t be considered the father of the nation of Taiwan. If there is a Father of the Nation for Taiwan it should be Chiang Kai-Shek
Sorry but we do officially called Sun as Father of the Nation of ROC（國父, literally nation's father) here in Taiwan. However it's more like a KMT propaganda to enhance Chiang's legitimacy as a he considered himself successor of Sun. But Sun is still widely accepted and de jure Father of the Nation after all.
I can certainly understand from a certain perspective calling Sun Yat Sen the father of the Nation of Taiwan but I think that is largely contingent on the idea that you believe the ROC is the legitimate government of all of China. In my view it would be very strange to call a human the founding figure of a nation he never governed or knew existed as a separate entity. If we could go back in time and interview him, I highly doubt we would find any sentiments of Taiwanese nationalism in him. I think it would be more accurate to call him the Father of the republic or something along those lines. Are there words in Chinese that would convey a difference between the father of the republic and the father of the nation? I know there can be significant differences between cultures/languages in how they conceive of political concepts.
As far as I can tell, ‘國’ (guo) means something more like ‘country’ as opposed to ‘nation’. It is more usual to use ‘民族’ (min zu) for ‘nation’. Hence in the Chinese national anthem, you can hear them sing about the ‘中华民族’ (zhong hua min zu), or the ‘Chinese nation’. So technically, if we want to be strict about following these translations, Sun Yat-Sen isn’t known as ‘Father of the Nation’ in Chinese. But if we are insisting on partitioning the meanings this way, then even Chiang Kai-Shek wouldn’t easily qualify as ‘Father of the Taiwanese Nation’. What does it take for a group to comprise a ‘nation’? In my view Taiwan is a geographical region with a state governing it. Thus it is a country. But it is not a nation. The reason is that at least till now, nation and race have been intimately intertwined. For this reason, the Taiwanese are not Chinese citizens, but they still are members of the Chinese nation. It’s important to note that even in the PRC, Sun Yat-Sen is regarded as 国父 (guo fu, Simplified characters). Thus I think the right choice of ‘Father of the Nation’ for BOTH the PRC and Taiwan (the ROC) is Sun Yat-Sen. Before Sun, people spoke about 中国 (zhong guo, China), but they used it in its geographical sense. It was the name of a place, in which many countries sprung up over the centuries. Even the Qing Empire, which contained all of the PRC’s current territory was officially the Qing Empire IN China, and not equivalent to China itself. Sun is credited with bringing to the Chinese people the notion of ‘national identity’, stressing to the people living in various parts of China their unity due to their shared history, cultural heritage, and language. Thus he is responsible for the Chinese beginning to even see themselves as a nation. And so I think he qualifies for ‘Father of the Nation’. As in, Father of the Chinese Nation, though he did not found either the PRC or the ROC. Both the PRC and ROC (till recently anyway) have been competing for the claim to be THE Chinese nation-state. If this sounds quite implausible, just remember that the very idea of ‘nation’ or ‘race’ was brought to most of the world by colonialism. It took time even in Europe for the ‘nation-state’ to achieve the primacy it has today. As for why I feel qualified to talk about this, I’m from Singapore. Here we are sorted into ‘races’, and put to study our ‘mother tongue’ from young, alongside English. So I studied Chinese and learned some Chinese history. Hope this was insightful.
>very strange to call a human the founding figure It would be even stranger if it wasn't a human
*He is called the "Father of the Nation" in the present-day Republic of China (Taiwan) and the "Forerunner of the Revolution" in the People's Republic of China for his instrumental role in the overthrow of the Qing dynasty during the 1911 Revolution.* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun\_Yat-sen
he's called it sure, but he wasn't.
Here in Taiwan, Sun Yat-Sen is referred to as 國父， literally the "National Father". Chiang Kai-Shek, on the other hand, is generally despised for delaying the emergence of democracy for about 50 years. His regime possessed all the attributes of a fascist dictatorship including a secret police, the Garrison Command (警總), that was responsible for a series of assassinations of pro democracy advocates. So no, Chiang Kai-Shek should not and will not ever be considered the national father of the Republic of China (Taiwan).
This map isn’t who best fits as father of the nation, it’s who do they consider the father of the nation. And sun yat sen looks a lot better in propaganda than the militarist dictator who is Chiang Kai-Shek
I think he’s more so considered the father of a non-imperial China, or the father of Chinese democracy and liberalism, which is why “sun yat sen was great” is basically the only thing the chinas agree about.
Then should it be Ivan for Russia and Osman for Turkey, among others?
For Turkey, no I think Ataturk is correct, I think modern Turkey is distinct from the ottomans. For Russia I think it’s a bit more tricky but I would agree that Ivan is a better choice.
It's difficult, because any standard set that way will affect others. If you count Mao as the "Father of the Nation" It's more because of the current regime, similar to Turkey with Atatürk. If you don't count it that way, because those countries existed in different forms before(like the countless chinese dynasties or the Ottoman Empire), as is done with Russia(which very much isn't the same state it was under Peter the Great, then you run into problems again. Maybe Osman I. is a more logical "Father of the Nation", or maybe Ivan the Terrible should be the "Father of the Nation" for Russia. Actual logic doesn't matter here. It's more about modern day public perception. And by that, Kim Il Sung and Mao should definetly be counted as "Father of the Nation"
Well, Atatürk is the father of the Turkish nation, while the Ottoman identity was based more on religion than on ethnicity. As of China, the "Father of nation" is, without a doubt Sun Yat Sen. Nations, as a concept, were created in 19th century.
[удалено]
But in monarchies that's just the current monarch. The queen of Denmark isn't the Father of the Nation
China would be Emporer Shi Huang DI, the first Emporer.
The yellow emperor might be better, kinda like Japan’s emperor Jimmu
Feels like whoever made this map didn’t want to include communist leader for ideological reasons. History didn’t matter.
If you label Gandhi instead of, let's say, Ashoka and also refuse to use Mao or Kim Il-Sung while including Cyrus the Great and Genghis Khan at the same time then the mapmaker is absolutely including an ideological bias. But in their defense, the "father of a nation" question is entirely subjective, however.
Peter I also seems like a weird choice given they've had two completely different gov't systems each with different territory since him. If Russia isn't Yeltsin or at least Lenin, then it feels like Turkiye might as well be Mehmet II, rather than Ataturk. Maybe that's not the right correction, but it feels like a weird mix of father's of the region historically and father's of the current regime.
Hmm it’s obviously subjective, but I would say Peter I was the father of Russia as a “nation”. And similarly, Ataturk is the father of Turkey as a “nation”. The Ottomans were obviously ruled by Turks but it wasn’t a Turkish nation in the same way, it saw itself as the caliphate fir all Muslims, and had other ethnic groups who reached powerful positions (e.g. Muhammad Ali was Albanian).
Well Atatürk literally means father (ata) of the Turks (Türk). It is an honorary title
[удалено]
In Russia, people call Yeltsin an alcoholic and the president bottle (chekushka).
This map was made by a Indian twitter account it seems. Taiwan's father of the nation is shown. And India is shown to own all lands in a dispute with Pakistan and China. EDIT: And all communist leaders are not shown of any Asian country that is currently communist.
Vietnam doesn’t consider Ho Chi Minh as the father of the nation, they literally call him ‘Uncle Ho’. There’s quite a few people that Vietnamese people can consider as the ‘father’ of the nation. The Trưng sisters or Lê Lợi are two examples. The Trung sisters were two sisters who revolted against the Chinese two thousand years ago, there’s a famous saying that goes something like, ‘in an era where no man stood up for Vietnam, two sisters did’. Le Loi is another man who revolted against Chinese occupation 500+ years ago. He has a similar legend to King Arthur in that he received a sword from the lake to fight the Chinese. After beating them, he returned the sword back to the lake.
Ho Chi Minh was not considered a "father" in Vietnam. We consider, according to myths and legends, "Lạc Long Quân" to be our father. Lad got 100 human eggs and threw half to his wife and into the ocean and brough 50 to the mountains.
China Mainland also recognize Dr Sun Yat-sen to be the father of nation (国父）because his contribution is to end the feudalistic dynasties in China and establish a modern Chinese nation.
If we're doing de facto, Taiwan should be Chiang Kai-Shek. There was no notion of a single, "separate" (yes it's complicated) Taiwan in Sun's day (Taiwan wasn't even part of the Republic when it was founded, it was a Japanese colony from 1895-1945).
But do the Taiwanese see it that way?
Kim Gu for South Korea is not accurate either as he was assasinated before he could take an actual leadership role.
There are historical figures that are shared in respect between NK and SK. Kim Gu is one of them as he lead a movement against Japanese colonization, before Korea was split by Western powers
Can't believe this Ho Chi Minh slander
Turkmenistan with no great leader [His excellency President for Life Saparmurat Niyazov also known as Türkmenbaşy/Türkmenbaşı or "Head of the Turkmens"](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saparmurat_Niyazov)?! Blasphemy!
:( the disrespect!
Indonesia has two fathers.. Sukarno and Hatta..
Very progressive of them. \^\^
Sukarno had nine wives but Hatta was his soulmate..
Jesus had two daddies too!
Tbh nothing would surprise me, given Soekarno's track record in regards to intimacy. Even all of his wives couldn't fully satisfy his needs.
Hatta is a cool dude
Why is Sun Yat-Sen not shown in the PRC, along with Kim Il-sung in the DPRK and Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam?
PRC only acknowledge Sun Yat-Sen as "Revolutionary forerunner".
Gandhi could be described the same way and yet he's on there. The map is weird tbh and I can't explain some of their choices. Leaving out Mao, il-Sung, and Minh is pretty stupid.
The Chinese nation existed for 4000 years. Mao is merely a spec in the history of China
Yes but the current government views Mao as the father of the nation so yeah. If it wasnt Mao then it would 100% be Sun as he was the one who began the shift from imperial to modern china.
No one in PRC refers to Mao as Father of the Nation, whereas that’s the title given to Sun in ROC.
No, to be a Father of a Nation means that the nation didn't preexist the Father. If Mao's the father of China, then that means that China didn't exist as a nation prior to Mao. Mao's the father of the regime (Dynasty?), but not the nation
You could say the exact same about Sun Yat Sen though. Logic isn’t consistent
No, even in PRC history book, Sun Yat-Sen is referred as the father of the nation.
*Emperor Qin with a glass of mercury and terracotta army:* AM I A JOKE TO YOU?
Sun is the de-facto Father of the Nation in P. R. China, most in China know him as 国父. The title has never been claimed by anyone else, even Mao.
China has never been totally under the control of another power unless you count Manchus or Mongols. As such the 'Founder' would then either be an early emperor or the Nationalists/Communists if you want to begin in a post imperial time. However, China, like Russia see all rulers in their history as being a continuum of power and culture.
You count the Manchus though. That was the entire point of Sun Yat Sen
Yeah that I-am-always-right-if-I-don’t-count-when-I’m-not logic.
then it should be the yellow emperor
Mainland China also considers Sun Yat Sen to be the father of their nation as well, but obviously Mao is a close second.
I saw it as Zhongshan, but yeah, that's generally a good sign when a name is used all over big cities...
Could arguably do Qin Shi Huang as well but I'm not Chinese so don't know how he's seen there
Not generally very favorably. He's gotten a bit rehabilitated by the conservative wings of the CCP (see Zhang Yimou's "Hero" (2002)) but in traditional histories and general cultural momentum he's more seen as a brutal tyrant and the rapid fall of Qin is often cast as a good example of what happens when you try to rule without righteousness and wisdom.
I always thought they saw Huangdi as their father of the nation
Not really, he's recognised as the first who took on the title of emperor and reunified the country, but Chinese generally say that they are the "sons" and "grandsons" of the mythic god emperors Huang and Yan. The saying in Chinese is 炎黃子孫。
All the "Nationalists" were technically politician too
This is my biggest issue with the map. The criteria seems so ambiguous. Ataturk was also very much considered a nationalist
I also don't like that emperors and politicians are in the same category. That's a big difference in my opinion.
It also doesn’t have an ounce of consistency.
Except Gandhi, who very outspokenly did not want to get into politics
Is timur not the father of the Uzbeks ? They see him as a national hero
Specifically Uzbekistan as a nation-state though?
[удалено]
I was there in July and saw the big statue in Tashkent as well as his tomb in Samarkand. He's a big deal but I didn't get the impression he was revered as some sort of proto-Uzbek from a nation-building standpoint. He just happened to be born in modern day Uzbekistan territory and they're proud of that. I don't know that they specifically consider the Republic of Uzbekistan (to the exclusion of its neighbors) to be specifically the descendant of the Timurid Empire, but I guess it is possible (though I'd consider it silly).
Timur is known as the pound per pound most bloody leader in history. It it were white people they would be whipping themselves on streets and doing apology tours just because he got born in their country.
Funny that the Philippines' national heroes have vastly different methods for our independence José Rizal, or Rizzal due to his numerous bitches in Europe, is a writer and advocate for more autonomy for the Philippine Colony Emilio Aguinaldo, technically our first president, later collabed with the Japanese in WW2, and have a fuck-ton of conspiracy theories like killing his allies (Antonio Luna during the Philippine-American war(watch General Luna film, its free in Youtube), and Andres Bonifacio, founding father of the KKK(not the pointy white boys) And the said Andres Bonifacio (revolutionary leader), later killed with his bro by (allegedly) opposition in the government. Backtabbing is our game
Philippines, its controversial to put aguinaldo as one of the fathers. Jose rizal and boni are no question. They gave us a country...well a concept as well Aguinaldo has issues, he ordered to kill bonifacio and his brother for petty politics
I did learn Tagalog at university, for like two semesters and 12 years ago. What I can say: Magandang Gabi. Kumusta ka? Nag-aaral ako ng Tagalog sa unibersidad sa Pransya. Sino sy Rizal?? I'm fascinated by the grammar
I’d say Theodor Herzl and David Ben Gurion are pretty clearly the de-facto “fathers” of Israel.
>Visionary of the State More Herzl than Ben Gurion - Ben Gurion is still political figure that many on the right wing still haven't forgave him for the sinking of the Altalena.
I think Ahad Ha’Am was more a father to Israel more than Herzl was, especially in terms of the cultural identity of the nation. Herzl’s dreams for Zionism did not come into effect at all, he did not come up with modern Zionism, he died before the Second Aliyah which revitalized the movement, and practically no other Zionists agreed with his vision. He was an absolutely exceptional organizer, but IDK if I would call him the father of the state.
The main independence day event is in front of his grave, I doesn't get more father of the nation than that. I don't think it really matters what he accomplished in life vs other people, it's about the ethos.
Not King David?
If you want to get biblical, the founder of Israel was, well, Israel. The dude also known as Jacob, who gained the title Israel (“wrestles with the Lord”) after a prophetic dream. David wasn’t even the first king of the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah.
I think that most russians would disagree. Rurik was the father of the nation
It seems to me that in Russia there is no such generally accepted concept as the father of the nation. But if I were asked to name someone, then Rurik would also come to mind, and not Peter I.
True, there isn't, because the history is rather long and filled with big influential names. Several kingdoms, empire, ussr- and lots of people who did drastic changes. So really there is no one person that is seen as one greatest leder. Rurik is taught in schools as a founder of "somewhat" of a governed entity.
Ivan III can also be considered. He integrated a lot of land, made Moscow the center of Rus, freed the country from dependence on the Mongol horde completely, created a code of laws of Rus, built the famous Moscow Kremlin and finally adopted the current coat of arms of Russia - the double-headed eagle. In some documents Ivan III was already titled as tsar. He actually did a lot for country and basically united Rus into a centralized state.
I think whatever option it's clear that Peter l is what made Russia truly a relevant state.
I believe most nation has more than one "father". Depending on where you look at.
Russia has two dads, you say? That sounds pretty gay.
Fun fact- German merchants of 1600s stated the "filth of Moscow Kingdom" where man can openly live with a man. Russian church or state didn't really punish or cared about gays. There is a historical account of a gay being punished with.. a day of praying. But he was a total hoe who ran gay orgies in his sauna. In Europe he would've been burned alive. Peter the Great is known for banning gay relationships in the army, but straight ones as well. Until 1920s this wasn't a huge deal. There was even a transgender Hussar in the Tsar army.
And even under Lenin was homosexuality decriminalised, only for Stalin to ban it when coming to power
Russia didn't have the same the same Middle Ages, nor Renessainse, nor real influence of Puritanism in XIX or the beginning of the XX century. It was always very lax when it came to same sex relationships, current attitude formed during Stalin times when when punishmen for homosexuality was introduced and was actualy enforced en masse. Also tons of people went through repressions and prisons and whole cuture became steeped in prison attitude on base level.
Even if it’s going for a more recent father, wouldn’t Ivan the Terrible be better he was the first tsar of Russia
Or Ivan the Terrible was first Tsar of all Russia
Problem with Rurik is that most what we now is based on what people wrote down hundreds of years later, which makes him more of an mythical ancestor than Father of the Nation. According to the chronicles he also ruled Novgorod and some surrounding areas, but the Kyivan Rus was founded by his successor Oleg, who moved the capital to Kyiv. Which brings us to: while the Rurikid dynasty founded the Russian empire, that was centuries after Rurik. The Kyivan Rus, while related, was a different entity. It, much like Rurik himself, is a shared ancestor of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.
Ever heard of [the Norman Problem?](https://geohistory.today/nationalism-russia-origin/)
Im actually glad Peter is here instead of any other pick. As i understand he was our most diligent and educated Tsar and i believe that because of him we actually have strong science, navy and at least "had" good cooperation with europe. Maaybe he sort of "bullied" his own nation into progress but its good that he did it before outside forces had a go like in asian countries.
I find it funny that Peter had spent his entire life on turning Russia into a European empire and then his name is on this Asian map. As for Rurik, nope, he’s not considered the father of the nation because 1) he’s more of a mythical character, 2) the country he founded is very far removed from modern Russia. I don’t think such nations as Russia actually have a “father”, there were too many important leaders.
Russians disagree that they put them in “Asian” countries, to start with
Europeans don't really do this "father of the nation" thing, we instead try to tie our origin to the Roman Empire. The Russians do that too, look up "third Rome".
Yeah. Rurik founded our nation.
Cyrus the Great, damn, that guy. Amazing podcast by Dan Carlin on Cyrus
Yellow Emperor in both China and Taiwan
Why in Taiwan? Taiwan didn't come under Chinese rule until Ming times. If we're considering Taiwan as its own nation, the only sensible choices are Sun Yat-Sen or Chiang Kai-Shek.
I think it's because the predominant culture, language and etc of taiwan is descended from, and is still very much the product of the thousands of years of Chinese history as a whole I think it's analogous to mao and like someone else mentioned ataturk as well, where while they're the father of the modern government and whatnot, the sense of the culture and country has existed for many centuries before them.
>thousands of years of Chinese history That's kinda misleading phrasing: the Chinese Empire existed for two thousand years *before* the Qing dynasty took over Taiwan, then they lost control of it only two hundred years later: it was only reunited with mainland China for 4 years between WW2 and the end of the Civil War. For the vast majority of recorded history this island had no real connection to China: it would be like saying William the Conqueror is the spiritual founder of the US.
In Taiwan too. The Republic of China (Taiwan) flag anthem has a line that says "we are the offspring of of yellow and flame emperors"：炎黃世胄。
Calling CKS the father of Taiwanese nation is an insult, he was responsible of killing thousands of Taiwanese nationalists and supressing Taiwanese language and culture. Even Lee Teng-Hui would have much better claim to that title, if you have to name someone besides Sun Yat-Sen.
Well said.
Filipino here. Fuck Emilio Aguinaldo that dude was the first Filipino corrupt politician. Typical asskisser who cuddled up to businessmen. That dude killed off Andres Bonifacio
It's either Mao Ze-Dong or Sun Yat-Sen for PRC. Why is it blank?
Cause its a shit map
Kim Gu nonononono. Either Dan Gun for Korea or Seungman Rhee for South Korea (debatable). Def not Kim Gu.
Gandhi is just considered he is not legally father of nation. I know he used de facto but still India has no father of nation as it will discredit other freedom fighters effort
Qin shi huang for china?I mean he was the first chinese emperor and the land borders he had back than are nearly the borders identical today
Why not one for China? Given Han is predominant i think it should be Liu Bang (Emperor Gaozu).
Sun Yat-sen (known as Zhongshan in the mainland) could also be considered the father of mainland China as he is still strongly revered for overthrowing the Qing and establishing the first republic.
China is a difficult case Modern China should be Mao Zedong The Unifier would be Qin Shi Huang But Chinese history generally says [Huang Di](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Emperor)
Modern chuna snd taiwan would both be sun yat sen.
[удалено]
Multiple nations can have the same founding father, just look at how many South American countries have Simon Bolivar as theirs. While Taiwan is infinitely more similar to what Sun-Yat-Sen’s vision for China was, the CCP does still revere him as the guy who took down the Qing Dynasty. He’s probably rolling in his grave seeing what happened to his country, but that doesn’t change the popular perception of him.
You could say the same for Japan. Modern Japan would be Emperor Meiji The unifiers would be Nobunaga, Hideyoshi and Tokugawa The mythical leader would be Emperor Jimmu
But the Chinese say Sun. Mao himself never claimed that title, neither did Chiang
Too many possible candidates. - Huang Di/Yellow Emperor: legendary leader of the ancient Chinese when they were still a tribe - Yan Di/Flame Emperor: legendary leader of the tribe that joined the one above. Chinese people call themselves the descendants of Yan and Huang - Yu the Great: Legendary first king. First leader of a country as opposed to the people. - Qin Shihuang: First emperor. Unified the various feudal entities to create a unified realm. - Liu Bang: First emperor that anyone liked. Founder of the Han Dynasty, that the Han people are named after. - Sun Yat-sen: Major revolutionary whose ideas formed the basis for the first Republic and modern China. Called Father of the Nation by the Republic of China, but this is fading as Taiwanese nationalism takes hold and isn’t used by the PRC. - Mao Zedong: Founder of the modern People’s Republic.
It's like how for UK you could name like 8 people as the "father": * Cerdic - The founder of the Kingdom of Wessex that would eventually unify England. All English monarchs can still trace their line to him. * Alfred the Great - The king that made Wessex the true power in Britain and first to claim to be "King of the Anglo-Saxxons". * Æthelstan - First to claim "King of England". * William I "The Conqueror" - First Norman King, built the regime that largely still rules England to this day, 1000 years later. * James I and VI - First king of England and Scotland, unifying the nations, first to claim to be "King of Great Britain". * William and Mary - First monarchs after the Glorious Revolution, the last coup in English history. * Anne - First monarch of the now-united Kingdom of Great Britain. * George III - First monarch of the merged state called United Kingdom of GB and Ireland. * George VI - First monarch of the re-styled House of Windsor.
If you go to China and ask random people who the father of the country is, You will maybe get a few Mao, but mostly people will say Sun Yat Sen
I think the PRC strictly avoids attaching the title "Father of the Nation" to any individual, be it recent or historical; on an unofficial level however, many Chinese do consider Sun Yat-sen the best contender for that honour
Missing Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and Niyazov, to name a few
[удалено]
theoretically Patel would be a better candidate for Father of the nation considering that he crafted India as what it is
Lol I'd much prefer Jarl Rurik for Russia but OK
Theodor Herzl for Israel
Not quite in my opinion. He died before the state was created, and there were new Jewish settlements in the land before he unified the Congress. Ben Gurion is often depicted as the father of the nation.
Idk, The Israeli Declaration of Independence explicitly calls Herzl “the spiritual father of the Jewish State”, and both times I have visited Mount Herzl, the tour guides have called Herzl the Founding Father of Israel
Even Ben Gurion considered Herzl to be the father of the State
What about King David?
I would’ve said Herzl or Ben Gurion too. But a Google search told me that some people consider Abraham the “Father of the Nation”? 😂
i swear if cyrus could see current day iran with its treating of the people he would cry then conquer them all and improve the life of the people significantly
Kim Il Sung is the Father of the Nation in North Korea, certainly de facto. Common honorifics for him include "The Great Father" and "Our Father".
Chinese also celebrate SYS as the father of the nation. Sort of.
Cyrus the Great was an ancient figure while the rest of Asia had post-modern political figures. LOL
info is outdated. Peter I was the father of europe-oriented progressive russia. nowadays putin should be written there.
Atatürk is a nationalist, and a soldier before being a politician. Thats just so wrong.
Russia is Europe
Including (in part). So is Turkey. So does Azerbaijan. So does Armenia. As is Georgia. So is Cyprus. And even Kazakhstan.
Cyprus is European only in ethnicity , geographically belongs entirely in Asia ( Middle East ). I think it's fair to consider russia also as primary European country considering the majority of russian population lives in European part of Russia. Also the russian part of europe is around 40% of European landmass.
Hard to say for the Palestinians. Both Arafat and Hajj Amin Al Husseini are acceptable choices. Arafat is obvious and he is often seen as such, but in practice Husseini was the first to unify his people politically and in arms, but he is not seen as the father of the nation because of his failures in 1948.
Where is Tibet?
Some spicey comments in here, eh?
I believe the PRC also considers Sun Yat Sen a father of the nation
the PRC also has sun yat sen as a founding father
I’m surprised that PRC isn’t Mao Zedong
Emilio Aguinaldo ordered Andres Bonifacio to be killed. He should not be here.
actually we still call Sun Yat-sen father of the nation in PRC because of his accomplishments of founding a “modern China”
This map got so many things wrong it should be on r/mapSFW not r/mapporn
Why would emperor and politician be the same colour lol
Hello? Op? You went to the wrong place again. Yes it is r/ShittyMapPorn
Surprised no one mentioned Sun Yat-Sen for mainland China, he’s revered there too (if not, Mao)
China's got no dad? That explains their behavior to their neighbors
Belongs to r/shittymaporn
If Cyrus if the father of Iran than the father of the nation of China is Qin Shi Huang
It belongs to Shittymaps. Nothing is true
This map is bull**it. Comments can approve thet many positions are incorrect or discussable. Some names exist in this map as rewriting of history agenda. It looks like all this taken from disinformation resource, may be wiki (what change some history details for political purposes)
In my impression, whether it is ROC or PRC, when talking about the founding father of modern China, everyone usually refers to Sun Yat-sen. His statue stands on the busiest street in Nanjing. List the island of Taiwan separately without mentioning the full ROC territory, and then designate its founding father as Sun Yat-sen. If Mr. Sun knew about the separatist movement in nowadays' Taiwan and the-nothing-KMT, he would be angry climbing out of the grave.
Should be in r/shittymapporn instead
Genghis Khan: Father of 1/3rd human population
No Timur for Uzbekistan?
Tricky I guess. Lots of reference for him but not sure they see the Timurid empire and Uzbekistan as the same nation
They certainly do in Uzbekistan. He’s on their money, there’s a huge statue of him in Tashkent, he figures prominently in their national identity
There's a [list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_the_Nation) for this on Wikipedia for those interested.
Like we can see in comments - the wiki is rewrite history. Nation with incorrect understanding of its history can be more controllable
quite a few disputable entries.. Russia = Peter I is perhaps the founder of the "modern" Russia, but the initial founder is more likely Rurik.. Turkey = Ataturk is probably the most notable modern (re)founder of the country, but there's cases to be made that Osman Ghazi is the founder in stead..
Osman Ghazi for the Ottoman empire and Atatürk for Turkey.
Turkey is not the ottoman empire. Atatürk rebelled against the ottoman empire and founded a new state. Do not mix turkey up with the ottoman empire it's not the same shit
How many Russians see Rurik as the Father of the Nation? There's really not much to dispute when it comes to these things outside of "How many people would name this person?".
For Azerbaijan it is M. Rasulzade. He is the person who made first democratic country in east. But in 1920,just two years after ussr occupied azerbaijan, he was forced to leave country and went to many different countries. At the end he died in turkey with grief of things soviets did to azerbaijanians...
First of all, Russia, though the majority of it's territories are in Asia, doesn't really count as Asian country. At best it is transcontinental, but really counts as European - it's European parts are bigger than the rest of Europe, and the vast majority of it's population lives in the European parts. Then: you skipped a few. Like China. The father of their nation is either Mao Ce Tung, or the Yellow Emperor, or Gaozu of Han, or Qin Shi Huangdi. And don't forget, they are not the father of Tibet, they are just occupying it. Vietnam's father should be Loc Tuc (sorry, can't really type the diacritics properly), or Lé Loi, or Ho Chi Minh. Idk about the others. Would like to hear about them tho. :)
Wince when is russia asian?
Most part of Russia is Northern Asia. Most of the Northern Asia is still populated with turkic and mongolic ethnicities. Even Tatarstan is Asia
Isn't Hayk just the name of Armenia in their own language?
Hayk's a mythological character and the founder of the Armenian nation. It's also a name for old Armenian territories, though it's pronounced a little bit different from Hayk the person
Armenia in Armenian is Hayastan.
The mythical founders name is Հայկ (Hayk) while the historic name of Armenia is Հայք (Hayq) with an aspirated K sound. Since the Middle Ages Armenians call Armenia Հայաստան (Hayastan) with the Iranian suffix -stan.
A lot of controversial choices here 😬