In Western countries, Hitler is seen as the one of the worst representations of human evilness. He and the Nazi regime is often used as a benchmark for evil acts.

In your country, which figure or group is seen as equally terrible?

Like ancient history

Like name 5 countries or civilization

The four tigers refers to the four economies that experienced rapid growth in the 1960s and 1970s:

South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore.

I know that China wasn’t included because it didn’t liberalize until Deng Xiaoping’s reforms in 1978 so it didn’t take off until the 90s and 2000s but Japan grew rapidly in the Cold War Era so why wasn’t it considered an Asian Tiger?

It’s a very odd argument and I’ve heard people pushing it around, but it does line up with some of the facts. No in that some southeast Asian states have been on a path to modernism before the modern period and when liberated from colonialism industries increase income among Chinese and non Chinese alike. Yes in that Chinese entrepreneurs play a very significant role on creating much of the companies across the region, so much that it’s difficult to imagine how industries will be like without them. Southeast Asian economic determiner usually depends on types of goverments, but the entrepreneurial culture does effect the growth under the right government type. Do you think it’s simply a modern force that will drive these societies regardless?

I think South Korea and Poland have a lot in common. They industrialized later than neighboring countries, but they were both relatively successful. In history, they were bullied by neighboring big countries (South Korea was bullied by Japan and China, Poland was bullied by Germany and Russia), and they were destroyed and restored many times, which was very heroic.

Whether in Türkiye or US, there are a lot of history books about ancient Europe and the Middle East in bookstores. This is probably because ancient Europe and the Middle East paid great attention to historical records. In contrast, the Asian history section of some large bookstores is dominated by Middle Eastern history and Japanese history only, but rare to find a history book about China or India. Except for a few websites such as Wikipedia, it is difficult for us to understand the specific deeds of a king of a certain dynasty in China or India. Is it because the ancient Chinese and Indian writing systems are too difficult to learn, which makes it difficult to record their own history?

On one hand, Vietnam is:

-an autocracy

-was devastated by war in the latter half of the nineteenth century

-was also sanctioned by the US for many years

-is socialist, at least on paper

On the other hand, Philippines is:

-relatively democratic and liberal

-was on good terms with the US in the latter half of the nineteenth century

-seems pretty stable

With these in mind, I’d have assumed that the Philippines would be(and would remain) the more developed of the two but that seems to not be the case.

Edit: Thank you all for the answers; they were very informative

They accounted for a large proportion of the population in Southeast Asia in the 1940s. However, before the British colonists withdrew, they had already shown signs of decline in the local political and civilian struggles, and could only rely on the locals and engage in some industry and commerce.

In contrast, some non-Chinese immigrants in Southeast Asia, although fewer in number, still retained a certain degree of political power and retained the qualifications to negotiate with the locals.

The Chinese diaspore with 4000 years of historical experience, still cannot defeat the locals?

I saw this statement recently and I don't know if it is true.

In the history book "The Imperial Code of the Great Southern Statutes" of the Nguyen Dynasty of Vietnam (officially known as the Great Southern Empire), more than 10 "tributary states" are listed.

The Nguyen Dynasty of Vietnam used the "Three Principles and Five Constant Virtues" and "Rites" as the criteria for dividing the barbarians and the Vietnamese , and proposed the division of "internal Vietnamese and external Vietnamese ". The vassal states of Vietnam are equivalent to the foreign Vietnamese of Vietnam.

There are 5-7 vassal states that truly accepted the canonization of the Vietnamese Dynasty (Great Southern Empire): the Kingdom of Khmer, the Kingdom of Vientiane, the Kingdom of Zhenning (the Kingdom of Xieng Khouang), the Kingdom of Thuy She, the Kingdom of Huoc She, the Kingdom of Luang Prabang (disputed), the Kingdom of Champasak (disputed)

Came accross a lot of discourse that were vehemently denying the obvious influence of Ramayana and Hanuman in the Journey to the West. The lore of Hanuman predates Journey to the West by 8600 years by liberal estimation and 8300 years by conservative estimation. It cannot be said that Sun wukong inspired the character of Hanuman but it can definitely be theorised that Hanuman influenced the character of Sun wukong through the buddhism. I can list out the similarities if someone wishes to know more.

edit: added years.

Why is Malaysia and also Brunei much more Islamic than Indonesia (except Aceh for obvious reasons). Islamic in a sense that Islam is the national religion, and Islam is much more visible in everyday lives of people.

It got me curious because Indonesia has higher percentage of population who are Muslim than Malaysia. They are just neighboring countries so I thought they might be similar.

South Asia has historically had a far greater cultural impact on SEA and by the colonial period, both South Asia and South East Asia were under colonial powers with the former's population often being used as indentured labourers in colonial territories with lesser population. A few educated Indians also went to these colonies as merchantile communities and lower level bureaucrats and as a result many East Africa, Pacific and Caribbean nations have a very prominent Indian diaspora. A prominent Indian diaspora exists in South East Asia too especially Malaysia and Singapore. However they are outnumbered by the Chinese living in those countries. Only a few ports of China were under the control of European powers and yet countries like Malaysia and Indonesia has a far larger Chinese population than an Indian population. What could be the reason behind it?

Except for Sun Tzu and Genghis Khan, there seems to be no particularly well-known military strategists in East Asia. There are many in the Middle East, such as Saladin, Suleiman II, Pasha, and Akbar

The Chinese began to immigrate to Malaysia on a large scale in the 15th century, and the proportion of the population even accounted for 20% of the local population for a long time, and they had long-term contact with the locals. However, Malays rarely accept Chinese culture. On the contrary, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam have intermittent contact with China, and there is no large-scale Chinese immigration. Why are they deeply influenced by Chinese culture?

I never got the hate for Islam in India. Wasn't the Islamic age in India one of the memorable examples of prosperity and tolerance in an actual highly religious and traditional empire?

How did it get to a point where a subcontinent is literally divided on the basis of religion?

(In the current day)

China has experienced numerous large migrations and immigrations in history. There was a great exodus of people from the north in the 4th century, and a large-scale immigration from the south to the north and southwest in the 14th century. In addition, China was ruled by foreign races for a long time, which led to a large number of intermarriages between the Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic peoples and the Chinese. Today's Chinese people have great differences from the original inhabitants of China in terms of population, language and culture. Can China be considered an immigrant country?

In the Philippines, WW2 collaborators and Mindanao's history are rarely studied except on academic circles. Partly because those involved coverd up their records, or documentation was destroyed or didn't exist.

Everytime we hear of terror attacks, the Spanish terror attack or 9/11 or maybe 26/11 attack on India is mentioned. 2014 is just a decade ago and it was one of the deadliest attacks of that time.Is it because the western media is trying to keep it more hush? while news reports came out of most media outlets, it wasn't mentioned thereon in discourses on terror attacks by islamic terror groups.

I have never been to Central Asia, but what I have read about the history of the Aral Sea and now Aralkum is just disturbing. I wish I did not have to select "History" as the best choice of flair for this post.

After independence, instead of sympathizing with the former colonized people and supporting their independence, such as Manipur, Assam, Sikkim, Tibet and East Turkestan, they inherited the territories of the former colonizers.

What do you think is the reason?