What Are Luoyang and Xi'an Really Arguing About?
(Author: Lu Yongqi)
Recently, I've often seen articles about the historical status competition between Xi'an and Luoyang, and it's getting more intense, with a growing sense of acrimony!
From a historical and cultural perspective, both Xi'an and Luoyang are extremely important cities in Chinese history, each recording many milestone events in the development of the Chinese nation. But insisting on which one is more important and which one is less so is somewhat absurd. It's like arguing in a family over whether the husband or the wife is more important. Without either the husband or the wife, the family is incomplete—both are important. Take the Sui and Tang dynasties for example: can anyone who studies Sui-Tang history do so without referencing either Xi'an or Luoyang? Regardless of where the capital was located, Xi'an has the Giant Wild Goose Pagoda (which is already very famous, so I won't elaborate), and in Xin'an County, Luoyang, there is the Thousand Tang Epitaphs Museum, the only museum of epitaphs in China, a treasure trove of historical materials for studying three hundred years of Tang governance, military achievements, and calligraphy. Both are important witnesses of Tang culture—there's no need to argue over which is more important. For Luoyang, the goal should not be to compete with Xi'an over which is the orthodox capital, but to make cultural treasures like the Thousand Tang Epitaphs Museum in Xin'an County as famous as the Giant Wild Goose Pagoda.
Both Xi'an and Luoyang proclaim themselves as famous historical and cultural cities. If they truly possess deep cultural heritage, they should have broad minds. What does it tell others when they argue over being one of the Four Great Ancient Capitals or a famous historical and cultural city? Not to mention whether the United Nations has ever designated a 'World Famous Historical and Cultural City'—what are they trying to prove by arguing? Are they showing that they lack something? Or are they insecure, fearing others might compete with them? In fact, 'competing' itself reflects a lack of cultural confidence. For both Xi'an and Luoyang, the ancient people left behind so many cultural treasures—have they fully realized their value? If magnificent history is used for such arguments, then history becomes a burden. The purpose of our exploration and study of history is not to win an online debate, but to learn from excellent historical culture—making the past serve the present! Therefore, both Xi'an and Luoyang should unite, seek common ground while reserving differences, and make their cultural tourism stronger and bigger, rather than stepping on each other.
Regarding the debate between Xi'an and Luoyang, some ill-intentioned people even say that the Chinese people are inherently incapable of unity, claiming 'Chinese people like to fight among themselves' or 'One Chinese is a dragon, three Chinese are three worms' (this phrase is mainly used to describe Chinese people's disunity). I don't know where this saying comes from. In thousands of years of history, among all the countries and peoples in the world, which one has been as devoted to great unification as China? Since the beginning of recorded history, China has remained unified most of the time, and its territory has generally expanded. If the Chinese people can be described as 'one is a dragon, three are worms,' then other countries or peoples are even worse than worms. We must not fall into others' traps and believe whatever they say. There is a saying that 'those who cheat Chinese people abroad are all Chinese.' Among 1.4 billion Chinese, there are inevitably a few bad apples. Using isolated cases to characterize an entire group is itself an act of ignorance. If it were true that all those who cheat Chinese people abroad are Chinese, how could there be so many Chinatowns? Wouldn't overseas Chinese then need to stay far away from each other? Why would they gather together—to be cheated? In world history, no other country's people are more united than the Chinese people—this is both a historical fact and a present-day reality.
Furthermore, taking the Zhou dynasty as an example, without either Luoyang or Xi'an, it would be incomplete. The Han dynasty goes without saying—each city contributed to half of it. The same goes for the Sui and Tang dynasties: neither could be missed. During the Sui and Tang, the administrative center was in Xi'an, and the economic center was in Luoyang. Why can't the two cities jointly revive the grand spirit of the Great Han and rekindle the prosperity of the Sui and Tang?
Therefore, whether friends from Xi'an or partners from Luoyang, we need to work together to make cultural tourism stronger and bigger. Just as studying the Han dynasty requires both Western Han and Eastern Han, for Xi'an, it would be beneficial to advertise more in Luoyang so that tourists visiting Luoyang also go to Xi'an. For Luoyang, let tourists going to Xi'an take a break in Luoyang, or stop by Luoyang again on their way back—wouldn’t that be nice? You take the west, and I take the east. For example, Xi'an could vigorously promote the Western Han, and Luoyang could vigorously promote the Eastern Han (the Eastern Han was also a great dynasty in our history, not inferior to the Western Han in economy, politics, culture, and military), so the two cities together restore the most powerful Han dynasty in Chinese history. Why must we always vie for superiority?
Nowadays, the country is vigorously exploring and promoting the Yellow River culture. As two important node cities of Yellow River culture, Xi'an and Luoyang should join hands to better excavate and promote this culture. The Yellow River culture, as the most important component of Chinese culture, cannot be properly explored, inherited, and promoted without the cooperation of Luoyang and Xi'an.
