Naomasa298

That last sentence is exactly what I said. It doesn't mean they considered themselves "chinese".

There could be any number of reasons why they chose to do so. Again, stating that they did so to become more "Chinese" or for any such related reason is conjecture and opinion unless you can show sources that prove otherwise.

Straw man. You first stated that intermarriaged proved that they were somehow "Chinese". Now you appear to be stating the opposite and you use politics as a blanket get out clause.

So what? They saw a system of government that worked well and chose to keep it in place. That's merely prudence.

No, I'm not putting words in your mouth. Don't try to wriggle out of this by arguing semantics. You stated, quite clearly, that the Chinese government regards them as Chinese and this provides legitimacy to your argument. What it actually proves is that the Chinese government recognises them as Chinese citizens. That in itself means absolutely nothing. Does the fact that there are people of European descent living in India and Africa make Britain an Indian or South African/Zimbabwean/whereever ruler?

I'm simply pointing out the flaws in your argument. You're the one stating that this or that "fact" is true.

*sigh* Back up any of your statements and conclusions with academic research or studies that corroborate what you say. Demonstrate, for example, some sources that say that the capital was moved for the purpose of becoming "Chinese", that is, assimilating into the subservient population. Otherwise, your position is still nothing more than conjecture on your part.

If your position was backed by good, strong, solid research based on credible sources, you wouldn't have a problem providing them. So far, despite being asked multiple times, and not just by me, you've mentioned one book without giving any specifics, and you've said "go and read Wikipedia".

I'm quite prepared to accept your argument if you can back it up, but so far, you've repeatedly failed to do so.

mingming

I never said they considered themselves "Chinese" in the sense of ethnicity. I said they considered themselves "Chinese" in the sense that they are continuing a long line of Chinese dynasties. Like I said before, they considered themselves legitimate successors of the Ming. The Qing mandate was "More Chinese than the Chinese."

From The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 9: The Ch'ing Dynasty, Part 1: To 1800 by Willard J. Peterson, Page 81:

"Fan (Fan Wencheng) set about drafting letters, manifestos, and edicts explaining the Qing's role as avengers of the now defunct Ming."

From The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 9: The Ch'ing Dynasty, Part 1: To 1800 by Willard J. Peterson, Page 82:

"The Qing state was ready to play the role of righteous avenger and would gladly accept the services of Wu Sangui in their efforts to establish and righteous and benevolent regime."

"The Qing forces routed the rebels, who returned to Peking, burned the palace and fled. The following week Dorgon and his banner troops occupied the city in the name of the Qing Shunzi emperor. To the assembled officials who had survived the ravages of Li Zhicheng’s regime, Dorgon had proclamation read. In the words of Fan Wencheng, most likely, the prince vowed to avenge the death of the Ming emperor and see to it that the imperial tablets were properly arranged and that public mourning was properly observed. With this promise the Qing administration began recruiting officials for the Ministry of Rites. The mandate was transferred."

From China's Last Empire: The Great Qing (History of Imperial China) by William T. Rowe, Page 19:

"The Son of Heaven was, after all, the intermediary between the active first principle of the universe, Heaven, and all human beings, not simply the Chinese, and so logically Heaven might select any of its constituents receive its mandate to rule. And the criterion for receiving that mandate was not bloodline but rather the personal virtue of the candidate—with “virtue” defined fairly precisely in Confucian cultural terms."

This is further justification of Manchu rule as legitimate and should be considered Chinese.

Any number of the reasons with the most important being that they were picking up after the Ming.

From: Beijing: From Imperial Capital to Olympic City by Lillian M. Li, Page 35:

"The Manchus presented themselves as preservers of Chinese legitimacy, as new holders of the ancient Mandate given by Heaven to rulers of the human society, as "more Chinese than the Chinese.""

From China and the Foreign Devils by Harry G. Gelber, Page 116:

"Beijing greeted these disciplined troops as liberators; and their commanders formally claimed the Mandate of Heaven for the new Qing dynasty."

From The Search for Modern China by Jonathan D. Spence, Page 33:

"On the sixth of June, the Manchus and Wu entered the capital, and the boy emperor was enthroned in the Forbidden City with the reign title of Shunzhi. The character for Shun（顺）was the same term of "obedience" that Li had used for his brief dynasty; in addition of -zhi (治), "to rule", showed that the Manchus now formally claimed the mandate of heaven to rule China."

That itself is significant. If the Manchus didn't claim legitimacy and succession, why bother enthroning the emperor in Beijing in the Forbidden City?

No I did not. I used intermarriage to point out that the Manchus were not so keen on keeping themselves separate as you claimed. If you even bothered reading my OP, you would noticed that I said "You were right about the Manchus keeping themselves separate." They did but only to an extent. This is an excerpt from China and the Foreign Devils by Harry G. Gelber, Page 116:

"For one thing, as non-Chinese rulers they would have to adapt to to established Han Chinese ways of doing things. They took a great deal of trouble to make themselves acceptable to Chinese society, rather than simply holding down the Chinese people. Their leaders honored the dead emperor, his empress, and the dead officials, and buried them in due ceremonial form. They maintained the rituals, carried out the appropriate ceremonies, promoted the classics, continued the customs of venerating ancestors and generally understood that proper conduct would reflect proper values."

The Manchus themselves were also well versed in Confucian classics.


So what? If the Manchus simply absorbed China into their own empire, they wouldn't change their entire system of government to rule. They would simply use their existing form of government. Its more than just prudence, its claiming legitimacy.


Thats exactly what you are doing. No matter what you say, its still a valid argument. And like I said before, the PRC claims do not come from nowhere. Its based on the historical claims made by the Qing then the Republic of China.

Thats what they all say. I'm sure thats exactly what you're doing.

And I've asked you to provide sources for your claims which you also failed to do. For example, you say there could be other reasons for the capital being moved. Sources? You also say the Manchus adapted to a government that is better suited for governing. Sources? The other guy didn't post credible sources either, I don't see you asking him to provide a source.

Naomasa298

Avengers of the Ming in what sense? Avenging the Ming that they themselves had just conquered?

I accept this. I don't doubt that the Qing sought any means possible to legitimise their rule. If their rule could be accepted by the population, they would be easier to rule. This is why the entire concept of the mandate of Heaven was invented in the first place. It's politics.

That they were legitimate rulers is not in dispute. The question is whether they should be considered Chinese.

Again, that they considered themselves legitimate rulers is not in question. Clearly, they would use any of the trappings of state to ensure that.

First of all, it was you that pointed out that the Manchu kept their culture separate, but you claimed that this was political. There's a key phrase in that excerpt you just posted: "non-Chinese rulers".

It was you that said, in relation to the Mongols and the Yuan, that they had no system of government in place. Why should they not use the existing system?

No, I'm not doing so. Don't try to get out of the argument by claiming that. Valid by whose definition? You're using politics to justify your argument in one sentence and dismissing poltics in the next? At least try to be consistent.

Yes, it is. Try less ad hominem and more addressing the points raised.

Exactly what claims have I made, other than pointing out that the points you raise are subject to interpretation? Using your own sources, it seems fairly clear that the Qing adapted the system of government and prudent practises that would ensure that the population would accept and be subservient to them. The "better suited to govern" phrase was in relation to the Yuan. In this case, adaptation made sense from a pragmatic point of view. But they did impose some of their own customs on the people they had conquered. They retained and continued to use their own language.

The question is not about whether the dynasty were legitimate or not. You seem to be confusing the issue. The question is about whether they are Chinese or foreign. You yourself stated that the people of Chna came to alternately view the Qing as foreign, then Chinese, then foreign.

The point of dispute here is an interpretation of facts, not the facts themselves.

I take it that since you're now concentrating on the Qing and have not mentioned the Yuan, that you now consider them a foreign dynasty?

I'm sure you don't accept the client states and leaders established by the Japanese during their occupation as "Chinese". All of the things you state about the Yuan and Qing dynasties could be applied to the Japanese and their client states. The Japanese even use an adapted Chinese script, and they are certainly familiar with the Confucian classics.

mingming

The Ming fell to Li Zicheng and his rebels, not to the Qing.

It started off as more mythology but politics got into it yes.

I would like to stress that I'm not arguing their ethnicity as Chinese, just that they should be considered a Chinese dynasty.

Non-Chinese in the sense that they are not Han Chinese. Again I'm not arguing ethnicity here, simply that the Yuan and Qing are and should be considered a Chinese dynasty.

I corrected my statement to say that they had no civil forms of government in place. They could've invented one, but they choose to follow the Chinese model.

Valid by operational definition. If the Manchus are considered Chinese today, shouldn't their dynasty be considered Chinese using today's definition then? Especially when 90% of the land they ruled are part of Chinese territory today?

I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm going to say this for a third time: The Qing and the Republic of China both recognizes the Manchurians as a part of Chinese.

I did and I provided sources.


The Tang, the Song, and the Ming did the same thing to keep the population subservient to them and accepted them. The only difference being that those three were founded by Han Chinese and the Qing was founded by Manchurians. The Manchurians considered themselves "More Chinese than Chinese."

I'm not denying that. But as the Manchus themselves adapted to many Han customs, perhaps more than the Han had to adapt to Manchu customs.

The American colonists considered themselves British, then as Americans. Views changes with the times. The Qing had massive support from the 1800s to the early 1900s. By the early 1900s, nationalism sprouted and by that time the Qing was beyond help. So of course public opinions would change. The Qing went to great length to make sure their rule wasn't foreign and it should not be considered foreign. Legitimacy has everything to do with whether its foreign or not. If a dynasty has not legitimate claims of succession, then its foreign. But since it does, then it counts as a continuation of the previous dynasty and thus Chinese.

No I do not. My knowledge of the Yuan Dynasty only goes so far and I haven't studied them in depth like the Qing. I'm currently focusing on the Ming and Qing and I'll get to the Yuan later.

We call those client states "puppet states". China during the Yuan and Qing were not puppet states. Those puppet states in China are strictly speaking Chinese but it has been rejected because of nationalism. Chinese see those people as traitors and basically kicked them out of the Chinese ethnicity.

I've backed up my claims with sources, yet you don't seem convinced. If you're not going to accept my claims, then post some of your sources to prove my claims as wrong.

Naomasa298

By the tme Li Zicheng had sacked Beijing, the Qing had already made inroads into Ming territory. Even after Li Zicheng's death, Ming loyalists continued to resist for nearly 20 years, and were crushed by the Qing. Claims of avenging the Ming ring hollow when considering the significant part the Manchu played in its collapse in the first place.

It depends then what you mean by a "Chinese" dynasty. Clearly, at the time of their founding, they were foreign in origin.

That they were legtimate rulers of the territories they had conquered is not in dispute. That they were successor states to the Song/Jin and Ming isn't in dispute either.

Now, here perhaps is the crux of the argument. The concept of the Mandate of Heaven essentially means that ANY ruler can claim legitimacy. The dynasties are not continuations of the previous dynasty - they are successors to the previous ones. Legitimacy and foreigness are not necessarily linked.

Take a parallel in India, the Mughal Empire. They are a Indian empire of foreign origin. That doesn't make their rule any less legitimate, but they are, I believe, still regarded as foreign by Indians. At least part of the failure of the Indian mutiny was due to the fact that many did not want a restoration of Mughal rule.

They used a different language to the majority of the population, at least to begin with, and had a different religion as well.

Legitimate rulers, and rulers of an Indian state, yes, but foreigners nonetheless. The two things aren't mutually exclusive, and the parallels between them and the Qing is quite close.

I could be wrong about the Indian view of them, of course, but I am sure I have seen Indian members of the board make statements to that effect.

mingming

That is false. There was no way the Qing could've entered China unless they attacked Shanhaiguan, the number 1 and most defended pass, in China. Wu Sangui had thousands of elite soldiers guarding the pass and the Qing would've faced stiff resistance. That was why Dorgon tried so hard to woo Wu Sangui into submission. The Qing was one factor of the Ming's collapse but it was actually the economy and the Ming court's inability to pay military salaries that contributed most to the Ming's fall.

There has been some debate about whether Southern Ming should count as Ming. I believe they should, but there are doubts. The Southern Ming was just a series of princes declaring to be the successor.



Chinese meaning that is a legitimate Chinese dynasty representing China. At their founding only their ethnicity was foreign, but everything else was pretty much similar to Han.

Yes, the Manchus are foreign group but they founded a legitimate successor state to the Ming and carried on the Mandate of Heaven. The fact that they even accepted the Mandate of Heaven shows that they are claiming to be Chinese.

I'm not familiar with the Mughal Empire. Was their language the only language used in official documents and by members of the court? Was their form of government the same as the previous dynasties?

In the Qing case, the Qing adopted Chinese as their official state language (most important documents were also translated into Manchu), they adopted the Chinese bureaucracy, certain customs and traditions, even the Mandarin Squares worn to denote the rank of officials. They revived the old Hanlin Academy and continued the Chinese examination system. They wanted to make themselves look less like a foreign dynasty and more like a Chinese one.

Naomasa298

Right, but part of that economy was directed towards fending off the Manchu, resulting in necessarily increased military expenditure - which the Ming were unable to pay for. The Qing military advance into China was at least one of the factors in play.

That, and the annihilation of the Southern Ming is why I say that the claim of being avengers of the Ming is a rather hollow one made for political purposes.

Not everything was the same. Then you agree that they are a dynasty of foreign origin? Again, I do not question their legitimacy. And whether there was any concept of "China" as such at the time is debatable. The Qing certainly founded a successor state to the Ming. The acceptance of the Mandate of Heaven shows, to me, another political and pragmatic decision by them. They certainly claimed to be the legitimate rulers of the former territories of the Ming. That doesn't mean they claimed to be Chinese. That they became Sinicised as time went on is certainly true.

The official language of the Mughal court and administration was Persian, but this developed over time to become Urdu, which (at least in its modern form) is mutually intelligible with Hindi. It is almost the opposite of Cantonese and Mandarin - Urdu and Hindi are to an extent, the same spoken language with different scripts.

They had a different culture (Persian) to their subjects, but the two blended together as time went on. As for their system of government compared to that of the states that the replaced, you'll have to ask someone more familiar with the subject than me. They certainly intermarried with the subject population as did the Manchu.

Dissatisfaction with rule by foreigners was at least one factor in the fall of the Mughals, not dissimilar to the discontent felt towards the end of Qing rule and the rise of Han-Chinese sentiment. They faced wars with rising native powers and then the arrival of the British. Obviously, that's a much simplified picture.

mingming

That is only one factor. The Ming economy suffered greatly because of the disruption of silver caused by English/Dutch raids, the Spanish King's decision to crack down on silver smuggling, and Japan shutting down foreign trade. The price of silver shot up and led to inflation. Meanwhile, the Little Ice Age weakened agriculture and the Ming's policy of low taxes meant it could not receive enough revenue. This combined with widespread epidemic and corruption was the reason why the Ming couldn't pay soldiers in the first place.

Indeed, it was also used to calm the citizens of the north (Beijing especially) and to make them accept their rule. The general population suffered greatly under Li Zhicheng and his rebels.

I never doubted that they weren't of foreign origin. From the late 1700s onwards, the Qing referred to itself as China. That was when the concept of China was born. The acceptance of the Mandate of Heaven is proof that they respect and follow Chinese traditions, or else they could've totally disregarded it and made imposed their own culture completely on China, turning China into a colony. As HackneyedScribe pointed out, the Qing is definitely Chinese. I'll have to study more about the Yuan.

The first significant movement against the Qing was the Taiping, but as I said not everyone in China shared their views. That was mainly because the Taiping were cruel in their conquests and rejected Confucianism while embracing Christianity. Nationalism actually worked in the Qing Dynasty's favor from the 1850s to the early 1900s. The Boxer Rebels being the best example. It was only when the dynasty was near collapse did people begin to reject the Qing. That has happened many times in Chinese history.

Naomasa298

Well, the Taiping rebellion always seemed to me to be more about one madman's dreams of power, at least to begin with, rather than an anti-Qing rebellion per se, but what about the earlier White Lotus rebellion?

mingming

It is a madman's dream of power, Hong Xiuquan locked himself in his harem as soon has his forces captured Nanjing. He paid little to no attention to state affairs after that. Hong himself began the anti-Qing rhetoric and his followers carried it out. If you're interested in the Taiping Rebellion then I suggest this book:


The White Lotus Rebellion (IMO) wasn't a major rebellion compared to others. For one thing it was started in Shaanxi, a poor and mountainous region that has always been a hotbed for rebellion. And it began as a protest against taxes. It would've been crushed easily had it not been for Heshen and his corrupt clique sending inefficient troops and poor commanders to fight it.

More major rebellions against Qing rule would be the Revolt of the Three Feudatories, Taiwan, and the Taiping.