Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 2nd, 2012, 03:26 PM   #451
Scholar
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 971

Quote:
Originally Posted by scholar View Post
Thank you for proving my point in its entirety!

Not only are you not responding to my points, you insist on constructing elaborate arguments that ultimately serve to distract from them!

As for the merit of your new argument, it does hold some water. For instance the Little Ice Age did contribute to the fall of the Ming, but far from the only things. For that you should actually brush up on your history of the Ming government at the time. Other parts are more questionable.

The Little Ice Age was by far the most important factor, all other factors written by the Manchus are just distractors. They would never admit that the Ming fell due to natural disasters, they had to make up some historical fiction to make the Ming look bad (blame the emperors, blame wars, etc.) All just Manchu nonsense. I know all the other parts, silver trade with Spain, etc. All those are negligible. It was The Little Ice Age and natural disasters that hit for several decades, that led to the famines. Only when the famines got severe, did Li Zicheng rebel.
Bo_Wong is offline  
Remove Ads
Old August 2nd, 2012, 03:38 PM   #452
Scholar
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 971

Quote:
Originally Posted by scholar View Post
Why not the Later Zhou? Why not the Liao? Why not the Jin? These were all strictly speaking not ethnically Han, and yet they received the full backing of the Chinese aristocracy. So much so that when the Yuan finally did come that the Northern Chinese were placed on an entirely different caste than the Southern ones, that the Northern Chinese were killed by the Japanese while the Southern ones were spared. This is not a sign of a Chinese ethnic identity that is unified, quite the contrary it wreaks of division.

Edit: Not the Later Zhou, the Northern Zhou.


Since you're not reading my links, here they are again:

毛佩琦:明清易代与*国近代化的迟 -历史探微--新法家
晚明:*国早期近代化的开端--《河北*刊》2008年01期
人*史观视阈下的*西大分流——对 为什么江南不是英国”之新思考--《天津社会科*》2005年06期


I'll have more articles up soon, see if I can scan them. The Cambridge History of China is great, read what Tang Chen (I believe a peasant) who lived right after the conquest, and McCartney had to say about China. I'm not going to quote anymore, you read on your own. It'll be more convincing that way.

I just can't believe that you consider the Manchu Qing to be a normal Chinese dynasty. Haha.
Bo_Wong is offline  
Old August 2nd, 2012, 03:44 PM   #453
Scholar
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 971

Quote:
Originally Posted by scholar View Post
Thank you for proving my point in its entirety!

Not only are you not responding to my points, you insist on constructing elaborate arguments that ultimately serve to distract from them!

As for the merit of your new argument, it does hold some water. For instance the Little Ice Age did contribute to the fall of the Ming, but far from the only things. For that you should actually brush up on your history of the Ming government at the time. Other parts are more questionable.
You claim at the Manchu Qing is a Chinese dynasty, yet the Manchus admit that they're not Chinese, used Manchu as a court language, in the early treaties (such as Nerchinsk) Chinese wasn't even used, forced their hairstyle and clothing onto the Chinese population, lived segregated from the Chinese (ethnic segregation), banned Manchuria from Chinese immigration, had emperors directly admit that they're not Chinese, prevent the Chinese from holding real power, etc. so on and so forth.

Yet you still call this a Chinese dynasty?

You're just pathetic.

I mean, I might as well say that the Japanese invasion during WWII was only a period of Chinese occupation. Even though the invaders were Japanese, it was a period of Chinese rule, Chinese occupation.

The Manchu invasion is as Chinese as the Japanese invasion.
Bo_Wong is offline  
Old August 2nd, 2012, 05:15 PM   #454

Indy11's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: The Bitten Big Apple
Posts: 871
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo_Wong View Post
慈喜說: 清非中国,辫子不能去,辫子去中国不亡则大清亡。
Cixi says:" Qing is not China, the queue must not be removed. If the queue is removed China will not fall, but the Great Qing will fall."

慈喜說: 保大清不保中华 。
Cixi says: "Protect the Great Qing, do not protect China."

慈禧說: "宁赠友邦,不予家奴。"
Cixi says: "I'd rather give concessions to foreign countries, instead of giving concessions to our house slaves (Chinese)
"
雍正说: 朕以外国之君主中国之事。
Yongzheng says: "I rule over China as a foreign ruler."

乾隆說: 朕乃夷狄之君,非中国之人。
Qianlong says: "I am a foreign prince, and am not a Chinese person."

The Manchu writer 德龄 wrote in her book《清宫两年记》一书中提到,that


her father told her, "他们不是中国人,但却是中国人的主人。" Do you know what this means?

It means that "We are not Chinese, instead, we are the masters of the Chinese."




You can't ignore all this evidence. The Manchus admit that they're not Chinese.

What more can you say?
I don't think I am ignoring anything in terms of understanding whether the Manchu were Chinese, thought they were Chinese, didn't assimilate Chinese ways, etc.

What eludes me is what you mean by "Chinese." And I am not asking for proofs. That's not what I am asking for. I am asking you to explain what all of these proofs you offer is supposed to prove about the term "Chinese."

So Ethnic Han only partially means what you mean by ethnic Chinese. Please define ethnic Chinese.

I don't know about anyone else but for me, the way in which you use the term "Chinese" and what you mean by that still eludes me. And, please, no hanzi spell it out for me in English.
Indy11 is offline  
Old August 2nd, 2012, 05:24 PM   #455
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: In the Western Hemisphere
Posts: 3,553

If I can't read it, why are you posting it?

Quote:
The Little Ice Age was by far the most important factor, all other factors written by the Manchus are just distractors. They would never admit that the Ming fell due to natural disasters, they had to make up some historical fiction to make the Ming look bad (blame the emperors, blame wars, etc.) All just Manchu nonsense. I know all the other parts, silver trade with Spain, etc. All those are negligible. It was The Little Ice Age and natural disasters that hit for several decades, that led to the famines. Only when the famines got severe, did Li Zicheng rebel.
You accuse the Manchurians of being historical revisionists, but everything you've been saying ooses like Propaganda. What to I believe? Han Nationalist Propaganda or Manchurian revisionism? Well, at the very least supposed claims of Manchurian Revisionism I can read.

Quote:
There was no full scale support of the Manchus, give me some evidence. That's just flat out not true.
Uh huh.

The Last Dynasty: The Rise and Fall of the Qing Empire in China. The Manchu leader Nurhaci (1559-1626) united the tribes of his region into a formidable fighting force that conquered much of Manchuria and drove back the Chinese living to the north of the Great Wall. The Manchu elite increasingly adopted Chinese ways in bureaucracy and court ceremonies. Many of the Chinese scholar-gentry entered Manchu service. The Manchu seized advantage of the weakness of the Ming dynasty to enter China and seize control of Beijing in 1644. Within two decades, the Manchu were masters of China. As the Qing dynasty, they ruled an area larger than any previous dynasty had, except the Tang. The Manchu retained much of the political system of the Ming, although they assumed a more direct role in appointing local officials and reduced their tax exemptions. Chinese and Manchu officials were paired at the highest posts. The examination system continued. The rulers were generous patrons of the arts and employed scholars to compile great encyclopedias of Chinese learning.


Civilizations in Crisis: The Ottoman Empire, the Islamic Heartlands, and Qing China

For a list of sources which shows Gentry support during the Taiping rebellion for the Qing Dynasty, there's a list as long as my arm. The Gentry class turned on the Qing in the generations after the Taiping rebellion, challenging the historic alliance with them, or at least that's what most other sources I've been looking at states.

Like this one:
Historical Perspectives on Contemporary East Asia - Merle Goldman, Andrew Gordon - Google Books

Quote:
The Little Ice Age was by far the most important factor, all other factors written by the Manchus are just distractors. They would never admit that the Ming fell due to natural disasters, they had to make up some historical fiction to make the Ming look bad (blame the emperors, blame wars, etc.) All just Manchu nonsense.
Because we all know that a Han Chinese Dynasty would never fall to an ethnically different state unless nature herself had conspired to destroy her, all the so called "historical records" are simply lies because the Han cannot lose!

Is that about right? If that is the case then its not me who is pathetic. Speaking of pathetic.

Quote:
You claim at the Manchu Qing is a Chinese dynasty, yet the Manchus admit that they're not Chinese, used Manchu as a court language, in the early treaties (such as Nerchinsk) Chinese wasn't even used, forced their hairstyle and clothing onto the Chinese population, lived segregated from the Chinese (ethnic segregation), banned Manchuria from Chinese immigration, had emperors directly admit that they're not Chinese, prevent the Chinese from holding real power, etc. so on and so forth.
I called the Qing Dynasty a Chinese Dynasty, not an ethnically Han one, which now appears to be your entire argument even though I've stated multiple times now that I viewed Chinese as stemming from culture and custom, not ethnicity.

Besides, there's more than enough sources proving this point.

China's Cultural Heritage: The Qing Dynasty, 1644-1912, Second Edition - Richard J Smith - Google Books
China's Last Empire: The Great Qing - William T. Rowe - Google Books
China Marches West: The Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia - Peter C Perdue - Google Books
etc.
scholar is offline  
Old August 2nd, 2012, 05:30 PM   #456

Indy11's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: The Bitten Big Apple
Posts: 871
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo_Wong View Post
I'll say this once again:
漢語:Chinese language (Mandarin)
漢字:Chinese characters
漢英字典:Chinese-English dictionary
漢和字典:Chinese-Japanese dictionary
漢文化圈:Chinese cultural sphere
漢服:ethnic Chinese clothing
漢方醫藥:traditional Chinese medicine
漢人:ethnic Chinese person

Han = ethnic Chinese, if you keep saying Han, you might as well ditch the terms "Chinese language" or "Chinese characters". You should call them Mandarin Hanese, or Han characters. Does anyone in the real world do that? People say Mandarin Chinese, or Chinese characters. Han = real Chinese. When I say Chinese, I'm referring to the Han Chinese, if they're not ethnic Chinese, then I'll refer to them as Tibetans, Russians, Koreans, Japanese, or Germans.

Manchus and Mongols are 中國人,which simply means citizen of China. They're not actually Chinese.
I missed this post. So I am right in understanding that you mean that Han means Chinese, ethnically, and that it is the defining point in your presentation that the Qing were not Han.

You provided a lot of indication that the Manchus did not see themselves as "Chinese." But I now take that to mean that the Manchus did not see themselves as "Han." That they still saw themselves as rightful rulers of China and thusly "Chinese" is a fair statement in English, in my opinion.
Indy11 is offline  
Old August 2nd, 2012, 05:36 PM   #457
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 996

Quote:
Originally Posted by scholar View Post
I didn't say you did.

Further, I've already said that the Shang Dynasty's writing script was a direct predecessor to Mandarin.

We're not on the same page it seems. Rather all I was trying to say is that modern Mandarin and the Shang dialect probably were not all that similar in terms of pronunciation, as different as Sumerian and Arabic[thinking of Iraq when this was purposed), though that's too exaggerated. Instead I'll revise: Etruscan influenced Latin [Foundation of Rome] and modern day Romanian.
Sumerian and Arabic are not in the same language group. A comparative linguist would laugh at you for making that analogy.

You are obviously not familiar with this topic. What Zoopiter is referring to - the opinion of oracle bone script scholars - is not just the written language but the spoken language, which is detectable via the grammar, homonyms, and phonetic particles in Shang writing. The latter two are inferred from the use of rebus writing, on one hand, and phonetic particles, on the other - which is still present in written Chinese today.

For example, while we do not know the exact pronunciation of defeat during the Shang, we know that it was a homonym of cowry shell because the same character was used for both words in their texts. Extending the link to Chinese, in Mandarin the two words are bai and bei, respectively - the phonetic analogy is obvious.

What Zoopiter is trying to say is that the Shang language was linguistically ancestral to modern Chinese dialects, which is important to him in the same way the roots of Indo-European are important to Europeans. Linguistic descent is a potent force in modern nationalist ideas about history and identity, and this is not limited to China but affects every nation, Western and Eastern.

Finally, without getting into the topic of the Yuan and the Qing, I want to say that ethnicity as a matter of self-identity is not just a Western construct, and that while ancient concepts of ethnicity were not exactly the same as that of modern ones, this does not imply that they were so fundamentally different as to make Chinese ethnic identity 'not exist.' The Han and Tang Dynasty Chinese certainly had ideas very reminiscent of modern ethnicity, especially while they were being invaded by northern peoples who had a fundamentally different self-identity.

Last edited by Cerberus; August 2nd, 2012 at 05:41 PM.
Cerberus is offline  
Old August 2nd, 2012, 05:40 PM   #458
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: In the Western Hemisphere
Posts: 3,553

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerberus View Post
Sumerian and Arabic are not in the same language group. A comparative linguist would laugh at you for making that analogy.
Which is why I revised it to Etruscan Influened Latin at the formation of Rome to the modern day Romanian Language, which is part of the same Language group.

I'm aware of my error.
scholar is offline  
Old August 2nd, 2012, 05:52 PM   #459
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 996

Quote:
Originally Posted by scholar View Post
Which is why I revised it to Etruscan Influened Latin at the formation of Rome to the modern day Romanian Language, which is part of the same Language group.

I'm aware of my error.
Indeed, but it is still necessary to say why you revised it, lest people misunderstand.
Cerberus is offline  
Old August 2nd, 2012, 06:02 PM   #460
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 996

Quote:
Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
In the opinions of the rebellious criminals, just because the dynasty is headed by a Manchu emperor, he becoming the master of China is unacceptable by their narrow-minded nationality prejudice that comes from nowhere. They then fabricated theories that are merely libelous and slanderous nonsense, but they were unaware of the fact that the dynasty being Manchu was like the Chinese having different origins and different home towns.

...

Today, in a time when under the Heaven has been united, and the Han and the non-Han live together like a family, the rebellious criminals are making groundless judgments on what is Chinese and what is foreign, stirring up resentment and hate among people. Aren’t these criminals defying the heavenly will and going against reason, ignoring their fathers and the emperor? Aren’t these criminals a bunch of alien creatures that are even lower than insects?
This is indeed the very argument that the Manchu emperors made to legitimize their rule over China. But it is precisely this that makes it propaganda. Bo Wong is guilty of being an ultra-nationalist and overusing Mark Elliott's The Manchu Way, but it is just as terrible to prop up propaganda.

Last edited by Cerberus; August 2nd, 2012 at 06:22 PM.
Cerberus is offline  
Closed Thread

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
chinese, dynasties, qing, yuan



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who is your favorite Chinese leader after end of Qing Dynasty? DeliciousTomatoesYay Asian History 10 April 1st, 2011 04:49 AM
Why are Chinese Dynasties treated differently from European ones? Kiwi Asian History 31 November 2nd, 2010 09:19 AM
Most competent general of the Ming and Qing Dyansty FailWhale War and Military History 1 September 15th, 2010 07:36 PM
On dynasties... lokariototal General History 6 July 22nd, 2010 05:24 AM
Political Dynasties Dr Realism American History 10 March 22nd, 2009 06:27 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.