Английская Википедия:Debate on the Chineseness of the Yuan and Qing dynasties
Шаблон:Short description Шаблон:Multiple image The debate on the "Chineseness" of the Yuan and Qing dynasties is concerned with whether the Mongol-led Yuan dynasty (1271–1368) and the Manchu-led Qing dynasty (1636–1912) can be considered "Chinese dynasties", and whether they were representative of "China" during the respective historical periods. The debate, albeit historiographical in nature, has political implications. Mainstream academia and successive governments of China, including the imperial governments of the Yuan and Qing dynasties, have maintained the view that they were "Chinese" and representative of "China".[1][2][3] In short, the cause of the controversy stems from the dispute in interpreting the relationship between the two concepts of "Han Chinese" and "China", because although the Chinese government recognizes 56 ethnic groups in China and the Han have a more open view of the Yuan and Qing dynasties since Liang Qichao and other royalist reformers supported the Qing dynasty, the Han are China's main ethnic group. This means that there are many opinions that equate Han Chinese people with China and lead to criticism of the legitimacy of these two dynasties.
Background
Origin and development
This debate emerged following the Meiji Restoration in Japan. In their attempt to rationalize the debate, some Japanese scholars deliberately conflated the concepts of "China" and "China proper", in the process diminishing the scope of the former. The position that the Yuan and Qing dynasties were "non-Chinese" was later adopted by some late-Qing anti-Manchu Chinese revolutionaries who had lived in Japan. Zhang Binglin, for instance, in a work titled On the Chinese Republic, proposed that a potential Chinese republican state to be founded in the event of a Qing collapse should only comprise regions influenced by Han culture, and that non-Han regions were outside of "China".[4]
Furthermore, to serve Japanese political agenda, some Japanese academics and politicians like Yano Jinichi and Ishiwara Kanji made a distinction between "China" and the "Qing dynasty"; and separated Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, and Outer Mongolia from the territorial scope of "China" in their rhetoric to justify the Continental Policy and the Japanese invasion of China.[5][6][7][8]
Political significance
Whereas there were many regimes in Chinese history that were ruled by non-Han ethnicities, the Yuan and Qing dynasties were the only two that ultimately achieved the unification of China proper. The Qing dynasty, in particular, is noted for having laid the foundation for the modern-day territories of China. Both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China base their constitutional territorial claims on those of the Qing dynasty, in accordance with the succession of states theory. Denying the "Chineseness" of the Yuan and Qing dynasties thus threatens the territorial integrity of contemporary China. To protect Chinese national and traditional historiographical interests, Chinese historians and governments have rejected the opinion that the Yuan and Qing dynasties were "non-Chinese".[1][2][3]
Opposing positions
Yuan and Qing as "non-Chinese" dynasties
Шаблон:Infobox Chinese Proponents of the view that the Yuan and Qing dynasties were "non-Chinese" or "foreign" generally equate "Chinese people" with Han people, and "China" with the Han-dominated region of China proper. Emphasis is often given to the fact that both regimes and those who founded them did not originate from the Central Plain, the cradle of Chinese civilization and the heartland of the ethnic Han. Furthermore, the rulers were ethnic minorities, whom the dominant Han people traditionally considered "barbarians", according to the Hua–Yi dichotomy. Thus, during these periods "China" should be perceived as a "colony" of the Mongols and Manchus respectively.[9] By extension, the lands controlled by the Yuan and Qing dynasties, particularly those inhabited by significant non-Han populations, should not be regarded as historical Chinese territories.[10][11]
Currently, the position is supported by the Central Tibetan Administration, Uyghur separatists, Mongolian nationalists, the extreme part of Han Chinese nationalists, some Western scholars, most of the anti-Chinese movements, and far-right Japanese historians.[10][11][12][13][14] Some extremists think that the Red Turban Rebellions (against Yuan) and the Revolution of 1911 (against Qing) are just two uprisings to liberate China (from "non-Chinese").
Yuan and Qing as "Chinese" dynasties
Scholars who uphold the view that both dynasties were "Chinese" find fault with the opposing group's narrow conception of "China" and "Chinese" in cultural, ethnic, and political terms. These scholars posit that "China" and "Chinese" should be best understood as multicultural and multiethnic concepts that transcend the ideological boundaries of contemporary ethnic nationalism. Liang Qichao, for instance, argued that "macro-nationalism" (Шаблон:Lang) with its emphasis on a multicultural and multiethnic China could best explain the historical trajectories of China, as opposed to "micro-nationalism" (Шаблон:Lang) that foregrounded the Han people at the expense of ethnic minorities.[15] These scholars also criticize the opposing group for retroactively applying modern-day ideologies such as ethnic nationalism to historical peoples and regimes, resulting in distorted narratives.
The imperial governments of the Yuan and Qing dynasties maintained the view that their regimes were orthodox dynasties of China. In the Ultimatum from the Mongol State issued to the Emperor Kameyama of Japan in 1266, the Emperor Shizu of Yuan (Kublai Khan) referred to the Mongol Empire using the term Zhongguo (though it referred to it at the start of the document as "Dà Ménggǔguó" - 大蒙古國, meaning "The Great Mongol State" or "Great Mongolia").[16] In 1271, Kublai Khan issued the Edict on the Proclamation of the Dynastic Name, which formally claimed succession from prior Chinese regimes, from the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors to the Tang dynasty, for the entire Mongol-ruled realm and equated the Mongol Empire with the Yuan dynasty.[17][18][19][20] The edict of enthronement of the Emperor Chengzong of Yuan (Temür Khan) proclaimed that Genghis Khan received the Mandate of Heaven and went on to "establish China (Quxia)"—a traditional Chinese expression referring to the founding of a Chinese dynasty.[21] As evident from the Chinese seal bestowed by Temür Khan to Öljaitü of the Ilkhanate, seen in a letter by Öljaitü to Philip IV of France dated 1305, the Yuan dynasty officially saw itself as possessing the Mandate of Heaven in the traditional Chinese style.[22] Released in 1307 by the Emperor Wuzong of Yuan (Külüg Khan), the edict establishing the Zhida era began with a statement celebrating the Yuan dynasty's "unification of China (Huaxia)".[23] During the reign of the Emperor Huizong of Yuan (Toghon Temür), he commissioned the History of Liao, the History of Song, and the History of Jin—a policy in line with Chinese historiographical tradition which reflected the Yuan dynasty's self-conception as a legitimate successor state to the earlier Liao, Song, and Jin dynasties.[24] The History of Jin, in particular, defined Genghis Khan as a Chinese monarch, in the same vein as the Emperor Gao of Han and the Emperor Taizong of Tang.[25] The Southern Song dynasty, before its eventual conquest by the Yuan dynasty, regarded the Yuan dynasty as the "northern dynasty" of a divided China.[26] The Hongwu Emperor of the Ming dynasty, who overthrew the Yuan dynasty, accepted the Yuan dynasty as an orthodox Chinese dynasty and ordered the compilation of the History of Yuan to reflect this view.
Similarly, emperors of the Qing dynasty officially equated their empire with "China" and adopted "Dulimbai Gurun", Manchu for "Zhongguo" (Middle Kingdom), as a name for the state. The Qing dynasty was formally conceived as a multiethnic empire and its emperors openly rejected the idea that "Chinese" and "China" only referred to the Han people and the lands that they populated, respectively. In 1711, the Kangxi Emperor publicly proclaimed that the Manchu homeland of Manchuria was part of the "land of China (Zhongguo)".[27] The Records of Great Righteousness Resolving Confusion issued by the Yongzheng Emperor ridiculed and objected to narratives that depicted the Qing dynasty as "non-Chinese" and "foreign".[28] In official Qing parlance, "Chinese languages" (Dulimbai gurun-i bithe) included Mandarin, Manchu, and Mongolian; while "Chinese people" referred to all subjects of the Qing dynasty, regardless of their ethnicity.Шаблон:Sfnp When the Qing dynasty annexed Dzungaria in 1759, it was officially proclaimed that the region was "absorbed into China (Dulimbai Gurun)" in a Manchu-language memorial.Шаблон:SfnpШаблон:Sfnp In addition, terms such as "China", the "Chinese Empire", and the "Empire of China" were used as synonyms for the Qing dynasty in international treaties.[29][30][31] For example, the Manchu-language version of the Convention of Kyakhta signed in 1768 with the Russian Empire referred to subjects of the Qing dynasty as "people from the Central Kingdom (Dulimbai Gurun)".Шаблон:Sfnp Likewise, the Manchu–Mongolian–Chinese Interlinear Trilingual Textbook published by the Qing imperial government also referred to the Qing dynasty as "China" (Zhongguo) and claimed the empire as part of the 5000-year-old Chinese civilization.[32] Like its Yuan predecessor, the Qing dynasty also composed the History of Ming to reflect its position as the orthodox successor to the Ming dynasty. A manifestation of the Qing dynasty's self-conception as a legitimate dynasty of China, Qing emperors periodically carried out imperial worships at the Temple of Monarchs of Successive Dynasties in Beijing, where the spiritual tablets of earlier Chinese rulers and officials of both Han and non-Han ethnic origins, including those of the Mongol Empire and Yuan dynasty, were situated. In deciding the list of worshipped individuals, the Qianlong Emperor promoted the idea that the "succession of Chinese (Zhonghua) monarchs" should be understood as an "unbroken lineage reminiscent of a thread", regardless of the ethnicity of the rulers.[33][34] In 1912, in the name of the Xuantong Emperor, the Empress Xiaodingjing issued the Imperial Edict of the Abdication of the Qing Emperor, which provided the legal basis for the Republic of China to inherit all Qing territories and be considered as the sole rightful successor to the Qing dynasty, while simultaneously reaffirming that both the Manchus and Mongols belonged to the Chinese nation.[35][36][37][38]
The view that both dynasties were "non-Chinese" is rejected by mainstream academia, as well as the governments of the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China.[1][2][3] The Historical Atlas of China, one of the most authoritative works on Chinese historical geography, considered both dynasties to be "Chinese" alongside other polities ruled by non-Han ethnicities. As part of their efforts to maintain Chinese historiographical tradition and make known the official position regarding the nature of the Yuan and Qing dynasties, the Republic of China has published the New History of Yuan, the Draft History of Qing, and the History of Qing; whereas the People's Republic of China has also commissioned its version of the History of Qing.
See also
- Chinese historiography
- Han nationalism
- Han chauvinism
- Conquest dynasty
- New Qing History
- Chinese nationalism
- Five Races Under One Union
- Zhonghua minzu
- Civilization state
- Sinicization
- Ethnic groups in Chinese history
- Northern Yuan
- Later Jin (1616–1636)
- Tibetan sovereignty debate
References
Works cited
- ↑ 1,0 1,1 1,2 葉碧苓《九一八事變後中國史學界對日本「滿蒙論」之駁斥—以〈東北史綱〉第一卷為中心之探討》，〈國史館學術集刊〉第11期，2007-03-01，第105-142頁
- ↑ 2,0 2,1 2,2 方修琦，萧凌波，魏柱灯《8～19世纪之交华北平原气候转冷的社会影响及其发生机制》，〈中国科学〉第43卷第5期，2013年
- ↑ 3,0 3,1 3,2 Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ 10,0 10,1 Molly Lortie, 歷史不是站在中國這邊的；藏人行政中央：西藏從來就不是中國的一部分 Шаблон:Webarchive, Tibet Post International, 2015
- ↑ 11,0 11,1 歷史檔案：西藏五十年 Шаблон:Webarchive, BBC中文網, 2001年05月23日
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ 杨芳洲，民族主义只能对外不能对内 Шаблон:Webarchive
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Letter of Öljeitu to Philippe le Bel (1305). Variously interpreted as "真命皇帝天順萬夷之寶", "真命皇帝天順萬事之寶", "真命皇帝和順萬夷之寶", or "真命皇帝至順萬夷之寶". Now in the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting Tibet
- ↑ Treaty of Nanking
- ↑ Burlingame Treaty
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- Английская Википедия
- Страницы с неработающими файловыми ссылками
- Historical controversies in China
- Historiography of China
- Chinese nationalism
- Yuan dynasty
- Qing dynasty
- Страницы, где используется шаблон "Навигационная таблица/Телепорт"
- Страницы с телепортом
- Википедия
- Статья из Википедии
- Статья из Английской Википедии
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}