China's historical grand strategy: defensive or offensive?

N

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
solarz said:
So what is your point exactly? Everything you've claimed so far has been demonstrably false. The PRC did not split "five races" into 56 nationalities. They did not arbitrarily split up the Hui nor did they artificially keep the Han together.
Click to expand...
The PRC "split" the Hui by changing the definition of Hui. In Qing and early Republic, Hui were all the Muslims. In PRC, Hui are just the people who believe in Islam and their mother tongue is Chinese. And you are wrong in claiming that the Hui used to be Han, before PRC redefined them.

Similarly, the PRC redefined what it means to be Manchu.
 
Last edited:
N

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
Continuation to post above.

As far as I could gather, during Qing, the Hui in China proper were governed by the civil bureaucracy. Therefore, they held the same legal category as the Han.
 
Last edited:
PiSigma

PiSigma

"the engineer"
nlalyst said:
What I wrote is that out of the five officially recognized people in the Qing Empire, the PRC subdivided the Hui(Muslim) people into ten separate groups and the Manchu people into six separate people. In total, the number of officialy recognized people grew from 5 in Qing to 56 in PRC.

No, it didn't work like that.

The Manchus (bannermen) were a hereditary military caste, from which non-banner civilians were excluded. Their primary duty was to fight. When they were not soldiering, they were only permitted to serve as officials in the Qing government or to farm. They were strictly barred from engaging in trade and other occupations. They were residentially segregated from the Han and lived in garrisons and "Manchu citiies". They were even restricted to how far they are allowed to venture from their garrison. They were also socially segregated from the Han: they were forbidden to marry Han. Therefore, the status of bannermen was hereditary. And as I already mentioned, they were administered separately from the Han.

What's wrong with made up names? It's a commonly used translation in English language history books for Lifan Yuan. There's are also half a dozen other translations:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
Where did you get Manchu Bannerman is an occupation caste? Show your references! Like I said I'm from a Manchu family, and its total BS. There had been people that worked in government, military, banking, farming and more in my family alone.
 
N

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
PiSigma said:
Where did you get Manchu Bannerman is an occupation caste? Show your references! Like I said I'm from a Manchu family, and its total BS. There had been people that worked in government, military, banking, farming and more in my family alone.
Click to expand...
It's in pretty much every English written history book on Qing China history. The only allowed occupations for the bannermen were military, government and farming, with emphasis on military. Unless you provide some evidence to back up your claims and demonstrate that what your family did in Qing times was the rule and not an exception, I call BS on your generalizations.
 
PiSigma

PiSigma

"the engineer"
nlalyst said:
The PRC "split" the Hui by changing the definition of Hui. In Qing and early Republic, Hui were all the Muslims. In PRC, Hui are just the people who believe in Islam and their mother tongue is Chinese. And you are wrong in claiming that the Hui used to be Han, before PRC redefined them.

Similarly, the PRC redefined what it means to be Manchu.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The Hui are han. When the Qing conquered the ming, the Hui were not an ethnic group and were considered han. Same during Ming, yuan and song. No one cares what their religion was.
 
PiSigma

PiSigma

"the engineer"
nlalyst said:
It's in pretty much every English written history book on Qing China history. The only allowed occupations for the bannermen were military, government and farming, with emphasis on military. Unless you provide some evidence to back up your claims and demonstrate that what your family did in Qing times was the rule and not an exception, I call BS on your generalizations.
Click to expand...
So every English history book on Manchu history is wrong then. I don't read foreign book on Chinese history, because most are either translated or imagined. I only read the original source material.

Feel free to look up the heseri 赫舍里 clan, we are one of the largest clans after the aishigioro. I also have family tree books going back several hundred years on all sides of family (mongol, Manchu, han).

By mid Qing, Manchu and han marriage is pretty common.

My family has been bankers for 7 generations in shaanxi, had land to farm (as land owners) in Hubei for at least 200 years. Several were government officials. And pretty much everything in Hanko's HanZhengJie is owned by my family (like every shop), so a merchant. On the same side we also opened a university that is now part of Huagong, and a lot of them are academics that were sent to France in the late Qing Dynasty for study.

That is only my family.
 
N

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
PiSigma said:
By mid Qing, Manchu and han marriage is pretty common.
Click to expand...
Do you have a proof? My source claims that the marriage was only legalized in mid 19th century and even then the occurrence was low.
PiSigma said:
My family has been bankers for 7 generations in shaanxi, had land to farm (as land owners) in Hubei for at least 200 years. Several were government officials. And pretty much everything in Hanko's HanZhengJie is owned by my family (like every shop), so a merchant. On the same side we also opened a university that is now part of Huagong, and a lot of them are academics that were sent to France in the late Qing Dynasty for study.

That is only my family.
Click to expand...
Yes, very interesting. Also quite exceptional. However, one family's history does not write the history of an entire people.

Listen, we cannot settle this in this manner. You call BS anything I write that contradicts your established viewpoint and dismiss all works of history based on the language they were written in. That basically kills any possibility for dialogue right there.
 
PiSigma

PiSigma

"the engineer"
nlalyst said:
Do you have a proof? My source claims that the marriage was only legalized in mid 19th century and even then the occurrence was low.

Yes, very interesting. Also quite exceptional. However, one family's history does not write the history of an entire people.

Listen, we cannot settle this in this manner. You call BS anything I write that contradicts your established viewpoint and dismiss all works of history based on the language they were written in. That basically kills any possibility for dialogue right there.
Click to expand...
I do have proof, it's my family tree book, got more than half are non Manchu, and it starts in the kangxi era. Most are han in official positions already. People have a lot of concubines and wives.

Noticed the link u gave is a census on a rebellion? There is no census on religion, all census collected are for tax, conscription and levee labour purposes during Qing.

I'm just saying a history book written in English is not exactly first hand history. And often translation of Chinese to other languages are very poor. Add in the misunderstanding and biases of authors especially their projections, most Chinese history written in English are full or errors. I have read a few before and gave up because they are usually very poor.

My clan's history is a good gauge of the entire group I think. We come from one of the largest Manchu clans, so it's like seeing the width and breath of pretty big portion of the Manchu population. The fact that there are people from merchants to empresses from my clan shows that occupation is not limited by family as we're saying in a post above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top