There is a theory—I'm not sure who's or where—that the concept of "Han" (Han-ness?) was really invented and injected into China's political genome by the Mongols. After the final defeat of the Southern Song in 1279, Kubilai Khan allowed employment of former subjects of the Jin Dynasty in northern China [Jurchens, but also people we would call "ethnic Chinese"—but before there was a term for it] as well as Uyghurs and other peoples who had accepted Mongol overlordship (or been conquered earlier), and of course Europeans (Marco Polo) in government work, but that former subjects of the Southern Song dynasty, referred to in official Yuan documents as "Han"—were banned, and that this was the origin of use of the word to define what would become an ethnic grouping.
I used to have some notes on this, but my China history library has been in storage in California for decades, and is about to be discarded anyway. But it seems consistent with the casual attitude toward ethnicity apparent during the Tang — some argue that the dynastic ruling family (Li) were actually Xianbei (descendants of a proto-Mongolic nomadic people who probably also carried Xioungnu and Turkic genets). An Lushan was of Sogdian and Göktürk origin, and other Tang aristocratic families apparently were of similarly mixed and exotic central Asian extraction.
The paper or article I read goes on to say that pro-Han consciousness and policies were essentially invented during the Ming, fed by the extended and violent military struggle to defeat and displace the Mongol Yuan dynasty and its non-Mongol allies.
It also feels consistent with the unique way that Nurhaci was able to use language and other symbolic features to unify the Jurchens of Jianzhou as the basis of the Manchu state, and the success of the Qianlong Emperor (r. 1735-1796)in exploiting Manchu ethnicity (and Tibetan Buddhism) in the successful expansion of the Manchu Qing Dynasty into Xinjiang, Ili and Tibet and maintenance of Qing control over those non-Chinese territories.
Fascinating. But now I'm distracted by the thought of your Chinese history library being discarded! That pains me. Where in California? (I'm in Berkeley).
Fascinating. But how is the author on Tibet and Tibetans?
Whenever I encounter Chinese nationalist fulminating about the crimes and excesses of the early Manchu emperors Kangxi and Qianlong, I want to ask "But you're OK with the territories occupied by non-Chinese peoples they conquered and colonized." From that point, the conversation never really seems to improve. But it's worth noting that the island of Formosa/Taiwan was never an administered part of Ming China and is not given as Chinese territory on any Ming maps. Even in late late Ming, it appears that the population was almost entirely Indigenous Austronesians (山地人), as they were referred to by Taiwanese friends back in the 1970s.
It appears that the earliest date that a Qing claim to Taiwan can be made would be the defeat of Zheng Keshuang, the third and last ruler of the Ming loyalist Kingdom of Tangling in Taiwan, in 1683. A Taiwan “prefecture” of Fujian Province was established under the Kangxi emperor the following year. That only lasted, of course, until 1885, when the Qing (still holding ostensible sovereign over the island) ceded the islands of Taiwan and Penh to Japan under the terms of the Treaty of Shimonoseki. Still, I guess you could say it was sort of part of China for 202 years.
i don't know Jin Yong's attitude towards Tibet. the funny thing about researching this piece was that I only reviewed analysis that was tightly focused on his first novel, because I wanted to avoid spoilers for the novels that I haven't read. I do know that that are some Tibetan lama characters in a series set at the end of the Southern Song, but I'm not sure there's much there that's relevant to later developments.
Long Beach. But I shouldn't have mentioned it. Getting it would be complicated. There's nothing that valuable or essential.
There is a theory—I'm not sure who's or where—that the concept of "Han" (Han-ness?) was really invented and injected into China's political genome by the Mongols. After the final defeat of the Southern Song in 1279, Kubilai Khan allowed employment of former subjects of the Jin Dynasty in northern China [Jurchens, but also people we would call "ethnic Chinese"—but before there was a term for it] as well as Uyghurs and other peoples who had accepted Mongol overlordship (or been conquered earlier), and of course Europeans (Marco Polo) in government work, but that former subjects of the Southern Song dynasty, referred to in official Yuan documents as "Han"—were banned, and that this was the origin of use of the word to define what would become an ethnic grouping.
I used to have some notes on this, but my China history library has been in storage in California for decades, and is about to be discarded anyway. But it seems consistent with the casual attitude toward ethnicity apparent during the Tang — some argue that the dynastic ruling family (Li) were actually Xianbei (descendants of a proto-Mongolic nomadic people who probably also carried Xioungnu and Turkic genets). An Lushan was of Sogdian and Göktürk origin, and other Tang aristocratic families apparently were of similarly mixed and exotic central Asian extraction.
The paper or article I read goes on to say that pro-Han consciousness and policies were essentially invented during the Ming, fed by the extended and violent military struggle to defeat and displace the Mongol Yuan dynasty and its non-Mongol allies.
It also feels consistent with the unique way that Nurhaci was able to use language and other symbolic features to unify the Jurchens of Jianzhou as the basis of the Manchu state, and the success of the Qianlong Emperor (r. 1735-1796)in exploiting Manchu ethnicity (and Tibetan Buddhism) in the successful expansion of the Manchu Qing Dynasty into Xinjiang, Ili and Tibet and maintenance of Qing control over those non-Chinese territories.
Fascinating. But now I'm distracted by the thought of your Chinese history library being discarded! That pains me. Where in California? (I'm in Berkeley).
Great story.
Fascinating. But how is the author on Tibet and Tibetans?
Whenever I encounter Chinese nationalist fulminating about the crimes and excesses of the early Manchu emperors Kangxi and Qianlong, I want to ask "But you're OK with the territories occupied by non-Chinese peoples they conquered and colonized." From that point, the conversation never really seems to improve. But it's worth noting that the island of Formosa/Taiwan was never an administered part of Ming China and is not given as Chinese territory on any Ming maps. Even in late late Ming, it appears that the population was almost entirely Indigenous Austronesians (山地人), as they were referred to by Taiwanese friends back in the 1970s.
It appears that the earliest date that a Qing claim to Taiwan can be made would be the defeat of Zheng Keshuang, the third and last ruler of the Ming loyalist Kingdom of Tangling in Taiwan, in 1683. A Taiwan “prefecture” of Fujian Province was established under the Kangxi emperor the following year. That only lasted, of course, until 1885, when the Qing (still holding ostensible sovereign over the island) ceded the islands of Taiwan and Penh to Japan under the terms of the Treaty of Shimonoseki. Still, I guess you could say it was sort of part of China for 202 years.
i don't know Jin Yong's attitude towards Tibet. the funny thing about researching this piece was that I only reviewed analysis that was tightly focused on his first novel, because I wanted to avoid spoilers for the novels that I haven't read. I do know that that are some Tibetan lama characters in a series set at the end of the Southern Song, but I'm not sure there's much there that's relevant to later developments.