AHC: Smallest possible China

[iori]

Totally disagree. There is too much misconception that Inner Mongolia was Chinese dominated. Untill 1880-1890's Chinese never dominated Greater Mongolia.
With PoD 1792's or even 1850's you can have 60%-70% Mongolian population in Greater Mongolia.
Also Manchuria was barely populated by Chinese.

Han Chinese have lived in parts of Inner Mongolia for a millenia or more while the modern case of the Han being a massive majority started with immigration in the 18th century; the Han made-up the majority by the early 19th century and had surpassed 70% by the late 19th century.

If Manchus imposed only Manchu people settle in Manchuria then you have some 50:50 Manchu-Chinese state. It is hardly today's PRC.

Manchuria was over 70% Manchu well into the 19th century, that only changed after the Chuang Guandong when Manchuria was opened to settlement by non-Manchus.

 

[MonAngel]

Han Chinese have lived in parts of Inner Mongolia for a millenia or more while the modern case of the Han being a massive majority started with immigration in the 18th century; the Han made-up the majority by the early 19th century and had surpassed 70% by the late 19th century

Do you have any credible source and number to back up your claim? I would love to see them.

 

[katchen]

Where does Manchuria start?

Han Chinese have lived in parts of Inner Mongolia for a millenia or more while the modern case of the Han being a massive majority started with immigration in the 18th century; the Han made-up the majority by the early 19th century and had surpassed 70% by the late 19th century.




Manchuria was over 70% Manchu well into the 19th century, that only changed after the Chuang Guandong when Manchuria was opened to settlement by non-Manchus.

Llaoining has been Han Chinese since the Han Dynasty.But Lliaoning was an appendage of China and easily detached when the Chinese State was weak. Lliaoning was ruled by the Khitan Lliao Dynasty during the time of the Northern Sung and by the Jurched Chin Dynasty during the time of the Southern Sung and then by the Mongols all without losing it's Chinese character. And Lliaoning was taken over by the Manchus around 1610 , 30 years before the Manchus invaded China. Lliaoning taught these steppe nomad groups how to administer a Chinese province, preparing them to rule China.
When the Manchus took over China, they set up a "Willow Palisaide" in the north of Lliaoning. To the north of the Willow Palisaide, Chinese were forbidden to settle and the land was reserved for native Manchu. In that way, the Manchu hoped, like the Mongols to prevent themselves from becoming completely absorbed by China and forgetting their identy. So Manchuria proper probably includes only what is now Kirin and Heilongkiang Provinces as well as the area that Russia took from China across the Amur and Ussuri Rivers. Within that area, like you say, the Manchus were a majority. But Chinese would be a majority if we also count densely Han Chinese Lliaoning.

 

[B_Munro]

IMO, smallest China possible is 17th century Ming Dynasty territory minus whole Manchuria and part of Yunnan, Guihzou.
Can Canton state count as different?

How about Yunnan? It was a border region until the 19th century, the bloody Panthay rebellion led by Muslims and other local ethnicities was as late as the 1850s (although more anti-Qing than anti-Chinese) and is still only 2/3 Han nowadays. Guangxi is also only 62% Han - I imagine they were both only superficially sinicized in the 18th century.

Bruce

 

[EternalCynic]

How about Yunnan? It was a border region until the 19th century, the bloody Panthay rebellion led by Muslims and other local ethnicities was as late as the 1850s (although more anti-Qing than anti-Chinese) and is still only 2/3 Han nowadays. Guangxi is also only 62% Han - I imagine they were both only superficially sinicized in the 18th century.

Bruce

The only reason the Zhuang are considered an ethnic minority is because their language is not of the Chinese family. This in turn is because the PRC used Soviet-trained anthropologists who equated ethnicity with language. Prior to that, the Zhuang were never considered "barbarians" any more than their Han-speaking neighbours. The same is true with the vast majority of non-Han ethnicities in the south and southwest of China.

 

[iori]

Do you have any credible source and number to back up your claim? I would love to see them.

That Han Chinese (not a majority, just populations in general) have lived in parts of what is now Inner Mongolia for a very long time and that their was a large, long-term migration into the region starting in the 18th century is part of the historical record.

In regards to numbers, it's a case of reverse historical estimation; we know that their have always been a whole hell of a lot more Han than Mongols and based on that, population censuses and estimates and earliest established ethnic census data we can go back to figure it out; I (nor anyone else for that matter) can't tell you exact numbers, but the general numbers are easy to deduce if you look into it.

That all said I'm talking about the region of what is now Inner Mongolia, if you go back in time to different borders or are defining it differently the results do change as, while the Han are the overwhelming majority of the population, Mongols do actually comprise several local majorities in the region as well.

 

[MonAngel]

That Han Chinese (not a majority, just populations in general) have lived in parts of what is now Inner Mongolia for a very long time and that their was a large, long-term migration into the region starting in the 18th century is part of the historical record.

In regards to numbers, it's a case of reverse historical estimation; we know that their have always been a whole hell of a lot more Han than Mongols and based on that, population censuses and estimates and earliest established ethnic census data we can go back to figure it out; I (nor anyone else for that matter) can't tell you exact numbers, but the general numbers are easy to deduce if you look into it.

That all said I'm talking about the region of what is now Inner Mongolia, if you go back in time to different borders or are defining it differently the results do change as, while the Han are the overwhelming majority of the population, Mongols do actually comprise several local majorities in the region as well.

What region do you referring to? Can you give me specific regions which region Han Chinese settled for millenniums?
Chinese and Mongolians we enemies, so they never tolerated each others.
What I understand and based on limited sources, there wasn't Chinese migration to Mongolian lands due to hostile geography and climate. Also settling inside Mongolian borders were very dangerous as they would raid and kill Chinese (guess why Chinese built Great Wall, enormous structure).
While there was Chinese dissents who escaped to Mongolia it wasn't general Chinese movement.
Early movement of Chinese started, when Altan Khan established OTL Hohhot. Even then it was just selective movement as Mongol nobles needed peasants for cultivation.
The Han Chinese movement started after Qing Dynasty conquered the Mongolia, after movement to Mongolian proper was safe.

Where there is sources and facts that point there was hell of Han Chinese who overwhelmed Mongolians? Or do you think since 2013, 75% of Inner Mongolia is Han Chinese, so was in 1850 and earlier?

Before 1750's Inner Mongolia was what is OTL Inner Mongolia minus North Eastern regions (which was under General of Heilongjiang).
Before 1650, Inner Mongolia included OTL ROC province of Rehe and Liabei as well as Nunbei and little more lands. While

First I thought you have some good sources about Mongolian population during 18th-19th century. I was even glad i finally can find good source, since finding Mongolian population and Inner Mongolian Demographic data is very hard to find.

 

[iori]

What region do you referring to? Can you give me specific regions which region Han Chinese settled for millenniums?

I don't know al of them (many were probably villages that either no longer exist or merged into other units), but the area around Chifeng had Han and pe-Han (that is the peoples who became the Han and related Northern Chiense) settlements, in fact the ruins of the 'oldest Chinese village' are found there.

Aside from that the Han have lived in different areas intermitently for a very long time; over 60,000 Han were settled in what's now the Ordos region in the 3rd century BCE while in the 2nd century BCE separate settlements were established in what is now Bayannur while their were other settlement periods (though AFAIK not as large or extensive) in the same broad region in the 1st and 2nd century CE.

Now, not all of these settlements lasted, however some did, indeed during the Sixteen Kingdoms period some of the Kingdoms in the region were ruled either by Han dynasites or by dynasties with some Han descent.

Chinese and Mongolians we enemies, so they never tolerated each others.
What I understand and based on limited sources, there wasn't Chinese migration to Mongolian lands due to hostile geography and climate.

It's really depended on the time period, however the Mongols and Han generally did'nt go on genocidal campaigns against each other when they gained new lands.

As to geography in climate, again it depends, some parts of Inner Mongolia are conductive to settlement while others are'nt.

Also settling inside Mongolian borders were very dangerous as they would raid and kill Chinese (guess why Chinese built Great Wall, enormous structure).

Actually it was the policy of many Chinese dynasties to settle the border regions with Han to protect the Empire as a while by ensuring loyalty and potential manpower.

Also, the Great Wall was not a single thing, rather it's the result of various different walls built at different times over centuries, usually against different groups.

Where there is sources and facts that point there was hell of Han Chinese who overwhelmed Mongolians? Or do you think since 2013, 75% of Inner Mongolia is Han Chinese, so was in 1850 and earlier?

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Inner Mongolia was large majority Han constantly, but rather that the Han have had a presence there for a very long time and, due to immigration/settlement starting in the 18th century, became the majority in the 19th century and had become a large majority by the late 19th century.

As an aside, the number of Han has actually gradually decreased; while in 2000 the Han comprised 79.2% of the population, back in 1947 they comprised 83.6% of the population; as I've been unable to find comprehensive English language results for the 2010 census I can't say to what degree it's continued.

Before 1750's Inner Mongolia was what is OTL Inner Mongolia minus North Eastern regions (which was under General of Heilongjiang).
Before 1650, Inner Mongolia included OTL ROC province of Rehe and Liabei as well as Nunbei and little more lands.

In the former case then the Han, while still a minority, would've been larger than they would've been with said territory (which was predominantly Mongol and Manchu) while in the latter case it would've had a much larger Han population.

First I thought you have some good sources about Mongolian population during 18th-19th century. I was even glad i finally can find good source, since finding Mongolian population and Inner Mongolian Demographic data is very hard to find.

Unfortunately, as it was'nt really something the Chinese or anyone else in the area cared about at the time their's not really alot in the form of ethnic census data, however I do have a few links that provide base population numbers, and possibly some others that provide more that I've never looked at.

 

[VirginiaHistoryTeacher]

Independent Taiwan, independent Hainan, independent Tibet, independent Uighurstan, independent Manchuria...any people groups that would potentially vie for independence also receive it...somehow.

 

[DominusNovus]

Could Cantonese in Guangdong be independent?

 

[B_Munro]

The only reason the Zhuang are considered an ethnic minority is because their language is not of the Chinese family. This in turn is because the PRC used Soviet-trained anthropologists who equated ethnicity with language. Prior to that, the Zhuang were never considered "barbarians" any more than their Han-speaking neighbours. The same is true with the vast majority of non-Han ethnicities in the south and southwest of China.

I'd like to see some references for this history of long-term mutual identification. It's quite likely that the Zhuang had been so sinicized by 1949 that their identification as non-Chinese was silly, but the relationship between Han and southern tribal and indigenous groups has quite often not been a matter of hearts and flowers, as is normal when a conquering people with a different language move in to your land in large numbers. And European racial/linguistic notions on nationalism have been very successful in creating new nationalisms world-wide.

Bruce

 

[EternalCynic]

Could Cantonese in Guangdong be independent?

Not a chance. If anything, rebellions against foreign-run dynasties tend to be instigated *from* Guangdong and other southern regions. The Cantonese take great pride in the fact their language is closest to the Chinese spoken during the Han and Tang dynasties.

I'd like to see some references for this history of long-term mutual identification. It's quite likely that the Zhuang had been so sinicized by 1949 that their identification as non-Chinese was silly, but the relationship between Han and southern tribal and indigenous groups has quite often not been a matter of hearts and flowers, as is normal when a conquering people with a different language move in to your land in large numbers. And European racial/linguistic notions on nationalism have been very successful in creating new nationalisms world-wide.

Bruce

Rebellions by Hmong peoples persisted well into the late Qing dynasty, but rebellions specifically by Zhuang (and not general anti-government rebellions) have been few to non-existent. In fact, the PRC's attempts to introduce a Romanized script for the indigenous tribes have been almost complete failures. A few tribes in the remotest areas of Yunnan which converted en masse to Christianity have adopted Latin script, though. This suggests while they may not be Han Chinese per se, they identify with the Chinese nation.

 

[RousseauX]

Could Cantonese in Guangdong be independent?

Not really, this is a projection of European style linguistic nationalism/seperatism which doesn't exist in any serious way in China

 

[RousseauX]

Challenge: With a POD after 1792, what is the Smallest possible independent mainland China that isn't a puppet state of another country and isn't carved into spheres of influences?

China proper is going to be Chinese: Russian/Japanese Manchuria, Russian Sinkiang, independent Tibet, Japanese Taiwan/Hainan.

 

[Binky the Clown]

One idea that springs to mind is having the Soviet Union turn Manchuria and East Turkestan into puppets, while Tibet is granted diplomatic recognition by Britain/India no later than 1948. Having Tibet, Manchuria and East Turkestan as independent nations would give you a China that looks something like this:

 

[EternalCynic]

One idea that springs to mind is having the Soviet Union turn Manchuria and East Turkestan into puppets, while Tibet is granted diplomatic recognition by Britain/India no later than 1948. Having Tibet, Manchuria and East Turkestan as independent nations would give you a China that looks something like this:

Manchuria cannot be more than a Soviet puppet state and will collapse like the GDR immediately after the Cold War. Xinjiang can become a Soviet puppet (the northern part annexed into the Kazakh SSR and the southern part becoming a Turkestan People's Republic) and survive the Cold War.

If the KMT wins the civil war I don't see Britain or India recognizing Tibet as an independent state. It would needlessly antagonize a crucial ally of the west during the Cold War, and, worse, be vulnerable to the Soviets in the north.

 

[LtNOWIS]

A Soviet collapse is by no means assured, given this early of a POD.

 

[mosodake]

The only reason the Zhuang are considered an ethnic minority is because their language is not of the Chinese family. This in turn is because the PRC used Soviet-trained anthropologists who equated ethnicity with language. Prior to that, the Zhuang were never considered "barbarians" any more than their Han-speaking neighbours. The same is true with the vast majority of non-Han ethnicities in the south and southwest of China.

That's rather ironic since the Zhuang are a group of ethnically similar peoples that speak languages that are only distantly related. If they really equated ethnicity with language, then the rest of the Tai speaking peoples should have been included as well. The Zhuang languages are polyphyletic. A classification that manages to group together all the Zhuang languages would encompass the rest of the Tai languages.

This suggests while they may not be Han Chinese per se, they identify with the Chinese nation.

I think it suggests that they'd rather use writing systems of their own devising/modification rather than ones created by the government. The Yi use their own writing system, and the Miao/Hmong/Mien most often use the Pollard writing system. Those that use Chinese characters often distinguish between the characters used to write their languages and written Chinese even though the characters can be identical.

 

[EternalCynic]

That's rather ironic since the Zhuang are a group of ethnically similar peoples that speak languages that are only distantly related. If they really equated ethnicity with language, then the rest of the Tai speaking peoples should have been included as well. The Zhuang languages are polyphyletic. A classification that manages to group together all the Zhuang languages would encompass the rest of the Tai languages.

The distinction between these groups is rather arbitrary. The Bouyei people are another Tai-speaking people, who merely because they live in Guizhou are officially separate from the Zhuang. Immediately across the Vietnamese border, four Tai-speaking ethnic groups are officially recognized (including the Bouyei, who according to China don't exist in Guangxi), even though both Chinese and Vietnamese anthropologists studied side-by-side in Moscow.

Meanwhile, the Dai people in far southern Yunnan speak a language almost identical to Lao, and are firmly in the Thai cultural sphere. When the PRC government formed the Dai Autonomous Prefecture in 1953, the US State Department went berserk and claimed it's part of a Communist Plot to take over Thailand. I'm not making this up.

I think it suggests that they'd rather use writing systems of their own devising/modification rather than ones created by the government. The Yi use their own writing system, and the Miao/Hmong/Mien most often use the Pollard writing system. Those that use Chinese characters often distinguish between the characters used to write their languages and written Chinese even though the characters can be identical.

Every Chinese dialect does the same practice, often by adding a little radical next to the character the word sounds like. In any case, the noticeable lack of tribal rebellions in southwestern China as opposed to Burma, Laos, Northeast India, and Vietnam does suggest an identification with the Chinese nation. Hence, no possibility of Guangxi or Yunnan separating out of different identities.

 

[mosodake]

The distinction between these groups is rather arbitrary. The Bouyei people are another Tai-speaking people, who merely because they live in Guizhou are officially separate from the Zhuang. Immediately across the Vietnamese border, four Tai-speaking ethnic groups are officially recognized (including the Bouyei, who according to China don't exist in Guangxi), even though both Chinese and Vietnamese anthropologists studied side-by-side in Moscow.

Meanwhile, the Dai people in far southern Yunnan speak a language almost identical to Lao, and are firmly in the Thai cultural sphere. When the PRC government formed the Dai Autonomous Prefecture in 1953, the US State Department went berserk and claimed it's part of a Communist Plot to take over Thailand. I'm not making this up.

The ethnic categorization system in China is a mess. Any idea if they're doing anything to fix it?

Every Chinese dialect does the same practice, often by adding a little radical next to the character the word sounds like. In any case, the noticeable lack of tribal rebellions in southwestern China as opposed to Burma, Laos, Northeast India, and Vietnam does suggest an identification with the Chinese nation. Hence, no possibility of Guangxi or Yunnan separating out of different identities.

What I meant was that many of the ethnic groups have separate names for Chinese characters used to write Chinese and Chinese characters used to write their own languages. For example, the Zhuang call their Chinese character based writing system Sawndip, while written Chinese is called Sawgun. It's rather different than non-Mandarin Chinese languages written with Chinese characters.