Originally Posted by darthfanta
Massive difference between Tang and Qing. The Tang rulers readily identified themselves as Han(despite their ancestry) while the Qing rulers prided themselves as being Manchu as opposed to being Han.There were laws against Manchu-Han intermarriage(more specifically barring Han men from marrying Manchu women)and the Manchu had separate living areas(the inner city of Beijing for example was specifically reserved for Manchus).In the Tang Dynasty,the aristocracy wasn't as institutionalised as the Manchu was as a ruling class.The don't have legal privileges for example. The Manchus on the other had were legally exempt from multiple punishments for crimes(for the same crime,a Han could be exiled while the Manchu would be sentenced to wearing a large collar for sixty days only).
If brought to court,a Manchu's word worth more than a Han's.The Manchus dominated the government posts.All Manchus were accorded monthly stipends from the government using taxes gained from the Han while in the Tang Dynasty,an aristocrat only gained revenue from the land they personally owned.Besides,Wu Zetian's rule essentially broke the aristocracy.By her time,the aristocracy no longer dominated government posts.
disagree with that. Tang nobility do have legal privileges. the most important is they can send their sons to imperial court at higher grade from the start. And higher ranking official is treated way better in the court and in the law.
Also Tang hereditary military population also treated separately from civilian populace. They have different rights and duties.
the identification of "Manchu" and "Han" is 18/19th century phenomena brought because influence of Europe. if Manchu have no contact with Europe, historian would think of noble class and hereditary soldier class (eight banners).
i think the 'alien-ness' of Manchu is product of european nationalism, and used as propaganda. Qing distance from its people is not that different from other "native" dynasty. Other dynasty also practiced "apartheid" to their noble and hereditary soldier.
Originally Posted by RousseauX
China in the 19th century was a multicultural state.
Back then, there was no nationally spoken language: Mandarin as spoken today is a creation of the KMT and the CCP out of the Beijing dialect in the mid-20th century to foster national unity. The Han national identity wasn't all that strong mid-19th century relative to today.
The success of the Chinese nation building project in the 20th century really made people forgot how fragmented China was in pre-modern times, and that the Han Chinese identity could have easily gone the way of the Arab identity. Had the Qing done worse China today could have fractured into a dozen independent states: with some vague pan-Chinese reunification movement in the same way there was/is a vague pan-Arabic reunification movement.
Agree with this. Its historical incident that German/Huaxia/Han/Turkey/India/Indonesia become recognized as "nation". while Bavarian/Hessian/Hunan/Sichuanese/Islamic Ottomanism etc failed.
Qing could very well due to butterfly in history ended like modern India, with Manchu noble and soldier absorbed into Huaxia. or they could splinter into several independent state, like Arabs (unlikely, but can happen).
"Nation" is build in 17-18-19 century. It is not fixed concept, it imagined community, who principle of "clap your hand if you believe" apply. If enough people believe themselves some nation : YugoSlavs, Serbs,Han, Germany, Bavarian etc then that nation sprout into existence.
the Eight Banner and Qing nobility is not that different from Hakka or other Han subgroups, in different history they could very well included in Han/Huaxia nation.