Qing was not an apartheid state. Sure, the Manchus (and the Mongols to a lesser extent) were privileged, but as foreign commentators noted the Chinese civilization weathered the few decades of conquest just fine. Indeed it prospered.At the very least,Ming wasn't an apartheid state.Haijin wasn't as severe as the Qing.
Corruption in the central government was hardly as bad as conditions under the persistent eunuch dictator phenomenon under the Ming.Corruption rose to new heights during the Qing dynasty(must admit though that it was also pretty high during the Ming Dynasty,which led to the fall of Ming).
Which even the Song had.There were literary inquisitions.
Ming began the Haijin, first of all, and contrary to what xenophobia would entail the Qing were the first dynasty since centuries that broke China's "natural borders" that the Ming believed in, such as annexing that "little ball of mud" called Taiwan. It's not as if the gates of China were wide open before the Qing. Not to mention that a lot of areas that flourished under the Qing, such as Sino-Islamic philosophy, wouldn't really square in with xenophobia.It was a highly xenophobic regime,even more so than the Ming.
10GCs were successes in all except Burma and Vietnam. Xinjiang #3 and Taiwan were not "minor rebellions." Jinchuan #2 was a real conquest, both political and cultural, in that the Gyalrongwa (the Jinchuan people to the Chinese) were effectively outside the purview of both the Chinese state and Tibetan Buddhism prior to the campaign. Nepal was important for the security of Tibet, which is crucial to control of Inner Asia. And so on. Yes, the Qianlong reign has been overrated, but it was similar to the Yongle reign in a lot of areas. In any case Aisin Gioro Hongli was a better ruler than all the Ming emperors except maybe two or three.Qianlong was completely overrated,and pretty much squandered the treasury on a series of unsuccessful wars as well as on personal luxury.Called himself the Old Man of Ten Completed Campaigns when in fact he only won two real wars while the rests were either minor rebellions or outright defeats.Rejected trade relations with Britain and thought very little of British goods.Tolerated excessive corruption.He was basically the beginning of the end.
For your assessments of the Qing between 1799 and 1911, I would simply note that even if Qing China was bad for around a century, there were no good emperors after Ming Xuanzong, which makes two centuries of mediocre or worse rulers. Plus the Qing faced graver external pressures throughout the later 19th century than the Ming did for most of the time between the end of the Oirat problem and the rise of the Jurchen problem.