WI: China stays Divided?

[Socrates]

China fell apart many times, but each time the two main parts, the areas around the Yellow River (Huang He) and the Yangtze, were reunited. Why was this? When the Roman Empire fell apart, there were indeed attempts to reunite it, but after the rise of Islam, the northern and southern shores of the Mediterranean were never again ruled by the same empire. The areas around the two main rivers in China, however, were united, and then again divided and reunited, several times. What explains the fact that it was relatively easy to keep the two areas under the same empire?

The fact that the two river basins in China just have a large lowland plain between them that it's easy to march across, while Europe had major seas and mountain ranges that aren't easy to cross and are much easier to defend from.

 

[Timaeus]

You solve one problem, but not others. Not least the fact that these states still have far more people that are needed to work the land, so there's no need to invest in labour-saving devices so that more land can be farmed by less people. You just add more people.

Population pressure! It's what moved the English! It'll be what moves the alt-Chinese fortunate enough to have coal deposits!

 

[Vingilótë]

The Chinese "language" is actually a bunch of non-mutually-intelligeable languages (not dialects) some of which are possibly not even linguistically-genetically related to the others and the average two are more dissimilar than Russian and Italian are to each other.

This isn't actually how linguistics works; the languages are called Chinese precisely because they belong to the same language family, while Russian and Italian do not (unless you are operating under the impression that Mongolian is considered a dialect of Chinese or something).

 

[scholar]

Some corrections: The Manchu language and its writing system survives, especially here in Xinjiang, in the Xibe minority culture. Basically, the modern Xibe and Manchu minorities in China were classified as separate ethnic groups by the government based primarily on their level of assimilation. The modern Manchus are those who became more like the Han majority, while the Xibe are those who remained culturally distinct through isolation. Of course, by the present day, some Xibe have intermarried or assimilate, and many Manchus are looking to revitalize their traditional culture.

Those who call themselves Tang Ren or Tang People are not ethnic minorities but just Southerners who are officially classified as Han by official sources, especially people from Guangdong. Tang Ren Jie, "Tang People's Street," is a synonym for Chinatown found in foreign countries as many were first settled by immigrants from Guangdong and Fujian.

Southern minorities in China are often more willing to assimilate to get ahead in modern times compared to some other minority groups, and under the "Five Ethnic Groups" model of the Republican period, they were officially lumped in with the Han. It’s possible that some of them call themselves "Tang Ren," but not as a substitute for "Han Ren," as use of "Tang Ren" in southern China predates the modern People’s Republic, and most who use that designation are Han ethnicity.

It may just be because of PRC labeling, but I thought Xibe spoke a distinct dialect from Manchurian and that the last person who actually spoke Manchurian fluently among the Manchurians died off in the 80s or 90s.

My mandarin professor told me that Tangren was used by speakers of Cantonese and Chinese minorities in the south, was this a mistaken impression?

As for the rest, that's my bad.

I assume you found no error in my rough timeline of events in Imperial China?

 

[scholar]

The Chinese "language" is actually a bunch of non-mutually-intelligeable languages (not dialects) some of which are possibly not even linguistically-genetically related to the others and the average two are more dissimilar than Russian and Italian are to each other. The fact that China ever developed a "one nation" mythos in the first place would be ASB if it wasn't for the fact that somehow it happened.

Chinese languages are at times mutually unintelligible when spoken, but they are almost completely identical when written - especially after the simplification of the characters. Cantonese does have some additional characters, and has the lion's share of traditional character use in China because of Hong Kong and Macao in mainland china, but I have been told by people who lived in Southern China that it is not a difficult obstacle to overcome and that, generally, a non-cantonese speaker can get by just with the written word.

 

[scholar]

The fact that the two river basins in China just have a large lowland plain between them that it's easy to march across, while Europe had major seas and mountain ranges that aren't easy to cross and are much easier to defend from.

That's true to an extent, but I would be careful. Sichuan and the Yangtze River had formidable natural defenses that often allowed for Southern Dynasties to resist northern Dynasties, which is what allowed events like the Northern and Southern Dynasties, and the Five Dynasties Ten Kingdoms period to occur. Northern China is a plain, but Southern China is mountainous with river valleys, requiring entirely different military tactics. The often repeated phrase that it is only possible to Conquer Chinese by using the Chinese is because cavalry, which dominates northern china, loses most of its effectiveness in the south and an invading force had to rely on local river navies in order to capture and hold the Yangtze.

 

[Cueg]

Why must language be unified for a nation state to exist? Personally, i think that's a rather biased western perspective on a history that has been filled with multi-cultural/ multi-lingual states. Saying that China wasn't as 'whole' as you want to believe is ignoring some fundamental aspects of Chinese culture. You need not look further then the teachings of Confucius and Shang Yang to understand why the concept of a nation can transcend linguistic barriers. Besides, what difference was there between the administration of China and France under Louis XIV? The systems were both bureaucratic and, in that sense, cut out the middle-man (nobles) between the tax payer and the state. Knowing that administration isn't really all that different in regards to the impact of linguistics there's really one main factor that influenced the end of dynastic China; industrialization.

China has existed as a concept whilst is wasn't even united, much like the Roman Empire in Europe. However, the differences between the two, specifically why one continued to unite while another remained forever divided can be attributed to the institutional strength of China vis a vis Rome. No, the fact that Rome was invaded whereas the Han Dynasty simply collapsed is not a factor worth mentioning because it had very little impact. China proper was invaded and conquered by 'Barbarians' twice yet the concept of China remained. Why? Because Chinese institutions (ex: Confucian Bureaucracy) made a united polity (united in our modern idea of a nation) possible. The Carolingian's had no such institutions and the results are abundantly clear, Rome was divided forever. The Byzantines had their own institutional problems specifically in regards to succession that negated many of the benefits they received through the semi bureaucratic institutions that existed.

After all, asides from industrialization what truly allowed the West to reign supreme? It was its institutions. The only difference between the two is something that again has been mentioned repeatedly throughout this post; industrialization. Industrialization made over-population (in terms of famine) a non-factor. Famine was almost always the beginning of the end for a Chinese dynasty (Mandate of Heaven). I argue that the only true difference between the nation states of the West and dynastic China was, again, industrialization. Linguistics is almost a non-factor. Let me know what you think

 

[Dragos Cel Mare]

After all, asides from industrialization what truly allowed the West to reign supreme? It was its institutions. The only difference between the two is something that again has been mentioned repeatedly throughout this post; industrialization. Industrialization made over-population (in terms of famine) a non-factor. Famine was almost always the beginning of the end for a Chinese dynasty (Mandate of Heaven). I argue that the only true difference between the nation states of the West and dynastic China was, again, industrialization. Linguistics is almost a non-factor. Let me know what you think

Agreed...but one should again remember that Geography does play a factor; North China is one vast plain, and while controlling said vast plain doesn't absolutely guarantee the unification of China from that region (see Jin and Song), it does make it likely (Most other reunifications).

 

[DominusNovus]

This isn't actually how linguistics works; the languages are called Chinese precisely because they belong to the same language family, while Russian and Italian do not (unless you are operating under the impression that Mongolian is considered a dialect of Chinese or something).

Italian and Russian are both Indo-European. Just with different alphabets.

 

[mosodake]

Chinese languages are at times mutually unintelligible when spoken, but they are almost completely identical when written - especially after the simplification of the characters. Cantonese does have some additional characters, and has the lion's share of traditional character use in China because of Hong Kong and Macao in mainland china, but I have been told by people who lived in Southern China that it is not a difficult obstacle to overcome and that, generally, a non-cantonese speaker can get by just with the written word.

I don't know, written Taiwanese seems pretty different from Chinese.
This passage is written in Chinese:
今日從高雄坐新加坡航空班機來新加坡。在機場的時候，飛機差不多慢一個鐘頭才到。因飛機延誤，新加坡航空特別準備一些礦泉水免費招待旅客。聽人家說新加坡航空的服務不錯，的確，從提供礦泉水這件事來看，給我的第一印象很不錯。

And this is the same passage in Taiwanese:
今仔日委高雄坐新加坡航空來新加坡。在機場的時，飛機慢要加一點鐘才到。因為飛機慢到，新加坡航空特別ㄘㄨㄢˇ一ㄍㄨㄚˋ礦泉水給人客飲免錢的。聽人講新加坡航空的服務未醜，確實，委提供礦泉水這件來看，給我的第一印象猶未醜。

They seem no more similar to each other than written Italian is to Spanish. Granted, Taiwanese and other Min languages are extremely divergent from Mandarin, but Chinese characters don't have some magic property where they're able to erase centuries of linguistic evolution. Since people that are literate in their local language are almost certainly literate in Standard Chinese, I'll bet that most people will write using Standard Chinese and mentally translate it rather than attempt to use a writing system that doesn't work all that well let alone have any consensus among speakers which is unfortunately the case for the majority of Chinese languages.

 

[darthfanta]

I don't know, written Taiwanese seems pretty different from Chinese.
This passage is written in Chinese:
今日從高雄坐新加坡航空班機來新加坡。在機場的時候，飛機差不多慢一個鐘頭才到。因飛機延誤，新加坡航空特別準備一些礦泉水免費招待旅客。聽人家說新加坡航空的服務不錯，的確，從提供礦泉水這件事來看，給我的第一印象很不錯。

And this is the same passage in Taiwanese:
今仔日委高雄坐新加坡航空來新加坡。在機場的時，飛機慢要加一點鐘才到。因為飛機慢到，新加坡航空特別ㄘㄨㄢˇ一ㄍㄨㄚˋ礦泉水給人客飲免錢的。聽人講新加坡航空的服務未醜，確實，委提供礦泉水這件來看，給我的第一印象猶未醜。

They seem no more similar to each other than written Italian is to Spanish. Granted, Taiwanese and other Min languages are extremely divergent from Mandarin, but Chinese characters don't have some magic property where they're able to erase centuries of linguistic evolution. Since people that are literate in their local language are almost certainly literate in Standard Chinese, I'll bet that most people will write using Standard Chinese and mentally translate it rather than attempt to use a writing system that doesn't work all that well let alone have any consensus among speakers which is unfortunately the case for the majority of Chinese languages.

Is 'Taiwanese' the just the language used by the natives or is it the language used by the official government and the refugees who fled China in 1949?

 

[mosodake]

Is 'Taiwanese' the just the language used by the natives or is it the language used by the official government and the refugees who fled China in 1949?

Taiwanese is the dialect of Hokkien spoken in Taiwan by about 70% of the population. The language used by the government is Mandarin.

 

[Timaeus]

Is 'Taiwanese' the just the language used by the natives or is it the language used by the official government and the refugees who fled China in 1949?

The natives speak Austronesian languages. At least, they did. But then Zheng Chenggong came, and so did the Qing. And then the remnants of the KMT.

 

[darthfanta]

The natives speak Austronesian languages. At least, they did. But then Zheng Chenggong came, and so did the Qing. And then the remnants of the KMT.

What I meant 'natives' are the Han folks that live in Taiwan before 1949.That group seems to think they are natives compared to the refugees that fled from China in 1949.

 

[ramones1986]

The natives speak Austronesian languages. At least, they did. But then Zheng Chenggong came, and so did the Qing. And then the remnants of the KMT.

What I meant 'natives' are the Han folks that live in Taiwan before 1949.That group seems to think they are natives compared to the refugees that fled from China in 1949.

But would you believe that the Hoklos and Hakkas living in Taiwan's western regions may have an Austronesian ancestor, at least in the southwest?

 

[darthfanta]

But would you believe that the Hoklos and Hakkas living in Taiwan's western regions may have an Austronesian ancestor, at least in the southwest?

My impression was that there was heavy intermarriage between the Han settlers and the Austronesians.

 

[ramones1986]

My impression was that there was heavy intermarriage between the Han settlers and the Austronesians.

...and I think that accelerated the Sinicization of the island's west.

 

[galanx]

Indeed, leading to the situation today where many people who used to call themselves Han are now claiming Aboriginal ancestry- purely as a matter of heritage, and nothing to do with government Affirmative Action programs.

 

[Russian]

and the Russian Empire all believed they were the rightful heir to the Roman Empire.

If Charlemagne, Otto, HRE rulers, and Russian considered themselves heirs to the Roman Empire, that's very different from them considering themselves to be the Roman Empire. That's particularly true for Russians who considered themselves the Third Rome, as opposed to actually being Rome...
for example, the Russians, who shared no major territory with the Roman Empire and spoke languages that weren't even in the same language families as the Romans, and who didn't have a constant history of identifying themselves as Romans.

That's not exactly true about Russia/Russians.
Actually that's false.
That's one of those hard-dyeing myths in the (West)European thought: "The Russians considered themselves heirs to the Roman Empire".

If you are interested I can tell you how is that mentioned in the Russian university history books:
"It's no joke, but there was a Russian guy who insisted that Moscow was the Third Rome. And he even managed to push it that far that couple of the Russian tsars toyed with this idea. And the tiniest layer of the Russian intellectuals shared their proud joy somehow."

You see the overwhelming majority of the Russian population did not know what Rome was, what was the Roman Empire and which is more important in the context - they did not give a flying f..ck.
And when I say 'overwhelming majority' I mean 99,999% of the Russian population.

 

[Napoleonrules]

That's not exactly true about Russia/Russians.
Actually that's false.
That's one of those hard-dyeing myths in the (West)European thought: "The Russians considered themselves heirs to the Roman Empire".

If you are interested I can tell you how is that mentioned in the Russian university history books:
"It's no joke, but there was a Russian guy who insisted that Moscow was the Third Rome. And he even managed to push it that far that couple of the Russian tsars toyed with this idea. And the tiniest layer of the Russian intellectuals shared their proud joy somehow."

You see the overwhelming majority of the Russian population did not know what Rome was, what was the Roman Empire and which is more important in the context - they did not give a flying f..ck.
And when I say 'overwhelming majority' I mean 99,999% of the Russian population.

Way oversimplifying and very insulting that you're basically saying the Russians were ignorant of basic European history. I'm insulted. And think I and Russians everywhere deserve an apology. Your comment was the biggest load of BS. Ivan III married the niece of the last Byzantine Emperor and was the legal heir of the Roman Empire by Roman/Byzantine law. Russians knew Rome.