WI: Culturally Diverse China

[Gloss]

The idea of a Han ethnicity is a 20th century construct invented by Sun Yat Sen. The reason for the "five races in one nation" excercise was for nation building purposes, China didn't exist under a nation state basis before the revolution. In fact, before the idea of Han ethnicity became wide spread, China was incredibly ethnically diverse. The process of Sinification was not ethno-cultural but a civilising mission with a philosophical bent. To thinkers like Confucius or even Han Fei all people were equal under heaven, it was merely the misfortune of those outside The Middle Kingdom to be without the guidance of a sage ruler. Of course, even in China the notion of sage king eventually corrupted from a public spirited civil servant to absolute monarch. Tangent aside, barbarian in the Chinese lexicon has a completely different meaning to the same term derived from the Greeks. Essentially, all under heaven (being the polity we call imperial China) are equal; thus, ethnic distinctions are irrelevant.

China was and still is more ethnically diverse than it lets on. It was the concept of all under heaven and non majority rule that kept ethnic divisions from destroying the empire.

Is basically like being Muslim or Christian? In a sense?

 

[Joshuapooleanox]

My Turkish friend Can once told me that there is nothing you can not do
... I'm kidding

He actually said that the Timurids planned to invade China with an army of 100,000 but he died before.

What if the southern China area became a new homeland for the Turkish people?

 

[Deleted member 94708]

The idea of a Han ethnicity is a 20th century construct invented by Sun Yat Sen. The reason for the "five races in one nation" excercise was for nation building purposes, China didn't exist under a nation state basis before the revolution. In fact, before the idea of Han ethnicity became wide spread, China was incredibly ethnically diverse. The process of Sinification was not ethno-cultural but a civilising mission with a philosophical bent. To thinkers like Confucius or even Han Fei all people were equal under heaven, it was merely the misfortune of those outside The Middle Kingdom to be without the guidance of a sage ruler. Of course, even in China the notion of sage king eventually corrupted from a public spirited civil servant to absolute monarch. Tangent aside, barbarian in the Chinese lexicon has a completely different meaning to the same term derived from the Greeks. Essentially, all under heaven (being the polity we call imperial China) are equal; thus, ethnic distinctions are irrelevant.

China was and still is more ethnically diverse than it lets on. It was the concept of all under heaven and non majority rule that kept ethnic divisions from destroying the empire.

This. In my zeal to explain the incredible diversity present within the Han ethnicity, I completely left out why it exists, and that reason, as @dissatisfieduser points out, is that the entire category is an artificial creation, defined negatively as " not Manchu, nor Hui, not Miao, etc."

 

[Lampiao]

Aren't the Chinese characters an important factor in this sense of internal unity? All ethnicities can communicate with the same characters with no to little change. If China adopts the Arabic or Roman scripts they'd need different writing systems for the various Chinese languages, this would probably increase the self-awareness of the Non-Han peoples.

 

[dissatisfieduser]

Is basically like being Muslim or Christian? In a sense?

I haven't studied Islam well enough to discuss parallels but I can regarding Christendom. The concept of Christiandom was that all those who accept the word of Jesus are equal beneath the eyes of God. This, in a secular sense, meant that Christian polities of the medieval era were technically part of a single nation since the separation of church and state was not manifest. Christendom is a sort of not really parallel of the all under heaven concept.

I made a mistake in my post bey saying the all under heaven applied to only the China polity. The way the philosophy is worded, all under heaven actually applies to everyone who exists on earth: this is the reason behind the existence of Chinese tributary states and their relationship with the emperor. In a way, since the emperor of China technically lays claim to all of mankind, I personally think that a better renaming of The Middle Kingdom would be "The Empire of Man".

Thanks Americaninbeijing for the shoutout.

 

[XFE]

This is really not what I am most knowledgable in, so I'd be really happy if anyone could enlighten me.
Wasn't there always the Hua-Yi distinction that even Confucius pointed out in his teachings? Yes, Hans are a modern construct, but isn't it just an extension of the same concept?
Thanks in advance for any awnsers.

 

[dissatisfieduser]

This is really not what I am most knowledgable in, so I'd be really happy if anyone could enlighten me.
Wasn't there always the Hua-Yi distinction that even Confucius pointed out in his teachings? Yes, Hans are a modern construct, but isn't it just an extension of the same concept?
Thanks in advance for any awnsers.

The key to the distinction lies in the idea that barbarians can become civilised. With regards to the contemporaneous Greeks, their attitude towards barbarians were that they were of sub-human capability unable to even become like the Greeks. For the Chinese, outsiders could be taught to act like the Chinese and thus become civilised. It was this attitude which perhaps caused invaders and usurpers of the celestial throne to eventually Sinify.

 

[XFE]

My Turkish friend Can once told me that there is nothing you can not do
... I'm kidding

He actually said that the Timurids planned to invade China with an army of 100,000 but he died before.

What if the southern China area became a new homeland for the Turkish people?

Northern China as a Turkish homeland would make more sense. The Turks already had a presence in China, Mongolia and Xinjiang in particular since the Jìn and the Rebellion of the Five Hus. But again, Hannification is a thing, as seen in the numerous Hannified Turkic Dynasties during the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms.

The key to the distinction lies in the idea that barbarians can become civilised. With regards to the contemporaneous Greeks, their attitude towards barbarians were that they were of sub-human capability unable to even become like the Greeks. For the Chinese, outsiders could be taught to act like the Chinese and thus become civilised. It was this attitude which perhaps caused invaders and usurpers of the celestial throne to eventually Sinify.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does that mean Han is a modern, much more racist interpretation of Huaxia?

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Northern China as a Turkish homeland would make more sense. The Turks already had a presence in China, Mongolia and Xinjiang in particular since the Jìn and the Rebellion of the Five Hus. But again, Hannification is a thing

Well, Romanisation was also a thing, but the Turks flat out prevented that. Same (to an extent) with Persianisation.

But I won't lie, the idea of the Turks going to North China instead of Persia/Anatolia is an interesting PoD.

Perhaps we could see a Gokturk power invade during the reign of Yang of Sui? He was meant to be a pretty lousy ruler who had major rebellions. Riding in and conquering Northern China at that point could be devestating. Heh, Turks on the North China Plain. I could dig it.

 

[Joshuapooleanox]

Well, Romanisation was also a thing, but the Turks flat out prevented that. Same (to an extent) with Persianisation.

But I won't lie, the idea of the Turks going to North China instead of Persia/Anatolia is an interesting PoD.

Perhaps we could see a Gokturk power invade during the reign of Yang of Sui? He was meant to be a pretty lousy ruler who had major rebellions. Riding in and conquering Northern China at that point could be devestating. Heh, Turks on the North China Plain. I could dig it.

Also means Byzantines don't die. Which itself is huge.

 

[dissatisfieduser]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does that mean Han is a modern, much more racist interpretation of Huaxia?

That's pretty much what it is. Democracies rely on majorities to maintain their legitimacy by appealing to the whims of that majority. Sun Yat Sen wanted to create a democracy along American lines, which meant forging some sort of political majority out of shared commonality, that being Han.

 

[XFE]

Also means Byzantines don't die. Which itself is huge.

Eh...butterflies

 

[Joshuapooleanox]

Eh...butterflies

Butterflies that carry the wings of BYZANTIUM. GLORY TO THE BASILIEUS!

 

[Deleted member 94708]

The key to the distinction lies in the idea that barbarians can become civilised. With regards to the contemporaneous Greeks, their attitude towards barbarians were that they were of sub-human capability unable to even become like the Greeks. For the Chinese, outsiders could be taught to act like the Chinese and thus become civilised. It was this attitude which perhaps caused invaders and usurpers of the celestial throne to eventually Sinify.

The Chinese attitude towards the "barbarian" peoples on its frontiers vacillated between "THREAT!" and disdain/pity depending on how Sinified said peoples were and how well the latest dynasty's "Northern Frontier Barbarian Management Program (TM)" was going. That attitude, before modern times, never reached the proto-racism embodied by the Greek barbaros, in which the barbarian was so inferior as to be unable to become civilized.

I've seen two etymological explanations for the Chinese yeren (野人), which we traditionally translate into English as "barbarian". The first is "People from beyond the borders (of civilization); the second is "people of the earth". I cannot speak to which is more accurate in the original sense but both get a similar point across. I generally despise China-Rome analogies and avoid them like the plague but in this instance the Chinese concept of "barbarism" is generally compatible with the Roman one; in either case, through training, exposure, and proper behavior, a barbarian can transcend that status. In Rome, he could become a Roman citizen with all the rights and responsibilities of one born in the Eternal City itself; in China, a person could become Chinese, and whole nations could rise to a level of civilization very near to that of China itself as did Korea.

As for the Sinification of conquering peoples, insofar as I can tell, the attitude of the Chinese bureaucracy towards new ruling dynasties from outside China was that they would in the fullness of time become Chinese, their own customs and habits washed away by, or at least diluted in, the habits of the sea of Chinese over which they ruled. At no point did the bureaucratic establishment seem to have panicked and felt the need for a revolt, though the military establishment did so on occasion. The peasantry was generally less sanguine, as the dynamism of new rulers generally took the form of interfering in their lives more than end-stage "decadent" dynasties had done, but my reading of history suggests that this happened even when a "native" Chinese dynasty overthrew an "outsider" dynasty that had decayed. Certainly, the early Ming experienced no less chaos than the early Qing did.

It's also interesting that the Chinese policy for maintaining the security of their northern frontier, which was the central concern of every dynasty from the Sui to the Ming except the Yuan itself, rested on the principle of using the more sinified "barbarian" tribes to beat the crap out of the less Sinified ones without really ever raising arms themselves insofar as possible, then bribing all involved with wealth and a show of China's superior civilization. This policy seemed to have worked well so long as China's government was able to extract sufficient tax revenue from the truly massive economy under its control to pay for the necessary bribes, diplomatic visits, and armies. And so long as demographic and climatic factors didn't cause the barbarians to unify into tribal federations, which was apparently what produced the Jin, Mongol, and Manchu invasions.

 

[Green Painting]

As others have point out, the Han Chinese ethnicity is diverse enough. Provincial differences can sometimes be as profound as national differences in Europe.

But I guess what you want is to make the entire realm of China retaining its original culture and identity as it was before Sinicization. Then their are a series of PoDs (list partial) ：

1. Peripheral states, like Zhongshan, Chu, Yue and Wu should avoid participating in the Warring States contentions.
2. Qin conquest of Baiyue should not happen.
3. Han Wudi should not send expeditions to Yelang, Liaodong, Nanyue and Western Realms.
4. The Southward movement of Central Plain's population after Western Jin's collapse should not take place.
5. The Xianbei chose to stay their own way, other than to adopt Chinese customs and identity
6. The Tang shall not send Wang Shenzhi to Fujian.
7. An Lushan Rebellion did not spark a Southward Movement of population similar to that of the Jin.
8. The Khitans resisted the temptations of Chinese primogeniture, and insists on electing the Qaghan through a tribal council.
9. The Jurchens burnt the Song Dynasty's books and astronomical equipment rather than trying to immulate them.
   
10. Khublai Khan chose to ignore his Chinese advisors and generals, and to take on the legitimate Qaghan Ariq Boke on his own.
    
11. Khublai Khan did not conquer Dali, and Yunnan was not a Yuan stronghold that the Ming had to take by force.
12. The Ming did not engage in one war after another against the Miao.
    
13. The Ming did not set up a Tusi system (local chieftain) in Yunnan and Guangxi, and the Qing did not change this system of local chieftains to one of bureaucrats (Gaituguiliu)
14. The Qing chose not to quell the Muslim rebellions in Shaanxi and Xinjiang.
15. The ROC did not choose one of the dialects as the National Language, and the PRC did not zealously enforce the language with the help of media and the education system.
16. We then have a British Right Honorable Eastern Asia Company conquering the OTL China, which lumps together people with no shared experience together under one regime. At its downfall, the regime classified Hakkas, Hokkiens, Cantonese, Shanghainese and other Wu-speakers, Jin and Various types of Mandarins-speakers as different races, and hope that they could somehow work together as a confederacy.

The making of China was a gradual process that took millennia. It often happened because Non-Hans consider it's of their own best interest to Sinicize, to outmaneuver their once competitors of the same race, or because their chieftain was lured by the material wealth of China. Still other nations Sinicised in order to resist Chinese domination, much like how 19th century small nations imitate the Europeans and Americans political systems and cultural customs to avoid Colonization.

 

[RousseauX]

In current times, the Han-speaking peoples are the largest entnic group in the world. For most of its history, what we know as the Chinese civilization, despite having many ethnic groups, has been dominated by the culture and language of the civilization of Zhongyuan, the Northern China Plain. However, in history, there were many other cultures in what now we consider China, including the Baiyue and of course those who live in the periphery of China proper, like Tibetans, Mongols, that did not have Chinese languages and customs. These have been, for the most part, sincinized. Could those cultures avoid sinification and build their own states and empires? What would be the butterflies of a China disunited in culture and politics?

There is no such thing as a Han language, Mandarin was imposed on the country over thousands of regional dialects by the KMT and the Communists in the middle of the 20th century

If you didn't have this 60 years ago China would have a big diversity in languages nowadays

 

[Deleted member 94708]

There is no such thing as a Han language, Mandarin was imposed on the country over thousands of regional dialects by the KMT and the Communists in the middle of the 20th century

If you didn't have this 60 years ago China would have a big diversity in languages nowadays

That's... an oversimplification at best. Something like 70% of the country already spoke dialects of Mandarin; in 1945 someone from Hubei or Sichuan could speak to someone from Liaoning using the language they spoke at home and achieve 95% or better intelligibility.

I only speak Standard Mandarin but even as a non-native speaker I can understand the dialects spoken through most of Hebei, Henan, Hubei, Sichuan, Guizhou, and both Shanxi's with minimal to moderate effort. I would assume the same holds true for Shandong, Hunan, and Liaoning but am not sure. The dialects of the Mandarin heartland are more mutually intelligible than are Spanish and Portuguese.

 

[Zhou Yu]

There is no such thing as a Han language, Mandarin was imposed on the country over thousands of regional dialects by the KMT and the Communists in the middle of the 20th century

If you didn't have this 60 years ago China would have a big diversity in languages nowadays

That's... an oversimplification at best. Something like 70% of the country already spoke dialects of Mandarin; in 1945 someone from Hubei or Sichuan could speak to someone from Liaoning using the language they spoke at home and achieve 95% or better intelligibility.

I only speak Standard Mandarin but even as a non-native speaker I can understand the dialects spoken through most of Hebei, Henan, Hubei, Sichuan, Guizhou, and both Shanxi's with minimal to moderate effort. I would assume the same holds true for Shandong, Hunan, and Liaoning but am not sure. The dialects of the Mandarin heartland are more mutually intelligible than are Spanish and Portuguese.

Although the KMT and CCP were crucial in spreading the Beijing Dialect of Mandarin throughout China, Mandarin, as AmericaninBeijing has stated, was already in common use. Dialects of Mandarin can differ greatly depending on where you are in China, and it's the propagation of the Beijing dialect as a common tongue that's being done by the KMT/CCP.

AmericanInBeijing, could you consider Mandarin Chinese, as a whole, similar to German in how it has many differing dialects, with a standardized form propagated from the capital?

 

[Deleted member 94708]

AmericanInBeijing, could you consider Mandarin Chinese, as a whole, similar to German in how it has many differing dialects, with a standardized form propagated from the capital?

The analogy works, I think, though German is much further along in the process and had no languages occupying a position analogous to Cantonese, Shanghainese or Fujianese. There's also the point that German had and has perhaps 100 million speakers worldwide while Chinese has 1.4 billion or more while Cantonese, Shanghainese, and Fujianese alone have 100, 80, and 70 million respectively. This gives them an inertia that the smaller German dialects did not have once the political independence of their regions ended.

 

[ManintheField]

The key to the distinction lies in the idea that barbarians can become civilised. With regards to the contemporaneous Greeks, their attitude towards barbarians were that they were of sub-human capability unable to even become like the Greeks.

Regardless of high brow attitudes, though, they could and they did. The Greek culture spread immensely over the course of the 1st millennium BC and not just purely from Greek colonization. I think the two attitudes have more in common than you think.