Chinese adaptability

After the Han Dynasty consolidated the Qin unification by developing administration apparatus to govern the new empire, "unity of China" has been the cultural theme of China, despite the nation expanding and disintegrating several times. As the opening passage of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms says,

>Domains under heaven long united must divide, long divided must unite. This has been so since antiquity.

Even when dynasties fell apart, there was always a deep seated cultural expectation that somebody would end up controlling the whole thing again, and they all identified as Chinese though separated. Unlike the fall of the Western Roman Empire, where the barbarians never really became Roman.

Another cultural theme of China is its ability to absorb foreign cultures and making them Chinese. This is how China got its cavalry (from the Xiongnu or proto-Mongols) and how the southern Cantonese became "Chinese". So even the Mongols who took over China basically became Chinese, unlike when the barbarians sacked Rome.

>Chinese culture overwhelms and sublimes anyone it comes into contact with.
Yes, but why though? Was it because they were always bigger and perceived to be more civilized compared to the conquerors? In that case your statement may no longer be true.

There's two parts to this, one is convincing current chinese to absorb outside culture, and the other is convincing outsiders to consider themselves chinese.

As you said, mongols, manchus, cantonese became chinese, but there're also failed assimilations like vietnam, or in-process ones, like uyghurs and tibetans. We can see their efforts in real-time, and it doesn't look anything special.

Maybe it really is just commitment and having a numbers advantage.

While military wiped, the mongols or other barbarian invaders probably saw the silk robes, the house of councubines, arts and lavish foods available and thought "well fuck thats great!". Especially when youve lived a long hard live on the steppes.

As Herodotus said, wood shoes up the stairs and silk slippers down.

As for the Tibetans and Uighurs... These are people the chinese invaded and occupy. Theres a poignant difference. Plus these peoples have traditionally not been part of the Chinese heartland until relatively recently.

I suspect though they'll cling to their way of life but be surrounded by hordes of Han settlers.

>Once they had conquered North China, the Ruzhen of the Jin dynasty (1115–1234) totaled about 6 million in a North China population of about 45 million.

>The Qidan remaining from the Liao dynasty of 916–1125 may have made up about 4 million out of this total, so that the Ruzhen had to govern some 35 million Chinese subjects.

>For this task they relied at first on sinicized Qidan and on Han Chinese who had served the Qidan. They also recruited officials from the pool of Chinese government clerks. But the Ruzhen emperors soon found they had to sustain their central power in competition with their own Ruzhen tribal leaders, military aristocrats from the north who expected to control lands and peoples they had conquered.

>In self-defense the Jin emperor built up an imperial bureaucracy patterned on Confucian ways of government. Finding they needed classically trained examination candidates to staff this bureaucracy, in the last quarter of the twelfth century the Jin rulers at Kaifeng set up Ruzhen-language schools, translated the Confucian classics into Ruzhen, and set examinations for Ruzhen candidates. The major flow of recruits, however, came from the Han Chinese: in the quarter century after 1185 the expanded Chinese examinations produced at least 5,000 metropolitan (jinshi) degree-holders.

>Also important, as Peter Bol points out, was the spread of Confucian culture: “Tens of thousands acquired an examination education.”

>“Sinicization,” however, is an inadequate description of what the Ruzhen rulers were seeking. Instead of “becoming Chinese,” they were, on the contrary, developing their role as supporters of civil order (wen zhi, “civilization”). Their role had a supra-ethnic value as the means by which Chinese subjects and nomadic invaders could live together in peace and prosperity under a universal empire.

(cont'd)

>In other words, China’s original “culturalism” (the “Confucian” way of thought and action) could be promoted by non-Chinese rulers, who maintained their ethnic identity while functioning as rulers over China and Inner Asia. The Ruzhen thus developed the theoretical foundation for the multiethnic empire that would be brought to its highest point under their eventual descendants, the Manchus.

.>In claiming their dynasty’s “legitimate succession” to its predecessors (zhengtong), the Jin rulers were aided by their adoption of traditional centralizing institutions and also by their performance of the appropriate imperial rituals. As outlined by Hok-lam Chan (1984), these rituals began with the reverence for the forces of nature and especially for the ancestors as practiced by the Shang; they maintained the belief in the Mandate of Heaven asserted by the Zhou along with the doctrine of benevolent rule by sage kings as propounded by Mencius and interpreted by the Confucian scholar-elite.

>The correlative cosmology of Earlier Han, centered around the cyclical theory of the Five Phases, was also continued. This theory, postulating correspondence between the order of nature and human events, had stressed the importance of the phase, color, and so forth to be associated with, and so legitimate, each dynasty. Han Wudi, for example, chose the Earth phase for Han plus the color yellow, the number 5, and so on. Later dynasties, small and big, continued to assert their legitimacy according to the Five Phases cycle—for example, Tang claimed its affinity to Earth in succession to Han, while the Song claimed Fire and the color red as its symbols of legitimacy. The Jin rulers therefore claimed the Earth power in succession to the Song.

(cont'd)

> natural resources
youtube.com/watch?v=i8a3gjt_Ar0

>The Ruzhen had moved their capital from Ha’erbin to Beijing in 1153 and then to the Northern Song site at Kaifeng in 1161. Some emperors achieved new heights of brutality by beginning a regular practice of having top officials flogged in open court in front of the emperor, quite contrary to the classic Chinese exemption of literati and especially officials from corporal punishment. Some executed hundreds of kinsmen, officials, and military leaders, trying to forestall opposition.

>One of the last Jin emperors, on the other hand, has come down in history as a model Confucian ruler. In his era occurred a cultural revival led by Chinese Confucianist subjects of the Jin state morally committed to supporting the inherited culture of civil order.

>Between them, the Confucianist-minded Ruzhen rulers and their Chinese literati officials asserted that a non-Chinese dynasty could indeed support a “Chinese” (that is, Chinese and Inner Asian) cultural tradition. In any case, the Jin dynasty’s legitimacy was formally established when its official history was written under the Mongol Yuan dynasty.

>The advent of Neo-Confucianism in Southern Song set up broader criteria for dynastic legitimacy. Such factors as victory in warfare, government procedures like the promotion of an imperial cult of ancestors, plus rituals and symbols, scholastic theories, control by intimidation, and mutual surveillance and popular (or elitist) acceptance all figured in legitimation in China much as they did in West Asia and Europe. But thanks mainly to Confucian scholarship, the Chinese criteria were far more unified and homogeneous. To some degree the Song philosophers’ stress on the universality of their cosmology and values accommodated the non-Chinese invaders. On the level of political theory China was thereafter prepared, whenever the need arose, to accept government by tribal peoples of Inner Asia.

(cont'd)

The Eternal Han cannot be stopped. They are the future leaders of humanity.

>In the final analysis, the legitimation of non-Chinese rule in China consisted of the fact that it could not be avoided and so had to be rationalized.

>As Korean observers would later find, in China under the Manchus Chinese scholars might hate Qing rule but would leave no record of the fact. This inner hatred and outer acceptance was like that of most victims of despotism then and now. It required that one practice self-control and a sort of hypocrisy, a “feigned compliance,” outwardly accepting while inwardly denying the validity of the ruling power. For most people this could lead to a seeming indifference to politics as none of their business, just as the rulers claimed.

>Looking ahead, we may posit that the dynasties of conquest—Liao, Jin, and Yuan—form a connected sequence of incursions of Inner Asian military power into China and must be viewed as a single, if sporadic process. Liao lasted longest but occupied only a strip on the northern edge of North China. Yuan occupied all China but was the briefest.

>This puts the Jin dynasty in the strategic position of having learned how alien invaders could govern China’s heartland, the North China plain, by co-opting Chinese personnel inherited from the defeated Northern Song. Jin rule in China seems comparatively neglected, overshadowed by the Mongol conquest.

.A theory seems to me to emerge from the works of many scholars when>surveyed and connected by a single observer. Others have expressed much the same thing in somewhat different terms.

>The hypothesis may be stated as follows:
>(1) that early China created a politicized state organized for purposes of central control both by bureaucratic methods of philosophic persuasion and by the imperial autocrat’s use of violence;
>(2) that non-Chinese invaders from Inner Asia became integral participants in the Chinese polity by their military prowess and administrative skill; and
>(3) that the resulting Sino-nomadic imperial power continued to maintain the primacy of central political control over the subordinated processes of economic growth and cultural diversification.

>In short, from the very beginning, the non-Chinese invaders helped maintain the political domination over economic and cultural life that had been inherited from ancient China. Politics was still (or especially) in command. The propensity for control above all was reinforced by the Neo-Confucian ideology that stressed loyalty to authority in a hierarchic social order and esteemed agricultural self-sufficiency over the less controllable growth of trade and foreign contact. Yet along with this persistent and increasing autocracy in government went the attendant trend mentioned above, “the increasing importance of culture” for the Chinese people. In other words, we are discussing here two levels: the state and the society lying beneath it.

Source: China: A New History, by John King Fairbank.

Tl;Dr the Chinese had created a system in which it was simple enough for foreign invaders to simply slot themselves in and carry out the exact same functions as the Chinese rulers before them, suborning themselves to the maintenance of the existing Chinese cultural traditions rather than superimposing their own.

>As you said, mongols, manchus, cantonese became chinese
Cantonese may have the least amount of "Han" blood but their identity comes from northern migrants.

Vietnamese nationalism aside they're one of the most Sinicized countries(Sinicization was synonymous with civilization).

>The earliest conquerors accepted the Yellow Emperor as their ancestor(Xiongnu,Xianbei,Khitans etc.)
>The local gentry was never displaced
>The bulk of the conquering force was always ethnic "Han"
>The historical "Han" identity is nothing more than a farce,regional identities(lineage,city,fallen dynasty,former Warring states polities) were far more important.

Veeky Forums on Africa:
>"Geographic determinism is stupid. The Africans didn't develop because they are genetically inferior."

Veeky Forums on China:
>"No, the Chinese are not genetically superior, they simply have great natural resources."

You mean /pol/ on Africa in their weekly racebaiting threads that always get 300 (You)s

Well there are several things to realize.
>1
Han Chinese is not a monolithic culture there is still a strong cultural divide in China especially between the north and the South to this day.
>2
Han culture has not remained stagnant for thousands of years just assimilating foreign cultures. The Han Culture (as much as it can be indentified) itself has been influeneed by the invader. Although ithe is fair to note that the Han Chinese have done more assimilating than assimilation.
>3
Invaders especially those from steppe regions are often assimilated into the local cultures. This is not event unique to China. It haseems happened in the middle east, France, Egypt, and many other places before. Steppe cultures in particular seem to be poor at maintaining there culture in more settled societies. (Personally I believe it because in general Steppe life sucks so the temptations of plentiful cities are hard to resist)
>4
China compared to a place like Europe is much easier to unite. This is primarily a feature of geography. The core regions of northern and southern China can be conquered with relative ease. The hardest part of the process is going from one of the main regions to the other.

Different people in different threads

I want a Uyghur gf, they must preserve their qts

>The historical "Han" identity is nothing more than a farce,regional identities(lineage,city,fallen dynasty,former Warring states polities) were far more important.
What about today? "Han" is a widely accepted identifier by both outsiders and the "han" themselves, as they've long forgotten their origins. It's surprising that this han marker outlived all the identities that came after it.

The system that mentions is also so miraculous that I wonder if the Han conversion/brainwashing was part of a greater design. The obedience and drone-like continuation of previous administrations that confucianism brings really lends itself to the image that chinese are hive minded.

it's literally /pol/ explaining away why Asian children are smarter than white children

Not Confucianism but legalism disguised as Confucianism. Chinese rulers preferred legalism as it made it easy to centralize power and rule a large nation as the primary idea of legalism is to reward "good" behavior and severely punish "bad" behavior making social engineering relatively easy.

>The core regions of northern and southern China can be conquered with relative ease.
The geography from one place to another greatly varies. One of the hardest places to conquer geographically was the core area of Shaanxi due to being a large fertile plain surrounded by mountains and conquest relies on capturing heavily defended mountain passes while it can raise massive reserves due to its fertile plains. The southern core areas generally required the invader to have a powerful brown water navy in addition to having a large army in order to be able to conquer the wealthy south which can sustain a massive army and navy.

>What about today?
Han is just a label,similar to "White" Americans. Other than Han Chauvinists,being Han is irrelevant.

>as they've long forgotten their origins
The name of former polities(some non Sinitic) survive as regional toponyms(Shu,Chu,Wu,Yue,Min etc.)

Though whether regional Han subgroups identify with those natives is debatable.

>It's surprising that this han marker outlived all the identities that came after it.
Han wasn't really used in an ethnic sense,it didn't apply to anyone outside the Central Plains.

The historical "Han" started out as a toponym(Han river),where it geopolitical identity(Han dynasty),an ethnonym(Xianbei label for northern Sinitic speakers),a geopolitical term for "China"(Tang dynasty),an ethnonym(Liao,Jin,Yuan) and finally an endonym for all Sinitic speakers(Ming,Qing).

>The system that mentions is also so miraculous that I wonder if the Han conversion/brainwashing was part of a greater design.
Chinese history isn't binary,you have to stop assuming that the so called "Han" had a unified identity.(The "Han" of the 16 prefectures preferred the Liao over the Northern Song)

The rise and fall of dynasties is always dependent on native talent,foreign rulers relied on the local gentry/military to govern in their stead.

>The Chinese would never have overruled the Manchus had the Allies not won World War II and removed Manchukuo.

The fuck am I reading? China ceased to exist as the Qing Empire back in the 1910s when warlords and the ROC took prominence.

Manchukuo was a japanese puppet state that existed in a formerly underdeveloped part of the former qing empire.

Nah they're destined to always be second place

I don't think anybody except 14 year old alt-right koolaid guzzlers and edgy trolls from /pol/ seriously argues that Africa is behind because of genetic reasons.

Chinese culture is adaptable and cool.

>The Chinese would never have overruled the Manchus had the Allies not won World War II and removed Manchukuo.

Wew this is dank "history"

Ahh quality Veeky Forums posts

There were a ton of them and they were /literally/ surrounded by deserts and mountains to the north and west and jungle to the south. If the Xiongnu/Mongols/Manchu had anywhere near the population of the Han the Han would have been exterminated like many others.

>The Chinese would never have overruled the Manchus had the Allies not won World War II and removed Manchukuo.
That's some Japanese-level history revisionism right there

>As for the Tibetans and Uighurs... These are people the chinese invaded and occupy. Theres a poignant difference. Plus these peoples have traditionally not been part of the Chinese heartland until relatively recently

That's actually an extremely complicated topic. Tibet as been a vassal state of China on and off for centuries and there were ethnic Tibetans who lived within China proper, thus the idea that Tibet formed one of the Five Races of China was formed during the Republican era. Regardless of who won the civil war, Tibet was going to be absorbed either way.

As for the Uyghur, they aren't even Uyghur's, they're Karluks who migrated into Xinjiang after the Qing Emperor Qianlong ordered to genocide of the native Dzungar. The CCP designated them as Uyghur by accepting the Soviet designation of them. They're interlopers who's claim to regional sovereignty is dubious at best.

>ethnic Tibetans
Incredibly misleading,as a unified identity sprung from the Tibetan Empire.

You can't easily classify the disparate Sino-Tibeto Burmans such as the Qiang(Shang).Rong,Di,Qiang(Han/16 kingdoms),Di(16 kingdoms) and Tanguts.

Nah. It'd be different because this is exactly what the US does and has done to its immigrants as well as the time that it spent expanding across North America, collecting land. Those former French, Spanish, Dutch, and Russians are all "muh heritage" thoughts at best and identify first and foremost as Americans. Even the Natives are pretty much Americanized.

There are major differences, such as origin and age of culture. The US has also spread its cultural power much farther than the Chinese at the expense of not actually integrating them into the US itself.

Doesn't it vary? I think for example the Irish Americans and the Cuban Americans identify more strongly with their heritage than those of German or Dutch ancestry.

China still has shitty communist regime (which is declining) and they make bootlegs. But culture is quite nice, but the mindset is just ugh.

>chink mom, chink dad, I've got F in math
>chink son, had it been for the laws of this mainland, I would have slaughtered like a dog

>Take genghis khan for example: slaughtered millions upon millions of chinese, and centuries later, they love him and consider him one of their own.
Genghiz Khan isn't loved in China. The Hundred Falling Blossoms is still considered a tragic moment in Chinese history. It was Khubilai who was (founder of Yuan, ended the Song/Jin/Mongol contention).

Furthermore the Mongols are just included in the Chinese identity nowadays because the Chinks happen to have THE MAJORITY OF THE MONGOL POPULATION thanks to reconquests by the Ming & conquest under the Qing. Since China officially has a Multiculty policy currently in place, it therefore pays to respect cultural figureheads of subject peoples.

You're well aware Manchukuo is a fake nation?

The Manchurian identity died in the late 18th Century. Manchukuo didn't even speak Manchurian anymore. It was basically "Pet Northern Chinese: the Country."