Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

On the ethnicity of the Sui and Tang emperors


  • Please log in to reply
232 replies to this topic

#226 Eidolon

Eidolon

    Imperial Inspector (Jianyushi 监御使)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 16 September 2011 - 11:50 PM

Although it doesn't apply to the people of today historically it may have been very bad. It might have something to do with what mariusj said although I'm not quite sure entirely what is meant by the viewpoint of unworthy that was held by the elites against the imperial clan. Anyways if they weren't making fun of the Tang emperors' ethnicity then they were probably refusing marriage on some other political grounding. It is weird to refuse marriage to imperial clan since that would improve your modicum holdings of power simply because the emperor wields the final authority of state.


The Northeast Aristocracy that Mariusj is referring to claimed they were the pure descendants of prestigious Han Dynasty clans - upholders of Han Chinese tradition with unblemished lineage, who had refused intermarriage with the barbarians of the Age of Fragmentation in order to preserve their noble lineage. They held the Northwest Aristocracy, to which the Tang emperors belonged, in disdain because they saw them as socially inferior clans that happened to gain a little political power, though the idea that they were semi-barbaric, since they had mixed with the Wu Hu, might be a contributing reason. The early Tang emperors were furious over this, but the Northeast Aristocracy was influential enough that destroying them was a no-go, and so more subtle means were adopted to attack those clans, like downgrading them in a list of most prestigious clans.

Qing was a little more complicated I think since they were themselves paranoid to a very large degree. Literal inquisitions by the emperor to assassinate entire families of one author for his seemingly unkindness in words against a regime headed by Manchu ethnic peoples.


Qing was different in the sense that it was an explicitly ethnically-oriented regime. The Manchus may have invented themselves in the heydays of Nurhaci, but they recognized, upon entering China, that they were an ethnic minority and that much of their political power came from being an ethnic minority. It was by maintaining their ethnic separateness and the Manchu identity that the Manchus were able to keep political power in their own hands and away from the civil bureaucracy that both the Ming and the Qing depended on to run the country. Ethnicity was thus not only a sideshow but a main component of Qing rule. The Manchus were an ethnic entity, bound by adherence to Manchu customs, genealogies, and histories, upheld by Manchu-specific institutions and laws, and which looked to the Han as a separate group that they must not be absorbed into.

The Manchus were never "assimilated" during the Qing.

Edited by Eidolon, 16 September 2011 - 11:58 PM.


#227 Tazfelis

Tazfelis

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • CHF Beginner
  • 19 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 18 September 2011 - 08:59 AM

I did not read the entire pages, so in the end, are majority of Tang royal family Han or Xianbei? If they are mix, what are the percentage? 1/4 Han 3/4 Xianbei or 1/4 Xianbei 3/4 Han? If majority of them are Xianbei, why Tang are not considered foreign like Yuan and Qing dynasty? Xianbei are related to the Mongol right? Sorry if all these had been mention before, since I didn't read the entire 16 pages.

Edited by Tazfelis, 18 September 2011 - 09:34 AM.


#228 Eidolon

Eidolon

    Imperial Inspector (Jianyushi 监御使)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 22 September 2011 - 01:19 PM

You're looking for a simple answer to a complex question in which people do not even agree on the basic principles of. I'm sorry but, if you're not willing to spend the time, then all you're going to get are opinions.

If that's what you're looking for, then you might as well go for the "official" stance - which is that the Tang is Chinese and not Xianbei, though its early emperors' mothers were descended from Xianbei.

Edited by Eidolon, 22 September 2011 - 01:27 PM.


#229 Tazfelis

Tazfelis

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • CHF Beginner
  • 19 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 23 September 2011 - 12:21 AM

You're looking for a simple answer to a complex question in which people do not even agree on the basic principles of. I'm sorry but, if you're not willing to spend the time, then all you're going to get are opinions.

If that's what you're looking for, then you might as well go for the "official" stance - which is that the Tang is Chinese and not Xianbei, though its early emperors' mothers were descended from Xianbei.


When you said Chinese,you mean Han Chinese, as in ethnic not nationality right? Because I know that there are some people out there in the internet who claim that <insert any dynasty in China> are a dynasty located in China but not considered Han Chinese(or something along those line). Not sure if they are nationalist or not.

Edited by Tazfelis, 23 September 2011 - 06:15 AM.


#230 mohistManiac

mohistManiac

    Prime Minister (Situ/Chengxiang 司徒/丞相)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 1,851 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Mythology
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 23 September 2011 - 03:54 AM

Oooohhhh my stomach...

I have the fortune of living in the part of the world which has use for toilet paper, but not douches.


#231 Eidolon

Eidolon

    Imperial Inspector (Jianyushi 监御使)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 23 September 2011 - 06:53 PM


When you said Chinese,you mean Han Chinese, as in ethnic not nationality right? Because I know that there are some people out there in the internet who claim that <insert any dynasty in China> are a dynasty located in China but not considered Han Chinese(or something along those line). Not sure if they are nationalist or not.


Most historians use the term "Chinese" when describing the identity of the people who later became, in large part, the Han Chinese because ethnicity is a relatively recent construct that is not necessarily appropriate when describing ancient cultures and peoples. It is technically incorrect to talk about Han Chinese as an ethnicity during the Tang because it was not generally used during the Tang as an ethnic label. Nonetheless, for the purpose of simplifying the "official" stance in this case, you can think of "Chinese" as referring to "ethnic Han Chinese."

Edited by Eidolon, 23 September 2011 - 06:56 PM.


#232 Corean Chinghiz

Corean Chinghiz

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • Xiucai Exam Candidate
  • 29 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Great Corean Empire: we rule China for 8000+ years
  • Interests:guest chinghiz and guest shingintan are my korean brothers from a different mother. We eat corean beef everyday before watching koreansentry videos.

    Corean nationalist rhetoric
    -Revise chinese civilization (all dynasties are not chinese)
    -China was a colony for 4000 years
    -Deny chinese people their heritage
    -act racist and construct a northern elitist
    -misconception of the modern Han Chinese concept
    -Constructed a fake korean history forum
    -reasons above as to why expatriate relations between chinese and coreans have soured
    -Cheon1son, and other racist corean youtube uploaders
    -Coreans very mean and cruel to China
  • Languages spoken:King Sejong's creation
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Great pure blooded corean race
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Korean History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Corean nationalism, ethnic Revisionism of Chinese history

Posted 19 May 2012 - 10:25 AM

Calling the Tang and Sui emperors enemies of China means

- The House of Plantagenet are foreign occupiers of England
- Alexander the Great is an enemy of Greece and the interpretation would be twisted from unity to occupation in the case of the Greek city states
-William the Conqueror is an enemy of Britain (actually, he is considered one of Britain's great kings)

These ideas are not perfectly compatible, but in Chinese and European history, different as they are, many logical parallels can be made. Anti-China nationalists (Koreans) have a double standard. They come up with the common excuse that these histories are different whenever a connection can be made.

#233 Shiang

Shiang

    Provincial Governor (Cishi 刺史)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 40 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    ethnic minorities

Posted 14 October 2012 - 10:25 PM

When you said Chinese,you mean Han Chinese, as in ethnic not nationality right? Because I know that there are some people out there in the internet who claim that <insert any dynasty in China> are a dynasty located in China but not considered Han Chinese(or something along those line). Not sure if they are nationalist or not.


The tang emperors surname was li. They claimed to be descended patrilineally from famous han chinese like li gao, ruler of western liang, the han dynasty general li guang, and laozi, whose personal name was Li Er. In china, your ethnicity is determined by your patrilineal descent (from your father). So the tang emperors are han, despite xianbei blood from their mother's side.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users