60 replies to this topic

[Optimus]

In the timeline of Chinese history, Yuan was included as part of Chinese Dynasties. Shouldn't it be Mongols occupation of China to be historically accurate?

Yuan belonged to the Outer Mongolians, correct?

[harandaa]

This is a very interesting question. Greater China, along with much of Asia, was certainly ruled as a part of the Mongol conquests, and by individuals claiming authority via this conquest and as Borjigid descendants of old Chinggis. This necessarily involved the participation, at the highest levels, of a great many people who we might not now consider to be Mongols - not only Central Asian Turks but Khitans and other people from the northwest, and more than a few Han Chinese.

Was the Yuan a Chinese dynasty? Not really in terms of its origins, but from Qubilai onwards the rulers gradually accepted more and more elements of what we might identify as Chinese court culture and administrative practice. The Qing rulers also came from the borderlands - does that automatically make their dynasty less 'Chinese' than others? If China claims these borderlands, can we logically marginalise them in terms of their contributions to 'Chinese' identities?

The term 'Outer Mongolia' comes from a Qing Dynasty distinction between areas, referring to a swathe of land mostly occupied by Khalkha Mongols, whose population was perhaps less directly connected to the Borjigid than the groups in 'Inner Mongolia', although the Borjigid geneaology seems to get very muddy and speculative during the early Ming period.

[mariusj]

I think you should reconsider what is 'Chinese.'

I do believe you are thinking 'Han.'

[Optimus]

Was the Yuan a Chinese dynasty? Not really in terms of its origins, but from Qubilai onwards the rulers gradually accepted more and more elements of what we might identify as Chinese court culture and administrative practice. The Qing rulers also came from the borderlands - does that automatically make their dynasty less 'Chinese' than others? If China claims these borderlands, can we logically marginalise them in terms of their contributions to 'Chinese' identities?

The term 'Outer Mongolia' comes from a Qing Dynasty distinction between areas, referring to a swathe of land mostly occupied by Khalkha Mongols, whose population was perhaps less directly connected to the Borjigid than the groups in 'Inner Mongolia', although the Borjigid geneaology seems to get very muddy and speculative during the early Ming period.

The Manchu rulers generally assimilated themselves into China, Qing was like a minority ethnic group of China ruling the land toward the last part of their rule. think Mongols Yuan were different, China was their conquered land, no different from Vietnam and Persia which made it a foreign occupation?

Today Mongolia has Yuan as their past dynasties. China also list Yuan as their past dynasties. Shouldn't Yuan belong to only one county which is Mongolia.

Edited by Optimus, 02 March 2011 - 08:04 AM.

[mariusj]

The Manchu rulers generally assimilated themselves into China, Qing was like a minority ethnic group of China ruling the land toward the last part of their rule. think Mongols Yuan were different, China was their conquered land, no different from Vietnam and Persia which made it a foreign occupation?

Today Mongolia has Yuan as their past dynasties. China also list Yuan as their past dynasties. Shouldn't Yuan belong to only one county which is Mongolia.

Again, China is in fact a modern construct. It is a word create far more modern than Yuan. When the PRC used the word, China, they define it as any nation that form its rule with its capital in current day China, or something alone that line. Which then by definition making Yuan a Chinese dynasty, not to mention the PRC consider Mongols an ethnic minority of the PRC while ROC still consider Mongols as part of China.

And why should a past nation belong to only one country?

Who does Roman Empire belong to?

I am pretty sure there are far more Emperors who are not Italians rule the Empire than the Italians, how would we define a massive Empire as 'ethnic,' much like we are describing massive Empires like past Chinese dynasties? Yugoslavia was a big bloc, who does it belong to? Or Soviet?

So I don't think Yuan should belong to only one country, as it doesn't make any sense.

[Optimus]

Again, China is in fact a modern construct. It is a word create far more modern than Yuan. When the PRC used the word, China, they define it as any nation that form its rule with its capital in current day China, or something alone that line. Which then by definition making Yuan a Chinese dynasty, not to mention the PRC consider Mongols an ethnic minority of the PRC while ROC still consider Mongols as part of China.

And why should a past nation belong to only one country?

Who does Roman Empire belong to?

I am pretty sure there are far more Emperors who are not Italians rule the Empire than the Italians, how would we define a massive Empire as 'ethnic,' much like we are describing massive Empires like past Chinese dynasties? Yugoslavia was a big bloc, who does it belong to? Or Soviet?

So I don't think Yuan should belong to only one country, as it doesn't make any sense.

"China, they define it as any nation that form its rule with its capital in current day China" is a strange logic when Yuan taking over China was a foreign invasion in origin and Yuan rule ended in China with the foreign invaders retreating back to Mongolia. The Mongolians ruled from Beijing doesn't make them less foreign. PRC consider Mongols an ethnic minority are part of later history events.

know China is a modern construct but can't find a better term other than the dynasties names to describe the land.

know nothing about the Roman Empire. The Baltic countries under Soviet Union considered themselves never to have been part of the USSR, it was illegal and a Soviet Union occupation under the Russian government.

Edited by Optimus, 02 March 2011 - 10:17 PM.

[mariusj]

"China, they define it as any nation that form its rule with its capital in current day China" is a strange logic when Yuan taking over China was a foreign invasion in origin and Yuan rule ended in China with the foreign invaders retreating back to Mongolia. The Mongolians ruled from Beijing doesn't make them less foreign. PRC consider Mongols an ethnic minority are part of later history events.

How is that strange.
What you said have no relevance with whether or not today China considers Yuan as part of her history.

When you are ruling as an ethnic nation state, then perhaps you would consider this as strange, but when your rule SPECIFICALLY said it is not an ethnic nation state, then those people that lived and form empire in your territory, who may or may not be ethnic minorities, are part of your history, and the empire they build on the territory of your nation, why can you not consider them as part of your nation?

know China is a modern construct but can't find a better term other than the dynasties names to describe the land.

Again, I think I would agree that Yuan is not a Han dynasty, but disagree that it is a Chinese given the SPECIFIC definition of Chinese.

know nothing about the Roman Empire. The Baltic countries under Soviet Union considered themselves never to have been part of the USSR, it was illegal and a Soviet Union occupation under the Russian government.

I am sorry, but that is what an Empire is. The Indians probably felt that the British Empire illegally occupied it, or that the Philippine felt that Spain illegally occupied it, but it changes nothing.

Better question, would Mughul be an Indian Empire or not?

[YuenKamSiu]

It was a dynasty ruled by ethnic Mongols over a majority Han population in which the administration was based heavily off of Han Chinese institutions as well as ethnic Mongol ones.

Take it for what it is.

Whether it's "Chinese" or not is really up to the interpreter.

Edited by YuenKamSiu, 03 March 2011 - 01:06 AM.

[Optimus]

Again, I think I would agree that Yuan is not a Han dynasty, but disagree that it is a Chinese given the SPECIFIC definition of Chinese.

In China today, Chinese ( 中國人) mean all the 56 ethnic groups that include Mongol so in PRC terms, it is a Chinese dynasty. You say Yuan is China dynasty but disagree that it is Chinese, must I call Yuan a China Mongol Dynasty? don't need to be so specific in details.

What you said have no relevance with whether or not today China considers Yuan as part of her history.

When you are ruling as an ethnic nation state, then perhaps you would consider this as strange, but when your rule SPECIFICALLY said it is not an ethnic nation state, then those people that lived and form empire in your territory, who may or may not be ethnic minorities, are part of your history, and the empire they build on the territory of your nation, why can you not consider them as part of your nation?

having that ethnic group and their territory in your country doesn't mean that ethnic group entire history are part of your history.
one can't ignore the historical events like in 1921, Outer Mongolia left ROC but Inner Mongolia stayed with ROC.

IMO, to justify China claim to Yuan dynasty. Mongolia during Qing rule relationship is important. Is Mongolia part of Qing or a tributary state of Qing? read that Inner Mongolia was under the direct administration of Qing, Outer Mongolia stayed autonomous.

I am sorry, but that is what an Empire is. The Indians probably felt that the British Empire illegally occupied it, or that the Philippine felt that Spain illegally occupied it, but it changes nothing.
Better question, would Mughul be an Indian Empire or not?

would the Indians claim the British Empire as their empire or they were under British colonial rule during that period - that's one of my points. sorry, really don't know anything about Mughul or Indian empire.

Edited by Optimus, 03 March 2011 - 01:31 AM.

[mariusj]

In China today, Chinese ( 中國人) mean all the 56 ethnic groups that include Mongol so in PRC terms, it is a Chinese dynasty. You say Yuan is China dynasty but disagree that it is Chinese, must I call Yuan a China Mongol Dynasty? don't need to be so specific in details.

I am confused.
Where did I disagree that it is Chinese?

And you are picking the specifics, not me.

having that ethnic group and their territory in your country doesn't mean that ethnic group entire history are part of your history.
one can't ignore the historical events like in 1921, Outer Mongolia left ROC but Inner Mongolia stayed with ROC.

Certainly. But these ethnic's history that INTERSECT with the land is part of the land's history is it not?
What does Outer Mongolia have to do with this discussion?
We are talking about Yuan dynasty, founded by Mongols who are consider an ethnic minority of China, build in China, with its capital in DaDu. I doubt China claimed all of Mongol's history, not that there are much of a Mongol prior to Genghis Khan.

IMO, to justify China claim to Yuan dynasty. Mongolia during Qing rule relationship is important. Is Mongolia part of Qing or a tributary state of Qing? read that Inner Mongolia was under the direct administration of Qing, Outer Mongolia stayed autonomous.

You certainly have every right to opinion.

would the Indians claim the British Empire as their empire or they were under British colonial rule during that period - that's one of my points. sorry, really don't know anything about Mughul or Indian empire.

I guess my Indian British example is more of your former soviet blocks refuse to recognize they are part of USSR, and my point of whether they liked it or not they are part of USSR, but I admit it is not a very good example to our topic.

You should really look up some of my examples, it is very easy to google Mughul and Roman Empire.

[Optimus]

I am confused.
Where did I disagree that it is Chinese?
And you are picking the specifics, not me.

your earlier reply.

Again, I think I would agree that Yuan is not a Han dynasty, but disagree that it is a Chinese given the SPECIFIC definition of Chinese.

did I get this wrong, so what do you disagree with? specific definition of Chinese = PRC definition?

[mariusj]

your earlier reply.


did I get this wrong, so what do you disagree with? specific definition of Chinese = PRC definition?

Oh
my mistake

I was trying to say
I would agree that it is not Han, but disagree that it is not Chinese.

[YuenKamSiu]

I think the answer to this question is based on the interpreter. It is the interpreter's choice to define what he/she sees as "Chinese". If you regard Chinese are nothing other than Han then the Yuan Dynasty not being Chinese is how you would interpret the situation. If you see Chinese are more than Han and adhere to the Zhonghua Minzu definition, than the Yuan is as every bit as Chinese as any other dynasty.

But it gets even trickier, what constitutes "Han"? Are the Han Chinese a homogeneous ethnic group both past and present?

[bloodmerchant]

It is a Chinese dynasty given the dynastic cycle, and yet also it is part of the Mongol Empire. But the Yuan Dynasty is not the Mongol Empire. Just as the Golden Horde and the Ilkhanate are not part of the Yuan Dynasty, but are part of the Mongol Empire.

But it gets even trickier, what constitutes "Han"? Are the Han Chinese a homogeneous ethnic group both past and present?

Off-topic. Han Chinese only have 0.07% average DNA difference, but does not explain their differences between other East Asian groups. The SNP variations show little difference. In short, Han Chinese may not be pure, but they are genetically coherent with each other, so Northern Chinese are not 'Sinicized Altaics' and Southern Chinese are not 'Sinicized Austroasiatics and Sinicized Tai people'. Within provinces, they show a spectrum. But in metropolitan cities, it's not quite as exact as it gets skewed all over the place, such as Shanghai or Beijing. (Though I do question their sample size used, as they didn't look for Beijing and Shanghai locals, which I presume are in very small numbers or in the surrounding suburban areas)

Y-chromosome haplogroup O3 is a common DNA marker in Han Chinese, as it appeared in China in prehistoric times. It is found in more than 50% of Chinese males, and ranging up to over 80% in certain regional subgroups of the Han ethnicity. However, the mitochondrial DNA of Han Chinese increases in diversity as one looks from northern to southern China, which suggests that some male migrants from northern China married with women from local peoples after arriving in Guangdong, Fujian, and other regions of southern China. Despite this, tests comparing the genetic profiles of northern Han, southern Han and southern natives determined that haplogroups O1b-M110, O2a1-M88 and O3d-M7, which are prevalent in southern natives, were only observed in some southern Hans (4% on average), but not in northern Hans. Therefore, this proves that the contribution of southern natives in southern Hans is limited.[11] In contrast, there are consistent strong genetic similarities in the Y chromosome haplogroup distribution between the southern and northern Chinese population, and the result of principal component analysis indicates almost all Han populations form a tight cluster in their Y chromosome. Additionally, the estimated contribution of northern Hans to southern Hans is substantial in both paternal and maternal lineages and a geographic cline exists for mtDNA. As a result, the northern Hans are the primary contributors to the gene pool of the southern Hans. However, it is noteworthy that the expansion process was dominated by males, as is shown by a greater contribution to the Y-chromosome than the mtDNA from northern Hans to southern Hans. These genetic observations are in line with historical records of continuous and large migratory waves of northern China inhabitants escaping warfare and famine, to southern China. Aside from these large migratory waves, other smaller southward migrations also occurred during almost all periods in the past two millennia. Moreover, a study by the Chinese Academy of Sciences into the gene frequency data of Han subpopulations and ethnic minorities in China, showed that Han subpopulations in different regions are also genetically close to the local ethnic minorities, and it means that in many cases blood of ethnic minorities has mixed into Han, while at the same time, blood of Han also has mixed into the local ethnicities. A recent, and to date the most extensive, genome-wide association study of the Han population shows that little geographic-genetic dispersion from north to south has occurred. Ultimately, with the exception in some ethnolinguistic branches of the Han Chinese, such as Pinghua, there is a coherent genetic structure in all Han Chinese populace.

http://www.sciencedi...b86f5be748917d0

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/18726285

http://www.nature.co...jhg200837a.html

Edited by bloodmerchant, 12 March 2011 - 07:34 PM.

[Optimus]

It is a Chinese dynasty given the dynastic cycle, and yet also it is part of the Mongol Empire. But the Yuan Dynasty is not the Mongol Empire. Just as the Golden Horde and the Ilkhanate are not part of the Yuan Dynasty, but are part of the Mongol Empire.

the list of Yuan emperors - they don't belong to the mongol clans? weren't they from the Borjigin family?

Edited by Optimus, 13 March 2011 - 07:53 AM.