53 replies to this topic

[poirot]

I am going to begin a thread on the Manchus and their policies of cultural genocide during their reign in China. Granted, the Manchus produced learned and brillant emperors, such as Kang Xi and Qian Long, but from a personal standpoint, I cannot excuse them for their destructive influence on the Han identity.

In 1645, the Manchus, under the regent Dorgun, issued an edict requiring all male Han Chinese subjects to adapt to the Manchu hairstyle and dress code. Anyone who resisted the change was beheaded without further consideration. Resistance efforts in areas such as Yang Zhou were brutally crushed, resulting in massacres of thousands of people. Thus began the familiar saying: "Lose your hair to keep your head; lose your head to keep your hair." In the end, the Han were forced to comply to the "new fashion."

As a result, the Manchus achieved their purpose - the Han lost their sense of ethnic and cultural identity, at least extrinsically. I call the process cultural genocide, because similar to Hitler's attempt to eliminate the Jewish from existence, the Manchus tried to eradicate the Han Chinese as a culturally distinct ethnic group, and erode the Han's sense of cultural identity.

[Yun]

Warhead will have much to say in reply to this

[General_Zhaoyun]

The han-chinese has always regarded the hair as sacred product given by their parents and will not cut it or shave it, as a sign of filial piety. For that, they always tie their hair together to have a bun or something.

After the manchus conquered China, they impose the rule of shaving the sculp and tying a pigtail partly to impose the manchu custom, but more importantly IMO to prevent the han-chinese from constantly reminding of their origin (i.e. that they are of han-chinese, their parents etc.). When they prevent the han-chinese from constantly reminding themselves of their origin, it will prevent them from rebelling against the manchu's rule. Such IMO is the political implication behind the whole pigtail issue.

No doubt, the pigtails from han-chinese's perspective is ugly and also go against their own filial piety principle.

[Yun]

I have often wondered: if the Chinese had not gone through the 250 years of shaving their heads under the Qing, would they have resisted very fiercely the introduction of Western hairstyles in the early 20th century? If uncut hair had remained a hallmark of filial piety, then only radical liberals and Marxists would have been willing to cut their hair to adopt a Western style. We might all still have topknots today. Instead, the Manchu pigtail made it such that cutting off the pigtail became a sign of revolution and nationalism, and not a violation of one's filial ethic.

[Klamath]

I have often wondered: if the Chinese had not gone through the 250 years of shaving their heads under the Qing, would they have resisted very fiercely the introduction of Western hairstyles in the early 20th century? If uncut hair had remained a hallmark of filial piety, then only radical liberals and Marxists would have been willing to cut their hair to adopt a Western style. We might all still have topknots today. Instead, the Manchu pigtail made it such that cutting off the pigtail became a sign of revolution and nationalism, and not a violation of one's filial ethic.

 

Well, if possible, i 'd like to have a pigtail without shaving my forehead.
But it is summer now, so hot, what a horrible thing to have topknot now!

[DaMo]

No doubt, the pigtails from han-chinese's perspective is ugly

 

I think it's ugly - period. Many racist stereotyped depictions of Chinese in the West involve the pigtails. At least when they got to America and out of the Qing dominion, they could have gotten rid of that 'do.

[Kulong]

I think it's ugly - period. Many racist stereotyped depictions of Chinese in the West involve the pigtails. At least when they got to America and out of the Qing dominion, they could have gotten rid of that 'do.

 

By the time of late Qing dynasty, that ugly Manchu hair do has already been forced upon Han Chinese for well over 200 years. No matter how ugly Han Chinese may have found it to be, many during that time were born and raised in the environment where that hair do is the norm.

Besides, when Chinese immigrants (more like slave labors) were first brought the U.S. to build railroads, I'm sure their hair style was the last thing on their mind...

[Liang Jieming]

Kinda like what happening now with many Western practices and value systems.

[snowybeagle]

We might all still have topknots today.

The Japanese got rid of theirs.

[tianzhuwoye]

The 'original' 'Manchu' haircut was supposedly far more wild, something along the lines of three serious cornrows pulled together at the back. Going theory is the tamer version that ended up getting used was introduced as something of a compromise.

Another side of the Qing Empire's effect on Han identity is that Han came out as a concept a hundred odd years ago heavily influenced by an idea of shared 'non-Manchuness.' There's a level on which the Qing banner system set out the groundwork for who was gonna be Han after the fall of the Empire. After the lands controlled by the Ming were consolidated during the early Qing, ethnic policies shifted and especially by Qianlong, the peoples of today's 'autonomous regions' were taken into the empire with their cultures relatively intact even as the various cultures of the east were all already subsumed under a convenient 'Han' label. Without the Qing, today we'd be playing with different ethnic categories. Looking at it beyond the rhetoric of nationalist mythology, the Qing's role in modern Han identity may have been more 'constructive' than destructive.

As far as never excusing the Manchus for their crimes against Han nationalist pride and identity, what's the plan? Starting up rumors about the legitimacy and lineage of just about every Qing Emperor? Massive Han settlement and transformation of the traditional Manchu homelands? Occasional random slaughter of anybody having a Manchu last name? A situation where the Manchu language is in danger of complete extinction?

[wlee15]

It's ironic that during the begining of the Republican era quite a few people were forced by soldiers to cut of their queue.

[poirot]

The 'original' 'Manchu' haircut was supposedly far more wild, something along the lines of three serious cornrows pulled together at the back. Going theory is the tamer version that ended up getting used was introduced as something of a compromise.

Another side of the Qing Empire's effect on Han identity is that Han came out as a concept a hundred odd years ago heavily influenced by an idea of shared 'non-Manchuness.' There's a level on which the Qing banner system set out the groundwork for who was gonna be Han after the fall of the Empire. After the lands controlled by the Ming were consolidated during the early Qing, ethnic policies shifted and especially by Qianlong, the peoples of today's 'autonomous regions' were taken into the empire with their cultures relatively intact even as the various cultures of the east were all already subsumed under a convenient 'Han' label. Without the Qing, today we'd be playing with different ethnic categories. Looking at it beyond the rhetoric of nationalist mythology, the Qing's role in modern Han identity may have been more 'constructive' than destructive.

As far as never excusing the Manchus for their crimes against Han nationalist pride and identity, what's the plan? Starting up rumors about the legitimacy and lineage of just about every Qing Emperor? Massive Han settlement and transformation of the traditional Manchu homelands? Occasional random slaughter of anybody having a Manchu last name? A situation where the Manchu language is in danger of complete extinction?

 

We still do have 56 different ethnicities.

As for your later comment, don't forget the massacres conducted by the Manchus to enforce Han compliance. The Manchus in Jia Ding and Yang Zhou were as notorious as the Japanese in Nanking. Nowdays I think that the Chinese media and CCTV only cast a rather favorable view of this period in Chinese history; we hear about the greatness of Kang Xi and the Qing's accomplishments in "unifying" China. The same goes for the Mongols. Rather than see Genghis Khan or Kublai as conquerors, we want see them as "unifiers." To heal our national pride, we rather label the conquering or subjugation of China as the "unification" of China.

Oh, please don't be mad. I am actually a stunch patroit and a Chinese nationalist. And from a realistic point of view, I do think that the Chinese media's favorable treatment of the roles played by Mongols and Manchus in history is very wise, because it fosters loyalty in our ethnic minorities, and reinforces the concept of a greater China that embraces all 56 ethnicities.

[Yun]

The Manchus in Jia Ding and Yang Zhou were as notorious as the Japanese in Nanking.

Massacres of cities are hardly reserved for 'barbarians' to perpetrate on the Chinese. In the many many civil wars of China, city massacres were a dime a dozen. So it is strange that the Chinese only remember such massacres when someone else does it to them. Nationalism, as Ernest Renan suggested (without any tinge of irony at the time, I might add), is as much about forgetting as it is about remembering.

[DaMo]

Nationalism, as Ernest Renan suggested (without any tinge of irony at the time, I might add), is as much about forgetting as it is about remembering.

 

No comment on the topic, but I strongly agree with this (very well put) statement.