Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Why Zhou & Qin not classiffied as foreign occupation?


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#16 mohistManiac

mohistManiac

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 3,576 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Mythology
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 16 August 2011 - 09:43 AM

Yeah, that is what I thought as well. Shang and Zhou are both the ancestor of the eventual Han Chinese, it just that the identity Han Chinese are not created during Shang and Zhou period of time. Regarding the ethnic minority,do any of those 56 ethnic minority actually have their own kingdom? If yes which one and what is the name of their kingdom?


I merely pointed out that there were ethnic distinctions between ancient Chinese peoples just as there are now.

For the Uighurs and others there are autonomous regions http://en.wikipedia....public_of_China which you can relate to being a kingdom of sorts although not foreign and ultimately compose of Chinese territory. All the ethnic groups in China have some territory which are reserved for their use.
I have the fortune of living in the part of the world which has use for toilet paper, but not douches.

#17 Cao Huan

Cao Huan

    Grand Guardian (Taibao 太保)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 242 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sugar Land, Texas
  • Interests:asian history, sinitic linguistics, asian anthropology
  • Languages spoken:mandarin, taiwanese hokkien, english
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:taiwanese american
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Ethnicities,Peoples
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 19 May 2012 - 10:10 PM

From what I see, a dynasty would be considered foreign if it conquered part of or all of what is today China, claims the Mandate of Heaven, but upon establishing their rule have not yet Sinicized. So by having and keeping a different ethnic identity from the majority Huaxia population upon the initial establishment of the dynasty makes the dynasty foreign.

So if a ruler who has a non Han/Huaxia cultural and ethnic identity establishes a dynasty over a Huaxia/Han population, then he has established a foreign dynasty. However if a ruler with ancestry from a different cultural/ethic group has already been assimilated to the local Huaxia culture and identity, and then establishes a dynasty, then the dynasty is not foreign despite the ruler's ancestry.

So even if the Sui and Tang dynasties began with emperors with Xianbei blood, the founding emperors were born in what is now China, claimed descent from Han dynasty nobles, and rose up to power from within China. So their dynasties are not foreign.

Zhou wouldn't be foreign because it created the whole concept of a "Huaxia" identity after uniting the Zhou and Shang peoples. And the Huaxia identity is the basis of what eventually became the Chinese identity.

Either Qin was originally a barbarian state that had Sinicized, swore allegience to the Zhou ruler, and created the concept of a unified Huaxia state, or they were already a Huaxia people that been conservative to the customs of the earlier Zhou periods while states to the east had progressed in a different trajectory, viewing the Qin as less civilized and "barbarians". In both scenarios Qin would not be foreign since by the time it unified the seven states, it subscribed to a Huaxia identity.

So the only foreign dynasties would be most of those in the 16 kingdoms and Northern Wei (since they had different cultural identities from the local Huaxia population, some rising from rebellions from inside or invading from outside), Liao, Western Xia, Jin, Yuan, and Qing. All because the founding rulers of these dynasties held different ethnic identities from the local populace in China.

Edited by Cao Huan, 19 May 2012 - 10:27 PM.


#18 mohistManiac

mohistManiac

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 3,576 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Mythology
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 20 May 2012 - 05:29 AM

From what I see, a dynasty would be considered foreign if it conquered part of or all of what is today China, claims the Mandate of Heaven, but upon establishing their rule have not yet Sinicized. So by having and keeping a different ethnic identity from the majority Huaxia population upon the initial establishment of the dynasty makes the dynasty foreign.

However Chinese peoples are not of just one singular identity despite the existence of the Han identity serving to unite them. Ethnic perceptions penetrate deeply into the Chinese experience by virtue of territorial distinctions complicating the issues of sinicization.

So if a ruler who has a non Han/Huaxia cultural and ethnic identity establishes a dynasty over a Huaxia/Han population, then he has established a foreign dynasty. However if a ruler with ancestry from a different cultural/ethic group has already been assimilated to the local Huaxia culture and identity, and then establishes a dynasty, then the dynasty is not foreign despite the ruler's ancestry.

But only because the range of territory from which the dynasty had arisen was already firmly rooted within Chinese historical context which basically translates into assimilation and sinicization of some kind. It would be weird to automatically presume that a family coming from Japan though having significant cultural ties with China could immediately render itself into a Chinese dynasty.

So even if the Sui and Tang dynasties began with emperors with Xianbei blood, the founding emperors were born in what is now China, claimed descent from Han dynasty nobles, and rose up to power from within China. So their dynasties are not foreign.

The beginning of any new dynasty could be foreign due to prevailing territorial distinctions between one state owned by the newcomers and that of the native Chinese. When these distinctions are extremely limited in value then the incoming dynasty will be perceived as fully sinicized at least to the point of becoming native along with the rest of the Chinese state.

Zhou wouldn't be foreign because it created the whole concept of a "Huaxia" identity after uniting the Zhou and Shang peoples. And the Huaxia identity is the basis of what eventually became the Chinese identity.

It would be foreign because the Zhou were newly coming from a separate corner of the current territory of China which had not been included into the state defined by the Shang.

Either Qin was originally a barbarian state that had Sinicized, swore allegience to the Zhou ruler, and created the concept of a unified Huaxia state, or they were already a Huaxia people that been conservative to the customs of the earlier Zhou periods while states to the east had progressed in a different trajectory, viewing the Qin as less civilized and "barbarians". In both scenarios Qin would not be foreign since by the time it unified the seven states, it subscribed to a Huaxia identity.


The reason why they were also considered foreign was because everyone gradually became foreign to each other over many years of the warring states period. The event created a reversal to the trend of becoming more unified under a single identity. To the Chinese this means quite a bit because although the Qin state and the others had possessed few things which could be considered unique for themselves they were still trying to grow political power for their own sake. Had the period continued Qin would have ended up like Chu borrowing more and more from regions elsewhere which may fall under its control. Qin had unified everyone so obviously as a formality China is named after Qin but during this time anyone could have taken power which by the way occured when the Qins experienced their fateful demise. It is not a complete fantasy to say China could have been named after the state of Chu or the state of Han during the Chu Han contention making the historically collected territories known as
Chubet or Haneria.

So the only foreign dynasties would be most of those in the 16 kingdoms and Northern Wei (since they had different cultural identities from the local Huaxia population, some rising from rebellions from inside or invading from outside), Liao, Western Xia, Jin, Yuan, and Qing. All because the founding rulers of these dynasties held different ethnic identities from the local populace in China.


They would be foreign to southern dynasties. They cannot be willingly foreign to themselves.

Edited by mohistManiac, 20 May 2012 - 05:47 AM.

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

#19 Corean Chinghiz

Corean Chinghiz

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 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 20 May 2012 - 05:55 PM

-The zhou states constantly warred with the four traditional barbarians

-Qin defeated the last rong tribe

-Sino-xiongnu wars pitted a chinese state against a foreign power

-Song dynasty fought liao, Jin, xixia, mongols

-Ming fought the manchus

These are the instances of chinese fighting against foreign barbarians. The wuhu uprising was mostly internal as the tribes were used by the Western Sima Jin Dynasty labourers for China's economy. they were serving China, but rebelled when internal bickering crippled the Jin

#20 Onasander

Onasander

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 17 posts

Posted 13 December 2014 - 09:40 PM

I was of the understanding the Zhou royal house regularly married Shang members. In a sense, they were a competing house of a larger royal lineage. The people under their leadership.... who knows.

#21 ahxiang

ahxiang

    Prime Minister (Situ/Chengxiang 司徒/丞相)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 1,643 posts

Posted 13 December 2014 - 11:42 PM

I was of the understanding the Zhou royal house regularly married Shang members. In a sense, they were a competing house of a larger royal lineage. The people under their leadership.... who knows.

 

You want to read history as history said. History said the Qin people were the generals defending the Shang last king. After the Shang was overthrew, the Qin people rebelled against the Zhou rule and hence were exiled to Northwest CHina.

 

This was like 3000 years ago.

 

Now, history said the Zhou people's ancestor served the Xia dynasty as minister of agriculture. When the Xia dynasty was overthrown by Shang, the Zhou people fled to west.

 

This was like 3500-3600 years ago.

 

Both the Qin people and the Zhou people originated from the middle land or the land to the east. That's why the Hunnic rebel claimed that the Zhou people had origin in 'Dong-yi' [land].

 

The Zhou people and the Qin people, though coming from the east, had different origins. The Zhou people were related to the Xia people, whose ruins was called DA-XIA land in today's southern Shanxi, i.e., the Sinitic origin. The Qin people were very much related to the Shang ruling clique which could be of the Yandi or Fiery lord origin, i.e., a very much Hmong-mien origin.



#22 YummYakitori

YummYakitori

    Prime Minister (Situ/Chengxiang 司徒/丞相)

  • Supreme Scholar (Jinshi)
  • 1,772 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Singapore
  • Languages spoken:English, Mandarin, Hokkien, Teochew, Korean, Japanese, Mongolian (a bit)
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Han Chinese 漢族
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Korean History 朝鮮歷史 조선역사

Posted 14 December 2014 - 12:07 AM

Qin Shihuang's original surname which is Ying (赢) was said to have originated in Shandong Province (Eastern China)


Буурэг дэрсэнд уурэглэсэн бужин туулай нь ч амгалан Булээн нууранд нь ганганалдсан хотон шувууд нь ч амгалан Буувэй санаа нь ивлэсэн Бусгуй сэптгэл нь ч амгалан хонхон дуутай бойтгийг нь Цэцэг унсэх нь энхрийхэн хöгöн горхины урсгалд нь Цэнгэг хараахай зуггуйхэн Хиртэшгуй ариухан дагшинд нь Монголын узэсгэлэн яруухан

#23 Onasander

Onasander

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 17 posts

Posted 14 December 2014 - 07:24 AM

What history would that be? I'm not disputing it, I know the Zhou did practice agriculture.... just not aware of what primary text this originates from, as I haven't seen this Qin presumption.

I was very much under the impression the Shang maintained a capacity to rebellion a decade into the Zhou, and that Zhou royalty even sought refuge. This only happens if you think you have a chance, and I presume (not 100%) that the Shang therefore retained generals, or at least respectable commanders of some type.

#24 ahxiang

ahxiang

    Prime Minister (Situ/Chengxiang 司徒/丞相)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 1,643 posts

Posted 14 December 2014 - 06:35 PM

What history would that be? I'm not disputing it, I know the Zhou did practice agriculture.... just not aware of what primary text this originates from, as I haven't seen this Qin presumption.

I was very much under the impression the Shang maintained a capacity to rebellion a decade into the Zhou, and that Zhou royalty even sought refuge. This only happens if you think you have a chance, and I presume (not 100%) that the Shang therefore retained generals, or at least respectable commanders of some type.

 

If you are truly interested in history, you have to read the classics. In the classics, you had the records on the ancestors of both Zhou and Qin. The ancient people, when talking about something, had to cite something. Hence, Liu Yuan of the 16 nations period, when rebelling against Jinn, claimed that Lord Yu had origin in the land of Xi-rong, and the Zhou king had origin in the Dong-yi; who said the barbarians like the Huns could not be a ruler of China? You then have Helian-bobo, another Hun, claiming descent from Lord Yu of the Xia dynasty. You then want to know why the Huns made those claims. I already explained that the Zhou ancestor worked in middle China, and hence was said to be from the eastern Yi's land. Lord Yu was called RONG-YU, i.e., barbarian Rong's Yu. This was because Yu was said to be born in Shiniu, postulated to be in today's Sichuan, but more likely the border area of Sichuan-Hubei-Shenxi. Remember today's northern Henan province carried numerous names like Yuzhou (Yuxian). This land, called the han-shui river basin, was later known as the land of San-miao. History indeed carried paradox. It is understandable in that successors Lord Shun and Lord Yu had campaigned against the Miao people in today's Dan-shui River area, i.e., about the same area, possibly the western most area of the Sinitic people. When Lord Yu was born here, the future historians associated him with the Rong name. 



#25 Onasander

Onasander

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 17 posts

Posted 14 December 2014 - 09:26 PM

I do read classics, but mostly western. I'm trying to finish a PDF of a long lost early zhou classic of the fall of the shang before christmas (yes you all will get it, the actual text I'm basing this on is public domain).

I'm as a result just focused obviously on Shang-Zhou relations. I only have a background in primary sources I find relating to the data in the text. Qin isn't mentioned obviously (text is quoted by Aristotle, so before Qin Dynasty), but it claims King Wu after his defeats (he and Jaing Ziya got their butts kicked over three years repeatedly prior to breaking into Emperor Zhou's brother-in-laws camp during a drunken victory celebration that was obviously premature, resulting in two defeats on the horrific retreat back to yinxu).

The text claims King Wu was able to get reinforcements to Lord Shang to join him in exchange for freedom.... I'm stumped in trying to figure out exactly who this is as I've seen outside of Shang and Zhou lands a few areas in China urbanized and therefor capable.

I know that sounds like nonsense, as it doesn't match up with the Confucian modified history of King Wu winning so easily, but luckily other contemporary civilizations kept records, and Emperor Zhou was too good of a story not to tell. I'll make it available very soon,and it will be open up to debate here..... I just need it to be researched a bit more, as I'm a perfectionist when it comes to final products.

I'm just fact checking here, in a painful rush. I want thus out before the new years, as I have other stuff involving Roman Philosophy I feel is more important to deal with. I'm proud of the discovery, but it's beyond my comfort zone.... I can quote sun tzu by heart, know the seven military classics, a little Mencius and Confucius, Mozi, Hundred Unorthodox Strategies, but I don't have the morphology of Chinese territories correlating with various historians in my head yet.... much less philosophical movements arising from it, like I do western world. So you can say "read the classics" but know I read western ones as my specialty, and got one chinese one no living chinese scholar realized has sat around in the west for thousands of years.

So.... I'd deeply appreciate knowing just which primary source (the original book written in antiquity) that the claim the Qin made this in, as I'm only aware of Zhou being understudies of the Shang, and not another royal branch. I'd like to confirm.

I'll do research on them from the info you gave me to see if they match up to what is mentiond in the lost annal. The translation went through several hands from chinese to greek, they get alot in agreement with emperor zhou, very good collaborated details.... but they just slapped any ol name for location, as they thought it happened in the west. So my main guess work is locations, as someone living in ancient greece obviously couldn't make sense of the geography that the various battles took place in.

It's also hard to date this too, it's definately Zhou era this was written in, but it has alot of painfully embarrassing details about how very close King Wu came to giving up. The modern texts I find in Chinese just claim the alliance forded a river, lined up the chariots, and king wu just said "maybe later" and three years later won a single battle, Muye. I know better now, but not that much better.... trying to find locations are hard.

I know from documentries a southern people near Zhou lands lived, the made metal trees with birds in them, and the Zhou Dynasty launched a attack on them three years after Shang fell. I thought maybe it could be them (Shu I think they were called) or the Qin lands....


And you mentioned San-Miao.... I was reading in a online translation of Shu Shang (I think) of a Lord of Miao who was invaded by a coalition during the Shang Dynasty. They dried to subdue him for 30 years, and failed.... then plucked a chicken of it's feathers, and started dancing with them between two staircases. This got Lord Miao to give up and surrender..... it's the only placename you mentioned I recognize from the books, and only because of how absurd the ritual was and what it sought. It makes me wonder why the United Nations didn't pluck chicken feathers and dance in the general assembly to end wars too.

I also know Rong means barbarian, Jiang Ziya was attacked by them after his return to Qi (my text says by boat, with the stolen gold and silver from the funeral pyre, but chinese sources say he walked).

I don't really get what made a Rong a Rong though..... wouldn't Zhou and these proto-Qin be Rong too?

Edited by Onasander, 14 December 2014 - 09:48 PM.


#26 Shiang

Shiang

    Executive State Secretary (Shangshu Puye 尚书仆射)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 709 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    ethnic minorities

Posted 15 December 2014 - 01:34 AM

Qing and Yuan didn't claim ancestry from Huangdi or any of the Sanhuang Wudi. All other dynasties claimed descent from Sanhuang Wudi, even the Xianbei ones. The Qing Aisin Gioro claimed their ancestor from a virgin birth and Genghis Khan's family is obviously from some Mongol clan.

 

Qin and Zhou Kings both traced their ancestry back to one of the Five Emperors. So they all originate ultimately from the Huaxia civilization and then migrated towards the outer areas, according to the traditional narratives.






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users