?>
Forum Policy | Howto | Asiawind Homepage | China the Beautiful | CTB forum | Forumites' comments | Feedback
Forums : | World2 | ZhengHe | ChineseCulture | Hakka | Overseas | SciTech | Life! | HealthMed | Foods | OurWorld[ReadyOnly]

Google
 
Web asiawind.com

Chinese Culture Forum at Asiawind
 Forum List  |  New Topic  |  Go to Top  |  Go to Topic  |  Threaded View  |  Search  |  Log In   Newer Topic  |  Older Topic 
 Manchu divide and rule is the root cause of China's divisiveness
Author: guo zhongli 
Date:   01-19-02 05:07

Inasmuch to perpetuate their tyrannical rule, the Manchu Qing dynasty incited one Han group against the other. They pitted the local Muslim Hans of the North against the non-Muslim southern Hans. In the South it was the Hakka (so called guests) against Punti (native Cantonese etc). In the process much blood and violence was shed when it could have been orchestrated to overthrowing the declining Manchu dynasty. Many wrong terms such as 'Hui min' (Muslim) ethnicity and 'Hakkas' were created during these turbulent times. Therefore learning one unifying national language (Putonghua) and with more education, the youth of China as well as the descendants of China beyond the four seas will someday cease to see petty differences.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Manchu divide and rule is the root cause of China's divisiveness
Author: tony (165.21.246.---)
Date:   01-20-02 01:15


Its a matter of conjecture as to whether Manchu rule had caused divisions, The four emperors Shunzhi, kangxi,yongzhen and qianlong had aclimatized themselves to Confucian etiquette and ethics and power sharing in government with the Han chinese, and had practiced benovalence and had given more than they had taken from the han chinese

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Manchu divide and rule is the root cause of China's divisiveness
Author: Tin-Kay Goh 
Date:   01-20-02 02:07

Dear Tony & Zhongli

I agree with both of you in different aspects of your posts, viz culture vs politics. Tony is right about Manchu contribution to Chinese culture and Zhongli about Manchu instigated divisive politics.

In regards to Han culture, the four Manchu Emperors mentioned by Tony certainly contributed very much to Confucianism, literature and the fine arts. It is conjectured that the Shunzi Emperor gave up his throne after being disillusioned by court intriques, the loss of his favorite concubine and an unhappiness that his mother had to give herself to his uncle, Prince Dorgon, to save the throne for her son. He was reputed to become a Buddhist hermit, though official Chinese history noted him as dying at the age of 23 years. The Kangxi and Qianlong Emperors were certainly scholars steeped in Chinese literature, philosophy and caligraphy. Qianlong's compulsive acquisition of Chinese paintings helped to save for posterity the best, though some were lost, stolen, sold or destroyed at the time of the last Qing Emperor, Henry Puyi.

On the political side, the Manchus were divisive in intent so that they can rule China in spite of being a small tribal minority. They had learnt the mistakes of the Mongols and the short-lived Yuan Dynasty. To rule China, the Manchus had to associate with the majority Han to implement the Qing edicts, while at the same time they must prevent the Hans from coalescing, and the numerous minorities like the Mongols and Uighurs from starting wild fire rebellions. Hence, Zhongli is also right to say that the Qing Emperors were divisive, creating mistrusts of Han against Han and the various minorities against the Han and against each other.

Yet, we must credit the Kangxi and Yongshen Emperors with bieng great adiministrators. They were the builders of China into a nation of peace and prosperity, unified and well regulated. This was done by the two Emperors using a twin administration system, one open and one secretive. Hence, they were able to keep a pulse on corruption and impending rebellion. The Yongzhen Emperor was said to died of overwork, having to personally read his official and unofficial submissions to the court.

The Emperor Qianlong, despite having a grandeur and an extravagrant expenditure, was actually the beginning of the fall of the Qing Dynasty. His appointment of the corrupt He Shen (also called by some as He Kun) led to an excessive drainage of state coffers. Both the Yongzhen and Qianlong Emperors destroyed the literati through pogroms against suspected literary works. I think Qianlong was overrated, and I would put the Kangxi Emperor and Li Shiming of the Tang Dynasty as the greatest Emperors of China.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Manchu divide and rule is the root cause of China's divisiveness
Author: guo zhongli 
Date:   01-20-02 05:18

All right I see your point, in a certain way those Manchu self-proclaimed emperors contributed postively to safeguarding some aspects of Chinese culture however what makes you sure that they did not have ulterior motives in mind when they were purporting to be patrons of culture and art? It is often said how Japanese, Koreans and even Manchus are more Confucian then the Chinese people themselves in general, is it not coincidential that the Manchus tried to impose as the state religion, albeit unsuccessfully, Confucianism which has never been a religion but a philosophical set of norms and values from the very day of its coming into existence. From a holistic perspective, there is nothing to be proud of the Manchu Qing Dynasty which caused China's great civilisation to digress and eventually let her be humiliated by once downtrodden Western barbarians, should the Ming Dynasty still have been existant, the picture of the modern world will have been a very different one, in total contrast to today's socio-economic-cultural and geopolitical scene which is dictated by the standards of Anglo Saxonism.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Manchu divide and rule is the root cause of China's divisiveness
Author: guo zhongli 
Date:   01-20-02 05:23

The Manchu rulers simply adapted to extrinsic elements of Han Chinese culture to make themselves acceptable in the eyes of the conquered while at the same time remaining intrinsically Manchu. An example of which was the shamanistic religion which the Manchu imperial family and aristocracy adhered to in private while being nominal Confucianists. From a few decades after 1644 until 1911, Han Chinese migration to Manchuria was forbidden by law and likewise intermarriage between Han and Manchu was proscribed. How could one perceive the Manchu rulers as benevolent ones keen on maintaining the continuity of the Chinese culture when they were racial chauvinists at heart, not much different from Japanese fascists.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Manchu divide and rule is the root cause of China's divisiveness
Author: SL Lee (65.24.67.---)
Date:   01-22-02 23:11

Manchurians contribute to the Han culture in many ways that is hard to tell which is which now. Please give proper credit to the different ethnic groups in the evolution of Chinese culture. Harmonization is always the better way than confrontation.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Manchu divide and rule is the root cause of China's divisiveness
Author: CHUNG Yoon-Ngan 
Date:   01-23-02 03:18


In 1644AD when the ManZhou national (º¡¬w±Ú) established the
Qing Dynasty (²M´Â 1644AD to 1911AD) the total area of China was
3,530,000 square kilometers. 267 years later in 1911AD when Dr Sun
Yat Sen founded the Republic of China (¤¤µØ¥Á°ê) the total area of China
was about 13,000,000 square kilometers. Thanks to the Manzhou for
increasing the total size of China by 9,476,000.

Year=====area incorporated=======total area incorporated

1635AD==Inner Mongolia==========1,000,000 sq. kilometers
1644AD==Manchuria============= 2,480,000 sq. kilometers
1683AD==Taiwan================== 36,000 sq. kilometers
1697AD==Outer Mongolia==========1,800,000 sq. kilometers
1720AD==Xi Zang (Tibet)===== =====1,600,000 sq. kilometers
1724AD==Qinghai================= 660,000 sq. kilometers
1759AD==Xinjiang================1,900,000 sq kilometers

If not of the Manzhou nationals the present day China is only a small country.

CHUNG Yoon-Ngan (¾G¥Ã¤¸)

Yoon-Ngan

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Manchu divide and rule is the root cause of China's divisiveness
Author: guo zhongli 
Date:   01-23-02 04:42

What about the millions of innocent people who were butchered under the long period of Manchu rule, is that something to be proud of...moreover would most Chinese deign to be subjected to barbarian rule? China at the end of the Ming Dynasty era was on the wane, it was pure coincidence that at that time the size of the empire was smaller than that of the Manchu's at its peak, however if Ming suzerainty prevailed one can be sure that China's boundaries would have been the same as that under the glorious Tang are even more vast.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Manchu divide and rule is the root cause of China's divisiveness
Author: guo zhongli 
Date:   01-23-02 04:47

True, many Manchus played a positive role in perpetrating as well as developing Han culture however this was on an individual basis and not a reflection of the totality of the Manchu attitude in general towards the Han Chinese. Do you not recall how all Han Chinese were mandated to wear a pigtail as a sign of submission to the Manchu rulers, and above all a token of humiliation for the Han Chinese, nothing short of a manifestation of the Manchu racial superiority attitude.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Manchu divide and rule is the root cause of China's divisiveness
Author: CHUNG Yoon-Ngan 
Date:   01-23-02 04:56


If...................
If....................
If...........

The present day size of China and its vast territory is not a if.
It is almost as big as U.S.A. and slightly bigger than the continent of Australia.
How to compare the total area of western Europe to that of China?.
If my great father were alive he would be proud of it because he once lived there.
As far as I am concerned China is the land of my ancestors.

Yoon-Ngan

Yoon-Ngan

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Manchu divide and rule is the root cause of China's divisiveness
Author: guo zhongli 
Date:   01-23-02 05:19

What does it matter of the Chinese empire under the Manchus was at a certain period of time a superpower while the preponderant majority of the Chinese people (not only the Han) were having their honour put aside and their rights deprived thanks to an usurper known as Nurhachi Aisin Gioro, successors of whom killed many family members of the imperial Ming family the legitimate heir to the Throne of Heaven. It is in my humble opinion better to have a smaller China where the people lead prosperous and secure lives and above all have their rights and honour guaranteed by whichever government that has been given the mandate to rule. Nonetheless having an imperial dynastic line of barbarian origins is a sine quae non, Han or non-Han is not the question and one can be certain that Sun Yat Sen and his nationalistic followers realised this when they overthrew the Manchus in 1911.

Btw: China is also the land of ancestors of mine who happened to be Han Chinese Muslims from Shaanxi who left China during the southern Song and Ming Dynasty periods, therefore one should not condemn what one does not know. The Tartars (Mongols, Manchus, Jurchen etc.) have always been the Middle Kingdom's foes since time immemorial, not any different from the animosity between the Roman Empire (represented today by the Greco-Latin countries of southern and eastern Europe) and the Germanic people (England, Germany, Holland, Scandinavia, Austria etc.).

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Manchu divide and rule is the root cause of China's divisiveness
Author: guo zhongli 
Date:   01-23-02 05:20

What does it matter of the Chinese empire under the Manchus was at a certain period of time a superpower while the preponderant majority of the Chinese people (not only the Han) were having their honour put aside and their rights deprived thanks to an usurper known as Nurhachi Aisin Gioro, successors of whom killed many family members of the imperial Ming family the legitimate heir to the Throne of Heaven. It is in my humble opinion better to have a smaller China where the people lead prosperous and secure lives and above all have their rights and honour guaranteed by whichever government that has been given the mandate to rule. Nonetheless having an imperial dynastic line of barbarian origins is a sine quae non, Han or non-Han is not the question and one can be certain that Sun Yat Sen and his nationalistic followers realised this when they overthrew the Manchus in 1911.

Btw: China is also the land of ancestors of mine who happened to be Han Chinese Muslims from Shaanxi who left China during the southern Song and Ming Dynasty periods, therefore one should not condemn what one does not know. The Tartars (Mongols, Manchus, Japs, Jurchen etc.) have always been the Middle Kingdom's foes since time immemorial, not any different from the animosity between the Roman Empire (represented today by the Greco-Latin countries of southern and eastern Europe) and the Germanic people (England, Germany, Holland, Scandinavia, Austria etc.).

CHUNG Yoon-Ngan</a> wrote:
>
>
> If...................
> If....................
> If...........
>
> The present day size of China and its vast territory is not a
> if.
> It is almost as big as U.S.A. and slightly bigger than the
> continent of Australia.
> How to compare the total area of western Europe to that of
> China?.
> If my great father were alive he would be proud of it because
> he once lived there.
> As far as I am concerned China is the land of my ancestors.
>
> Yoon-Ngan
>
>

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Manchu divide and rule is the root cause of China's divisiveness
Author: James Liew (203.124.0.---)
Date:   01-23-02 05:22

One thing is very clear; the Han Chinese betrayed the Han Chinese which leads to the Manchu rule....and I'm not surprise if China is again "Sell out" by the Chinese. History do repeats itself.

James Liew

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Manchu divide and rule is the root cause of China's divisiveness
Author: guo zhongli 
Date:   01-23-02 05:35

Well said, and I would like to add that the glory that was once China fell into disrepute at various points during her long and grand history not due to the bravoure, candour, strength, genius of others but due to her own folly. China's heteregenity is a source of her immense power but at the synopatically her Achilles heel, China's diversity and individuality of her people has given rise to many problems since I do not know exactly when.

The Manchus could not have penetrated the Great Wall were it not for the betrayal of a certain army general (I forgot his name) whose love for a woman held captive by the Aisin-Gioro clan led him to allow the Manchu Eight Banner Armies to enter Beijing where he put himself at the service of those despicable barbarians to save his beloved damsel in distress. In a certain way is this treachery common through'out Chinese history not reminiscent of how Jiang Zemin and other corrupt CCP leaders lack the courage to stand up against the US-led Western bloc in spite of a recent discovery of spy surveillance equipment in a boeing 747 jet recently purchased by China for the inept president who is known like many of his comrades to have sent their children to live in Western countries for fear that the day of revolution is nearing, the glorious hour when China's imperial grandeur will be restored.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Manchu divide and rule is the root cause of China's divisiveness
Author: Kobo-Daishi 
Date:   01-23-02 07:22

Dear Guo,

The name of the general was Wu Sangui, who had been assigned to guard the Shanhaiguan pass. The concubine was held captive by a Han Chinese rebel leader named Li Zicheng not by the Manchus.

When Li Zicheng's rebel forces attacked Beijing in 1644, the last Ming emperor hanged himself. Seeing General Wu and his troops as being the only defenders of the Ming dynasty left, Li and his troops advanced east to attack General Wu and his forces. General Wu led his troops west to confront Li's forces leaving the Shanhaiguan pass unguarded. Seizing this opportunity the Qing forces composed of Manchu, Mongol, and Chinese banners entered China.

In addition to having taken the concubine as his own, Li had also kidnapped Wu's father. General Wu faced with Li and his forces to the west of him and the Qing and their banners to the east knew that the only way to survive was to ally with one of his enemies. Faced with the choice of two enemies, Wu took the Manchu as the lesser of the two evils. Wu allied with the Qing to attack Li and his rebels. Wu's father was executed by Li.

The end of the Ming was complete.

Wu Sangui was discussed in a previous discussion at the following web page:

http://www.asiawind.com/php3/php/forums/read.php?f=2&i=457&t=457

Kobo-Daishi, PLLA.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Manchu divide and rule is the root cause of China's divisiveness
Author: SL Lee (65.24.67.---)
Date:   01-23-02 07:24

There are several common errors of the thought processes :

1. Using parts to determine the whole - The act of an individual(or individuals) is generalized to his whole ethnic group. This is how all discrimination and prejudice started. Without Manchurians, Mongolians, and all the rest of the 56 ethnic groups, Chinese are no more. Chinese culture will never be as rich and colorful. There is no such thing as pure Han culture. Han culture is an integration of all the cultures with invisible stitches.

2. Absolute definition of good or bad - good things can turn into bad, and vice versa. There are always two facets for everything, as we all learn from Yijing (sometimes labeled as dialectism). Without Wu San Gui, without Manchuria, China under Ming would probably become something else (Japanese colony?). Putrefaction follows deterioration and stagnation. The succession of dynasties has causes and consequences.

3. Conclusion before all facts are available - One can project, but not to conclude with limited facts. It is certainly a serious matter to discover high tech bugging devices on the plane sold to China. The story has not ended yet, nor is the negotiation totally disclosed (and it probably will never be). International diplomacy is sometimes done in a very subtle way. Giving an inch to gain a foot is a much better deal. This will certainly be one of the topics when Bush visits China in February.

These three are not necessarily independent of each other.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Manchu divide and rule is the root cause of China's divisiveness
Author: guo zhongli 
Date:   01-23-02 09:21

Interesting esquisse about General Wu Sangui who in Chinese history is known as a traitor to China's cause, you tend to portray him in a more positive right your judgement of which might happen be correct; I do not know precisely for I am no historical expert to begin with.

However there was a few months ago a documentary on the Great Wall on the Discovery Channel in which it was documented that was opened by Wu, the gates of the Shanhaiguan Pass which happened to be, if I am not mistaken, located along the ramparts guarding China proper from northern barbarian lands. According to the documentary, he did so to allow the Manchu armies safe passage into the heart of the Middle Kingdom for the love of his concubine lover. It was not mentioned which side held her captive, but I concluded that she was under Manchu captivity from the way the story line was presented. (they might well be wrong on this)

Why should a military leader of high standing such as Wu had turned himself over to the enemy (Manchu) camp when he and Li Zicheng could have united at least temporarily like Mao and Chiang did during WWII against the Japs, to avert a takeover of China by a common enemy; they would then be able to settle their old scores once the Manchu threat was contained/destroyed. Or did it occur in Wu's fecund mind cloaked in uncontrollable passionate love that the enemy of my enemy is a priori my friend? Perhaps only God knows......say if George Bush is to in the coming months call for a new crusade against communism, targetting the PRC in the ensuing process...would well-intentioned Chinese democrats deign to join Bush's cause and betray their brothers, albeit 'commie capitalists', allowing their motherland to be once more under the heels of white barbarians?

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Manchu divide and rule is the root cause of China's divisiveness
Author: guo zhongli 
Date:   01-23-02 09:33

Theoretical speculation aside, let me first of all make it clear that in no way am I a bigot harbouring feelings of dislike towards particular ethnic groups. The fact that the Qing Dynasty was a Manchu one that led China into digression does not entail it to be a collective crime of all the Manchu people. When I use the definitive article 'the' when referring to Manchus it is a reference to the Manchu rulers of China at that period of time, not the Manchu ethnic group as a whole.

On the other hand it is also clear when speaking on this subject matter with people from China that it is a commonly held opinion that China regressed into third world backwardness with all due thanks to the ineptitude of the Manchu rulers, most of whom were weak and corrupt. That they were willing to forfeit China's honour after being humiliated during the First Opium War shows to what extent they are loyal to their so-called country of adoption, deep in their hearts they only cared about their native homeland in Manchuria which became Manchukuo after 1895, impossible without collaboration between remnants of the Qing imperial usurper family and the Jap Kwantung Army.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Manchu divide and rule is the root cause of China's divisiveness
Author: FM Liew 
Date:   01-24-02 02:32

I find that the way the Chinese govt’ handles the foreign aggression, is an exact duplication of how the Han Chinese has been treating the Mongol. And eventually the Mongol launches an attack on China. Like earlier mentioned, if the Chinese govt’ carry on behaving like his ancestor, Chances that China will fall into the hands of the aggressor. Trust me.

Look at it this way; Chinese is trying frantically to pleased the American. They even went all the way to release the prisoners. What are they trying to do? To pleased the foreigner who is visiting China soon? Isn’t it preposterous?

The Chinese govt’ yap over Arms sales by the American to the Taiwanese. Just full of yapping and no action. Metaphorically speaking, the event is like a leaking pipe. Instead of stopping the leakage with a stopper, the Chinese govt choose to wipe the wet floor, hoping that the pip will runs dry one day.

Majority of the Chinese though not all has the tendency of hitting on his own kind and not others. The problem between China and Taiwan don’t lays in Taiwan.

History seems to repeats itself. As the matter of fact, it had already started.

James Liew

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: That's the CCP's fault, not China's!
Author: guo zhongli 
Date:   01-24-02 03:53

When speaking to people in mainland China, it is obvious how most of them are disgruntled at China's CCP leadership's handling of the recent spate of events in which America is getting more high handed than ever. Even Mao had the courage to stand up against America and the rest of the West, however bad his numerous flaws in leading China may have been.

In contrast to Mao's staunch resistance against the Western imperialists, today's Chinese leaders like Jiang Zemin and Li Peng are bent on placating the West for their personal interests which have their root in corruption. These figures are involved in shady dealings with big Western corporations and they do not want to lose what gains they have and can be made by complying with the people's desire to see justice fulfilled by opposing Western aggression through'out the world (not limited to Afghanistan).

Perhaps you already know about on ongoing struggle between the CCP leadership and the PLA generals, the latter are known to be in liaison with anti-Western imperialist groups around the world, including the Taliban and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda (perhaps it is a coincidence that a good number of the PLA soldiers happen to be Muslims). Western intelligence analysts have even suggested a possibility that the recent bugging equipment scandal was orchestrated by senior high ranking PLA officers to discredit Jiang Zemin and his cohorts, thereby influencing China's official foreign policy towards the West. Note that the PLA clearly identifies the United States and Great Britain as China's main enemies, unlike the civil authorities who tend to be more interested in compromising with the West as they place economic gain above national sovereignty and honour.

If you look back into China's history it is discernible that she fell into the hands of marauding foreign barbarians only when civilian politicians got the upper hand in influencing domestic policy. A good example of which was the northern Sung Dynasty whose army at that time was the mightiest and best organised, yet the valiant fighting men found themselves dispersed far from the frontiers, leaving only small garrison troops consisting mainly of peasants recruited on a temporary basis to guard China's northern frontier. The disability of the Chinese army at that time to concentrate effectively to deal the Mongols with a fatal crushing blow was the key to China's fall from grace, an unfortunate phenomenon that will have not have taken place if Confucianist scholar-officials did not succeed to have more say in determining how military strategy is to effect itself.

China's history has long been animated by a longstanding conflict between the military aristocratic families of the northwest and the confucian scholar gentry who are of commoner stock. It seems that since 1644 China's traditional nobility has been losing much of its power and prestige, the picture is not too bleak though because many descendants of them are today influential high ranking officers of the PLA.

Reply To This Message
 
 Literary Contributions of the early Qing (Manchu) Emperors
Author: Tin-Kay Goh 
Date:   01-25-02 08:03

Dear Zhongli

Qing Dynasty Politics aside, the Kangxi emperor contributed the Kangxi Dictionary ±dº³¦r¨å , Peiwn Yunfu ¨Ø¤åÃý©² , Ming History ©ú¥v and and a compilation of Chinese books called Gujin Tushu Jicheng ¥j¤µ¹Ï®Ñ¶°¦¨ . The Qianlong Emperor commissioned the larger Four Treasuries, Siku Quanshu ¥|®w¥þ®Ñ . In terms of the number of volumes, only the Ming Dynasty Yongle Emperor's Yongle Da Dian ¥Ã¼Ö¤j¨å could stand with these Qing comprehensive works. (This comment does not diminish the fantastic work of Sima Qian in producing The Records of the Historian ¥v°O.)

Unfortunately for some scholars, the Qianlong Emperor embarked on a Literary Inquisition with executions of some authors or owners of 2000 odd "seditious" books, which were destroyed.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Manchu divide and rule is the root cause of China's divisiveness
Author: tony (203.116.186.---)
Date:   01-25-02 20:59


There was no better alternative than the Manchus reign, the last emperor of the Ming having hung himself due to inepttiude though no fault of his own, he had merely inherited his forefather;s burdens and woes, along with the court officials and palace maids and Li Zhi Zheng having no support from Wu San Kui,and also due to Wu parochial rancour towards Li Zhi Zheng due to a woman, as for the unifying forces the remants of Ming royalty had no popualr support like the prince of tang and prince Fu in southern China, the control of the empire belongs to the one who knows how to utilise talents and maximise it, based on the cycle of Mandate of Heavn ,the Ming had lost it, the only alternative was the Qing. without it china had risked a chronic civil fractious war which will not beneft anyone

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Literary Contributions of the early Qing (Manchu) Emperors
Author: John Mak 
Date:   01-26-02 02:08

It is interesting to see a large number of contributors on this subject.
Zhongli assumes that:
1-without the interruption of the Qing,the Ming would have brought a glorious China.
2-Diivide and rule only happened with the Qing.
3-Conquerors were benefactors.
True to the Chinese dynastic historiography,there had always rise and fall period,during the decayed period,Northern China was a hot bed of changes,inter-regnum provided opportunities for Han and non-Han to seize
power and declare himself as son of heaven.
The actors in the inter-regnum from Ming to Qing were : Nurhhaci,Abahai,Dorgon,Wu and Li.
Nurhaci was not the conqueror of China,it was Dorgon .
In June 1644,Dorgon entered Beiging,issued an edict that the Manchus had avenged the overthrow of the Ming.
Both Han-Chinese and Manchu groups were split ,Manchu sinicized and non-sinicized;Han-Chinese pro-Manchu and against Manchu.(A concise history of China by J.A.G.Roberts).
Zhongli is right that the Northerners tended to prefer military solution as compared to the Southerners.
It is no surprise that the present leaders of China lean more towards peaceful solution than military solution.
China had been at war for the past 200 years,it is time her people lives in peace among themselves.
The Chinese world of dynasties was far different from to-day.Chinese concept of Middle Kingdom was applied to a few nations on her peripheries.
Divide and rule has been a method of administration used not only by the conquerors but also the conquered in the past,it is also used by every nation to-day.
Looking through history,conquerors have not been wholly benefactors,starting from the Romans,Mongols,Arabs,Turks and the European countries.
Analyzing history is not difficult.
Creating history is another matter.
The Manchu created a glorious part of Chinese history,albeit not perfect.
John.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Literary Contributions of the early Qing (Manchu) Emperors
Author: Kobo-Daishi 
Date:   01-30-02 04:07

Dear Guo,

I¡¦m not a historian, either. But I enjoy reading a lot.

The account in my posting is based mainly upon the 1990 edition of ¡§The Search for Modern China,¡¨ by Jonathan D. Spence. Spence is a professor at Yale University who specializes in Chinese history since the 16th Century.

In the book, Spence also gives a list of pros and cons that must have gone through Wu Sangui¡¦s mind as to which of the two sides should he ally with.

Here is what he wrote:

¡§Among arguments for joining Li were the fact that he was Chinese, that he seemed to have the support of the local people, that he promised to end the abuses that had marked the late Ming state, and that he held Wu¡¦s father as a hostage. Otherwise, Li was an unknown quantity, violent and uneducated; moreover, the behavior of his army in Peking after he had seized the city in April 1644 was not encouraging to a wealthy and cultured official like General Wu. Li¡¦s troops had looted and ravaged the city, attacking and pillaging the homes of senior officials, seizing their relatives for ransom, or demanding enormous payoffs in ¡¥protection money.¡¦ Even though Li had declared the formal founding of a new dynasty, he was unable to control his own generals in Peking, and Wu might well have wondered how effective Li would be in unifying China.

As for allying with the Manchus, there was the disadvantage that they were ethnically non-Chinese, and their Jurchen background included them in a history of semicivilized frontier people whom the Chinese had traditionally despised; furthermore, they had terrorized parts of North China in their earlier raids and had virtually wiped out some of the cities they had occupied. Yet in their favor was the early development of their embryonic regime, the Qing, which offered a promise of order: the six ministries, the examination system, the formation of the Chinese banners, the large numbers of Chinese advisers in senior positions¡Xall were encouraging signs to Wu. And their treatment of senior Chinese officials who surrendered had been good.

For a combination of these reasons and according to popular tales, because Li had seized one of Wu¡¦s favorite concubines and had made her his own, General Wu Sangui threw in his lot with the Manchus, fought off the army that Li sent against him, and invited Dorgon to join him in recapturing Peking. Li retaliated by executing Wu¡¦s father and displaying the head on the walls of Peking. But the morale of Li¡¦s troops were fading fast, and not even his formal assumption of imperial rank on June 3, 1644, could shore him up. The next day he and his troops, weighed down by booty, fled to the west. On the sixth of June, the Manchus and Wu entered the capital, and the boy emperor was enthroned in the Forbidden City with the reign title of Shunzhi.¡¨

Kobo-Daishi, PLLA.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Literary Contributions of the early Qing (Manchu) Emperors
Author: FM Liew 
Date:   01-30-02 13:38

Whatever happened to China whether in the past or present is more or less self-inflicting. Let nature take its course. This theory not only applies on China. It's a universal phenomenon.

James liew

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: Manchu divide and rule is the root cause of China's divisiveness
Author: anonymous (62.7.10.---)
Date:   03-10-02 19:17

After many invasions yet the Chinese civilisation and culture still stands and flourish.

Reply To This Message
 Forum List  |  New Topic  |  Go to Top  |  Go to Topic  |  Threaded View  |  Search  |  Log In   Newer Topic  |  Older Topic 


 Forum List  |  Need a Login? Register Here 
 User Login
 User Name:
 Password:
   

Google
 
Web asiawind.com
phorum.org The Asiawind forums are provided to you by InTechTra Inc.