User talk:Madalibi

Hey brosef

How's it going! I'm glad that you've finally decided to come on board. Welcome!

I responded to your questions on Talk:List of Chinese inventions. As you could probably tell, that article simply needs polishing and does not need any sort of expansion. It has perhaps grown beyond acceptable limits (even for a list article). Lately I've been compiling a mountain of notes in my effort to rewrite the Han Dynasty article and create five or six branch articles, such as "History of the Han Dynasty," "Society of the Han Dynasty," "Science and technology of the Han Dynasty," "Economy of the Han Dynasty," "Architecture of the Han Dynasty," etc.

Here are my notes:

• User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox
• User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox2
• User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox3
• User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox4
• User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox Cambridge1
• User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox Cambridge2
• User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox Cambridge3

It is an ambitious project and I will perhaps need assistance from someone knowledgeable about the subject. [Cough, cough, eh-hem. ;)] Feel free to suggest material or notes you may have that could bolster the gargantuan monstrosity of notes I have here. I've cited tons of different books in these notes, but the more information I gather the more I realize how many holes there are. For example, I desperately need to compile more notes on literature and philosophy, as most of my material is dominated by the subjects of court politics and intrigue, political structure and organization, the government's domestic and foreign policies, frontier and colonial life, economy and industry, science and technology, archaeology and structural engineering, while there is only mention here and there of social life and culture.

Cheers!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I already love the litany of sources you have suggested on my talk page. Funny that you should mention dissections of people during Wang Mang's reign, I recently mentioned this in the article for Shen Kuo, although I used it simply as an example that autopsies and dissections were nothing new to China by the Song period.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I can access any journal article on JSTOR, but I do not have access to PubMed, unfortunately.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Good luck!

Madalibi, I see you have taken user Arilang under your wing. I wish you luck with your endeavours. I'm afraid I lost patience with him (both his POV and his less-than-adequate editing skills), which was not a good thing. I hope that with your fresh approach and better knowledge of Chinese history you can do a better job. Good luck!

Bathrobe (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I am quite happy to be the "bad guy" for User Arilang. He has twisted my comments about him (if you check our exchange on the Qing dynasty talk page -- no, don't bother, I don't even feel like going back there -- you'll find that I deliberately avoided directly labelling him as a "Han chauvinist", etc) and I can't see myself gaining any traction by trying to reason with him. User Arilang is now basically determined to ignore any suggestion I make, constructive, destructive, or otherwise. I don't see any point in using kid gloves. I am sure he finds it extremely frustrating that someone does not and will not share his views on Chinese history, but that's too bad. The problem is not his views on history, it's his editing practices.

Incidentally, I find that User Arilang's English seems fine when you are talking with him on the talk page. It's when he's editing that his English skills seem to desert him. In fact, I would suggest it's not his English skills that are the problem, it's his ability to view issues with any pretence at neutrality.

Anyway, I'm quite happy to be the foil here. If I block him at every turn he's more likely to be receptive to your kinder, more constructive, and more moderate suggestions.

I have removed the reference to a child scattering his toys. It was, as you pointed out, inappropriate.

Bathrobe (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Literary inquisition

I've looked at the article on literary inquisition during the Qianlong era [1] and I'm having trouble finding anything about "A deceased Jiang Xu poet by the name of Sujun", as the footnote implies it should. I've challenged User Arilang twice on this but he's in a huff with me and is not replying. If he could supply the correct characters it would be useful. I've found 查嗣庭, 莊廷鑨, 戴名世, and 蔡顯, but no Sujun.

Incidentally, a look at some of those figures on Baidu will reveal that some did indeed engage in literary opposition to the Qing, so the article is actually slightly biased.

Bathrobe (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That is great! I have only one question. The source given doesn't contain the name 徐述夔. Perhaps it should be replaced with another one. E.g. [2]

Bathrobe (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I do have one final reservation: The name 胡中藻 is not found at [3], either. Is any of the article actually sourced there? (Perhaps 蔡顯, in which case the footnote should go there.)

By the way, my "run-in" with user Arilang actually began at [[4]], where I basically agreed that the identification of the Manchus as "Chinese" was distorting. At any rate, our dispute didn't suddenly erupt full-blown at Qing dynasty. Looking back, I can see that I got too harsh with him and probably should have held back with labels like anti-Manchuist and Han Chauvinist. The guy is sincere, which accounts for his determination and zeal. I'm wondering whether there is a cultural factor here. In a tradition that engages unashamedly in 褒贬 history from a particular viewpoint (in modern times the survival and flourishing of the "Chinese nation"), is it perhaps more difficult to understand slippery and ill-defined (ultimately undefineable) concepts like POV?

I'm very impressed with the work that you're doing, including your proposed framework for a longer article. I'm not an expert on Chinese history, but I'm quite interested in your inclusion of philosophical issues, such as Evidential learning and New Text Confucianism, both of which I've done some rather unsatisfactory work on. I created the rather poorly focussed article on Han learning from material I could scrabble together from round the Internet, and I also tried to improve the article on Old Text.

I'm also interested in early modern Japanese history because that is where some of the concepts of modern Japanese ideology and self-images of race and nation come from. Kokugaku and Shinbutsu bunri are especially interesting because of the amazing distortions that these introduced into the modern discourse. Even though the distinction between "shrine" and "temple" is fundamental in modern Japan, it's very interesting to know that for most of Japanese history this distinction wasn't terribly relevant at all. The split between "Japanese elements" and "Chinese (or imported) elements" was nothing like the fundamental bifurcation that is taken for granted nowadays. In some ways those Tokugawa and Meiji era concepts really did bring about a kind of "paradigm shift".

Bathrobe (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well... the sources I plagiarised were pretty good :) At the time I did that I (and Wikipedia) were less concerned with showing "sources". Not that I shamelessly plagiarised entire passages, but articles written on the basis of Internet sources do tend to betray the original source.

Bathrobe (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent!

I've browsed through your drafts a bit, and I am already impressed with your choice of topics and content added so far. I love the prospect of seeing someone as smart and dedicated as you willing to craft (and in some cases recreate) articles here at Wiki. God speed, sir, God speed.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff! I feel hopeful about Chinese articles at Wikipedia now.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking after Ming Dynasty.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! I like the work you've already done for the Shunzhi Emperor. I'll periodically check your drafts to see your progress on the other Qing emperors. The Qing Dynasty can be your territory, man, take it! I wasn't planning on touching it at all. Right now, for me, it is full speed ahead for the Han Dynasty! Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If I could offer any advice, it would be that you should take Wikipedia projects slowly and develop them steadily over time; nothing will get done in a day, although you've accomplished so much already with your drafts that it is admirable. I haven't even outlined the Han Dynasty draft yet! It's too daunting, simply because I plan on having several branch articles about different aspects or topics within the Han Dynasty (economy, society, history, etc.), not just one main article entitled 'Han Dynasty'. Also, I'm still compiling notes! Right now I'm going over Grant Hardy's Worlds of Bronze of Bamboo: Sima Qian's Conquest of History. I'm also reading Mounted Archers: The Beginnings of Central Asian History, by Laszlo Torday.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, on what site could I possibly PM you? Lol. :) I certainly will. I like your approach to writing a paper outline. It's something I should have done from the beginning. However, changing my methods now would be like changing horses in mid stream, or since I'm so close to being done with taking notes, changing horses about 5 meters away from the finish line. I have gotten into the bad habit of quoting large sections of these books instead of skillfully paraphrasing and summarizing; I try to blend and mix the two, but Grant Hardy is such an excellent writer and organizer that I don't mind quoting his original text word for word in certain places. I think it has much to do with my fear of missing a vital point or skipping over something on a certain page that I'll regret skipping over later. I hate it when authors throw important clues out in the beginning at random intervals and don't reveal what they're talking about (or don't make them seem very relevant in the beginning) until the end of a book. A lot of it is perhaps simply paranoia on my part, though.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha! Yeah, I remember those high school days all too well (when I wasn't too drunk to remember, of course, lol), so I understand the temper tantrums (i.e. "back off!", "my page!") and the incredible amount of useless filler sentences used for final papers. But seriously, kids these days, eh? Thanks for the Shang Han Lun link! Awesome. You know what? You have been just too helpful. Fortunately for me (and thanks to you), now I have a list of sources on medicine that I can scour to make an appropriate section in one of the articles. Sandbox7, here we come? Oh boy.-Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Image of Ming emperors

When have time please have a look:Talk:Ming Dynasty#Ming emperors's images were distorted Arilang1234 (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did China fall prey to nomadic invaders?

为什么中国受到狩猎游牧民族的侵略屠杀

但历史的事实，毕竟无情，给这类无耻文人以难堪。康熙不修长城，这是事实。但满清的入关，本就是满蒙上层统治者互相勾结，进入中原烧杀掳掠，奴役人民，剩 下的只是如何坐地分赃，也确实没有长城的用途，对于这昔日阻碍他们肆意屠杀抢掠的堡垒工事，自然不会有什么顾念。北方的长城是形同虚设了，但整个中国的沿 海，在那个满嘴冠冕堂皇言辞的康熙统治下，长达二十多年的时间了，却建立起一道无形甚至有形的长城，其规模之浩大，牵连之广泛，长城与之相比，只能望尘莫 及。
沿海迁界，大部分的历史书都是不谈的，即便谈到了，也多是轻描淡写，一笔带过，仿佛是无足轻重，无关大雅。然而个人以为沿海迁界这个事件的重 大性是被严重低估的低估，其残暴程度，骇人听闻程度，对历史影响程度都是空前绝后的，它不仅是中国历史一个重大事件，在世界历史上也绝对能算的上一个重大 事件，如果要列出人类历史上一百个最重大影响最深远的事件，那满清的沿海迁界应该榜上有名。
究竟什么是沿海迁界呢？简单来说，它就是在长达二十多年的时间里，让中国从世界上海岸线最长的国家之一变成了一个内陆国家。具体点，满清政府 划定一个濒海范围（从濒海三十里左右，到濒海四十里、五十里、乃至到二三百里不等），设立界碑，乃至修建界墙，强制处在这个范围内的沿海居民迁移，有敢不 迁移的，杀无赦，有敢越界的，也杀无赦。总之，让距离海边三十里到二三百里不等的整个中国沿海地区，成为一个无人区。在这期间，如果清廷统治者觉得迁海的 距离太近，还会继续下令，迁的更远一点，他们对海洋的恐惧已经到了病态的程度。按照《南明史》的记载:
“广东迁徙沿海居民在康熙元年二月，清廷派科尔坤、介山二大臣巡视海疆，“令滨海民悉徙内地五十里，以绝接济台湾之患。于是麾兵折界，期三日尽夷 其地，空其人民”。康熙二年“华大人来巡边界，再迁其民”。“甲寅（康熙三年）春月，续迁番禺、顺德、新会、东莞、香山五县沿海之民”。“初立界犹以为近 也，再远之，又再远之，凡三迁而界始定”。
沿海迁界的过程是怎么进行的呢？是不是象现在的三峡移民那样，先安置好移民的落脚，给予适当的资金补偿，然后再一步步把居民迁移出去？不是的！沿海迁界的过程许其说是移民，不如说是一次空前绝后的屠杀和掠夺。
按照当时人的记载“勒期仅三日，远者未及知，近者知而未信。逾二日，逐骑即至，一时跄踉，富人尽弃其赀，贫人夫荷釜，妻襁儿，携斗米，挟束稿，望门依栖。起江浙，抵闽粤，数千里沃壤捐作蓬蒿，土著尽流移。”
翻成白话，就是限期三天迁移，距离远的人根本来不及知道消息，距离近的人就算知道了消息，也不相信。过了两天，军队骑兵就到，于是富人全部抛 弃自己财富，贫穷的人拿着锅子带着妻子儿女，全部流离失所，从江浙到广东福建，沿海数千里肥沃的土壤全部变成了荒野蓬蒿。
可以想象，就算现代的人从筹划搬家到实施，具体运作准备，也绝对不是三天里就能完成。然而当时中国的沿海居民，就是在这样没有任何预兆准备的情况下，在清廷统治者的淫威逼迫下，迁离故土，凄惨悲苦的情状不问可知。
当时人的描述是“令下即日，挈妻负子载道路，处其居室，放火焚烧，片石不留。民死过半，枕藉道涂。即一二能至内地者，俱无儋石之粮，饿殍已在目前。……”
也就是迁的时候，沿海居民就死了超过一半，剩下百分之二十不到的人，就算能够到内地，离饿死也不远了。
迁的同时，就是烧。“稍后，军骑驰射，火箭焚其庐室，民皇皇鸟兽散，火累月不熄。而水军之战舰数千艘亦同时焚，曰：‘无资寇用。’”
烧房子，烧战舰，也确实是做的彻底。
对于不肯迁移的居民，就是一个字“杀”。清廷统治者，和它的爪牙走狗，在这方面从来就是不手软的
“初，（广东香山县）黄梁都民奉迁时，民多恋土。都地山深谷邃，藏匿者众。”“……计诱之曰点阅，报大府即许复业。愚民信其然。际盛乃勒兵长 连埔，按名令民自前营入，后营出。入即杀，无一人幸脱者。复界后，枯骨遍地，土民丛葬一阜，树碣曰木龙岁冢。木龙者，甲辰隐语也。”
不仅烧房子，杀人民，就连树木青草也不房过，日本的三光政策和满清的残暴彻底程度相比，实在是差了一个数量等级。
“当播迁之后，大起民夫，以将官统之出界，毁屋撤墙，民有压死者。至是一望荒芜矣。又下砍树之令，致多年轮囷豫章、数千株成林果树、无数合抱松柏荡然以尽。……三月间，令巡界兵割青，使寸草不留于地上。”
至于为什么要砍树，要对果树松柏都斩尽杀绝，大约意思也是为了防止海上的反清复明力量利用吧。清廷统治者残暴的彻底性和想象力确实是可以令人 叹为观止的。只可惜在明朝时访问中国的那些西方传教士记载下明朝中国广大沿海地区到处鸟鸣林幽，果树松柏成群，富裕繁盛的景象在满清的统治下是灭绝了。
迁界的过程当然伴随着画界，立界，守界。“先画一界，而以绳直之。其间有一宅而半弃者，有一室而中断者。浚以深沟，别为内外。稍逾跬步，死即随之。”
清廷甚至对河流也不放过，其凶悍程度确实旷古未有“清政府为了防微杜渐，对入海的河流一律发兵把断，河中钉立木桩，防止舟船透越。如福建省，‘其入海之水曰潘渡河、曰铜镜河、曰廉村河、曰洋尾 河、曰大梅河、曰赤头河、曰云霄河、日开溪河，皆断而守之’。苏北兴化县白驹场原来建造了闸口四座，按照旱涝情况调节淮扬一带的河水入海。尽管‘白驹场离 海甚远，并非沿边地方’，清政府也悍然下令填塞，‘以致水无所出，淹没田亩’，使水利变成了水害。”
甚至连一个就在大海中的海南岛，满清也硬是要让岛上居民与大海隔离起来，全岛“边周环立界二千七百里，惟海口所津渡往来如故，自余鱼盐小径俱禁断不行”。
敢于出界的人都杀无赦，看看当时的记载，确实有触目惊心的感觉，“每处悬一牌，曰：敢出界者斩！”“越界数步，即行枭首。”“着附海居民搬入 离城二十里内居住，二十里外筑土墙为界，寸板不许下海，界外不许闲行，出界以违旨立杀。武兵不时巡界。间有越界，一遇巡兵，登时斩首”。《南明史》上特地 举了一个莆田县黄石千总张安的例子“每出界巡哨只带刀，逢人必杀。……截界十余年，杀人以千计”。同书上引用屈大均《广东新语》说广东省的情况，“东起大 虎门，西迄防城，地方三千余里，以为大界。民有阑出咫尺者执而诛戮。而民之以误出墙外死者又不知几何万矣。自有粤东以来，生灵之祸莫惨于此”。
“自有粤东以来，生灵之祸莫惨于此”，清廷的淫虐确实到了极致程度，只不解为什么为祸惨烈到如此程度的事件，却一直被有意的忽略掩盖不提，是什么缘故？
沿海迁界实施了二十多年，大部分的时间都处于康熙的统治之下，如果开头几年，还和康熙没有关系，那么剩下的时间，康熙就是首要的罪魁。此人一 面冠冕堂皇的大谈“民心悦则邦本得，而边境自固”，另一面却恰恰在他统治下开始修建所谓界墙。原先沿海迁界不过是木栅、篱笆为界，土墙为界，而正是到了康 熙统治下，开始正规的大兴土木修筑界墙，真是打算把中国包在里面，彻底和海洋隔离。下面是《南明史》的记载
“（康熙七年）正月奉文，着南北洋百姓砌筑界墙，从江口至枫亭。墙阔四尺，高六尺，每户计筑二丈一尺。界口起了望楼一座，遇海另筑界堤。”
“关于沿边设兵戍守的堡塞，福建称之为寨、墩，广东称之为台、墩。大致情况是：‘界畛既截，虑出入者之无禁也，于是就沿边扼塞建寨四，墩十 数，置兵守之。城外乡民按户征银，照丁往役。……一寨之成，费至三四千金，一墩半之。拷掠鞭捶，死于奔命者不知凡几矣。’‘寨周阔百六十丈，墩周阔十丈不 等’。‘五里一墩，十里一台，墩置五兵，台置六兵，禁民外出’。”
当时的人卢若腾在诗中说：

天寒日又西，男妇相扶携。

去去将安适？掩面道旁啼。

胡骑严驱遣，克日不容稽。

务使濒海土，鞠为茂草萋。

富者忽焉贫，贫者谁提撕？

欲渔无深渊，欲畊无广畦。

内地忧人满，妇姑应勃溪。

聚众易生乱，矧为饥所挤。

闻将凿长堑，置戍列鼓鼙。

防海如防边，劳苦及旄倪。

既丧乐生心，溃决谁能堤。

其中这两句尤其精彩“闻将凿长堑，置戍列鼓鼙。防海如防边，劳苦及旄倪。”一个“防海如防边”，真是把清廷凶虐离奇的程度，刻画的淋漓尽致。 用“防海如防边”对照一下康熙冠冕堂皇的伪善言辞“守国之道，惟在修德安民。民心悦则邦本得，而边境自固，所谓‘众志成城’”，岂不是有一种格外荒诞滑稽 离奇的感觉么？岂不是应该让那些热烈颂圣，对满清皇帝功德眷眷无穷的无耻文人活活羞愧死么？
沿海迁界牵连的范围究竟有多广呢，顾诚摘引阮旻锡《海上见闻录》中说“上自辽东，下至广东，皆迁徙，筑短墙，立界碑，拨兵戍守，出界者死，百姓失业流离死亡者以亿万计”。
“福建总督姚启圣在一份奏疏中说：‘在当日原因福建海贼猖獗而议迁界，又因贼势蔓延止迁福建一省之界不足困贼，故并迁及广东、浙江、江南、山 东、北直五省之界，是迁五省之界者其祸实始于福建之郑贼也。’按照这个记载，当时奉诏迁海的共有直隶、山东、江苏、浙江、福建、广东六省（按现在的分省还 包括了广西、海南二省沿海地区）。”
也就是从当时人的见闻以及清廷制定的官方政策来说从北方的辽东一直到中国最南方的广西海南都沿海迁界的范围内 阮旻锡《海上见闻录》中说，沿海迁界所造成的平民死亡数字“亿万计”，也就是上亿了。这个数字是否夸张呢？我觉得是不夸张，按照现在历史学家，人口学家从 各方面的统计估算，明末中国的人口在二亿左右应该没有太大的疑问（明朝自己的统计数字是五千多万）。而到了清初，中国还剩下多少人口呢？按照满清统治者自 己的统计是一千多万，就算也乘以四，也只有八千万不到，而实际上，满清不象明朝政府那么散漫，在他们极端严密苛酷的统治下，他们的人口统计应该只会为了粉 饰而往高处虚报，而不会刻意低估，所以就算往拼命高里估算也就是四千万左右。和明末相比绝对减少就在一亿六千万左右，其中大半都是清廷屠杀迫害而死的平 民。而沿海地区人口密度也远比其他地区大的多，满清的沿海迁界把这个地区扫荡为平地，所迫害死的平民上亿应该不是夸张的估计。
《南明史》中引用当时人的记载，广东的情况是
“民被迁者以为不久即归，尚不忍舍离骨肉。至是飘零日久，养生无计。于是父子夫妻相弃，痛哭分携。斗粟一儿，百钱一女。……其丁壮者去为兵，老 弱者展转沟壑。或合家饮毒，或尽帑投河。有司视如蝼蚁，无安插之恩；亲戚视如泥沙，无周全之谊。于是八郡之民死者又以数十万计。”
康熙四年，李率泰在遗疏中也说：“臣先在粤，民尚有资生，近因迁移渐死，十不存八九。”李率泰本身是清廷的官吏奴才，他当然没有任何将情况故 意夸张的动机。而且注意，这是他的遗疏，也就这些话只有在他明知自己快死的时候，才敢大着胆子写下来。所谓的“近因迁移渐死，十不存八九”，也就是百分之 八九十的人民都死掉了，这对照前面屈大均所说的“自有粤东以来，生灵之祸莫惨于此”。便可以知道并非夸张虚语。按照他们的说法，满清的沿海迁界是自从有广 东这个地方来，生灵遭受的最大的惨祸，这话恐怕不仅适用于广东，也同样适用于整个中国。
如何估计沿海迁界所造成的破坏，如何估计这一事件造成的重大影响，这恐怕是永远难以解决的问题了。沿海地区从宋朝开始就逐渐成为中国最富庶最 繁荣的地区，上面的财富是居住在沿海地区的人民在几千年的时间里不断劳动开发而积累起来的。而在清廷的暴行下，顷刻间，几千年积累的财富和生产力化为乌 有，人力也消灭殆尽，在长达二十多年的时间里，中国从一个沿海国家，变成了一个内陆国家。它所造成的破坏和后遗症远远超过了一次超大规模的战争，在战争 中，一个地区受到破坏再厉害，也毕竟还有人在上面生活劳动，还有房屋，树木，保留一部分下来，而沿海迁界却是在长达二十年的时间里把整个中国沿海地区彻底 变成一个无人区，变成白地荒野。以前明朝政府虽然也曾经在一个短时间内有过禁海令，但其性质主要是针对倭寇，和东南亚的往来从来就没有终止过，而这短时间 的禁令也不过是空文，民间海外的贸易从明朝开国一直到明朝结束，从来就没有中断过，综观明朝，中国民间的海上力量是处于不断增强的局面，和西方的文化科技 交流更是从未中断过，而且不断加强。到了郑成功父亲的时代，更有完全压倒西方的殖民国家海上力量的趋势。而满清的二十年沿海迁界等于把中国民间的海上力量 连根拔除，这一手确实是做的辣且绝，这对中国的影响绝不仅仅至于这二十年，而是蔓延到了两三百年之后。试想在几千年的时间里孕育培养出来的海上力量，被连 根拔除扫荡之后，还怎么可能恢复过来呢？
现在的人不是常常在问，中国为什么在近代会科技经济全面落后于西方，于是不同的人纷纷去寻找原因，答案五花八门，说是儒家文明，说是农业文明，说是程朱理学，还有科举制度，还有直接归咎于明朝的统治，等等答案真是不一而足。
其实这样的问题，这样的答案根本就是伪问题，伪答案，其荒谬程度和几个近视眼为了比较谁的视力更好，就比谁能说出远处匾额上的字，结果到头来匾额根本就没有挂一样，甚至更荒谬。 　　　　 　　　　 其实只要设想一下，如果当时和明代中国一样处于资本主义萌芽时期（他们资本主义发展，政治哲学理论发展还落后于同期的明代中国）的英国以及西欧，如果和中 国一样遭到类似满清一样的野蛮民族统治，一样在最发达最繁荣的城市遭受到屠城的命运，一样被勒令留发不留头，每个人都必须留一条辫子，否则杀无赦，一样遭 受那样惨绝人寰骇人听闻的文字狱统治，一样在长达二十年的时间里来一个沿海迁界，沿海地区变成无人区，沿海居民被屠杀掉百分之八九十，沿海的树木植被都被 摧毁消灭，我倒是想知道，那还会有什么狗屁资本主义？它们如果比中国发展的更快，那才是见鬼了。 　　　　　　连比较的前提都不一致，这样的问题不是伪问题，那又是什么？ 　　　　　　就如同现在有两个人，甲遇见一帮强盗，头被砍掉了，死掉了，乙没有遇见强盗，健康的活了下去。现在却有蠢人来煞有介事的问：为什么甲比乙短 命？于是更多的蠢人聚集在一起同样煞有介事的回答这个问题：有的说，甲不注意锻炼身体，所以比乙短命；有的说，错了，甲就是锻炼身体过度，所以才短命；有 的说甲有心脏病，所以短命，有的说甲有高血压，有的说甲喝酒过度，身体脆弱，有的甲吸烟，更有干脆的则说，甲先天就有基因缺陷，短命正是理所当然的。可惜 这些蠢人就是不想想，如果乙的脑袋同样被砍掉，他还会活么？既然同样不会活，那么这些理由不是屁话又是什么？ 　　　　　　 　　　　　　还有些所谓的聪明人发话了：历史不能假设！好一个愚民的主张！错！历史不但应该假设，而且必须假设！对历史做假设，正是能让人透过历史的迷雾 看到隐藏在迷雾后面的真相。人之所以为人，正因为人能够假设！这是人所独有的思维能力，人区别与动物的一个重要特征，人之所以为人，正因为人不但能够看见 表面现象，还能看见表面现象后面的本质；不仅能够看到既成事实，更能够看见所谓的既成事实从来不是事物发展的唯一路径。把既成事实当成必然事实只能是只会 低级条件反射的动物逻辑，而并非人的逻辑。 　　　　　　 　　　　　　自然科学从来就不可能离开假设。没有假设就不可能有牛顿力学，难道世界上真有绝对光滑的平面，让物体永远因为惯性而滑动下去吗？真有不受外力 作用的物体么？没有假设也不会有爱因斯坦的相对论，难道真的能够设想人追上光之后会发生什么吗？真的能在时空的每个角落都放上一个钟么？当然也不会有量子 力学，波粒二象性等理论不都是先从假设开始的吗？ 　　　　　　自然科学不能离开假设，难道作为社会科学的历史就能离开假设吗？所谓历史不能假设根本就是骗人愚民精神上自我阉割的谬论。现在就让我们理直气 壮光明正大的假设一下，如果当时的英国西欧和中国一样遭受到类似于满清的统治，会是一个什么结果？结果只有一个：和处于满清统治下的中国一样落后，甚至更 落后！更进一步，如果中国没有受到这样的摧残统治，又会怎么样？到那时候，是不是那些蠢人又要绞尽脑汁的去研究，为什么西方这么落后于中国了，是民族性， 是民族文化，是基督教的统治，还是文字形式，等等等等。 　　　　　　这样的研究，美其名为学术，其实是连基本逻辑常识都不具备的笑话和闹剧而已。 　　　　　　 　　　　　　其实真要问问题，应该是为什么中国在那个时候，那个阶段，受到远远落后于自身文明的狩猎游牧民族的侵略屠杀，而英国和西欧在那个时候，在它们国家的旁边却根本没有这种民族的存在？是因为地理条件的客观因素呢，还是有其他的原因，这倒才是一个真正值得问的问题！ 　　

其实真要问问题，应该是为什么中国在那个时候，那个阶段，受到远远落后于自身文明的狩猎游牧民族的侵略屠杀，而英国和西欧在那个时候，在它们国家的旁边却根本没有这种民族的存在？是因为地理条件的客观因素呢，还是有其他的原因，这倒才是一个真正值得问的问题！User Madalibi, I think this is a very good question, do you have an answer?Arilang1234 (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearing of the shore-line

以前明朝政府虽然也曾经在一个短时间内有过禁海令，但其性质主要是针对倭寇，和东南亚的往来从来就没有终止过，而这短时间的禁令也不过是空文，民间海外的 贸易从明朝开国一直到明朝结束，从来就没有中断过，综观明朝，中国民间的海上力量是处于不断增强的局面，和西方的文化科技交流更是从未中断过，而且不断加 强。到了郑成功父亲的时代，更有完全压倒西方的殖民国家海上力量的趋势。而满清的二十年沿海迁界等于把中国民间的海上力量连根拔除，这一手确实是做的辣且 绝，这对中国的影响绝不仅仅至于这二十年，而是蔓延到了两三百年之后。试想在几千年的时间里孕育培养出来的海上力量，被连根拔除扫荡之后，还怎么可能恢复 过来呢？Arilang1234 (talk) 05:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ming civilization was cut short by Manchus

文明断裂的悲剧,被满清割断的明朝与近现代中国.....作者 杜车别

作者：杜车别 提交日期：2006-5-2 21:14:00 文明断裂的悲剧——被满清割断的明朝与近现代中国 　　 　　作者 杜车别 　　 　　看了一本《李渔传》，作者在楔子里说“李渔是被历史超前三百多年制造出来。李渔这样一个另类的人物，创造出他的是他所生活的那个时代，而能够理解他的只有我们今天吧” 　　作者认为李渔有着多方面的成就，他是一个杰出的小说家，是一个杰出的戏剧家，是一个伟大的戏剧理论家，创造了一个中国戏剧叙事文学理论，堪称“东方的 黑格尔”，李渔还是一个出版家，运用五色套版叠印这种当时最先进的技术出版《芥子园画传》，还是生活美学家，是园林建筑艺术家。 　　作者认为李渔多方面的成就和思想，只有到了近现代的中国才能得到充分理解，所以称他是超前三百多年制造出来。然而我却不同意这样的看法。 　　李渔生于万历三十九年（1611年），到明亡的时候，他已经三十三岁了，比后来壮烈殉国的明朝少年英雄夏完淳还大上十九岁多，他的个性和思想都在明朝 形成，明朝的文化氛围经济氛围政治氛围哺育了他的成长。如果说在他所处的时代，和他同一个年龄段的人物中，只有他这么一个人，那么或许可以说他超前三百多 年，可如果是有一大批的人物，那还能够说他是超前三百年吗？ 　　 　　比如和李渔同时代的有一个张岱 　　在夏咸淳著的《明末奇才——张岱论》中有这么一段话 　　 　　　　“欧洲文艺复兴时期的光辉灿烂的文化，大批多才多艺的人物，乃是人类的骄傲。明朝时期，中国也出现了群星灿烂，人才辈出的文化景观。当时思想文化 的精英们，不论在自然科学领域，还是在人文科学领域，抑或是在文学艺术的园地，都有着超越时代的卓越建树。李时珍，徐光启，吴有性，徐弘祖，宋应星，李 贽，唐顺之，王阳明，黄宗羲，方以智，朱载堉，兰陵笑笑生，汤显祖，袁宏道，袁小修，冯梦龙，张贷，张溥、唐伯虎，石涛，八大山人，徐文长，李渔，傅山这 一颗颗明星将中华文明点缀得格外绚丽夺目，那时中国也有自己的达芬奇，米开朗基罗，拉菲尔，莎士比亚，塞万提斯” 　　 　　其实说那个时代的人超前历史三百年的声音不绝于耳，比如有人说李贽是超前了三百年，有人说黄宗羲超前了三百年，王夫之是超前了三百年，顾炎武是超前了 三百年，方以智是超前了三百年，等等，当这么多的人都是所谓的超前了三百年的时候，我们不得不问，究竟是他们超前了三百年呢，还是中国在后来的发展中了落 后了三百年，停滞了三百年，以致三百年后回首古人，才发出这些古人超前三百年的感叹 　　 　　其实明朝晚期和中国近现代之间的关系，从中国在满清统治下沦为半殖民地的时候就已经开始被人所注意。 　　清末的维新变法派和革命党人使用的许多思想武器都是来自两百多年前的明末，甚至直接把明末的思想家的言论作为宣传的武器 　　 　　下面我们一一列举明代中国出现的与近现代文明接轨的思想和事实 　　一、政治上 　　 　　 　　在君臣关系上，嘉靖万历年间的思想家何心隐藏提出君臣应该是完全平等的 　　“君臣相师，君臣相友”“相友而师” 　　 　　在舆论监督上 　　万历年间的东林党领袖顾宪成提出“天下之是非，自当听之天下” 　　 　　在权力分配上， 　　东林党人钱一本提出“大破常格，公天下以选举” 　　 　　 　　 　　王夫之提出的虚君立宪思想 　　“有天子而若无，则无天子而若有，主虽幼，百尹皆赞成治之人，而恶用标辅政之名以疑天下哉？” 　　“预定奕世之规，置天子于有无之处，以虚静而统天下，则不恃贵戚旧臣以夹辅” 　　“以法相裁，以义相制，……自天子始而天下咸受其裁。君子正而小人安，有王者起，莫能易此” 　　 　　黄宗羲提出的揭露君主专制本质的思想 　　“天下之利尽归于己，以天下之害尽归于人，亦无不可；使天下之人不敢自私，不敢自利，以我之大私为天下之大公。始而惭焉，久而安焉，视天下为莫大之产业，传之子孙，受享无穷” 　　“然则为天下之大害者，君而已矣。 　　　　向使无君，人各得自私也，人各得自利也。鸣呼，岂设君之道固如是乎！” 二、经济上 　　王夫之明确提出皇帝也不能侵犯私有财产的主张 　　“若土，则非王者所得私也。”“民所治之地，君弗得而侵焉。民之力，上所得而用，民之田，非上所得而有也” 　　“王者虽为天地之子，天地岂得而私之，而敢谈天地固然之博厚，以割裂为己 　　土乎” 　　不干涉的经济主张： 　　“人则未有不自谋其生，上之谋之，不如其自谋，上为谋之，且弛其自谋之心，而后生计愈蹙” 三、对待外国文明的态度上 瞿太素说：“其人而忠信焉，明哲焉，虽远在殊方，诸夏也。若夫汶汶焉，汩汩焉，寡廉鲜耻焉，虽近于比肩，戎狄也”。 逃亡日本的朱舜水说“世人必曰：‘古人高于今人，中国胜于外国。’此是眼界逼窄，作此三家村语。”（《与陈遵之书》） 徐光启说：“欲求超胜，必须会通；会通之前，必须翻译”，“令彼三千年增修渐进之业，我岁月间拱受其成” 　　 这一个主张得到了崇祯皇帝的全力支持。事实上，明朝的时候，中国民间和官方已经同时展开对西方科技思想书籍的大规模翻译。 　　　　在徐光启生前，在明朝政府的支持下，围绕着编写《崇祯历书》而对西方天文数学著作进行了大规模的翻译和引入，徐光启死后，李天经接任了他在科学方 面的工作，不仅继续完成《崇祯历书》余下部分的编写，而且按照徐光启“欲求超胜，必须会通；会通之前，必须翻译”的原则，在明朝政府的支持下，继续组织人 力物力进行对其他西方科技著作的翻译。 　　　　比如《坤舆格致》是在李天经主持下，汤若望和中国人杨之华、黄宏宪合作翻译，共四卷。原著是德国学者阿格里科拉的《矿冶全书》。《矿冶全书》共十 二卷，是欧洲矿冶技术的一部经典著作，书中介绍了各种金属的分离、制取和提纯方法，也详细介绍了各种无机酸的制法，包含有许多重要的化学知识。崇祯十六年 （1643）十二月，崇祯皇帝批示户部将《坤舆格致》分发各地，“着地方官相酌地形，便宜采取”，只可惜，随着明朝的灭亡，崇祯皇帝的批示没有办法落实， 连这本中国政府组织中西学者合力翻译的书籍，在满清统治下也彻底散失，在愚昧的满清统治下，这是这种类型书籍的必然命运，《天工开物》都会在中国失传，更 不必说别的了。 　　 　　 　　 　　四、在开眼看世界上 　　 　　人们把林则徐，魏源所成是睁眼看世界第一人，实际上这种说法根本错误，比他们早两个世纪，徐光启等一大批明朝知识分子已经把视野转向世界，并且认识到中国以后最大的竞争对手是西方殖民强盗 　　 　　徐光启在《复苏伯润柱史》信中说“今之建贼，果化为虎豹矣，若真虎豹者，则今之闽海寇夷是也” 　　 　　 　　五、在以人为本，张扬个性上 　　 　　王阳明说：“我的灵明，便是天地鬼神的主宰。天没有我的灵明，谁去仰他高？地没有我的灵明，谁去俯他深？鬼神没有我的灵明，谁去辨他吉凶灾祥？天地鬼神万物离去我的灵明，便没有天地鬼神万物了。” 　　 　　王艮说“知得身是天下国家之本，则以天地万物依于己，不以己依于天地万物” 　　 　　罗汝芳说“夫所谓立身者，立天下之大本也。首柱天焉，足镇地焉，以立人极于 宇宙之间” 　　汤显祖说“天地之性人为贵，人反自贱者，何也。”（《贵生书信记》《明复说》） 　　 　　明末大思想家陈确说“天理正从人欲中见，人欲恰到好处，即天理也；向无人欲，则亦并无天理之可言矣” 　　 　　六、在破除束缚，解放思想上 　　 　　王阳明说“夫学贵得之心，求之于心而非也，虽其言之出于孔子，不敢以为是也，而况其未及孔子者乎？求之于心而是也，虽其言之出于庸常，不敢以为非也，而况其出于孔子者乎？”（《答罗整庵少宰书》） 　　 　　王阳明又说“夫道，天下之公道也；学，天下之公学也，非朱子可得而私也，非孔子可得而私也。天下之公也，公言之而已矣。故言之而是，虽异于己，乃益于己也；言之而非，虽同于己，适损于己也。益于己者，己必喜之；损于己者，己必恶之。” 　　 　　明代唯物主义思想巨人王廷相把“惟先儒之言是信”的人嘲笑成函关之鸡 　　　　　　　　“学者于道，不运在我心思之神以为抉择取舍之本，而惟先儒之言是信，其不为函关之鸡者几希” 　　 　　冯梦龙在《广笑府叙》中说“又笑那孔夫子这老头，你絮絮叨叨说什么道学文章，也平白的把好些活人都弄死了”象不象鲁迅在五四时期说的话，然而这是提前了将近三百多年说的话。 　　七、在社会进化论方面 　　 　　　嘉靖时期的思想巨人王廷相在《雅述》下篇中说 　　　　　　“儒者曰：天地间万形皆有敝，惟理独不朽，此殆类痴言也。理无形质，安得而朽？以其情实论之，楫让之后为放伐，放伐之后为篡夺，井田坏而阡陌成，封建罢而郡县设，行于前者不能行于后，宜于古者不能宜于今，理因时致宜，逝者皆刍狗矣，不亦朽敝乎哉？ 　　”八、在文明演变发展方面 王夫之说“大昊以前，中国之人若麋聚鸟集，非必日照月临之下皆然也，必有一方焉如唐、虞、三代之中国。既人力所不通，而方彼之盛，此之衰而不能征之，迨此之盛，则彼衰而弗能述以授人，故亦蔑从知之也。” 　　　　这段话，是什么意思？就是说在大昊以前，中国人不过是麋聚鸟集的野蛮人而已，但未必在日照月临之下的全世界都是如此。肯定在某个地方存在一个比中 国更早步入了文明的社会，只不过因为人力不通，所以那边文明正处于强盛时期的时候，中国这边由于处于野蛮状态，而不能知道罢了。而到了中国文明强盛起来的 时候，那边的文明衰落了下去，不能显示出它的光辉，所以中国这边也还是不能知道罢了。 “在近小间有如此者，推之荒远，此混沌而彼文明，又何怪乎？《易》曰：‘乾坤毁则无以见易’，非谓天地之裂也，乾坤之大文不行于此土，则其德毁矣” “中国之文，乍明乍灭，他日者必且陵蔑以之于无文，而人之返乎轩辕以前，蔑不夷矣。” 　　也就是说中国的文明一会儿明亮，一会儿熄灭，将来必定消失退化到没有文明的状态，人也退化返回到轩辕以前，没有一个不是夷狄（“蔑不夷矣”）。显然这里的“夷”正是和文明对立的野蛮的同意词。 九、在捍卫文明，抵抗野蛮上 　　 　　王夫之说“可禅、可继、可革！而不可使夷类间之” 　　“夷夏者，义之犹严者”“不以一时之君臣，废古今夷夏之通义也” 　　痛斥“败类之儒，鬻道统于夷狄盗贼而使窃” 　　 　　朱舜水对近代中国的影响也很大，这有梁启超和李大钊的话为证 　　梁启超说“舜水尤为伉烈，他反抗满洲的精神，至老不衰……（舜水的话）入到晚清青年眼中，像触电气一般震得直跳，对于近二十年政治变动影响实在不小”（《中国近三百年学术史》） 　　李大钊说“先哲朱舜水，身丁亡国大痛，间关出走，飘零异域，无时不以恢复中原为念。虽至势穷力尽，曾无灰心挫志，直至死而后己。……钊生当衰季之世，怆怀故国，倾心往哲。每有感触，辄复凄然”（1913年《言*》月刊 ） 十、在节制人口，计划生育问题上 　　 　　冯梦龙说“不若人生一男一女，永无增减，可以长久。若二男二女，每生加一倍，日增不减少，何以养之？”（冯梦龙《太平广记钞》卷七，1626年，天启六年出版） 宋应星说 　　“一人两子算盘推，积到千年百万胎，幼子无孙犹不瞑，争叫杀运不重来” 　　 十一、在提倡妇女解放，恋爱自由上 　　 　　谢肇制在《五杂俎》中说 　　“‘父一而已，人尽夫也’，此语虽得罪于名教，亦格言也。父子之恩，有生以来不可以移易者也。委禽从人，原无定主。不但夫择妇，妇也择夫也。谓之人尽夫，亦可也” 　　“即今国家律令……妇再适者，无禁焉。淫者，罪止于杖而已。岂非以人情哉？抑亦厚望于士君子，而薄则于妇人女子也？” 　凌蒙初在《二刻拍案惊奇。卷十一》中说：“ 　　却有一件，天下事有好些不平的所在！假如男人死了，女人再嫁，便道是失了节、玷了名 ，污了身子，是个行不得的事，万口訾议；及至男人家丧了妻子，却又凭他续弦再娶，置妾买婢 ，做出若干的勾当，把死的丢在脑后不提起了，并没有道他薄幸负心，做一场说话。就是生前房 室之中，女人少有外情，便是老大的丑事，人世羞言；及至男人家撇了妻子，贪淫好色，宿娼养 妓，无所不为，总有议论不是的，不为十分大害。所以女子愈加可怜，男人愈加放肆，这些也是伏不得女娘们心里的所在。” 　　 　　十二、在物竞天择，人由动物进化而来的观念上 　　　　　　 明朝中期大思想家王廷相明确提出自然界是弱肉强食，优胜劣汰，自然万物并非为人所设，人不过是自然界万物中的一员，只不过人比其他动物聪明，所以才能驾驭趋势食用其他生物而已 　　　　　　 　　　　　　王廷相说“天地之生物，势不得不然也，天何心哉？强食弱，大贼小，智残愚，物之势不得不然也，天又何心哉？” 　　　　　　 　　　　　　“人物之生于造化。一而已矣。无大小，无灵蠢，无寿夭，各随气之所秉而为生，此天地之化所以为公也。……但人灵于物，其智力机巧足以尽万物而 制之，或驱逐而远避，或拘系而役使，或戕杀而肉食，天之意岂如是哉？物势之自然耳。故强凌弱，众暴寡，智戕愚，通万物而皆然，虽天亦无如之何矣！” 　　　　　　 　　　　　　这段话的意思就是：大自然产生出人和其他一切生物，都是按照同一的规律。无论形体的大小，无论智力的灵蠢，无论寿命的长短，都不过是按照其各 自秉承的物质基础而进行生命活动。天地变化规律之所以为公正就体现在这里。……人比其他生物聪明，智力机巧足够穷尽所有其他生物来加以控制，把有的生物驱 逐远离人类，有的生物则加以拘系役使，有的生物则戕杀吃它们的肉，上天的意思难道愿意这样吗？不过是事物的必然趋势而已，所以强大的欺凌弱小的，数量多的 镇压数量少的，聪明的戕杀愚蠢，这个道理在世间万物都是相通的都是一样。就算是上天也无可奈何，也不能加以改变 　　 王夫之说“中国之天下，轩辕以前，其犹夷狄乎！太昊以上，其犹禽兽乎！禽兽不能备其质，夷狄不能备其文……所谓饥则呴呴，饱则弃余者，亦直立之兽而已” 也就是说，中国这块地方，在轩辕以前，也就是夷狄，太昊以上，就是禽兽。在这里王夫之，已经提出了动物禽兽进化成人的概念。 十三，在文学思想上面 　　明代万历时期有著名的袁氏三兄弟，建立的文学派别叫做公安派 　　而这个公安派居然直接成为了中国五四新文学运动的先驱 　　 　　周作人在《中国新文学的源流》第四十三页中说 　　“假如从现代胡适之先生的主张里面，减去他受到的西洋的影响，那便是公安派的思想和主张了” 　　 　　民国时期著名学者刘大杰在《中国文学发展史》中说 　　“晚明和五四时代的新文学运动，精神完全相同” 　　 十四，文字改革，汉字拉丁化拼音化，以及创建世界语 　　 　　明末四公子之一的方以智，同时也是明末四大思想巨头之一的方以智，主张汉字拼音化（比五四时期鲁迅等人的主张早了将近三百年） 　　在《方以智评传》中说“方以智主张文字拼音化，他仿西文列汉字成字母，依照音韵变化列出《旋韵图》”“方以智欣赏西方的拼音文字，希望中国和西方有朝一日能享同文之化。他设想进行文字改革必须先设立一个共同遵循的法则，有了它，可‘以近推远，以今推古’。” 　　他说“数千载之下，亿万里之外，皆可以对翻，小则明文字之音义，一贯而知，大则知无声之原，以尽声音之变，和乐律，通鬼神，格鸟兽” 　　《方以智评传》的作者感慨道：“这对于一个坚持改革的启蒙思想家，是何等博大的气魄，但是方以智的时代却不能给予他施展抱负的必要条件。他的愿望停留在纸上，近三百年之后，才被炎黄后裔逐步化为现实” 　　 　　事实上方以智在1639年（崇祯24年，这个时候他才28岁）完成他的的巨著《通雅》和《物理小识》之后两三年，满清就入关了，方以智投入了反清洪流 中，他身为明朝进士，受过崇祯皇帝亲自见解，自然成为满清肉中钉眼中刺，后流亡各地，被迫削发为僧，但到康熙十年，还是没有能逃过满清毒手，被抓捕，押解 途中，经过惶恐滩，也就是文天祥诗句“惶恐滩头说惶恐，零丁洋里叹零丁”中的惶恐滩毅然自尽而死。这样恶劣的条件下，方以智当然没有办法施展自己的报复。

　

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_ Arilang1234 (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Bondservants and the ginseng trade

The extensive rights of the Imperial Household Department over the ginseng trade

{{Evidence from the early Qing peeriod suggests that this lucrative trade in ginseng was handled by the private slaves of the Jurchen leaders. The extensive rights of the Imperial Household Department over the ginseng trade and the expeditions of 600 men which the Household Department deputed to gather ginseng in the 1640s suggested that this was the continuation of a long-standing policy of sending out household slaves to engage in trade.Page 14.The Ching ImperialHousehold. Preston M. Torbert}}

“ ...Chinese renegades and capties were of considerable importance. From the early 15 century, when diplomatic and military contacts with the Chinese of southern Manchuria became more frequent, and Jurchen captured Chinese peasants on plunder raids on border settlements and welcomed renegade Chinese soldiers into their camp....Some historians have characterized these Chinese as field slaves who provided the economic the economic basis for the spectacular growth of Jurchen military and political power in the 16 and early 17 centuries. Some historians suggested that the slaves played a more significant role.Page 15 the Imperial Household Department ”

“ Although sources indicate that some Jurchen had household slaves in the fourteenth century and that most Jurchen had slaves of some types in the early seventeenth century, the specific type of bondservants that characterized the Imperial Household Department seems to have risen mainly during the Jurchen conquest of the eastern fringes of the Liao River basin in the 1610s and 1620s. This conquest greatly increased the numbers of captives. The taking of Fu-shun in 1618, for instance, added 300,000 people to the Jurchen state. These large accretions of population brought about a change in policy. During the first year of conquest(to 1624), the captured Chinese were generally enslaved, and bore obligations to private persons, while later(in 1624-1625) they were often enrolled in the ranks of the semi-dependent agriculture class, jusen, who bore obligations to the state.Page 16. The Ching Imperial Household Department ”

Preston M. Torbert}}

{{The genealogical records of the bondservants of the emperor and other banner leaders, although offering a very restricted picture, are helpful in sketching a general outline of the origins of these private slaves. The personnel of the Imperial Household Department were the emperor's bondservants and most were descendants of Chinese captured during the conquest of this area. The genealogical records, as we might expect, indicate that by far the greatest number of Chinese bondservants of the emperor and other banner leaders came from Fu-shun and Shen-yang, which were captured in 1618 and 1621, a period when most Chinese capties were enslaved. The Chinnese captives were the most numerous group that worked in the ruler's household, but other nationalities were also present. The majorit of the bondservants before 1618 seem to have been Jurchen, with substantial numbers of Koreans and some Mongols. After the conquest of the Liao River basin in the 1620s, however, Chinese came to constitute a little over half of the total number of the emperor's bondservants before the conquest of China. At this time Manchus constituted about 30% of the bondservants, while Mongols and Koreans were about 6% and 7% respectively. The Manchu bondservants came from amoung criminals or indigent peasants within Manchu society, while the Koreans and Mongols were probably, like the Chinese, mainly war captives. Of the Manchu bondservants of the emperor,at least 48% seem to have been descendants of men who had entered his service before 1636.For Koreans the percentage was at least 80 and for Mongols at least 14. Comparable information for Chinese bondservants is unfortunately, lacking.Page 16-17}}

“ The Cheng-tsu Emperor exhorted the Jurchen tribes to establish tributary relations with China and to depute envoys to the Ming capitalat regular intervals. He rewarded their tributary missions with payments and gifts, which soon became a major source of wealth for the Jurchen. In exchange, the Jurchen sold to the Chinese officials, or presented to the emperor, mainly horses, which they procured from the Mongols, and ginseng. By the mid-15 century, according to one Chinese observer, the Jurchen depended on tributary trade with China for all their clothing and utensils.Page 13 The Ching Imperial Household Department. ”

“ In addition to their political influence, official tributary relations had a significant impact on the development of Jurchen society and economy. The trading privileges and the lavish tribute gifts the Jurchen leaders received from the Ming court not only increased their political legitimacy in the eyes of their followers, but also contributed to the development of the Jurchen economy.....It seems that the tributary trade was a significant element not only in the general development of Jurchen society and economy, but also in the commercial proclivities of the Jurchen leaders' house-hold slaves and, later, of the Imperial Household Department.P14 The Ching Imperial Household Department. ”

Added by Arilang1234 (talk) on November 11 or 12, 2008.

Closed door policy

使中国人民与世界潮流隔绝，不明世界大势，而清统治者更是闭目塞听

闭关政策

清朝政府在对外关系中所执行的控制贸易及隔绝与外国交往的政策。清朝建立全国政权之后，厉行闭关政策。以乾隆二十二年(1757)为界，大体可分为前后两个不同时期。前期禁海（见海禁）的目的主要在于隔绝大陆人民与台湾郑氏抗清力量交通,防范人民集聚海上;以后则着重防禁"民夷交错"，针对外国商人，以条规立法形式，严加限制对外贸易。

顺治初年，清廷对来华贸易的外国商船，沿袭明朝成规，不许进入广州，只准于澳门交易。随后，由于东南海上郑成功抗清力量的存在，清廷愈严出海之禁。顺治十二年(1655)六月，闽浙总督屯泰请于沿海省份立严禁，"无许片帆入海"，违者立置重典。于是清政府下令禁止官民人等擅自出海贸易，如有"将违禁货物出洋贩往番国，并潜通海贼（指郑成功）"," 或造大船,图利卖与番国，或将大船赁与出洋之人，分取番人货物者，皆交刑部治罪"。但仍有人暗通线索，贪图厚利，继续与郑氏贸易往来。顺治帝认为此乃立法 不严所致，于十三年，下达"禁海令"，严禁商民船只私自出海，违者不论官民，俱行正法，货物入官，本犯产尽给告发之人。文武各官失查或不追缉，从重治罪； 保甲不行首告，论死。沿海可泊船舟处，处处严防,不许片帆入口,如有登岸者，防守官即以军法从事，督抚议罪。顺治十八年，清廷进一步下达"迁海令"，以保证"禁海令"的施行。强迫海岛和沿海居民内迁三十至五十里，设界不得逾越。又在法律上规定：凡将牛马、军需、铁货、铜钱、缎匹、绸绢、丝棉出境贸易及下海者，杖一百；若将人口军器出境及下海者绞；因而走泄事情者斩。官吏庇纵者同罪。"禁海令"和"迁海令"使沿海居民流离失所，谋生无路，并严重地影响了沿海地区经济的发展，以致沿海三十至五十里内，满目荒凉。

三藩战争期间，郑氏力量复入厦门，在福建沿海登陆。康熙十七年(1678)闰三月,康熙帝下令："应如顺治十八年立界之例,将界外百姓迁移内地,仍申严海禁，绝其交通。"二十二年,清政府统一台湾。 次年,开海禁。康熙帝称："先因海寇,故海禁不开为是。今海氛廓清，更何所待!"命令沿海各省将先前所定海禁处分之例尽行停止。允许满汉人民出洋贸易，唯 不准将硝磺军器等出洋。指定广州、漳州、宁波、云台山四个口岸对外国通商。 　　自开海禁之后，每年造船出海贸易者,多至千余,回来者不过十之五六，不少人留居南洋。清政府因而担心"数千人聚集海上，不可不加意防范"；并认为南洋 各国历来是"海贼之渊薮",于五十六年复行南洋海禁,严禁与南洋往来贸易，严令沿海炮台拦截前往船只，水师各营巡查。南洋海禁之后,本来一度繁荣的对外贸 易,又复萎顿。沿海经济日趋萧条，给当地居民造成严重后果，以致有用四五千金建造的大船，任其朽蠹于断港荒岸之间。而生活无着之穷民,被迫逃亡海上,或铤 而走险,"或为犯乱"。为此不少人奏请开禁。雍正五年(1727)，即南洋海禁十年后，清政府再开南洋海禁。限令出洋贸易之人三年内回国，否则不许回籍。

至乾隆时,清政府再次厉行限制对外贸易。当时,英国人为了向北方推销其纺织品和接近产茶、丝地区，力图在广州以北扩张海口。英国通事 洪任辉偕同英国武装商船多次驶至浙江定海、宁波。英国武装商船的到来,引起了清廷的重视。为了整肃浙省海防,乾隆二十二年,清廷下令："(夷船)将来只许 在广州收泊贸易,不得再赴宁波,如或再来,必令原船返棹至广,不准入浙江海口。 "这是清廷对外贸易政策的一大转折，即针对外国资本主义势力而厉行闭关政策，只准在广州一口贸易。

在对外贸易中,清政府又实行商行制度,即广州十三行， 以进行垄断。清政府只允许少数殷实富商设立"公行"，负责与外商从事进出口贸易，并代表清政府与洋商交涉。乾隆二十四年，两广总督李侍尧奏请制订《防范夷 商规条》，规定"防夷五事"。即：永行禁止外国商人在广州过冬，必须冬住者只准在澳门居住；外商到粤，"宜令寓居行商管束稽查"；禁止中国商人借领外商资 本及外商雇请汉人役使;严禁外商雇人传递消息;于外国商船停泊处拨营员弹压稽查。"防夷五事"将对外贸易严加管理,有了明确的法规,使闭关政策形成为制 度。嘉庆十四年(1809),清政府又颁布《民夷交易章程》;道光十一年(1831)，先后制订了《防范夷人章程》和《八条章程》。这些章程,除重申"防 夷五事"的规定外,又规定外国兵船只许外洋停泊，禁外国商人携带妇人以及在省城乘坐肩舆，等等。其中有关严拿贩卖鸦片人船等项，则是针对外国侵略者鸦片贸 易的正确禁令。

清朝对外实行闭关政策，是封建经济的产物。自给自足的小农经济,使人们彼此隔绝,在政治上自然产生闭关自守。乾隆帝在其《敕谕英吉 利国王书》中说："天朝物产丰盛,无所不有,原不借外夷货物以通有无。"闭塞的封建自然经济，自然没有交往贸易的必要，清统治者反而以此骄人,夜郎自大。 英国人也觉察到这一点,他们说："在必需品上──虽然不是奢侈品上──可以自给，因此中国政府绝对不重视对外贸易，认为可以随意限制对外贸易。" 　　此外，满族统治者对汉族人民防范甚严，他们惧怕外国人支持汉人反抗清朝的活动。乾隆帝曾说："民俗易嚣,洋商杂处，必致滋事",所以清政府一再严申" 华夷之别甚严"，"从不许外籍人等稍有越境搀杂"。清政府制订各种"防范夷人章程"，目的是要隔绝中国人与外国人的任何交往。同时，清政府对出洋贸易的中 国人也有种种严格限制，无论船只的大小，来往日期，贸易货物及其数量种类，均规定甚严。

清政府实行闭关政策，构筑了隔绝中外的一道堤墙，对中国社会的前进起了阻碍作用。由于对出海贸易横加限制，严重影响了经济的发展。同时，也使中国人民与世界潮流隔绝，不明世界大势，而清统治者更是闭目塞听，其结果正如魏源所说："以通事二百年之国，竟莫知其方位，莫悉其离合。"

1840年，英国侵略者终于用大炮轰开了中国的大门。

Hong Taiji, to issue the following warnings:

In 1634, concern about the adoption of Chinese titles by some members of the Manchus elite prompted the khan, Hong Taiji, to issue the following warnings:I have heard that among the nations that have accepted Heaven's charge and founded an enterprise(i.e., established a dynasty for ruling China), none has abandoned their own language and turned instead to use the language of another nation.No nations that have abandoned their own language and taken up another nation's language have prospered....What I fear is this: that the children and grandcuildren of later generations will abandon the Old Way, neglect shooting and riding, and enter into the Chinese Way. Page 9 The Manchu Way

他所致力于的正是彻底消灭毁弃被满清阉割凌迟后蜕变为奴才 文化走狗文化吃人文化的中国文化

作者：杜车别 提交日期：2004-9-18 20:14:00 因为鲁迅是最彻底的发扬中国民族文化本来精神的人物,说他是民族魂,半点没有错。 　　从表面上看，似乎鲁迅确实是一个对中国文化进行全盘否定的人，翻开鲁迅全集，鲁迅痛诋中国文化的言辞随处可见。但如果一个人真能够把鲁迅全集仔细读个五六遍，就可以发现事实并非如有些人所表面想象的那样，甚至可能正好相反 　　 　　 　　问题的关键在于究竟什么才是中国的文化 　　 　　在有些人的理解中中国的文化只有丑陋肮脏的孔孟之道,只有那种儒家的奴才文化。所以鲁迅对孔孟之道的抨击，鲁迅对吃人文化的抨击就成了鲁迅对中国文化彻底否定的证据 　　 　　但事实上，墨子就不是中国的文化么?他比孔子伟大的多！韩非子就不是中国的文化么?庄子就不是中国的文化么?同样抨击孔孟的汉朝的唯物主义者王充就不是中国的文化么?明朝公然提倡人要自私的李贽就不是中国的文化么?提出君为天下之大害的黄宗羲就不是中国的文化么？ 　　博大精深的中国文化,在满清统治下就阉割成孔子的奴才文化，才是真正令人痛心,，而鲁迅对这种被阉割过的中国文化的抨击恰恰是对中国文化的拯救而不是摧毁 　　 　　中国自先秦开始的文化一直是提倡海纳百川,有容乃大,而不是排斥异己,闭关自守,中国一向是善于从别的民族吸取有价值的东西然后经过改造融入自己文化的血脉,而不是象满清那样封闭僵化 　　 　　佛教本来是印度的，但到了中国,经过改造就成了中国文化的一部分,唐玄奘西天取经,舍身求法的故事一直被中国人传诵，到了明朝，更是被写成西游记,难道说这不是中国的文化 　　 　　中国文化一向是开放的，而不是封闭的,而有些人硬要把被满清阉割后那种封闭的奴才文化当成是中国文化本身,把对这种文化的抨击当成是对中国文化的污蔑，实在是和满清的思维和民国时期的某些鼓吹孔孟之道的军阀一鼻孔出气 　　 　　鲁迅所抨击的中国文化也正是被满清和其走狗和其后继者所阉割后的奴才文化，吃人文化，侍奉主子的文化，而在内心深处，鲁迅对中国文化的赤子之心从来也 没有改变过，他的中国文化功底几乎是所有参与新文化运动的学者中最扎实最深厚的，如果说他真是厌恶和鄙视中国文化，那还会如此么？ 　　 　　其实要了解鲁迅的思想，《文化偏至论》是必须要仔细读的，《文化偏至论》中的核心思想终鲁迅一生也没有改变 　　 　　鲁迅在五四新文化运动之后编的收入有《文化偏至论》《摩罗诗力说》的文集《坟》的题记中说“这样生涩的东西，倘是别人的，我恐怕不免要劝他“割爱”，但自己却总还想将这存留下来，而且也并不“行年五十而知四十九年非”④，愈老就愈进步。” 　　明确的说他自己并不“行年五十而知四十九年非”，也就是依然认为里面表达的观点是正确的 　　那么鲁迅在文化偏至论中究竟表达的是什么观点呢？ 　　“中国既以自尊大昭闻天下，善诋諆者，或谓之顽固；且将抱守残阙，以底于灭亡。近世人士，稍稍耳新学之语，则亦引以为愧，翻然思变，言非同西方之理弗 道，事非合西方之术弗行，挖击旧物，惟恐不力，曰将以革前缪而图富强也。间尝论之：昔者帝轩辕氏之戡蚩尤②而定居于华土也，典章文物，于以权舆，有苗裔之 繁衍于兹，则更改张皇，益臻美大。其蠢蠢于四方者，胥蕞尔小蛮夷耳，厥种之所创成，无一足为中国法，是故化成发达，咸出于己而无取乎人。降及周秦，西方有 希腊罗马起，艺文思理，灿然可观，顾以道路之艰，波涛之恶，交通梗塞，未能择其善者以为师资。洎元明时，虽有一二景教父师③，以教理暨历算质学于中国，而 其道非盛。故迄于海禁既开，皙人踵至④之顷，中国之在天下，见夫四夷之则效上国，革面来宾者有之；或野心怒发，狡焉思逞者有之；若其文化昭明，诚足以相上 下者，盖未之有也。屹然出中央而无校雠⑤，则其益自尊大，宝自有而傲睨万物，固人情所宜然，亦非甚背于理极者矣” 　　这段话的意思就是中国文明自古发达，自尊自大傲睨万物，也是理之常情 　　他质疑“后有学于殊域者，近不知中国之情，远复不察欧美之实，以所拾尘芥，罗列人前，谓钩爪锯牙，为国家首事，又引文明之语，用以自文，征印度波兰 ⑦，作之前鉴。夫以力角盈绌者，于文野亦何关？远之则罗马之于东西戈尔⑧，迩之则中国之于蒙古女真，此程度之离距为何如，决之不待智者。然其胜负之数，果 奈何矣？ 　　他抨击 　　“ 顾若而人者，当其号召张皇，盖蔑弗托近世文明为后盾，有佛戾⒁其说者起，辄谥之曰野人，谓为辱国害群，罪当甚于流放。” 　　而提出问题“第不知彼所谓文明者，将已立准则，慎施去取，指善美而可行诸中国之文明乎，抑成事旧章，咸弃捐不顾，独指西方文化而为言乎？ 　　最后鲁迅得出的结论是“ 　　明哲之士，必洞达世界之大势，权衡校量，去其偏颇，得其神明，施之国中，翕合无间。外之既不后于世界之思潮，内之仍弗失固有之血脉，取今复古，别立新 宗，人生意义，致之深邃，则国人之自觉至，个性张，沙聚之邦，由是转为人国。人国既建，乃始雄厉无前，屹然独见于天下，更何有于肤浅凡庸之事物哉？顾今者 翻然思变，历岁已多，青年之所思惟，大都归罪恶于古之文物，甚或斥言文为蛮野，鄙思想为简陋，风发浡起，皇皇焉欲进欧西之物而代之，而于适所言十九世纪末 之思潮，乃漠然不一措意。凡所张主，惟质为多，取其质犹可也，更按其实，则又质之至伪而偏，无所可用。虽不为将来立计，仅图救今日之阽危，而其术其心，违 戾亦已甚矣。况乎凡造言任事者，又复有假改革公名，而阴以遂其私欲者哉？今敢问号称志士者曰，将以富有为文明欤，则犹太遗黎，性长居积，欧人之善贾者，莫 与比伦，然其民之遭遇何如矣？将以路矿为文明欤，则五十年来非澳二洲，莫不兴铁路矿事，顾此二洲土著之文化何如矣？将以众治为文明欤，则西班牙波陀牙 (48)二国，立宪且久，顾其国之情状又何如矣？若曰惟物质为文化之基也，则列机括(49)，陈粮食，遂足以雄长天下欤？曰惟多数得是非之正也，则以一人 与众禺处，其亦将木居而食欤(50)？此虽妇竖，必否之矣。然欧美之强，莫不以是炫天下者，则根柢在人，而此特现象之末，本原深而难见，荣华昭而易识也。 是故将生存两间，角逐列国是务，其首在立人，人立而后凡事举；若其道术，乃必尊个性而张精神。假不如是，槁丧且不俟夫一世。夫中国在昔，本尚物质而疾天才 矣，先王之泽，日以殄绝，逮蒙外力，乃退然不可自存。而辁才小慧之徒，则又号召张皇，重杀之以物质而囿之以多数，个人之性，剥夺无余。往者为本体自发之偏 枯，今则获以交通传来之新疫，二患交伐，而中国之沉沦遂以益速矣。呜呼，眷念方来，亦已焉哉！“ 　　显然鲁迅希望的是中国“弗失固有之血脉，取今复古，别立新宗，人生意义，致之深邃，则国人之自觉至，个性张，沙聚之邦，由是转为人国。人国既建，乃始雄厉无前，屹然独见于天下” 　　而把那些对中国固有文化全盘否定，主张全盘照搬西方文化的人称为辁才小慧之徒，至伪而偏。 　　那么为什么在五四新文化运动以及以后一段时期，鲁迅却反而自己也开始了对中国文化的全盘否定彻底抨击呢？ 　　鲁迅之所以对一段时期内中国文化进行全面的否定，彻底的抨击，更主要的还是愤激于中国文化被那些统治者，满清走狗，军阀用来作为维护他们僵化丑恶统治 的工具，中国文化已经根本被这些人所玷污，所以他才毫不留情，对所谓的中国的文化进行的全面抨击，而他所抨击的也正如我前面所说是“被满清和其走狗和其后 继者所阉割后的奴才文化，吃人文化，侍奉主子的文化” 　　要理解鲁迅这种似乎表里不一，前后矛盾的言论，可以看一下鲁迅写《魏晋风度及文章与药及酒之关系》。这篇文章中他说 　　“所以古代有许多人受了很大的冤枉。例如嵇阮的罪名，一向说他们毁坏礼教。但据我个人的意见，这判断是错的。魏晋时代，崇尚礼教的看来似乎很不错，而 实在是毁坏礼教，不信礼教的。表面上毁坏礼教者，实则倒是承认礼教，太相信礼教。因为魏晋时代所谓崇尚礼教，是用以自利，那崇奉也不过偶然崇奉，如曹操杀 孔融，司马懿杀嵇康，都是因为他们和不孝有关，但实在曹操司马懿何尝是著名的孝子，不过将这个名义，加罪于反对自己的人罢了。于是老实人以为如此利用，亵 渎了礼教，不平之极，无计可施，激而变成不谈礼教，不信礼教，甚至于反对礼教。－－但其实不过是态度，至于他们的本心，恐怕倒是相信礼教，当作宝贝，比曹 操司马懿们要迂执得多。现在说一个容易明白的比喻罢，譬如有一个军阀，在北方－－在广东的人所谓北方和我常说的北方的界限有些不同，我常称山东山西直栗河 南之类为北方－－那军阀从前是压迫民党的，后来北伐军势力一大，他便挂起青天白日旗，说自己已经信仰三民主义了，是总理的信徒。这样还不够，他还要做总理 的纪念周。这时候，真的三民主义的信徒，去呢，不去呢？不去，他那里就可以说你反对三民主义，定罪，杀人。但既然在他的势力之下，没有别法，真的总理的信 徒，倒会不谈三民主义，或者听人假惺惺的谈起来就皱眉，好象反对三民主义模样。所以我想，魏晋时所谓反对礼教的人，有许多大约也如此。他们倒是迂夫子，将 礼教当作宝贝看待的。” 　　这段话鲁迅说的是古人，其实也在说他自己，我们完全可以代入一下，来说鲁迅自己 　　 “鲁迅的罪名，一向说他鼓吹取消中国文化。但据我个人的意见，这判断是错的。满清时代以及民国时代，崇尚中国文化的看来似乎很不错，而实在是毁坏中国文 化，不信中国文化的。表面上毁坏中国文化者，实则倒是承认中国文化，太相信中国文化。因为满清时代所谓崇尚中国文化，是用以自利，那崇奉也不过偶然崇奉， 如康熙雍正乾隆制造文字狱，清末镇压太平天国，其中一部份都是打着维护中国的文化伦理纲常为旗号，但实在满清何尝特别厚爱中国文化，不过是把中国文化阉割 成奴才侍奉主子的文化，阉割成吃人文化，然后加罪于反对自己的人罢了。于是老实人以为如此利用，亵渎了中国文化，不平之极，无计可施，激而变成不谈中国文 化，不信中国文化，甚至于反对中国文化。－－但其实不过是态度，至于他们的本心，恐怕倒是相信中国文化，当作宝贝，比满清的走狗和遗民们要迂执得多” 　　 　　当然从另一方面说鲁迅也是痛心于“中国一向就少有失败的英雄，少有韧性的反抗，少有敢单身鏖战的武人，少有敢抚哭叛徒的吊客；见胜兆则纷纷聚集，见败 兆则纷纷逃亡。战具比我们精利的欧美人，战具未必比我们精利的匈奴蒙古满洲人，都如入无人之境。“土崩瓦解”这四个字，真是形容得有自知之明。” 　　出于这样的缘故，他对中国国民性的抨击，与其说是对中国文化的痛恨，还不如说是他从骨子里散发出来对中国的热爱，如果没有这种热爱，那早就麻木不仁了，还会痛心于“战具比我们精利的欧美人，战具未必比我们精利的匈奴蒙古满洲人，都如入无人之境”吗？ 　　 　　至于中国文化对待鲁迅的真正的影响，鲁迅对待中国的文化的态度，其实还是可以在鲁迅一些文章的字里行间以及他的一些小说中到蛛丝马迹的 　　 　　比如鲁迅在《写在<坟>后面》一文中说他自己 　　“就是思想上，也何尝不中些庄周韩非〔４〕的毒，时而很随便，时而很峻急。孔孟的书我读得最早，最熟，然而倒似乎和我不相干。” 　　 　　被许多人看成是中国文化的代表的孔孟，在鲁迅看来，恰恰和他是不相干的，而庄周韩非的影响对他反而要大的多，尽管鲁迅这里所说的影响是消极的影响，但也可以看出鲁迅心目中的中国文化究竟是什么了？总之绝对不是和他不相干的孔孟。 　　 　　而且中国文化对待鲁迅全是消极影响么，肯定也不是，至少墨子和大禹始终是鲁迅推崇的中国古人，在任何地方，你都不会看见鲁迅对这两个人有过任何不敬之辞，相反任何对这两个人的亵渎之辞，鲁迅几乎都是马上奋袂而起进行反驳和攻击的 　　 　　鲁迅非常崇敬的古人不多,但大禹肯定在其中,墨子也肯定在其中，在鲁迅看来，正是大禹墨子这样的人物是中国民族的脊梁,才是真正中国文化的代表，他对 孔孟的猛烈抨击，并不是否定中国的民族文化本身，恰恰是还原中国民族文化的本来面目,中国的文化本来经过满清的阉割已经彻底论为一种奴才文化，而鲁迅的作 用正是彻底摧毁被满清阉割后的奴才文化，而还原中国文化真正的面目,他赞颂的是中国有骨气的人物,赞颂的是那些硬骨头的人物,鲁迅对方孝孺,对那些中国历 史中宁折不弯的人物一向是赞颂有加,即便这些人的思想他并不接受,而对满清篡改古籍,使人们觉得中国历史上似乎都是些没有骨气的人的行经深恶痛绝 　　鲁迅在《病后杂谈之余——关于“舒愤懑”》一文中说 　　 　　“但俞正燮的歌颂清朝功德，却不能不说是当然的事。他生于乾隆四十年，到他壮年以至晚年的时候，·文·字·狱·的·血·迹·已·经·消·失，满洲人的凶焰已经缓和，·愚·民·政·策·早·已·集·了·大·成，·剩·下·的·就· 　　只·有“·功·德”·了。那时的禁书，我想他都未必看见。现在不说别的，单看雍正乾隆两朝的对于中国人著作的手段，就足够令人惊心动魄。·全·毁，· 抽·毁，·剜·去·之·类·也·且·不·说，最阴险的是删改了古书的内容。乾隆朝的纂修《四库全书》，是许多人颂为一代之盛业的，但他们却不但捣乱了古书 的格式，还修改了古人的文章；不但藏之内廷，还颁之文风较盛之处，使天下士子阅读·永·不·会·觉·得·我·们·中·国·的·作·者·里·面，·也·曾· 经·有·过·很·有·些·骨·气·的·人。（这两句，奉官命改为“永远看不出底细 　　来。” 　　“清朝不惟自掩其凶残，还要替金人来掩饰他们的凶残。据此一条，可见俞正燮入金朝于仁君之列，是不确的了，他们不过是一扫宋朝的主奴之分，一律都作为奴隶，而自己则是主子。“ 　　 　　很显然鲁迅所批判的，所攻击的就是被满清阉割凌迟后的中国文化，他所做的恰恰是恢复中国文化之本来面目 　　。 　　认为鲁迅是民族虚无主义的人可以去了解一下鲁迅对顾颉刚的态度，鲁迅为什么如此敌视顾颉刚,恰恰就是因为顾颉刚考证什么大禹是一条虫的民族虚无主义的态度触怒了他 　　 　　其实能够真正比较全面的反映鲁迅心中的中国文化的是《故事新编》 　　《故事新编》一书能最充分的说明鲁迅对待中国文化的态度,故事新编中的故事都是古人的故事，而这些人才是鲁迅真正所认可的中国文化, 　　 鲁迅在《理水》中就对说禹是一条虫的说法进行了辛辣讽刺 　　“ 　　“禹来治水，一定不成功，如果他是鲧的儿子的话，”一个拿拄杖的学者说。“我曾经搜集了许多王公大臣和豪富人家的家谱，很下过一番研究工夫，得到一个结论：阔人的子孙都是阔人，坏人的子孙都是坏人——这就叫作‘遗传’。所以，鲧不成功，他的儿子禹一定 　　也不会成功，因为愚人是生不出聪明人来的！” 　　“这这些些都是费话，”又一个学者吃吃的说，立刻把鼻尖胀得通红。“你们是受了谣言的骗的。其实并没有所谓禹，‘禹’是一条虫，虫虫会治水的吗？我看鲧也没有的，鲧’是一条鱼，鱼鱼会治水水水的吗？”他说到这里，把两脚一蹬，显得非常用劲“ 　　 　　其实《故事新编》很有意思，《采薇》说的是叔齐,伯夷,抛开这两个人迂腐的思想不说，鲁迅所歌颂的正是这两个人不苟且，不敷衍，宁可为自己信念而死, 也决不自欺欺人的偷生,而讽刺的是他结尾说的那样一些人“听到这故事的人们，临末都深深的叹一口气，不知怎的，连自己的肩膀也觉得轻松不少了。即使有时还 会想起伯夷叔齐来，但恍恍忽忽，好像看见他们蹲在石壁下，正在张开白胡子的大口，拚命的吃鹿肉。“ 　　 　　《铸剑》歌颂的是中国自古就有的刺客反抗独夫暴君的传统文化，这个故事基本内核完全是忠实按照古书里的故事,但里面鲁迅自己编写的歌倒是起了点题的作用 　　哈哈爱兮爱乎爱乎！ 　　 爱兮血兮兮谁乎独无。 　　 民萌冥行兮一夫壶卢。 　　 彼用百头颅，千头颅兮用万头颅！ 　　 我用一头颅兮而无万夫。 　　 爱一头颅兮血乎呜呼！ 　　 血乎呜呼兮呜呼阿呼， 　　（“民萌”在鲁迅全集里似乎没有注释，但我记得这个词应该是出自墨子吧，似乎意思是说君主和人民的关系，君主是人民和他订下契约，让他来治理好国家 的，如果这个君主不行，那就应该换一个人来，似乎是墨子里用来给君下定义的时候出现的概念，但是好象其他地方也有这个词语，用google搜索一下发现贾 谊有过解释 　　“夫民之为言也，暝也；萌之为言也，盲也。故惟上之所扶而以之，民无不化也。故曰：民萌。民萌哉，直言其意而为之名也。夫民者，贤、不肖之材也，贤、不肖皆具焉。故贤人得焉，不肖者伏焉；技能输焉，忠信饰焉。故民者积愚也。（《大政》）”） 　　 　　这种中国文化中的反抗的精神和复仇的精神，鲁迅在《女吊》中则更加明确的提出来 　　 　　“大概是明末的王思任说的罢：‘会稽乃报仇雪耻之乡，非藏垢纳污之地！’这对于我们绍兴人很有光彩，我也很喜欢听到，或引用这两句话。”（王思任 （１５７４—１６４６）字季重，浙江山阴（今绍兴）人，明末官九江佥事。弘光元年（１６４５）清兵破南京，明朝宰相马士英逃往浙江，王思任在骂他的信中 说：“叛兵至则束手无措，强敌来则缩颈先逃……且欲求奔吾越；夫越乃报仇雪耻之国，非藏垢纳污之地也。”鲁王监国于绍兴，思任曾为礼部尚书，不久，绍兴城 破，绝食而死。著有《文饭小品》等。） 　　“被压迫者即使没有报复的毒心，也决无被报复的恐惧，只有明明暗暗，吸血吃肉的凶手或其帮闲们，这才赠人以“犯而勿校”或“勿念旧恶”的格言“ 　　《非攻》的故事则完全是按照墨子上的记载，里面人物的一言一行都可以在相关的历史记载上找到，鲁迅似乎就是把他们翻译成白话， 　　比如 　　“公孙高辞让了一通之后，眼睛看着席子〔５〕的破洞，和气的问道： 　　 　　 “先生是主张非战的？” 　　 　　 “不错！”墨子说。 　　 　　 “那么，君子就不斗么？” 　　 　　 “是的！”墨子说。 　　 　　 “猪狗尚且要斗，何况人……” 　　“唉唉，你们儒者，说话称着尧舜，做事却要学猪狗，可怜，可怜！”〔６〕墨子说 　　着，站了起来，匆匆的跑到厨下去了，一面说：“你不懂我的意思……” 　　 　　《奔月》说的是后羿，《出关》说的是老子,《补天》说的是女娲，《起死》说的庄子 　　看了故事新遍，基本可以明白鲁迅心目中的中国文化究竟是什么，总而言之绝对不是那种被满清阉割了的奴才主子文化，吃人文化，绝对不是什么孔孟之道 。故事新编里埋头苦干的人，拚命硬干的人，为民请命的人，舍身求法的人基本上都得到了体现 　　在《中国人失去了自信力了吗？》鲁迅更直露更明白的的表达了他对中国人，中国文化的信心 　　 　　“我们从古以来，就有埋头苦干的人，有拚命硬干的人，有为民请命的人，有舍身求法的人，……虽是等于为帝王将相作家谱的所谓“正史”〔５〕，也往往掩不住他们的光耀，这就是中国的脊梁。 　　 　　　　这一类的人们，就是现在也何尝少呢？他们有确信，不自欺；他们在前仆后继的战斗，不过一面总在被摧残，被抹杀，消灭于黑暗中，不能为大家所知道罢了。说中国人失掉了自信力，用以指一部分人则可，倘若加于全体，那简直是诬蔑。 　　 　　　　要论中国人，必须不被搽在表面的自欺欺人的脂粉所诓骗，却看看他的筋骨和脊梁。自信力的有无，状元宰相的文章是不足为据的，要自己去看地底下。” 　　这些话，就是今天来看，依然是铿锵有力，令人激奋。 　　 　　从上面的分析来看，就可非常清楚明白的知道鲁迅对待中国文化的态度，他无愧于民族魂的称号，他所致力于的正是彻底消灭毁弃被满清阉割凌迟后蜕变为奴才 文化走狗文化吃人文化的中国文化，而真正取今复古，恢复中国文化之固有血脉，用他的话说“外之既不后于世界之思潮，内之仍弗失固有之血脉”，使得“国人之 自觉至，个性张，沙聚之邦，由是转为人国。人国既建，乃始雄厉无前，屹然独见于天下，更何有于肤浅凡庸之事物哉”

Added by Arilang1234 (talk) on November 11 or 12, 2008.

Traditional chinese medicine

Hi, I put it in the PS as I meant the link to be Pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts (list) although I'm not sure what the house style is. Thanks, Verbal chat 12:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look

User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/2 I am beginning to collect some links and references and put them under one article. Arilang ^talk 23:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Quotations from Cixi

• 慈禧言:宁赠友邦，不与家奴！(Translation: It is better to shower foreign countries with gifts, then to leave anythings for the house slaves).
  
• 慈禧言:量中华之物力，结与国之欢心 (Translation: To make foreign countries happy, I will give them the best that Chong Hua could offer).
  
• 慈禧言:保大清不保中国 (Translation: The security and welfare of Great Qing is of utmost important, the safty and welfare of China is the least of my consideration. )
  Arilang ^talk 23:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Poem

顾炎武有诗名《精卫》
万事有不平，尔何空自苦；长将一寸身，衔木到终古？我愿平东海，身沉心不改；大海无平期，我心无绝时。
Translation: "Ten thousands events had passed by, fairness was never guaranteed, no need to torture yourself in vain; such a tiny body, carrying pieces of twigs into eternity? My pledge was to fill the Dong Hai(East China Sea) with land,physical body might perish,spiritual will remains the same." This translation is OK? Please advice of improvement needed? Arilang ^talk 07:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

“ 人性的张扬、个性的独立、党争不断、讲学书院的林立、海上贸易空前的繁荣、市民和手工业阶层的力量登上政治舞台，所有这一切都显示中国文明正在经历一个化 蛹为蝶的关键时期。任何文明的进化，都必然要经历一个这样的过程，否则只能停滞不前，只要经历了这样一个文明动荡整合的过程，中国文明必然重新放射出耀眼 的光芒。重新执世界文明的牛耳。

　　　　而这一个阶段，化蛹为蝶的阶段，却又恰恰是一个文明最虚弱最脆弱，最缺乏抵御野蛮的外敌侵袭能力的时机， 然而不经历着这样一个阶段，文明就无法实现自身的进化。不幸的是，正是在这个阶段，明朝的中国遇上满清这个尚处于野蛮的奴隶制阶段的政权的侵略，文明进化 的过程被人为打断了，终止了。

”

Arilang ^talk 14:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hi there, I have added quite a numbers of links on User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/2, if you have time you may have a look, and give me some suggestions, thanks. Arilang ^talk 22:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Korean's POV

杜車别 葛兆光《从“朝天”到“燕行”—17世纪中叶后东亚文化共同体的解体》内容部分摘录

从“朝天”到“燕行”

• 中国就应当是中华，中华原本是文明的意思，如果中华文明并不在清国，那么，我“宁甘为东夷之贱，而不愿为彼之贵也”。

• "空抱苏武之节牦，日望上林之归雁"

• 但是，在朝鲜李朝的历史记载中，万历皇帝却享有极崇高的声誉。

• 愿言修朝贡，万世奉皇明...圣主龙兴抚万方，远人来贡有梯航...万里梯航常入贡，三韩疆域永为藩...海国千年遇圣明，我王归附贡丹诚。

• 《朝天录》，在“朝天”这两个字中，不仅有政治上的臣服，经济上的朝贡，还有文化上的向心。

• 朝鲜“不忍背弃大明，凡祭祝之文及公家藏置文书皆书崇祯年号”。青原府院君沈器远准备起事反清，试图事成后“用崇祯年号，书示八方”，但事败被杀，其中另一个为首的权斗昌被捕受刑后说，“国事艰危，为清国所侵辱，百姓皆思中国，欲趁此时内清朝廷，外攘夷虏”。

• 朝鲜肃宗:“自古匈奴之入处中华者，皆不能久长。而今此清虏据中国已过五十年，天理实难推知也。大明积德深厚，其子孙必有中兴之庆。且神宗皇帝于我国有百世不忘之恩，而搆于强弱之势，抱羞忍过，以至于今，痛恨可胜言哉!“

• 出使北京的洪大容:“万历年间倭贼大入东国，八道糜烂，神宗皇帝勤天下之兵，费天下之财，七年然后定，到今二百年，生民之乐利皆神皇之赐也。且末年流贼之变，未必不由此，故我国以为由我而亡，没世哀慕至于今不已。”

• 南有容(1698一1773)<<明书纂要正纲>>...将明史从明太祖写到永历十三年(1659);赵徹永《续明史》也纪载明神宗万历十一年(1583，即清军最初犯境年代)至南明永历十六年(1662)的历史，在序中看出，他相当重视华夷之说，并站在南明的立场上，以南明为“我朝 ”，以清朝为“奴”.

• 洪奭周(1774一1842)的《续史略翼笺》也同样把明史写到永历十六年，其跋藉中公开说，“皇明乃本朝父母之邦……且蒙受神宗派遣援兵再造恩惠之国”

• 吴金成《朝鲜学者之明史研究》一文指出，“在朝鲜奉清正朔百余年后，在十八世纪中叶以后，仍照样记载明朝为‘皇朝’，有关明朝的时代史，几乎大部分以南明的年号为基准，甚至连南明时代也论及，以此来认定南明为正统王朝”，这种激烈的华夷观念，恰恰是朝鲜学者修明史的重要特点。

• 在清帝国时期，朝鲜人从心底里觉得，他们到中国来，就不是来朝觐天子，而只是到燕都来出差，使者们的旅行记名称，也大多由“朝天”改成了“燕行”

• 一个姓韩的使者在康熙五十二年(1713)就说，自己本来不愿意到清国去受辱，但是为了国王之事，实在是不得已，“周旋异域，日见丑类，凌逼饱尽，无量苦痛，磬折腥膻之庭，跪叩犬羊之赐，固已不胜，其大赧矣”

• 1803年出使北京的徐长辅就得出一个结论:“清人立国之规，大抵导风俗以禽兽之，率天下之民而愚之，……”

• 他们觉得，清朝的读书人好像对孔子之学，特别是正宗的宋明理学并不那么在行，对儒家学者的著作也不那么尊重.

• 接着问，你们教朱熹的《小学》么?回答是“即今皇帝以为，《小学》中语皆经史之锐，既读经史，则不可又读此书，禁天下不得学习矣”。

• 乾隆四十五年(1780)到北京的朴趾源在《热河日纪》里面说道: 清人入主中国，阴察学术宗主之所在，与夫当时趋向之众寡，于是从众而力主之。升享朱子于十哲之列，而号于天下曰:“朱子之道即吾帝室之家学也。”遂天下洽然悦服者有之，缘饰希世者有之。……其以勤遵朱子者，非他也，骑天下士大夫之项，扼其咽而抚其背，天下之士大夫率被其愚胁，区区自泥于仪文节目之中而莫之能觉也。

• 当他们发现清国的文人讨论《春秋》居然不遵朱熹的说法，“终不提论华夷内外”时，就故意挑出来质问说，“文固可佳，而但孔圣之所以作《春秋》，专为上下之分，内外之别而作也，今无此等语，可谓失旨矣”。

• 在这些朱子之学立场坚定，而且对于真理在握相当自信和自尊的朝鲜使者面前，一些立场不那么坚定的清人，多少有些愧歉与尴尬，像严诚(1732 一?)就向洪大容坦率地承认，“近时经学荒芜”;潘庭筠(1742一?)也在洪大容的追问下，一面承认“此时读书，不过记诵而已”，一面打个圆场，讪讪辩护说，“然天下尽有潜心圣贤之学者，非俗儒之概例也”

• 朴趾源的話后面就说到，清朝官方尊朱子之学，开四库之馆，使得士人之中，“其豪杰敢怒而不敢言，其鄙佞因时义而为身利。一以阴弱中土之士，一以显受文教之名。非秦之坑杀而乾没于校雠之役，非秦之燔烧而离裂于聚珍之局。呜呼，其愚天下之术，可谓巧且深矣”。另一方面，则采取钳制的高压手段，以文字狱来威吓读书人。

• 这种文化的一长一消中，他俩在汉族读书人面前便常常显得理直气壮。嘉庆八年(1803)出使北京的徐长辅就在《燕行直指》里记载，因为朝鲜人常常在翰林庶吉士聚会的地方，以笔谈的方式质问:“以圣贤后裔，何忍甘心于薙发从宦乎?”这话说得众人“皆赧然面素，漫漶以对”，只好以后不准朝鲜人再进入这个地方，免得大家“难安于酬对”。

• 道光十二年(1832)出使清朝的金景善就直截了当地对着众人说: 自生民以来，未有薙发之天子也，虽有陆陇其、李光地之学问，魏禧、汪琬、王士禛之文章，顾炎武、朱彝尊之博识，一薙发则胡虏也，胡虏则犬羊也，吾于犬羊也何观焉?此乃第一等义理论也。

Arilang ^talk 16:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Outline for Han Dynasty

At last, here are the outlines (soon to be drafts) for the main article "Han Dynasty" and its five branch articles:

• User:PericlesofAthens/Draft for Han Dynasty
• User:PericlesofAthens/Draft for History of the Han Dynasty
• User:PericlesofAthens/Draft for Society and culture of the Han Dynasty
• User:PericlesofAthens/Draft for Government of the Han Dynasty
• User:PericlesofAthens/Draft for Economics of the Han Dynasty
• User:PericlesofAthens/Draft for Science and technology of the Han Dynasty

Keep your eyes peeled for additions in the coming weeks, and always, ALWAYS feel free to provide suggestions if you think a draft listed above can be enhanced with a greater amount of sources. As of now, only the economics article will have a short supply of sources, but enough to satisfy the criteria of a "Good Article" (GA).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for remembering, Madalibi! And yes, that prestigious bastion of knowledge, the Library of Congress, is but several metro stations away from where I live. I haven't been there in a couple months, but I intend to visit shortly. I'll check JSTOR first, though, for all of these articles you've so generously posted on my talk page. And with this wealth of sources, I'll be covering but one aspect of the Han Dynasty! It is such a pain to cover all notable aspects and topics within the entire period of a lengthy Chinese dynasty like the Han; simply covering the Sui Dynasty would consume enough of my time! For example, I didn't want it to come to this, but I've already created a new sandbox, User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox5, to fit the growing amount of notes I am still compiling on society, science, architecture, art, and modern archaeological studies regarding the Han.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha! That sounds pretty lame. The Library of Congress does have one HUGE disadvantage: it closes at 5:00 pm on the weekends (Friday and Saturday)! Where does one find enough time in the day to drive to a metro station, find a parking spot, travel by metro to D.C., walk to the Library, go through security, check your items (like bookbags, boxes) with the desk at the bottom floor, write out a slip and bring it to the central counter to request your reading materials, wait about an hour for them to arrive, eat lunch, and still have time to browse through their ****ING collections! It's a good thing that it closes at 9:30 pm on Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday, otherwise I would swear to never set foot in there again. Lol. Oh, and thanks for noting the source on Wu's calendar reform! Very essential, I'll try to find it.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Madalibi. Look to User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox6 for the new sources I will use for medicine during the Han (it's located below the biographies section). Also, at User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox3, I have added that Csikszhentmihalyi source you suggested, since I was able to find it at my university library (saved me a trip to the Library of Congress). Too bad Mark Edward Lewis's book has only been ordered by my library (a frickin year ago), but has not actually arrived yet. Anyways, just thought I'd give you the inside scoop for now. God! I don't even know when I'm going to be able to start actually writing the damn articles, as opposed to compiling notes for them. Lol. Until then...--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Kangxi Emperor

Hello,

In the article Kangxi Emperor you undid my revision where I added the official starting date of his reign to the treasury section (in order to frame the fact that the figures start from 1668 rather than 1661/62 - to prevent misunderstandings).

I agree that the article should fit the historical facts (I hastily took the 1661 figure from the top of the article) but why couldn't you just simply change the date by one digit instead of using an undo?

I think it's still important to note the start of his reign in the treasury section because the figure's don't cover the first few years and readers should be able to see a clearly presented timeline (the reason for my previous edit).

Anyway I'd just like to request you to put the start of his reign back in that part of the article, whatever year you think it is supposed to be and please word it to your satisfaction. --I (talk) 11:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Madalibi,

Great work with the new changes. I added another sentence to the treasury section so it should be much easier for readers to understand the figures. I thought it was a really good idea you had to add in the year of his reign in the first and last entry on the list! :) --I (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Qing sentiment

Thanks for your concern and comments on Anti-Qing sentiment. I am trying very hard not to start another long and fruitless discussion(Qing talk page, it will take forever to read it). If some editor is determined to delete all my contributions, let him do it if he thinks fit. I have been labeled, and was subjected to No personal attacks#Personal attacks many times, my words got twisted around, was accused of a link that I had deleted already, and I wonder what other tricks are yet to be comimg? Arilang ^talk 04:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Madalibi, anti-Qing and anti-Manchuism are two opposing political concepts, two concepts that antagonize each other, it is just like putting 'fire' and 'water' together, and is rediculous. Anti-Qing was(and is) a political, cultural, and military movements. The anti-Qing sentiment is very strong again, if you read internet blogs, where communist government is repeatedly being refered to as a "later Qing"(后清) government, and the new Chinese elites are being refered to as new "Eight Banners" (八旗).
"anti-Manchuism" is a term made up by people, is a false accusation, just like Han chauvinism, a term which is used to direct attacks on Han Chinese. To me, Anti-Manchuism= Han chauvinism, these two articles have racial undertone, we have to be able to tell the differences when compare to Anti-Qing sentiment. They don't mix. Arilang ^talk 05:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What I am experiencing right now is a political attack disguised as a personal attack. I know that, I am not 三岁小孩. Arilang ^talk 05:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I thought I put the gallery here for you convenience. Arilang ^talk 03:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

At the moment I am stocking up on my Commons gallery on might be useful images ,so I think might be good idea to leave the editing of Southern Ming Dynasty to other editors for a little while. I think images sometimes are better than words. Arilang ^talk 04:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, have to remove all the images until copy-right problems solved. Sorryeeeee. Arilang ^talk 07:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

New image with no copy-right problem

1800s painting Fuzhou attack by France.

So far this is the best drawing I have seen. It is a work of art. Arilang ^talk 02:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a very detailed lithographic print, very nice indeed. Is it traceable to a specific source? The license on Wikimedia Commons says that it was drawn "300 years ago," which is of course impossible. Maybe it appeared in a treaty-port newspaper? --Madalibi (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

After some quick research: this print appeared in the Foochow Herald (Fuzhou jiebao 福州捷报), an English-language newspaper that was founded by missionaries sometime after 1858 in the treaty port of Fuzhou (see this article: 晚清时期传教士在福建的出版活动). I assume the print is a depiction of the Battle of Fuzhou, which took place in late August 1884 during the Sino-French War. Check the wiki on the Battle of Fuzhou: it has a lot of pictures of the attack in all kinds of styles. Very interesting to compare. Thanks again! --Madalibi (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Another good one:

File:1800s drawing of opium war.jpg

1800s drawing of opium war.

Arilang ^talk 03:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

A survey of Chinese history

people.cohums.ohio-state.edu Arilang ^talk 03:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Population chart

File:Population growth in Qing Dynasty.jpg

Population growth in Qing Dynasty.

Link:ohio-state.edu I hope this is useful to you. Arilang ^talk 08:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the population chart(got deleted), I shall make my own chart and upload again, that will eliminate copy right problem.

Some issues to discuss with Arilang

Below are a few issues I like to discuss with you.

Wang Yangming's "xinxue"

1. 王阳明心学是明朝中后期思想启蒙的开始，明朝中期以后心学占统治地位的。王阳明对心学进行完善并发扬光大，在士大夫心里占据了主要地位，程朱理学(也就是 八股文）在他们心中越来越没有地位。程朱理学日益衰落，王阳明甚至在万历12年从祀孔庙，后来心学被有些王门弟子扭曲，以东林党复社（其中很多人都是心学 弟子）为代表的知识分子力挽狂澜，对被某些人歪曲的心学进行纠正，同时加以发展成明末实学和minzhu思想。

比如说黄宗羲，唐甄等人的反对君主专制，提倡“工商皆本”，徐光启，方以智等人的科学精神，黄宗羲，顾炎武，颜元等人的经世致用，反对空谈义理，注重现实的思想，都是实学的一部分。还有东林党和三巨头等人的minzhu思想，都是从王阳明心学衍生出来的。 May be talk about in Ming related article?

As far as I know, thinkers like Huang Zongzi, Gu Yanwu, etc., actually criticized the "Xinxue" school for the factional bickering that brought down the Ming. Some good examples of Huang's criticisms can be found in his Mingru xuean 明儒學案. There are complex connections between late-Ming thinking and, but the "practical learning (shixue 實學) and "evidential studies" (kaozheng 考證) that characterize the Qing period are usually seen as reactions to Wang Yangming's supposedly "useless" "Learning of the Mind-and-Heart" (xinxue 心學), and especially the individualistic excesses of so-called kuang Chan 狂禪. This being said, Gu Yanwu, Wang Fuzhi, and others certainly deserve more treatment on the wiki. But since they wrote most of their work under the Qing (and even if they despised the Qing), I think they should be discussed in the Qing Dynasty article. Madalibi (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wang Yangming#Innate knowing Out of Cheng-Zhu's Neo-Confucianism that was mainstream at the time, Wang Yangming developed the idea of innate knowing, arguing that every person knows from birth the difference between good and evil. Such knowledge is intuitive and not rational. These revolutionizing ideas of Wang Yangming would later inspire prominent Japanese thinkers like Motoori Norinaga, who argued that because of the Shinto deities, Japanese people alone had the intuitive ability to distinguish good and evil without complex rationalization. His school of thought (Ōyōmei-gaku in Japanese, Ō stands for the surname "Wang", yōmei stands for "Yangming", gaku means "school of learning") also greatly influenced the Japanese samurai ethic Arilang ^talk 07:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The Ideal Chinese Political Leader By Xuezhi Guo]

“ Wang Yangming holds that "reason is inborn with the mind and is the foundation of all. When the mind is clear and unselfish, there is reason. ”

“ In contrast to Zhu Xi, who separates mind-and-heart from the physical world in space, Wang Yangming deems human knowledge of the world a construct of human minds, "a formation brought into being by our process of thinking." Wang Yangming insists that "the unity of mind and the principles of things" ensures the individual's capacity to judge right and wrong." ”

Doesn't it all sounds familiar? Jimmy Wales quotation:Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. Arilang ^talk 08:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Population loss

1. What is the population changes between Manchu entered Shanhai Pass and the end of the Southern Ming Dynasty? How many millions got killed?
2. Of 20-30 millions killed in Taiping Rebellion, how? when? where? more details?

It's still unclear how many people died during the Ming-Qing transition. There were severe epidemics, widespread banditry, and climate-related famines before the Qing invasion, but the Manchu conquest certainly added to the devastation. Let me look into this. As for the Taiping, I've seen figures ranging from 20 to 50 million casualties. As with the Manchu conquest, most of the victims were probably not killed in combat, but as a result of general chaos and disruption of agricultural production. But this is a guess. Let me look into this too. Madalibi (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The nature of the Qing regime

• Can we compare Qing to Nazi Germany or Military regime?, because Qing emperors could(on theory ) start a war whenever he liked, because he could issue royal decree anytime, and there was no one to stop him. Arilang ^talk 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

These are all interesting issues, but I'm a little perplexed about your third question: why would the ability to declare war or issue decrees make the Qing comparable to Nazi Germany? All Chinese dynasties had the right to start wars and they did so very often, and all Chinese emperors at all times had ("in theory," as you say) the power to issue imperial decrees anytime they wanted. I don't think the comparison with Nazi Germany is very useful. Madalibi (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

[Madalibi: I removed a sub-title here.]

《中国历代政治得失》——钱穆 这可以说明清代政治，完全是一种军事统制，而这种军事统制，又完全是一种部族统制，因为兵权是该完全归于这个部族的。

清代政府发布最高命令的手续，又是非常不合理……这不是全国政治，都变成秘密不再公开了！秘密政治这当然只能说是一种法术，而不能说是一种制度呀！ 清朝从前做皇帝，外面送给皇帝的公事，先送到六部，皇帝拿出来的公事，六部也一定得先看。因为政治该公开，而六部尚书是全国的行政首长呀。这在明代还是如此的。那时大官的任用还有廷推，小官的任用则只经过吏部。事关教育，则一定要经礼部的。不能说皇帝私下决定了，不再给政府行政长官预闻就可办。这绝不能说是一种制度，也不能说它是习惯法，只该说它是法术。为什么？因为这是纯粹出之于私心的。而私心则绝不能形成出制度。 有这一点看来，清代比明代更独裁。明代还是在制度之下由皇帝来当宰相。宰相废了，而宰相的职权则由皇帝兼。只是宰相做错了，须负责。皇帝做错了，可以不负责。除此一分别以外，明代制度还是和过去大体相似的。清代就更超越了这限度。我们曾讲过，唐宋诸代的诏敕，宰相一定要盖章，没有宰相的章，就不成为诏书。为什么皇帝下诏书一定要宰相盖章呢？这就是一种制度了。为什么皇帝的诏书不能给旁人看，而要直接送出呢？这就是一种法术了。 这里的分别很简单，换句话说：一个是公的，有理由的，一个是私的，没有理由的。清代那种私心的政治，又怎样能做得下去呢？这就因为皇帝背后有全部满洲人撑腰。一个皇帝要独裁，他背后定要有一部分人强力支持他，他才能真独裁。 中国历史从秦以后，历代皇帝的背后就没有这样一个固定的力量。若说皇帝利用读书人，读书人在拥护皇帝，可是读书人拥护皇帝比较是公的。因为读书人不是皇帝的私势力。而且读书人也不是一个固定的集团。中国历史上只有元和清，皇帝后面有整批蒙古人和满洲人帮忙。 [Signature added by madalibi:] Arilang ^talk

Hi Arilang. Here are a few answers to Qian Mu (though you could considered posting what you think, too). In general, my whole view about such comparisons is that... I prefer not to make them! When I study historical topics, I don't see the need to identify with my topic in a personal way. So what if the Song is better than the Qing, or the Qing better than the Han, or the Jin better than the Yuan? These value judgments don't help me to understand these periods any better. Comparisons can be helpful to a certain extent to bring out characteristics on both sides that we wouldn't notice otherwise, but I don't think comparisons and value judgments should be the ultimate goal of historical investigations. Most comparisons usually end up being a pick-and-choose of things we like and dislike. I prefer to understand the whole as it existed at the time, and only then to propose comparisons. I don't think Qian Mu does that very well. So a few points:

• "清代政府发布最高命令的手续，又是非常不合理": 不合理 from whose point of view? For all we know, it worked very well in practice! It's not something modern governments want to adopt, of course, but this is an entirely different problem.
• 秘密政治: I know about so-called "secret memorials" and all, but Qing government was far from a "secret government." The Grand Council was an inner court institution, and therefore close to the emperor's interests, but it soon became routinized and far from secret. Qian Mu is simplifying greatly. And I don't know any period in Chinese history that had a 全国政治. Qian Mu's strong contrasts don't seem to hold water.
• 清朝从前做皇帝，外面送给皇帝的公事，先送到六部，皇帝拿出来的公事，六部也一定得先看. And Qian Mu could also have mentioned the Grand Secretariat (Neige 內閣). The problem with that system is that not only the Six Ministries could see memorials: so could eunuchs and about anybody with connections at court. Policy could therefore easily fall into unscrupulous hands if the emperor did not control his court well. And by the way, routine government issues under the Qing were still referred to the Six Ministries (through a form of document called tiben 題本 ["routine memorials"]), while important state matters were transmitted directly to the emperor through the Grand Council in the form of zouzhe 奏摺 ("palace memorials").
• 公事: war and policy were not considered "public" at the time, at least not in the sense of "issues that should be discussed publicly." Qian Mu is makin points based on modern interpretations of pre-modern principles
• 因为政治该公开...: this is a modern principle. Why should it apply to Ming and Qing China?
• 那时大官的任用还有廷推，小官的任用则只经过吏部。事关教育，则一定要经礼部的。不能说皇帝私下决定了，不再给政府行政长官预闻就可办。 I'm not sure where Qian Mu got his idealized vision of the Ming government. And why he thinks that Qing emperors decided on all these matters "in private." They certainly did not. The Ministry of Personnel was still in charge of appointments, except for very high provincial posts. But the appointment of xunfu 巡撫 and zongdu in the Ming was also not the task of the Minister of Personnel (吏部尚書). It was decided either by emperors themselves or by the most influential Grand Secretaries (some of which could have a dual appointment as Ministers of Personnel), men like Yang Shiqi 楊士奇 in the fifteenth century of Zhang Juzheng 張居正 in the sixteenth. And Qian Mu does not mention how Ming emperors could assign eunuchs to all kinds of irregular tasks without ever discussing these appointments with the regular bureaucracy. So once again, Qian Mu is over-stating the difference between Ming and Qing, or he is making a contrast between the Qing and modern systems. If it's the latter, sure, the Qing government was not democratic, but we already knew that.
• 这绝不能说是一种制度: Of course it was an institution! There were all kinds of procedures for naming officials. Qing emperors received detailed reports on all the candidates for posts in the field bureaucracy: what degree they had, when they got it, what their personality was, where they were from, etc. Qian Mu makes it sound like all Qing appointments were like Qianlong's appointment of Heshen.
• 因为这是纯粹出之于私心的。 This is a purely gratuitous statement based on Qian Mu's misinterpretation of the functioning of Qing government.
• 只是宰相做错了，须负责。皇帝做错了，可以不负责。 Well, accountability vs. non-accountability sounds like a big difference to me. I wonder what Qian Mu would have said if the Qing had abolished the position of Prime Minister...
• 为什么皇帝的诏书不能给旁人看，而要直接送出呢？ Of course, the Qing did not have "consultative government" and a parliament, and sure, in a modern state there should be some kind of body to vet the decisions of the head of state. No contest here. But note how the contrast is now between Qing and Tang-Song, and no longer between Qing and Ming...
• 一个是公的，有理由的，一个是私的，没有理由的。 The reasoning is fallacious and simply based on labeling. Why should 公 mean 有理由的 and 私 mean 没有理由的, and why should these labels apply respectively to the Ming and Qing?
• 清代那种私心的政治... Gratuitous again. This 私心 government still had the most advanced public granary system in the world in the 18th century, and it fed the people when there was a famine. (See Bureaucracy and Famine, by Pierre-Etienne Will.) As I emphasized elsewhere, these granaries existed in part because the Qing feared public unrest during subsistence crises, and they nourished the people to foster social stability, but this kind of endeavor doesn't fall under Qian Mu's simplistic 私心 explanation, and it shows that the Qing was, in this respect at least, far better than the Ming or than 18th-century France and Russia, for that matter.
• And sure, the Qing emperors were supported by the Banner elite, but also by all Chinese officials. All dynasties would fall if they were not supported by the military, intellectual and social elite.
• In the end, I think Qian Mu is only comparing the Qing with the Ming in abstract terms: he is comparing institutions purely on paper, and even on that level, almost all of his contrasts are over-stated. In practice, even at the height of Ming prosperity, the Ming central government was notoriously corrupt and divided by factional struggles either between rival groups of officials or between officials and eunuchs. As China was becoming increasingly prosperous from about the 1520s to the 1620s, the central government was increasingly unable to function normally and to extract revenue from the regions. I'm not saying the Qing government was benevolent, not corrupt, and all: this is mostly propaganda. But in practice, it compared very well to the Ming.
• As a historian, I don't think any of these comparisons is very enlightening. What do they help us to understand? And of course I still don't see how anything Qian Mu says would justify a comparison with Nazi Germany...

--Madalibi (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Madalibi: May be I was wrong in the way Qing and Nazi Germany was put into one basket, well, it isn't my original thought(copied idea from intrnet blogger). May be you are right in presenting Qing as a 'sucessfull', 'effective', 'well run and organizied' hierarchy. And you have the figure to prove it: look at the population growth.

But, you may be able to say that Qian Mu's opinions are somehow biased, that is ok. What about this criticisim from a different world:

• Journal of Embassy to China by Lord Mackartney:

“ For it would now seem that the policy and vanity of the Court equally concurred in endeavouring to keep out of sight whatever can manifest our pre-eminence, which they undoubtedly feel, but have not yet learned to make the proper use of. It is, however, in vain to attempt arresting the progress of human knowledge. I am, indeed, very much mistaken if all the authority and address of the Tartar Government will be able much longer to stifle the energies of their Chinese subjects. Scarcely a year now passes without an insurrection in some of their provinces. it is true they are soon suppressed, but their frequency is a strong symptom of the fever within. The paroxysm is repelled, but the disease is not cured. ”

[Signature added by madalibi:] Arilang ^talk

Hi again,
Don't get me wrong: the Qing was a successful regime in comparison with other regimes from roughly the same time period. I would never say that we should imitate the Qing or glorify it today. For one thing, no one I know would want to be ruled by an emperor again, be it Kangxi or Song Huizong. And the Qing had its decline too. The granary system was no longer effective in the 19th century, when corruption also started to become rampant. And the Taiping and the many other rebellions that happened in the 1850s and 1860s wouldn't have happened if everything had been rosy and perfect. Like other pre-modern regimes, the Qing was not a democracy, and when it had a choice between helping the people and preserving the regime's own power, it always chose the latter. This should not be too surprising, since all other Chinese dynasties and most pre-democratic regimes that I know did the same.
Macartney's writings are fascinating and often very perceptive, but I wouldn't take everything he said for granted. He noticed many interesting things about the Qing government, notably what he saw as the court's bias toward "Tartar" (i.e., Manchu) officials (Heshen, Fukang'an, etc.). But he also spoke of the Qing as the "tyranny of a handful of Tartars over more than three hundred millions of Chinese," a misperception that I think was guided by notions of "Asian despotism" Macartney had acquired in Europe before coming to China. Statements like "it is.... in vain to attempt arresting the progress of human knowledge" are very difficult to interpret. I see it not as a descriptive claim, but as a very powerful value judgment that could be used to guide practice, not just describe it. The same kind of statement was indeed used in the 19th century to justify Western imperialist ventures against China.
--Madalibi (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right in saying "The same kind of statement was indeed used in the 19th century to justify Western imperialist ventures against China." because Manchus were then facing gunboats and cannons(with explosive shells) and self-reloading rifles in the two opium wars, when they themselves were only equiped with arrows and swords and a few outdated fire-arms. The key words in that short quote are to attempt arresting the progress of human knowledge. Mackartney, imperialist or not imperialist, this statement really hits the bull's eye. The Manchu was not prepared to have its populace 'educated' in the proper sense; they burned and modified books in the thousands. Simply compare the Ming and Qing's scholars , we can see that Ming's scholars were much more brillent than Qing's in many ways. When the scholars were of third grade, of course the general public would be fifth or sixth grades. Arilang ^talk

New article

Genocides and Atrocities committed by Manchu Qing

Hi, just to let you know I have created another new article. Arilang ^talk 12:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Some answers to your comment on new article. Arilang ^talk 10:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Empire or Dynasty

I have a look at British Empire and Mongol Empire, and thinking, shouldn't we change Qing Dynasty into Qing Empire or Manchu Empire. What I am saying is China was basically ruled separately in four parts under Qing ,China proper, Tibet, Xinjiang, and Hui(Muslim), and it is really more an Empire than a dynasty. There were many dynasties in the past, but not many Empire. Arilang ^talk 11:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Qing dynasty edits

Thanks for your message. Previously I mainly focused on articles related to the Yuan Dynasty; from now on I'll pay more attention to the Qing-related articles when I have time.--Choulin (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What consists of a Genocide?

More comments on my talk page. Arilang ^talk 14:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

More evidence on Genocidal Manchu tribal chief

zh:入關戰爭

在清朝統一全國的過程中，由於作出了剃髮易服的規定，曾在南方遭到了部分漢族等各族人民的武裝抵抗，發生過多次屠殺江南抗清軍民事件，如揚州十日、嘉定三屠、江陰慘殺。除此之外，清軍還可能曾經在廣州、贛州、湘潭、大同、四川、南雄、潮州等地也進行了屠殺，尚存爭議。順治六年（1649年）清兵入四川，「民賊相混，玉石難分。或屠全城，或屠男而留女」；陷崑山(Jiangxu province)時，一日內死難者高達四萬人，「崑山頂上僧寮中，匿婦女千人，小兒一聲，搜戮殆盡，血流奔瀉，如澗水暴下」。順治六年（1649年）鄭親王濟爾哈朗佔領湖南後屠湘潭，「築牆掘濠，使城內人不能逸出，然後用紅夷大炮攻破，盡行誅戮」。南昌大屠殺時，「婦女各旗分取之，同營者迭嬲無晝夜」。順治七年（1650年）尚可喜、耿繼茂攻 克廣州，「再破廣州，屠戮甚慘，居民幾無遺類……累骸燼成阜，行人於二、三裡外望如積雪。因築大坎痤焉，表曰共塚。」「甲申更姓，七年討殛。何辜生民，再 遭六極。血濺天街，螻蟻聚食。饑鳥啄腸，飛上城北，北風牛溲，堆積髑髏。或如寶塔，或如山丘……」。南雄大屠殺時，「家家燕子巢空林，伏屍如山莽充斥…… 血泚焦土掩紅顏，孤孩尚探娘懷乳」。潮州大屠殺，「縱兵屠掠，遺骸十余萬。」

With still plenty of verifiable historical facts around, it is quite easy to show that what Manchu tribal chiefs did to Han Chinese is comparable to what Mongols did to pre-modern Iraqi and Iran, you think so?

Manchus were Jurchen were tribal people

There is no denying that they were all tribal people, no matter how hard they try, no matter how many titles(Kings, emperors, empress, princes they can pile on top of their heads). They were genocidal, murderous, and they were barbarians, full stop. No matter how beautiful the outside package is, the inside is rotten to the most. Any person that can read, and can use 'google search' can find out the facts. It takes a bit longer, that is all. Madalibi, lets call spade a spade. Barbarians could never disguise as Chinese scholars, which is exactly those Manchu tribal chiefs trying to cheat others. Arilang ^talk 12:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Paramount chief Chiefdom Tribal chief

New answer to your comment at talk page Genocides and Atrocities committed by Manchu chiefdom Arilang ^talk 18:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference 10 missed out

Hi, my answer to your comment. Please read ref. No.10 of Genocides and Atrocities committed by Manchu chiefdom Arilang ^talk 03:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Code Tang

Thanks ! Yug (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry X'mas to you

Lets forget our differences during the festive season and have a great time, and happy new year. Arilang ^talk 06:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, a little work on Lingdi didn't hurt since it was in between dinner and pumpkin-pie-dessert. Lol. Merry Christmas! And a Happy New Year, Madalibi. Take care.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion Madalibi, I have changed the name accordingly. All the articles I have created are on my user page, please feel free to suggest any changes, you know I always welcome your opinions, even if sometimes we do not agree with each other. Arilang ^talk 20:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Chinese holocaust

Just to inform you that the article Chinese Holocaust has been moved into my sandbox for more research. Arilang ^talk 00:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Another new article

Please have a look 2009 CCSTV New Year's Gala, the next hot internet topic, and give me some advices on how to improve it. Arilang ^talk 01:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Hi, Madalibi. Many thanks for your reverting vandalism on my talk page. --Neo-Jay (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Neo-Jay. You're very welcome. The anonymous vandal's IP address was from behind Putian in Fujian. Looking at his/her other edits, my guess is that he or she resented what you said at the Chinese wikisource concerning Charter 08, but I may be completely wrong. Anyway, Happy New Year to you, and keep up the good work! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope he or she will not be so angry with me. :( Thanks again! Happy New Year! --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Mr.Cannon...

Regarding recent edits made to the Japanese_invasions_of_Korea and the subsequent removal of a "latvian cannon" Is there any other images you have to add for that era that you know of(especially another Cannon picture? - ive seen your good work on the Ming_dynasty) Help would be appreciated. Thanks for your tidy on the page also.--CorrectlyContentious 10:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Arilang123 has now added a great image if you can see, thanks!--CorrectlyContentious 13:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Appreciated again!--CorrectlyContentious 14:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

Hi Madalibi. About the literary inquisition article, if you are sure that all of the points were referenced by the content in The Cambridge History of China and they were indeed talking about the Siku Quanshu and the censorship of Qing literary inquisition, then that would be fine. I wasn't certain if all of the 7 points in the old "Burning of books" section came from sources of The Cambridge History of China as you can see only one of them was cited.--TheLeopard (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you keep an eye out on the Siku Quanshu article? That is in case if this user User:Arilang1234 adds back all of his/her off-the-wall, grammatically poorly-written material to the article? I don't think these randomly sorted sections added by this user (talking about Siku Jinshu?? Related to Siku Quanshu? "Literary holocaust"... etc.) should be doing on the article since they are quite poorly-written and have very little to do with the encyclopedia topically.--TheLeopard (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Characters for Nie Wengyi

Hey, how's it going. I can't find them online; I was wondering if you could show me the character name for Nie Wengyi, that merchant from Mayi who convinced the 134 BC court conference under Emperor Wu to have Han assault the Xiongnu. Thanks.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My response here. Madalibi (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Your help is most wanted. As for the history draft, it is coming along. Judging from the size so far, I hope that I've already reached the halfway point, although I'm not even at Wang Mang yet. Yikes!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! I need your help again. I need the characters for Huduershi Shanyu, if possible. I can't seem to find them anywhere online.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You should see the article now. ;) --Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(Stuffy British accent): I'll have you know, sir, that those 100,000 KB include not only the main prose text, but also all the pictures, picture captions, citations, references, and section titles as well! So good day to you, sir, good day indeed! Rabble, rabble, rabble! Lol.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol, nice one.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's official: the article, History of the Han Dynasty, is not only up and ready, but is linked to in a dozen different articles (ones I thought were relevant).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. Thanks for your continued effort to improve History of the Han Dynasty. As you can tell, I have trouble keeping my sentences short and succinct, stripping them down to a more manageable size. Therefore, your services there are most welcome! Also, I HAVE A NEW PRESIDENT. Guess who he is? Lol. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he sure as hell does have a mountain of weight pressing down on his shoulders, problems inherited by his predecessor unfortunately. As for the article, you are doing a superb job so far, yet I think you should focus on reducing the size of the Eastern Han portion of the article. I believe it is a bit longer and more wordy than the Western Han portion of the article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice! I like your Shunzhi chronology sandbox! It is a great idea to create a chronology for reign periods, and it certainly has the potential to become a great timeline article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Aaahhh! It's not available on The Jerry Springer Show? Well, to compensate, Springer should have Guo Shoujing's descendants come on the show and have a battle royale with chairs and stage props. Lol. Thanks for the link! It certainly does look incredible. I'm taking a little wiki break too, so just popping in. Take care.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Open invitation

Hi, please check User talk:Arilang1234#Co-editors needed for new article Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 Arilang ^talk 22:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/ Hua-Yi zhi bian(temporary name)

User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/ Hua-Yi zhi bian(temporary name)

Please provide content:lead section and the rest. Arilang ^talk 02:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Need your help again

I have created an article:User Arilang1234/Lao Baixing User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/Lao Baixing, is about 老百姓, I think this article is needed. Could you help me to build it up? Arilang ^talk 08:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please check User talk:Arilang1234/Sandbox/Lao Baixing, your opinion is needed. Arilang ^talk 03:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Lao Baixing

Since Lao Baixing is created, I think most of the English word Chinese in all of these history articles such as Qing, Ming and Song, Ming can be replaced with Qing Lao Baixing, Ming Lao Baixing, and Song Lao Baixing. What you think? Arilang ^talk 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Qing-Yuan Legitimacy debate

Can you take a look at this article and add stuff to the traditioanl view and why people might think Qing and Yuan are Legitimate?

Also, I have a question about your view on Ming and Qing. Is it not true that Qing was a retrogression in these ways:

1. Qing lost naval technology; Qing navy at Opium war wasn't even as advanced as ZHeng He's fleet(basically no fleet) At end of Ming, a private clan(Zheng clan) could defeat Dutch East India company. Joseph Needham said Ming navy outclasses all European navies combined. also, lots of ming merchants set up colonies in Indonesia(Lanfang republic, and the like).

2. Qing lost gunpowder tech; Qing didn't use gun powder tech at all, Ming had lots. One battalion has 600 muskets/400 fire lances.

3. Qing did suppress technology through literary inquistition. At end of Ming, Ming scholars wrote large amounts of texts, Li Xi, Wang YuanMing, and the like.

4. Qing didn't regard themselves as chinese. Destroyed chinese dress, and Cixi, Yongzheng, all said that they were not chinese and they would rather give to foreigners than their "slaves".

5. Qing was poorer than Ming. lots of Ming scholars wrote about how Poor they had become. Even Ming in 1644 was richer than Qing in say 1740(even with little ice age). Qing also shut down overseas trade of several hundred million taels, again from Needham.

6. Han, T'ang, Song, Ming and others all invented lots of technology. Not a single invention during Qing or Yuan for that matter.

So my question is, in which ways do you think Qing compares favorably with Ming.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm supposed to be on break from Wikipedia, but since you took time to post here, let me take some time to answer. Of course all these questions would need lengthy discussion to be solved properly, but I just don't have time in real life to engage in such in-depth debates. I'll just take your points one by one, not to "refute" them, but to show that things may be a little more complicated than you indicate.

One general point before I start: I think you see the Ming and Qing in a larger narrative that ends with the defeat of China by Western powers in the late 19th century. In that sense, the Qing will of course look pretty bad, since they were the ones who lost (though not as badly as people usually think, and not for the simple reasons people usually mention). For my part, I try to analyze people's decisions as they made sense within their own worldviews and according to what they knew at the time, not from the hindsight that knowledge of later events gives us. I respond to your points in this spirit.

1.The Dutch East India Company around 1600 was not the same kind of power that the British EIC represented in 1850. And that "private clan" was itself stronger than the Ming navy! Needham's claim about the Ming navy was probably about the Zheng He fleets. But the Ming government (after Yongle) also banned foreign trade, by the way.

2. "Qing lost gunpowder tech": well, sure, they weren't a big gunpowder power when they faced Western powers in the 1840s, but what other country was? And it's simply not true that the Qing didn't use gunpowder at all. First, they used it to defeat the Ming. Then they used cannon cast by Jesuits to wage war on the Dzungars during the Kangxi era, and they used heavy artillery in the Jinchuan campaigns of the late Qianlong reign. There were treatises on gunpowder. The problem is what you want to contrast the Qing with. If you say they were weaker than the British in 1850, then sure. But they were also one of the most successful pre-modern empires. (Success in this case is not glorifying them: it means success in expanding territory and stabilizing rule.) They defeated or integrated all their nomadic rivals (something no Chinese dynasty ever did before), dramatically expanded their territory (the territory of the PRC would be much smaller without the Qing), and managed to rule that empire stably for more than a century (say from 1680 to 1800 or so). In the light of such success, what was the need to center their army around firearms? The only way you can do that is because you know what happened later!

And what is the source for your claim that one Ming "battalion had 600 muskets/400 fire lances"?

3. I would like to see evidence that the Qing "suppressed technology through literary inquisitions." They obviously suppressed dissent, but technology? And I'm not sure who Li Xi is. Are you referring to Li Zhi? If this is so, what did Li Zhi write about technology? Wang Yangming had some interesting things to say on war and strategy, but he's certainly not a "scientific thinker" the likes of which were repressed by the Qing.

4. "Qing didn't regard themselves as Chinese." Well, they certainly tried to present themselves as legitimate rulers of the land we now call China. It's easy to prove anything with uncontextualized citations. Qing emperors also said all kinds of things about their duty to nourish and protect the people. And the British rulers who presided over the mighty Industrial Revolution said all kinds of nasty things about the people they governed. So what? This whole point seems irrelevant. (And incidentally, I honestly don't know the evidence for the claim that the Qing "destroyed Chinese dress." Apart from the queue, were there really prohibitions on what we now call Hanfu?)

Sorry to interrupt

zh:剃髮易服 Quote:「剃髮易服」是清初主要的社會矛盾之一。針對當時各地漢人的抗爭此起彼伏的情況，當時的陳名夏曾說過：「留髮復衣冠，天下即可太平。」然而不久他就因為說了這句話而被滿門抄斬。Unquoted.

5. Qing did shut down overseas trade, but so did the Ming, didn't they? And what does "Qing was poorer than Ming" mean? If you're comparing 1644 to 1740, you're contradicting about all the scholarship I know on these two periods. To make your claim more meaningful (and therefore more discussable), we would need to make it more specific: "The Qing GDP per capita was lower than the Ming for any given region at any given time" (I doubt there is enough data to verify this); "the Qing state was poorer than the Ming state" (usually false, though it would depend on the era under discussion); "the Qing economy was weaker than the Ming economy" (not sure what this would mean); "the Qing economy represented a lower percentage of the world economy than the Ming economy" (meaningless comparison because the result would depend on the changing state of the economy of the rest of the world); "the average Qing peasant was poorer than the average Ming peasant" (would need more disaggregation between regions as well as between cores and peripheries, and a clarification about what we mean by "poorer": less land under cultivation, less purchasing power, lower ability to produce offspring, poorer nutrition, lower "quality of life," etc.). Anyway, on what basis were you making this claim?

6. Number of inventions: this is an important point if either one of the following two premises is true: a) premodern inventions are limitless (they can go on forever no matter how much of them already exist); b) premodern inventions always lead directly to industrial innovations if they're not impeded. I know that many historians (especially Western ones) have taken these premises for granted, but I don't see why we should.

There's one major difference between Ming and Qing: the Ming never had to face an onslaught like that the British and other Western unleashed on the Qing in the 19th century. Only Japan did well at the time, for all kinds of complex reasons. Because Japan's success was quite unique, it arguably needs explaining even more than Qing failure does.

As I told Arilang before, I usually don't engage in this kind of comparison between two periods anyway. People who do it usually end up cherry-picking what they like on one side and leaving inconvenient facts that would go against their thesis on the other side. For example, the Qing's ability to relieve famines on a large-scale during the 18th century had no equivalent in Ming times (as far as I know). I can think of other points "in favor of the Qing" (density of scholarly networks in Jiangnan before the Taiping rebellion, advances in classical scholarship that pretty much gutted the "Neo-Confucian" orthodoxy, more competent emperors involved in government, etc.), but they also reflect subjective points of view. Anyway, I think we should try to understand the Qing for itself before we compare it with the Ming. Demonizing the Qing won't help anybody understand what happened.

All right, this is all I have time for today! Looking forward to seeing what you have to say in return. Cheers,

--Madalibi (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

My response

1. Thank you for taking time with me Madlibi. I agree with the fact that the Qing did use gunpowder weapons and did not lose as badly, but my point is that chinese technology was largely STAGNANT during Qing, while they were advancing in Song, Ming, Han, T'ang. Certainly the pace of discovery was relatively high durign these dynasties, while virtually stagnant in Qing.

2. Yes the Ming did prohibit foreign trade for a while, but they lifted the order in the 15th century. This "prohibition" is in line with what happened during Song and Yuan , because the state wanted to control the trade at certain ports(Quanzhou) and what happened during Qing(only Guangzhou(canton) was allowed to trade.). But the point is, one the prohibition was lifted, and two it was not enforced very well; as Joseph Needham was saying, there were a trade of several hundred million taels. If we put that to purchasing power, Ming government's revenues of 27 million taels would be 2.5-4 trillion(comparing to US state revenues, of course Ming had a smaller government) so you can imagine the trade was quite large.

3. Ming emperor was less powerful than Qing, but it's a natural development. The Chinese monarchy had been weakening since the T'ang; the Song and Ming rulers were much more weaker and had to respond to their subjects, which got much stronger. This is in long with what happened in 18th century Europe, where the absolutist Kings (think Louis XIV)got weaker and the parlements got stronger. Qing, however, reversed this trend and reinstated the old system. Of course the absolutist government is better in some cases(like famine relief you mentioned), but its not better in all cases, and certainly not when under a foreign ruler. Isn't Emperor Taizong a good administrator? or Emperor Wu of Han? But you would nto want to go back to mercantilism. Using stocks as an analogy(see my name, teeninvestor, it literally describes how old i am and my hobbies.) you'll get a little bounce if your stock falls too heavily, but that doesn't mean you should hold it. For example, in some ways barbarian takeover and slaughter of the Roman population, which gave birth to the modern European states, can be argued to have some good things over the old Roman Empire, but thats after what was basically a descent into barbarism.

Also, about the wealth of the people, there were far more popular insurrections and famines under Qing than Ming. Ming insurrections and famines came later, when the little ice age basically caused North China to become unproductive. As well, all previous peasant rebellions in china mention division of land. peasant rebellions of Qing, however, always have to slogan "Crush the Qing, restore the Ming." This can show the sentiments of the people.

4.By what I mean by Qing banned Han chinese dress, they forcibly changed the dress of a people and killed those who did not accept. There's a saying from the Qing: leave your hair or leave your head. Qing regarded themselves as Jur'chens and they were going to benefit the Jur'chens rather than the Han chinese. Thats why we have the banner people being on a pension, etc... Their first goal is maintain their rule over China, not care about whether that country is strong or not. This is why Cixi is saying give to foreigners, rather than slaves, etc... For one, the Indians wouldn't regard the British Raj as just another dynasty(85 million bodies piling up there). As to suppression of Ming technology. First off, many Ming texts were burnt, including Tian Kan Quan Ming, a scientific encyclopedia. Secondly, Qing production of gunpowder weaposn was far fewer than Ming. one Ming battalion had 600 muskets, 200 firelances, and 50 cannnons. During Jiaqing's reign, the entire Qing empire could only produce 150 cannons. See http://gz-hanfu.cn/doc/The-Truth-of-History.pdf(in Chinese) for some information I used for my technological and economic arguments.

5. Thought is a lot freer in Ming. Thats why you have lots of scholars publishing books. In fact, there is a large number of Chinese thinkers, philosophers, etc... in 1578-1644. This is well documented by Joseph Needham.

6. By what I mean poorer is on a relative basis. During Ming, China was still one of the richest countries in the world, and certainly not stagnant. By end of Qing it was opposite. If you read wealth of nations or Lord McCartney's travels, all of them use China as a case for stagnation. Also, in Qing (until late Qing) you wouldn't found merchants that have treasures exceeding the state, like in Ming. There is also an interesting account in which portugese visitors in the 16th century considered Ming rich, while McCartney described "hordes of beggars" in Qing, but I don't consider that a reliable source.

7. Was the Ming government really more corrupt than Qing? I don't think so. FIrst of all, Ming had far fewer mouths to feed, so there would not be more corruption even if corruption per capita was equal. Secondly, there is no evidence Ming was more corrupt; in fact I think the reverse is true. As to princely estates, during Ming they were entitlement; like, the prince has the right to receive taxation revenue from so and so households, weren't collected from the peasants. Now under Qing, it basically was a restoration of feudalism, last seen in China about 1800 years ago! Qing princes basically rounded up Chinese peasants and turned them into feudal serfs!

8. Was Ming really less powerful than Qing? Ming had control over Tibet, Xinjiang and Manchuria as well. Qing just ruled them more tightly. These has more to do with the introduction of Maize into China as Han and T'ang discovered holdignt hese areas without bring food was extremely expensive. Therefore Ming did not hold these areas permanently. Nevertheless, they retained their control over these areas through periodic stationing of military troops as well as governors. To illustrate what I mean, take the case of Northern Canada. Canada stations minimal military troops there, (there are no permanent bases)and the area is extremely underpopulated(an area larger than Europe with a population below 100,000). But does Canada still retain soverignty over this area? The answer would be yes. The same thing, I suspect, is for the Ming. The area was under their control, but it was so sparsely populated and difficult to administer, they basically put it under the administration of the border generals and looked into it once in a while. Now under Qing, because of introduction of Maize, the Qing can grow food right in Xinjiang, tibet, etc..., so it can afford to station military troops there.

As to Qing defeating all nomadic rivals, I would think Han and T'ang far exceeded them in that respect. Even the Jin dynasty(265-420) could herd millions of barbarians into its terroritory and basically treat them as slaves(though with bad results, see Wu Hu). I would think the Ming would be no less powerful in that respect. Chinese dynasties at their zenith have usually be much superior to the nomadic nations(Song excepted, for special reasons) and able to remain at peace for the whole duration of the dynasty except the beginning and end. Tighter Qing rule over the western provinces is best explained by introduction of maize and other American crops, which can be grown in dry regions. This also explains increase in population durign Qing rule. Had the Ming lived for another 200 years, I believe it would also tighten its conrol over Tibet and Xinjiang due to introduction of Maize(and it would have probably also advanced into industrial age.)

9. The most important part to remember about Qing(and I can't stress this enough) is that they were a foreign usurpation in China(based on logic of confucianism), and they never forgot that. They wouldn't like technology because the ones operating would be the HAN CHINESE who would then overthrow them in favor of self-governance. That wouldn't be a pretty fate(see Ran Min). This is why Cixi stopped the reforms, why Kangxi wouldn't let his subjects contact western(or Ming, for that matter) technology, why Yongzheng, Qianlong, limited trade to one port. Their first priority was to destroy anything that Han chinese could use against them to overthrow them. This, I believe is the main reason why Japan succeeded and Qing did not. If a han chinese government had been in place, they wouldn't fear that the new technology would be used to overthrow them(and that's assuming they would not be the originator of the industrial revolution in the first place, which I find to be highly unprobable.)

10. Something I find annoying about study of chinese history(doesn't just apply to westerners , also applies to chinese) is that a lot of acadmeics just think china advanced to here, and then to there, and then it stagnates for hundreds of years for absolutely no reason( see the absurd Marxist concept of Oriental despotism.]] You would think that a country that invented paper, compass, printing press, and gunpowder would not suddenly descend into stagnation without a sudden invasion or change in government. I mean, by the 17th Century, the Ming had a pretty good free market economy set up, the pace of discovery is quickening, and then after Manchu come in Poof, its all gone. the period between 1578 and 1644 sees a large number of thinkers, scientists, and philosophers born, while the period after 1644, you'd be hard pressed to name a single thinker. If the manchu conquest was indeed just a continuation of Ming, what are the reasons for the Great Divergence? that Chinese state interfered too much(Ming and Qing collected less tax than Europe)? that Chinese are hostile to capitalism(you should read some of the christian rants on usury; plus, look at how willing china embraced capitalism after the fortunate death of Mao)? Oriental despotism(don't need an explanation destroying that absurd concept, my reading of the decline and fall fo the roman empire convinces me that Roman Emperors are a lot more despotic than Chinese. Chinese emperors do not order massacres in large cities(Caracalla) and even Wu di or Taizong would have to think twice before putting hundreds of officials to death(Commodus, Nero, too many to count.)), Christianity(I say confucianism is much more hospitable to capitalism)? Teeninvestor (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

From my points I have concluded Qing is not better technologically per 1. not better economically per 2. 6. 7. not better military per 8. not better progressivewise per 5. 4. 9. Basically, my conclusion is that Qing was basically a long stagnation(technologically, economically and politically) and in some cases even retrogression, similar to how the Mongols were a stagnation and retrogression of the Song. Teeninvestor (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

My reply

Hi again Teeninvestor, and thank you for your responses. I'm glad I can get into a discussion like this with you, though I don't have enough time to give it my all. Let me respond to selected points, because I can't respond to all. [Well, turns out I went all the way to 8 and took much more time than I thought!]

1. Some scholars claim that Chinese technology started to stagnate around 1400, not 1640. Why do you claim that inventions kept appearing between 1578 and 1644? If you can name some of these inventions, we can then see if the Qing suppressed them or contributed to diffusing them. And the history of technology is more than the history of inventions. Inventions are spectacular, but in order to have any kind of effect, they have to be followed by large-scale adoption. The Qing was in a continuum with the Ming in the diffusion of innovations in manufacturing or agriculture. So were Song, Yuan, and Ming. And you haven't responded to my point about why there should necessarily be more and more pre-industrial inventions forever, or why more inventions should always leave to an industrial revolution. This is purely an assumption based on what happened in one part of the world (Western Europe) under special histoical circumstances. Why should this be a necessary process?

2. I think foreign trade was made legal again in the 1570s, not earlier. Even then, direct trade with Japan was still prohibited, and most trade with European countries (mostly Spain and Portugal at the time) was done through Macao or Manila, not directly on Ming territory. And yes the Ming got a large influx of silver that way, but you seem to assume that the Qing didn't. This is entirely false. The British started selling opium to Chinese merchants precisely because the balance of trade was too heavily in China's favor. Silver was flowing into the Qing empire despite the confinement of trade to Canton, and was stimulating the domestic economy as it did during the Ming. And until the very end of the Tokugawa period the Japanese also restricted trade to one port (Nagasaki), but this didn't keep them from modernizing.

3. Many of your points seem to be pre-oriented toward glorifying the Ming and criticizing the Qing (see also point 7 below). When the Ming government becomes ineffectual, you say it's a "natural evolution" and you compare it with the evolution of parliaments in European countries. But when Qing rule proves effective, you say it's "reverting" toward "absolutism"! But where are the Ming equivalents of parliaments? Also, one standard for judging early-modern states is how much resources they can extract from the territories they govern in order to build state institutions. The Manchus were very successful at state building before they conquered the Ming, and again in the 18h century when tax collection was smooth, famine relief was at its height, and Qing armies dominated East Asia. There were public granaries as early as the Tang (and perhaps even earlier), but no dynasty that I know of expanded famine relief activities to such a scale as the Qing did. This kind of "welfare state" is not something absolute governments are known for. And of course I wasn't defending absolutism or saying it was a good system. I was only pointing to aspects of Qing rule that compared well with their Ming (or early-modern European) counterparts.

What is your source for saying that "there were far more popular insurrections and famines under Qing than Ming"? Maybe we have this kind of statistics, but even if we do, the discrepancy could simply come from documentation, because far more Qing documents have survived than Ming documents.

And to use your metaphor of stocks, I'm sure you wouldn't invest on the basis of blanket premises like "big corporations always give you big returns," or "high-dividend yields are a waste of money," or "the Hong Kong market is bad." You can certainly be more flexible in your assessment of historical periods too.

4. Here I would need evidence rather than assertions. I mean evidence that:

• the Qing banned Hanfu. To be convinced, I would need to see an edict or a law to this effect. Saying that Hanfu was no longer worn by the 19th century doesn't mean it was banned. Dorgon's queue order of July 1645 is well known, but I honestly don't know about orders banning Han costume.
• the Qing banned (and even burned!) the Tiangong kaiwu 天工開物. All I see is that the TGKW was largely lost in China during the Qing, not that it was banned; the blogger you're citing makes an assumption, not a point.

Sorry to interrupt

On 天工开物:zh:天工開物 Quote:有一種說法，說因為中國的大量古籍中存在強烈的華夷之辯意識，滿族入關後，為鞏固作為異族的統治，消滅漢族主體意識，對中國古籍進行了一次集中整理、檢查、修改和銷毀，即是通稱的對四庫全書的整理。其中凡被認為對滿清不利的，進行修改或毀滅。《天工開物》因被認為存在「反滿」思想而被銷毀。Unquoted. Arilang ^talk 20:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• the Qing actively suppressed technology. Apart from firearms, which were not allowed to circulate for obvious reasons, what other technologies did the Qing actively suppress? (And I don't mean "didn't manage to invent.")

5. You also had lots of scholars publishing books during the Qing. Tons of them, actually: there are simply too many Qing books to list. There were many Chinese thinkers in the Qing too. They may not be as well-known as Wang Yangming, but still. I'm not denying that the late Ming was an incredibly rich and flourishing period. Just saying that the contrast is not as strong as you seem to think.

6 If you compare 1600 to 1860, then sure "the Ming economy" was more prosperous than the Qing. Nobody would doubt that. But you get the oposite result if you compare the Ming in 1400 (or 1640) to the Qing in 1750. Everything I've read tells me that the high Ming and the high Qing experienced largely the same processes: intensification of agriculture, development of rural manufactures, increased urbanization and commercialization of the economy, development of inter-regional trade, increase of commercial capital, etc. So we apparently had the same "pre-conditions" for a scientific or industrial revolution in 1600 and 1750. In both cases, it didn't happen, but I strongly doubt it was because of the Manchus. And I'm gonna repeat myself but: in order to show that anything inhibited the scientific or industrial revolution in China, you first have to show that something like that was already under way (or was supposed to happen ineluctably). Problem is, even serious scholars have not managed to make a convincing argument for that.

Portuguese visitors in the 16th century lived in a completely different world (16th-century Portugal) from Macartney. I suspect the same Portuguese visitors would have found the Qing "rich" in 1750 and Macartney the Ming "poor" in 1600.

The late 18th century is when Europeans (starting with the British) started to describe China as "stagnating." This view came partly from British merchants who were frustrated by their experience dealing with officials in southern China, and from what they had seen about Chinese life and Chinese people in Canton. The value of progress had become central to European representations of themselves at the time, and they were bound to look for things like feats of engineering or things that Britain didn't have. But Macartney was at the beginning of an aggressive British imperial expansion: despite his neutral tone, he was not a neutral observer.

This whole discourse of "backwardness" and "stagnation" was soon used to justify British imperialist ventures, so it's not exactly unbiased. The British (including Daniel Defoe in a sequel to Robinson Crusoe) also said things like (not exact quotations): "the Chinese are a naturally servile race"; "they are ignorant barbarians who are unable to learn," etc. Like the comments you cite, these comments say more about those who made them than about those they describe.

But sure: China in 1793 (the year of the Macartney's time) was not undergoing an Industrial Revolution; it didn't have engineering schools, it didn't value technological and scientific progress for their own sake, etc. This is where people have talked of a "Great Divergence," and I agree we still have a problem to explain, but I seriously don't think we should assume that the Industrial Revolution is something that "just happens." What I mean is: one of the reasons that China didn't "have one" was that such things don't "just happen."

7. I hadn't emphasized "corruption," because it's pretty much impossible to measure. I think there was a lot of corruption in both cases, though part of it came from the expectation that officials could legitimately supplement their revenues with gifts they received while in office. The late Ming was notoriously corrupt by any standard. So were some parts of the Qing. I'm not sure what we can say about this. Your comparison that "the Ming had far fewer mouths to feed, therefore there was less corruption if corruption per capita was less" (not a direct quote) can be flipped around: if corruption was equal for every official, then corruption per capita was higher in the Ming because the Ming population was lower. Both statements are speculative.

Qing princes rounded up Chinese peasants and turned them into serfs, but only until about 1700, when the system had collapsed. By then, there were very few Han (or Manchu) serfs, and a lot of land that had been given to Manchus had been mortgaged and eventually sold to Chinese. In other words the system didn't last. As for Ming princes, I think you're underestimating how much it cost the throne. There were only limited estates for princes, but the throne had to nourish all the descendants of Zhu Yuanzhang's sons. By the late Ming, there were tens of thousands of them, and (along with eunuchs and the imperial "harem"), they were a heavy burden for the Ming treasury. I'm not completely sure about the statistics, but I'm sure the original princely estates were not enough to feed the imperial clan.

Also, the Ming gave tax privileges to literati: anybody who held the lowest examination degree (shengyuan 生員 or xiucai 秀才) was exempt from taxes. You can imagine what happened: people sold their lands to degree-holders and kept working on that land tax free; the tax burden was therefore shifted to those who couldn't find such protections. I'm simplifying a bit, but this was the general trend.

8 I'm about to stop because I'm totally out of time, but just one more point: the Ming controlled "Outer Manchuria" only from 1411 to 1435, when a Regional Command was established in the Amur River (or Heilongjiang) valley. But it was abandoned in 1435 because it was too costly. After that, the Ming had no direct control over the regions we now call Manchuria (except for the Liaodong peninsula, but that's a very small fraction of the land the Qing controlled). Sure, until the rise of the Manchus, there was no powerful rival state there, but this doesn't mean Ming was in control. Supposed "control" over Xinjiang was inexistent (though the tiny states over there were usually in tributary relations with the Ming), and you should check Tibet during the Ming Dynasty for Tibet.

As I'm previewing, I see you added this sentence: "Had the Ming lived for another 200 years, I believe it would also tighten its conrol over Tibet and Xinjiang due to introduction of Maize(and it would have probably also advanced into industrial age.)" This is a very idealistic counterfactual. The Qing did not bring Tibet (or Xinjiang, for that matter) under its control because of maize. It did because of Manchu rivalries with the Dzungars in "Xinjiang." The Dzungars were giving their patronage to Tibetan lamas, who were in turn helping the Dzungars against the Qing. Lamas helped the Dzungars until the very end, in the 1750s, when the Dzungars were exterminated. The Qing government at the time was also considering killing lamas, but that didn't happen.

Your further points would also deserve a response, but I'm really out of time, now. My concluding point is not that "the Qing is better than the Ming," by the way: I don't like this kind of blanket statement, and this is not even what I'm arguing for on individual points. I'm just saying that it's too easy to get a bad impression of the Qing when you rely only on writings that either demonize the Qing (like Du Chebie or the essay you linked to) or don't discuss the Qing at all (Needham). Feel free to answer again, though I'm not sure I can answer any time soon because I just have too many things to do in real life! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

My second response

1. Although Ming did "prohibit" foreign trade, the prohibition wasn't exactly effective. There was still quite a considerable trade even the during the "prohibition" period. Trade to Japan was prohibited because the japanese tried to challenge Ming for hegemony(something as unspeakable as murdering your own parents in China, which warrants an immediate and brutal execution in ancient times.).

2. By what I mean "stagnation" is that the Ming were obviously better than the Song, the Song were more advanced than the T'ang, etc... But Qing were not more advanced than Ming(I'm leaving out Yuan because I think you agree with me on that part.). Ming had a government that was gradually weakening because the merchant class was getting more powerful. I would think that the examination system in China and 18th century parliaments are the same thing as they both allow the new merchant class to get into power and dilutes the power of the nobility. Ming did have a problem with feeding Zhu's descendants, but Ming tax revenues were quite low compared to Qing.

3. As to peasant rebellions, Ming did not have severe peasant uprisings until onset of Little Ice Age(1627) until the end. There were a few uprisings before, but they were extremely brief(a few months at most.). Now the Qing had a 10-year Miao rebellion starting in 1796, a white lotus rebellion at the same time that also lasted several years, and the Taiping rebellion which lasted 20+ years, plus some minority rebelliions. From 1796 to 1880's Qing was basically constantly in civil war. Now that's longer in any other chinese dynasty, even the military rebellions of the Late Tang(751-814), which had many power-hungry generals. Also, all the peasants had slogan of "crush the Qing, restore the Ming." Also, reasons were different. the Large Qing uprisings were to some extent motivated by Manchu oppression, rather than starving. Qing did have a pretty good famine relief system. The rebellions during the Ming were simply because you cannot grow food for 20 years as all the land is freezing up! Think of hte disorder in the world right now if suddenly all the temperate zones couldn't grow food. That's what happened during Ming.(and also reason why Manchu took over. They were not a strong nomadic race by any standard compared to Mongols or Huns, which were defeated.)

3. As to suppression of texts, thousands of Ming texts were destroyed and now can only be find in Japanese, English, etc.. similar to how Roman texts were destroyed by christians and now only found in arabic, etc. Now, the number of texts lost during Ming, considering it was rightly one of china's "golden age" dynasties, is considerable. You wouldn't think that thousands of books, especially ones so famous, would suddenly go out of circulation. Also, what about the Literary inquistion, in which Manchus burned thousands of literary texts.

4. As to the western terroritories, I say this as first, Ming did estabelish commandries as far as Tian Shan, Xinjiang(not sure how long they lasted). But Ming control was weaker than in Han and T'ang because the expenditure from these two previous dyansties were too high. Think about it. How come Han and Tang didn't send an army and conquer Russia or something? are they dumb? no. It's logistics. In history, a certain level of agriculture allows you to support a certain extent of terroritory. Han and T'ang estabelished control over Xinjiang and Manchuria, but frankly, at a massive expense. Ming had control over Xinjiang and Tibet(handed out titles, intervened to depose rulers, etc..) as well as Manchuria(same thing). Now if Ming had maize and other crops that could grwo in dry regions, they would have been able to hold these areas permanently as any chinese dynasties would have, as they regarded this area(xinjiang, Manchuria, etc..) as part of CHina's terroritory. That's why Han and T'ang held it, and why Ming at least estabelished commandries in it(though the extent of control is lose.).

5. Your point about hte High ming and qing fits my point. High Ming was not a repeat of High Song. High Song was not a repeat of HIgh Tang. High Tang was not a repeat of Han, even with barbarian invasions(304-581) How come Qing was a repeat of Ming? does a country suddenly stagnate for no reason? that I find hard to believe.

6. Even assuming your right and Ming was stagnant, Ming/or any other han chinese dynasty would have dealt with reforms better. Ming was learning from Portugese firearms the whole time; they did not try to suppress it like the Manchu. If a han chinese dynasty had been in power, they wouldn't fear being overthrown with new technology like the Manchu. Look at the success of Japan(which was far more backward than Qing at the time).

7.My main point is that the previous chinese dynasties were welcome to advance, and even had they fallen behind, they would have pursued reforms like Japan. Manchus did not because that would jeopardize their contorl over China, therefore causing China to fall back behind for a long time(and that's assuming Manchu technology were same as Ming, in which case, they were not.) Would you expect the British to rule India in India's interests, or the interests of hte Anglo-Saxon race?

8. How come Hanfu disappeared? A good question. Hanfu has been woren for over 2000 years, during all those times China was pretty advanced. How come it suddenly disappears during Manchu? The reason is pretty obvious. The Queue order is in effect a ban because according to confucian norms, your hair is inherited from your parents, so don't remove it(doesn't mean you shouldn't ever cut hair, but you can't have pigtails). If the hair is removed, its a symbolic act of servitude for the chinese.

9. If the stagnation occured during Ming, what are the reasons? Ming certainly didn't lack thinkers, scientists(think of Li's book on medicine) or people that lacked reserach. In the field of firearms, Ming was far more advanced than Qing. In terms of industry, Ming-era enterprises were also larger. Some merchants in Ming had treasures of 30 million taels. A clan like the Zheng clan could not appear in the Qing(pre-1870, after that han chinese had some power, but Cixi still obstructed reforms.).

10. Even with the lower taxes of the Ming(this is well attributedm import/export tax only had 40000 taels and there was trade of several hundred million) Ming had revenues of 27 million taels. Qing could only manage 60 million taels with 3 times the population(due to introduciton of Maize, same thing happened in Europe.) This alone can show the economy decreased per capita. And I don't think China had a deflationary spiral there, so that argument is out of effect. Teeninvestor (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Teeninvestor (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Another reply

I agree with you on some points, but on many others I think you're making a lot of ungrounded claims or relying on overly optimistic counterfactuals.

1. I know that the Ming prohibition against foreign trade was not very effective. I was just specifying the date (the Longqi reign, I think) and pointing out that the Qing prohibition was not effective either (I'm talking about the 18th century and later, not about the Oboi regency's policy of moving all the coastal population inland in the 1660s).

2. I'm not sure how you can say that "the Ming were obviously better than the Song." Sure the Song were among equals (the Liao, and then the Jin, the Xi Xia, the Mongols gave them a hard time), but in terms of economic achievements most experts would say that the Song was closer to an industrial revolution than the Ming (look at Mark Elvin's book The Pattern of the Chinese Past and all the Japanese historians he cites), or that the Ming was at best a repetition of the Song, though on a larger territory and with more people. So I don't accept your premise.

As for "Ming had a government that was gradually weakening because the merchant class was getting more powerful," I disagree with your causal explanation. The local gentry was indeed more and more able to resist tax extraction, but that's not the sign of the emergence of civil society in the same way as the parliaments were in some European countries. It was because degree-holders were exempted from taxation, and there were more and more degree holders. And sure, the examination system allowed a lot of different people to compete for service in the government (and therefore for upwards social mobility), but the exam system served the land-holding class rather than the merchant class. And the exam system was re-established by the Yuan in 1313 and it went pretty much uninterrupted until 1905, so I don't understand how the Ming is different from the Qing in this regard.

Finally, I'm not sure I understand the sentence "Ming did have a problem with feeding Zhu's descendants, but Ming revenues were quite low compared to Qing": it seems to contradict your main point.

3. Major civil wars lasted from about 1850 to 1875. There was no major civil war between 1800 (the end of the White Lotus rebellion) and 1850 (the beginning of the Taiping rebellion).

3. (Keeping with your numbering.) Roman texts that were lost in the West were not necessarily destroyed by Christians, and Ming texts that were lost were not necessarily destroyed by the Qing. The Tiangong kaiwu was a remarkable book, but you have to be open to the possibility that it was not famous at the time, because it was not a very useful handbook for practical purposes and it didn't serve the official ideology. Maybe it was simply not reprinted. Of course I know the Qing burned books (though mostly in the late 18th century), but this censorship campaign was not as effective as you think. For example, hundreds of these prohibited books have been retrieved from obscure places (I would have to look up the exact figures). And the Qing government (both central and local) went out of their way to publish and circulate agricultural manuals (one kind of genre that contributes to the diffusion of technology). Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that the Qing monarchs were nice guys or that they were right to burn books and persecute authors. I'm saying that the goal of these persecutions was not to suppress technology (except for gunpowder technology, as I said above). I still need evidence that the Qing wanted to keep technology from spreading, or counter-evidence that the Ming encouraged gunpowder technology to spread. If you just say that the Qing rulers were foreigners who kept technology from spreading because they feared the wrath of Han Chinese, you're only assuming what you need to demonstrate.

4. I wouldn't say any state is "dumb" for not conquering territories that are culturally different from itself. I was disagreeing that the Qing succeeded just because of maize, which was introduced into China (through Manila and Macao) during the Ming. Maize, sweet potatoes, and peanuts (all new world crops) allowed the domestic population to grow because unfertile land on mountain sides could now be cultivated. Where did you read that maize played a key role in Xinjiang and Tibet? And I completely disagree that the Ming saw Manchuria and Tibet as "part of China's territory." Manchuria was outside the Great Wall and not controlled by Chinese agents.

5. "does a country suddenly stagnate for no reason? that I find hard to believe." This is a rhetorical question, or at best an "argument from personal incredulity" (as Richard Dawkins says about religious people who doubt evolution because they "don't believe that something as complex as the eye could be the result of evolution without design"). Why not see the mid 18th century as a golden age instead of speaking of stagnation? And you still have to show me that the Ming was far more advanced than the southern Song.

6. I did not mean to say that the Ming was stagnant! The Ming was also very prosperous by pre-modern standards. I'm only saying that the country and era Macartney came from would have made him look down upon the Ming as well, because (like the Qing in the late-Qianlong reign), it was not driven by an ideology of progress, was not building an industrial infrastructure, etc. I'm saying that his gaze was very different from that of the Portuguese who visited the Ming in the sixteenth century, because the Portuguese came from a country that had just come out of the Middle Ages, and was far from being the most prosperous country in Europe at the time. The implied point was that you can't compare Ming to Qing on the basis of what two completely different observers said about them.

And yes the Ming learned from Portuguese forearms, but so did the Qing soon after they were defeated by Yuan Chonghuan for the first time! One of the reasons why they managed to defeat the Ming is that they relied on heavy artillery. They kept using cannon in Central Asia, so much that many comparative historians call the Qing one of the world's "gunpowder empires" of the time (with the Mughals, Russia under the Romanovs, etc.).

The Tokugawa shogunate had also imposed very strict restrictions on the circulation of firearms. It's just that the new state managed to muster resources (and repress local rebellions) quickly enough to become just strong enough to repel external invaders until they were able to compete with them.

And you keep comparing Manchu rule in China with British rule in India. Sure, the Qing ruling class had lots of Manchus in them. As I keep insisting, the reasons for the Qing failure are very complex, and they couldn't be expected to succeed as if modernizing quickly was an easy task.

7. Your first sentence is just a hopeful statement (or an idealistic counterfactual). Once again, you seem to assume that countries can modernize and industrialize almost automatically as long as they're not hindered. And after the shock of the opium wars, the Qing reforms were actually going pretty well, until "China" was defeated in the First Sino-Japanese War. People tend to read the failures of the Qing after that into the period between 1850 and 1895. The Qing was very resilient during this time, managing to repress several major rebellions (at enormous human and economic cost), keeping most of its territory intact, and engaging in useful reforms. But building a scientific and industrial infrastructure is not a walk in the park: it's extremely difficult, and I see no reason to assume (a priori) that a Chinese dynasty would have done it better simply because it was Chinese.

8. Despite your claim that "the reason is pretty obvious," you didn't present a reason. I still know no evidence saying that the Qing suppressed Han costume. Of course Ming hairstyles disappeared (because of the queue), but what about clothing? And I'm puzzled by your apparent correlation between the wearing of Hanfu and economic prosperity.

9. Traditional historians of science who looked for the reasons behind the world's "failure to industrialize" (apart from Europe). Why would one man like Li Shizhen have anything to do with scientific progress. His point was not scientific progress. Modern interpreters of the Bencao gangmu (and other texts that seem to have a "scientific content") have the annoying habit of reading these texts as if they were scientific treatises written for scientific purposes. That's just not true. And there were tons of Qing works on materia medica (bencao 本草) that contributed to distributing pharmacological knowledge.

Qing salt merchants were extremely rich, especially in the 18th century. And they were Han Chinese.

What you call "stagnation" looked like prosperity for the rest of the world. There can be prosperity without industrialization and an ideology of progress. History looks different if you stop assuming that the Ming, or the Qing, or the Yuan "stagnated" and that this stagnation (as opposed to Europe's success) is the first thing that needs to be explained.

I wrote all this a little fast (and before you added a 10th point) but I don't have time to proofread because I'm going to see a movie! I hope my writing doesn't sound too convoluted. Madalibi (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Third reply

1. If Hanfu was woren for 2000 years, why would Chinese suddenly not wear it in a period? even if it was going out of circulation, it would have taken at least 20-50 years. But there was a sudden disappearance. Also, hair is part of the traditional chinese dress, if it is removed it is considered "barbaric". Sudden disappearance of Hanfu would be equivalent to suddenly all westerners stopped celebrating Christmas in a year.

2. In order to prove that the Qing were stagnant, I only have to prove that A. Ming was an improvement over Song. and B. Qing was not improvement over Ming. Ming were advanced than the Song, despite Mongol invasions. Ming-era iron production was higher, and in the Ming, there was a trade fo several hundred million taels, non-existent in the Song. In addition, Private Ming merchants ran large numbers of industries that were state-owened durign the Song, showing the growth of capital.

Numerous Ming industries were coming of scale, reminiscent of late 18th century Europe. Ming factories were employing large numbers of wage laborers, and what's more they were privatized. That shows that Ming society already accumulated a large pool of capital that Song could not, as all large song enterprises were state-run.

Technology was also better. Ming saw introudction of cannon, muskets and rockets, as well as shipping. Zheng HE's expeditions would have been very difficult to manage under Song.

Agriculture also improved. Large plantations producing cash crops began springing up under the Ming.

Despite lower taxes, the Ming state was more effective than Song. Ming and Song had same system, but whiel Song was crushed by barbarians, Ming was able to stay strong militarily for a long time(Manchu conquest is entirely due to Surrender of Wu SanGui).

Thinking was also freer. New philosophies under Wang, Li, etc.. showed that the Ming had free thinker. I believe the Ming would be what the Song was if Song had survived until 1320(and with out Jur'chen and Mongol invasions).

From this we can see Ming was an improvement over Song.

Was Qing an improvement over Ming? Not really. As far as I know, and what you stated, Qing was a repeat of Ming. From this alone we can see Manchu Qing was a stagnation.

Despite lower taxes, the Ming state was more effective than Song. Ming and Song had same system, but whiel Song was crushed by barbarians, Ming was able to stay strong militarily for a long time(Manchu conquest is entirely due to Surrender of Wu SanGui). - - 3. Maize played a part because it could be grown in Xinjiang, Manchuria, etc... so troops would be self sufficient agricultural colonies. You would not have to supply hundreds of thousands of troops on a permanent basis!

- 4. And as to your point that a chinese dyansty wouldn't have done better, at least they wouldn't have rejected reforms completely like the Manchu. The Chinese during T'ang, Song, and Ming were not xenophobic or too arogant to learn. In fact, there was a time during Ming where Ming imported large numbers of European muskets to see whether Ming muskets could be improved from European muskets' design. Manchu did use gunpowder as well, but Ming used it much more and had better technology. Being a horse archer empire, manchus were more afraid of cannons and other weapons that could undermine their hegemony.

5. Manchu rulers have an incentive not to modernize quickly as modernization would definitely involve the following: -Getting rid of bannermen's pension and special privelege of Manchu -increase in power for Han chinese merchants, who may or may not harbor resentment towardS Manchu rule. In confucian ethics, when barbarians come in, it is the duty of the Huaxia to kick them out. That's it. In the long run, modernization would give the people more power. and the Manchu feared Han chinese wrath so much, they didn't modernize(if they did, I wouldn't be criticizing them here now.)

6. I never said that modernizing and catching up was an easy thing but the Qing almost failed completely in doing so. They did some reforms between 1875 and 1895, and that was mainly due to the influence of the challcenor, Li Hongzhou. Quite simply, it was heavily opposed by the Manchus. Qing share of world GDP declined preciptously even AFTER they started their reforms and china's share of world GDP did not really stop dropping until Deng came to power and restored capitalism. When you compare the rapid modernization china went through under Deng, and under the Manchus, you can see a real difference.

7. Now if the Manchus are not the cause of stagnation, what is? Ming technology and scales of economics was advancing quickly, especially before the Little Ice Age. There would be no reason for them to slow down. Do you think a people that has lead the world since about 500BCE(invention of crossbow allowed Chinese to have military superiority over other nations), would suddenly go, na, let's just keep things they are now . China was innovating throughout the Han, T'ang , Song and Ming. The song fire-lance didn't become the musket overnight. The Ming junk didn't jump from Han river ships overnight. There is no evidence whatsoever that China was less favorable to industrial revolution than Europe. Is the country who first advanced past feudalism(Ancient Egypt may have set up a post-feudal state, hard to tell) impotent to produce the industrial revolution? are you saying that the industrial revolution can only happen in Europe? only Europe is destined to receive industrial revolution? There is no evidence for that. Therefore, I can only conclude that Manchu repression is the cause of stagnation that set in after the 17th century in China.

8. Now in terms of the Song, I would say that the Song were not defeated because the toughness of their enemies, but rather because the Song emperors and bureaucracy in general were suspcious of the generals, and did not give htem enough leeway to command. Able generals like Yue Fei or Wang Chin existed throughout the Song, but the Song government ended up killing or exiling them. Part of the reason why Mongols conquered Song is because Wang Jian, who had killed Mongke Khan, was actually fearing for his life from teh Song court, despite having won such a great honor. Filled with dread, he surrendered his troops and cannons to the Mongols and they were able to capture Xiangyang, conquering the Song. Now, I would agree the early part of the Ming dynasty was a repeat of the Song, due to Mongol devastation, but in terms of technology Ming was ahead by a lot, and in terms of economic scale china had recovered to Song levels by 1450's at the latest.

9. I realize the case of Europe is a special one, in that Europe was very lucky(first got free gold ,silver, and land from 50 million defenceless natives which were all genocided, and then got free wealth from India, which was still mired in feudalism due to caste system. Then coal is very close to Britain.) But the point is, i'm pretty sure with the science of the Ming, they would have been able to (assuming Ming or some successor dynasty survivies) discover the industrial revolution! Even had the Ming been thrown behind, the Chinese would have doubtlessly learned and caught up very fast. Even the Turks and Egyptians had railways by the 1860's, and their condition was far behind China. And I'm not even going to talk about what would have happened if the Song weren't destroyed(which by the way led to Ming destruction, because Ming's fall is because of Littel Ice Age. A bit more advanced and Ming would have been able to handle it.)

10. To be fair to the Qing they were not as bad as the Mongols or British in India(85 million deaths, 30 million more if you count chinese deaths from opium they dumped, Boer war, Australia, Canada, etc..). By the end of the Qing it was like Northern Wei there was a faction who regarded themselves as chinese, and a faction(cixi) whose minds are still focussed on their Jur'chen roots. But pre-Taiping Qing was definitely a Manchu despotism; Manchus had special prileveges, filled 80% of high government positions, etc...

11. In terms of what Ming saw as terroritory as not, I have a map showing that Ming established commandries as far as the Dzungarian basin. Now, as far as I know, Ming handed out titles for Tarim basin, tibet, and Manchuria until little ice age forced Ming to contract its teroritory massively. this is a sign of soverigty. Ming also periodically deposed rulers it didn't like in the above regions, and appointed new ones. I would think that if Ming did not regard it as its own terroritory, it would not intervene it so much, establish commandries there, and appoint rulers. For example, Ming was not crying when Khmer Empire fell because of invasions because it regarded it as merely a tributary.

Also, the Great wall is not a border. China expanded outside of it during Han, T'ang and Ming.

12. Examination system would serve the merchant class later, because the people who pass(just like early parliaments in Europe, you should not exaggerate their democrtaicness)are more abd more merchants during Song/Ming, who fused with the gentry. In fact, during Ming many gentry are Merchants, and vice versa. Therefore, eventually, the Song and Ming bureaucracies was populated with mostly merchants, rather than aristocrats, like the Han and T'ang.

So overall , I conclude five points: 1. Ming accepted innovation better than Manchu, and were not isolationistic. Since other chinese dynasties behaved similarly, if a chinese dynasty was in power they would have been able to catch up quickly even if they fall behind. 2. Ming was more advanced than Song. 3. Stagnation happened under Qing. 4. Qing have an incentive to stagnate China(keep manchus in power). 5. No other reason for explaining stagnation rather than Qing takeover, and Qing did have incentive to stagnate China.

Now you might think I'm a racist here, but I'm not. The important thing is whether the rulers IDENTIFY with the culture fo the country they're governing. For example, the emperor of T'ang, Taizong, was half-Xianbei, but he self-identified as Chinese. That's why no chinese thinks that Sui and T'ang were foreign despotisms. Manchu could have done that also, but they chose to suppress Chinese culture(queue order) and milk them(feudal estates) for as long as possible. Manchu rulers said it very clearly WE ARE NOT CHINESE. Yongzheng, Cixi, all said it. Even late in the dynasty they were still saying, protect our Jurchen state, not the chinese, etc...

One example, Ming 1600 vs Qing 1840

after 240 years, in some ways Qing was a retrogression of Ming

Navy: Ming had one of the best navies in the world, Qing had none.

Weaponry: Ming had lots of gunpowder weapons. As one of my sources allude, one battalion has 200 muskets, 400 firelances and 3600 rockets. The entire Qing dynasty in 1820 could only produce 160 cannons a year.

Trade: Ming merchants were very rich. There were a trade of millions of taels. Ming merchants established trading posts in many places(Lanfang republic, and some other chinese states set up in Indonesia at this time is descended.) Qing closed off trade and prohibited contact with foreigners.

Thought: Ming had many philosophers, Qing had virtually zero during this period. Economics: In many commodities, such as Iron, salt, etc.. Qing was only able to maintain the production levels of the Ming.

Happiness of the people: Ming did not have large peasant insurrections until 1620, after little ice age. Qing had one wave from 1780's to 1800's and another from 1850's to 1870's. Massive loss of life, cannot compare with any other rebellions during Song and Ming.

Although this is an imperfect comparison, it shows that China is stagnating and sometimes even going backwards under Manchu. Now if you do same , say Ming 1600 to Song 1100, Ming is better. Same with Song 1100 to Tang 700, etc.... Teeninvestor (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Final reply (maybe?...)

Hi again, Teeninvestor, and thanks again for your long and thoughtful response. I unfortunately don't have time to reply in detail again, because I'm already taking far too much time off my "wiki break." [EDIT after previewing: I did answer at length after all, but I really shouldn't do it again, even if it's so interesting!] And I'm not quite sure we're going anywhere, because we seem to be working within very different frameworks.

You seem to imagine history (or at least the topic we're discussing) as taking place on a line where entire civilizations move either forward or backward. The main criteria of progress on this line are technological innovativeness and economic sophistication. Then you say that since the Qing did "no better" than the Ming, the Qing were therefore "stagnating." You then blame this supposed "stagnation" only on the Manchus.

For my part, I don't see history on this kind of line (it's too, hmmm, linear, but also too teleological). And I don't know if the Qing went "further" than the Ming (to determine that, we would need much more solid data than what we've cited so far), but I see that the Qing achieved one of the greatest centuries of growth and prosperity in human history between about 1680 and 1780, when the population doubled and (that's the crucial point) the productivity of labor was increased, and standards of living didn't diminish. Some scholars (references on demand) say that the Qing in the 18th century contributed far more to the growth of world GDP than did British growth at the time. I refuse to call this prosperity "stagnation" just because on a-priori scheme tells me to.

On more specific points, and without dwelling on side issues like what "feudalism" is, etc.:

1. You're still asking a rhetorical question instead of giving me evidence. Where is the evidence that Han costume "suddenly disappeared"? And once you find that evidence, what is the evidence that this disappearance was caused by Manchu prohibitions? Otherwise, I agree that Chinese people felt that cutting their hair was barbaric (I even added a reference to this effect on the Qing Dynasty page), and I would say that Chinese people (both the elite and the common people) saw the haircutting as some kind of symbolic castration.

4. Careful, here. I didn't say that a Chinese dynasty wouldn't have done better. I'm saying that there's not reason to assume a priori that a Chinese dynasty would have done better, and I refuse to pose this purely hypothetical success as a standard for comparison with what really happened. And the Qing were not "xenophobic or too arrogant to learn." Qing rulers spoke and wrote many languages, understood many religions, were aware that they were governing a multi-ethnic empire, etc. Xenophobia against Westerners in the 19th century was shared by Manchus and Han alike, and came in part from Western aggression.

5. It seems that you're again assuming that whoever wants to modernize can.

6. Reforms were not "heavily opposed by the Manchus." This problem didn't even apply before the 1850s, and for many years after that, the reforms were led by Prince Gong, a Manchu imperial prince. Sure, the Qing's share of world GDP probably declined in the 19th century (after rising in the 18th), but that was also because of enormous rebellions and because industrial economies are far more productive than any pre-industrial economy.

7. Your points seem to be based purely on the usual assumption that things develop linearly, and that progress toward industrialization happens naturally. A lot of your argument rests on this idealistic counterfactual.

9. Europe didn't industrialize because of New World silver (most of it ended up in China anyway) or because of Indian resources (the kind of growth allowed by that was pretty much the same as the one the Qing went through in the 18th century). And even access to coal was not sufficient. China had plenty of coal, and Japan didn't, yet China didn't industrialize and Japan did. Then you say "I'm pretty sure" this and "doubtlessly" that: all these are assertions based on your idealistic counterfactual of a slope leading naturally toward capitalism or industrialization.

10. During the pre-Taiping Qing, culturally Chinese regions went through one of the most prosperous eras in their history. Not too bad for an occupation regime or for a "Manchu despotism." Nothing like that ever occurred in India under the British. What started after military campaigns ended in 1683 (when the Three Feudatories had finally been defeated)? One of the most prosperous eras in human history! It seems that the Qing conquest was only an interlude (a very violent one, of course) between two stages of spectacular pre-industrial growth and prosperity.

11. There are other reasons for sending delegates or establishing military commands than saying "I think this is Chinese territory." The Ming sent envoys to Outer Manchuria in the early 15th century in order to counter possible alliances between Mongols and Jurchens that would have threatened Chinese control over Liaodong. They tried to install sympathetic rulers in Hami in order to counter the Oyrat Mongols and to protect trade routes. I don't want to discuss the issue of Tibet, because it's too much of a quagmire, but the situation was far, far more complex than statements like "Tibet belonged to the Ming" imply. PericlesofAthens has written a great wiki on Tibet during the Ming Dynasty where the main points of view are summarized.

Handing out titles was not a sign of sovereignty in the modern sense of territorial control, ability to collect taxes, and control over foreign policy. Titles could be purely nominal, and official recognition by the Ming court was usually an occasion for foreigners to conduct trade with China under the thinly veiled pretext of sending "tributary missions."

And to give a counter-example about titles and sovereignty, the Ming clearly didn't consider Malacca part of "Chinese territory," but they still gave the Malaccan ruler titles, and they were pretty upset when the Portuguese deposed the King of Malacca in the 16th century and the King's envoys came to Beijing to complain! The tributary system and the territorial conceptions that went with it can't be translated into the modern language of nation states and territorial sovereignty as defined by international law.

By contrast, Qing control over all these regions (ok, not Malacca) was direct and uncontested: all these regions that the Ming never controlled directly were stably under Qing control by 1760 (all of Manchuria, "Inner" and "Outer" Mongolia, Dzungaria, Qinghai, and even Tibet). Apart from Tibet, they all officially became provinces in the 19th century. There is no Ming equivalent of this, and the territory of modern China simply cannot be conceived of without the Qing.

Also, you can't seriously blame only the Manchus for the fall of the Ming. By the time Wu Sangui surrendered to the Qing in late May 1644, northern China was already devastated, Li Zicheng had already captured Beijing, and the south's economy was already in pretty bad shape. Even without the Manchus, the result would have been something like a Li Zicheng regime in the north and some kind of corrupt Ming regime around Nanjing. Who knows what would have happened? Would the Nanjing regime have reconquered the north? Would Li Zicheng have re-unified China? Would the Zhengs' have created an independent maritime-oriented state on Taiwan? These area all fun possibilities to speculate about, but no matter what, the Manchus didn't just interrupt a Ming party.

And don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that the Qing was an example of benevolent rule or that Qing rulers just loved those Chinese subjects so much, and I don't get teary-eyed when I hear that some people disliked the Qing or called the Manchus barbarians. I'm just taking an external observer's point of view to say that the Qing was not ruled by backwards Manchu barbarians who dragged China down after 1644.

I think there's a more promising avenue for continuing this discussion about why China failed to do what Britain (or Japan) did. I think we've actually been mixing two different problems:

A. Why didn't the Industrial Revolution happen first in China (including under the Qing)?

B. Why did China (or the Qing) not implement modern reforms more smoothly after it could see how other countries had done it before?

These two questions are logically distinct and we can therefore answer them completely differently. My answers would be:

A. Why should it? Cultural and technological advances alone are not sufficient to trigger industrialization. Most historians today (and I mean those who specialize in world history, in the history of European modernization, or in Chinese economic history) say that industrialization happened because of an extraordinary set of circumstances that converged together only in England, and that it only started to make an economic difference in the early 19th century (decades after Macartney visited the Qing). New World silver didn’t do it, cotton production and access to coal didn’t do it. The key elements were the steam engine and all the institutions that made its invention, development, and exploitation possible. These factors included a scientific mindset (more than just curiosity about nature: really a mechanical view of nature), mathematics and engineering, "engine science," and some kind of popular mindset that allowed workers to accept new methods of production. These things don't just happen when countries continue to grow as they did before, and there's no reason to assume that if it didn't happen to the Ming, then something must have actively stopped it from happening. Because these circumstances were so extraordinary, we can even imagine counterfactuals in which the world would have continued to evolve for a long time without industrialization.

To conclude on question A, in view of the extraordinariness of these circumstances and of the extent of Qing prosperity in the 18th century, I see no reason to blame the Manchus for China's supposed "backwardness" at the time. China under the Qing was not "backward": it was one of the most prosperous places in the world, and on a much larger scale than any European countries that could compete with the Qing in terms of prosperity per capita.

B. Now we get into late-Qing reforms, and the more serious possibility that Manchus slowed down the modernization process by resisting change in order to clinge to power. I'm very aware of factional struggles, especially those involving Cixi and other imperial princes in the last decades of the 19th century, and I know about the failure of the Hundred Days' Reform (though you should check out the wiki for interesting evidence about Kang Youwei's apparent intention to hand control of the state over to Ito Hirobumi and the Japanese!). Here I'm more open to the idea that the Manchu imperial clan hindered reforms, because this idea doesn't depend on speculation: we're actually discussing real historical events. It's true that. Whether the reforms would have succeeded is a moot question, but in case we finally have some real Manchus trying to hinder concrete processese that had actually started (as opposed to some speculative walk toward capitalism or industrialization during the Wanli reign).

As a historian by training, I would still insist on looking at specific historical circumstances before concluding that the Manchus were reactionary. Take Prince Gong, for example. After the burning of the Summer Palace in 1860, he became the main policy maker in the government (along with the young Cixi), and he was a great advocate of reforms. He willingly delegated power to the great Han-Chinese Governor-generals (Zeng Guofan, Li Hongzhang, Zhang Zhidong), and the reforms he directed (notably military modernization, translation bureaus, the "Maritime Customs Service," and the "Jiangnan Arsenal") were far more successful than people take them to be when they look at them from the point of view of their eventual failure after the Sino-Japanese War. Remember that these reforms took place against the background of large-scale rebellions in multiple places in the empire. [Side point: these rebellions were not always anti-Manchu; the Yunnan Panthay Rebellion, for example, started after repeated massacres of Muslims by Han Chinese in collusion with local Qing officials.]

I think the collective memory that you're defending, identifying the Manchus as guilty for hindering China comes from a few things: 1. Acceptance of a stage-by-stage view of the development of human societies (derived directly from the brand of dogmatic Marxism that was current in Chinese scholarship until about the 1990s, though it's been reduced mostly to labels by now) 2. Because this evolution along "stages" is assumed to be natural (the metaphors are chosen so that growth appears natural: "sprouts" of capitalism can either bloom or be crushed; Du Chebie's metaphor of the growth of a person is even cruder because it's more explicit: societies develop from infancy to adolescence to adulthood; and what is more natural for plants and people than to grow? if it didn't grow, something must have kept it from growing) 3. Memory that the Qing failed to modernize in the late 19th century, and that the Manchus of the conservative faction played an active role in hindering reforms. 4. Projection of this memory of the late Qing onto the entire Qing dynasty, making it seem like the Manchu rulers were all reactionary barbarians. 5. Seen in this light, the narrative becomes clear: China during the Ming was about to pass into adulthood (capitalism, industrialization), but it didn't. Why? It must have been the Manchus, because they happened to China just as it was "about to industrialize." Here it's not even a case of a fallacious post hoc ergo propter hoc, because the first "hoc" is not even a fact: it's an idealistic counterfactual that depends on a rigidly linear model of the development of human societies.

What I think is that "1" is untenable (a mechanical, linear, and teleological view of history); "2" is extremely misleading (historical arguments shouldn't rest so directly on unexamined metaphors); "3" is plausible; "4" is a non sequitur (since Cixi is of no help for explaining Kangxi) and it saves people from having to look at history to discover the incredible prosperity of the Qing (and of its Han-Chinese subjects) in the 18th century; and "5" just crumbles down once 1, 2, and 4 are undermined.

I think you know much more about the Ming than about the Qing, and you've read much of what you know about the Qing in texts that tried to blame the Manchus for interrupting China's development. I hope you keep reading more scholarly works about the Qing (as opposed to cherry-picking blogs), so that you can assess what happened under the Qing without preconceived ideas. Smart people like you can accommodate more complexity in their views of history! Cheers,

Hopefully last reply

Sorry for getting this conversation for too long, but I still have issues.

1. As for proof of hanfu banned, one of the key resistance slogans of the Southern Ming was Fu Yi Guan 复衣冠 (wrong character but you get the point) which meant "recover the clothing." This can prove that Manchus did ban the original dress, Hanfu. Also, removing Hanfu in Ming china, would be tantamount to banning christmas here in the west. It would not happen in just a day "Oh, lets stop dressing in ways we have for 2000 years."

2. By premodern standards, Manchu was successful. Not to be chauvinistic here, but by premodern standards, most chinese regimes were successful. Qing must be measured according to other dynasties. Did it progress? did it increase terroritory? etc... Ming was an improvement over Song, and you seemed to have acknowledged my premise there. You also agreed with my assessment that Qing was a repeat of Ming(or worse). Therefore, My reading is that you think that after Ming(or during it) China hit basically what was a wall in development; can't develop any farther, but Britain had all the right circumstances, so it developed industrially. I see no evidence for that, so I refuse to accept the claim. My point is that even if things like the industrial revolution are a random chance, the law of large numbers say that eventually they will happen. China was already in "Industrial revolution possibllity area" by song, as most historians acknowledge. Why didn't it happen? There are 2 explanations that most people follow.

1. My view: It didn't happen because of Mongol and Manchu invasions that wiped it out. 2. Your view: It didn't happen because it needed a special set of circumstances so that it would happen. For view 2., however, I would have to ask: What was this special circumstance? Was China unable to produce inventors like James Watt? Was It anti-capitalist, anti-merchant? Was It self-satisfied and not progressing? I would have to say no. By Song and Ming, rudimentary mechanical devices and books describing possible devices were appearing. It would not be difficult for a watt-esque figure to appear, and invent the steam engine. The conditions for industrial revolution were already there. It would depend when the watt-esque figure to appear(and in the case of Ming, with inventors coming in hordes by 1578-1644, it shouldn't have taken long). By Manchu Qing, however, I believe these conditions had disappeared due to ethnic repression. As you have attested, the amount of thinkers and science carried out during Qing was far less than the late Ming era. My point is that had the Qing not existed(For example, no Little Ice Age, Jur'chens repelled) the seed would have definitely come during the period (1644-1800).

Although My point may be a bit confusing, consider this: 1. If a field is fertile, and I sow it with seeds, the plants may not appear in July; they may not appear in August; but they have a high chance of appearing sometime(unless I bought fake seeds from a fraud.). In other words, the more Ming and Song had stayed in the IRPA(industrial revolution possiblity area) the more chance the industrial revolution would actually happen.

2. But if the field is set on fire and salt is dumped into it, the probablity of plants appearing is very small.

So my view is now changed. My point is that Ming and Song might have not necessarily developed into industrialization if there was no invasion by barbarians, but they had a very high chance (say 80%) that they would have done so, because they had all the institutions that early 19th century Britain had that lead to the industrial revolution(lots of free capital, inventors, market economy, etc..). Even if the industrial revolution had not been in their terroritory, they could have adopted it very quickly(did France fall behind Britain despite industrial revolution in Britain.) However, Qing took a long time to adjust, as I will show below.

Economic statistics of Ming and Qing

3. As part of my demonstration that the Qing were a retrogression, comapre this: In 1600, Ming reported revenues of about 27 million taels. <http://gz-hanfu.cn/doc/The-Truth-of-History.pdf> ,

In 1714, Qing's revenues at about 29 million taels. http://books.google.ca/books?id=crs62qbGz38C&pg=PA256&lpg=PA256&dq=Revenue+of+Qing+dynasty&source=web&ots=UPaX8ngth-&sig=yA1T_K4EudzXhHwNMEpwCDH1jCg&hl=en&ei=5fiMScmkN5j-NIjcmLQL&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result. McCartney estimates the Qing tax revenue at 36 million taels of silver. Remember, the Qing also took over the salt and iron industries which were private during Ming, so revenue should be higher(salt and iron industries are like oil and banking today.)

Now Ming had 1/3 the population(Maize). So, the High Qing's per capita income is slightly more than 1/3 that of the per capita income of High Ming! If you compare the per capita income of High Ming to High Song, and High song to High T'ang, you will find the income(in real purchasing power) is much higher among the latter.

Also, there is the account that Qing had lower taxes. I can safely say that is not true Ming's tax on agriculture was 1/30th, later lowered to 1.5%. Qing rised it to 3.3%<http://gz-hanfu.cn/doc/The-Truth-of-History.pdf> , Li Bo, Zheng Yin, "5000 years of Chinese history", Inner Mongolian People's publishing corp , ISBN 7-204-04420-7, 2001.

As agricultural tax was 70%+ of income of all Pre-1978 Chinese governments(including Mao's despotism), this single fact can show that Qing did not have lower taxes than Ming. Also, I'm sure Qing's commercial, and other taxes were not lower than Ming. Even if they were, It would not had such an effect.

Of course, there is also another possibility: Deflation.

Did deflation occur during Ming-Qing transition? It would appear not, as you have stated: Silver flowed at a reduced rate into China, so there would have been no shortage of silver. It would appear that the silver introduced into China stayed in China(China did not have trade deficit in 1790).

Therefore that would rule out deflation. These figures can show the economic contraction that happened under Qing. So Qing is not just a stagnation, its even a retrogression! So my conclusion from this statement is that while there was almost certainly going to be a industrial revolution during Ming as there was capital, by time of Qing, the capital pool, demand, revere for science, etc... did not exist. The capital available during Ming is much greater than in Qing. As I said, we have to study regimes on a relative basis. What's successful in other places might not be counted as successful in China(at that time and perhaps in the future.) From this we can see Qing per capita income might have diminished by 50, even 70 percent.

Qing did increase its percentage of world GDP(by 2 percent, I might add), but Qing's population was 35%(of the world) while Ming's was only 28%. Also, the industrialization speed depends to a large extent on the availabilty of capital(that's why guys liek me trade on stocks). In Ming, capital was very loose; it was avilable in large quantities. In Qing, adam smith record percent of interest is 12%; that indicates a scarcity of capital as interest is the price of money.

If in 110 years of recovery, a dynasty cannot recover to 1/3 or 1/2 the income of the previous dynasty, is absolutely not heard of(except during Yuan and Wu Hu)! if under 134 years of the supposed "Kang-Qian Golden Age" China's per capita income is less than 1/2 of Ming, on that count alone Manchus can be indicted for reverting China so heavily through their despotic rule. This devastation alone would have taken China out of the IRRA, as seen in my "agricultural field" example above. I think you would agree that Ming was still ahead of Europe in 1600, but by 1700's China's lead was narrowed considerably, even non-existent over some richer European nations. Having the economy contract 50% may have something to do with this. So from this, I conclude that: 1. Ming was farther ahead than Qing , technologically/economically 2. Warring states, Qin, Han, T'ang, Song, and Ming all saw technological advances that kept China's lead over other regions, and none of these dynasties were stagnant technologically. It wouldn't be reasonable to assume that at least had there been a han chinese dynasty after Ming, they would have continued the advance into industrial revolution, as there are virtually no other discoveries available(and the innovation of a people cannot be restrained for long). 3. Even had IR occured somewhere else, that dynasty would have imitated much quicker, as they would be more IRR(industrial revolution ready) than Qing. The more a country is suitable for industries, the faster it will adopt. This is seen throughout the world: For example, China, after its period of disruption ended(1840-1976, went through Manchu, warlords, Japs, Mao), industrialized very quickly because it had institutions that were IRR already. Now in Africa, India, etc.. which did not develop to the proto capitalistic societies before they were exposed to capitalism, took a longer time to adopt. I also use this observation to compare how a hypothetical han chinese dynasty would have adopted, and the Qing.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Chinese dynasty has incentive to modernize

4. Would a chinese dynasty have done better? I would think so. I would think that a chinese dynasty would have had much more incentive to reform than Manchu. A chinese dynasty on the lines of Song and Ming would have incentive to reform heavily(Yikes, we're being surpassed by barbarians? Does that mean we lost the mandate of heaven?). In addition, the Song and Ming showed a very high tendency to copy reforms. For example, when Ming discovered to their shock that portugese muskets were in some areas better than chinese muskets, they immediately imported large numbers of muskets and cannon. There was xenophobia among Han, but also a desire to learn. Hitler despised the US, but Nazi Germany still learned US industrial techniques.

Now, considering the amount of trade occuring between previous Han chinese dynasty and Europe, I believe that China (even if there is no industrial revolution) would have doubtless heard of steam engine by 1800(20 years after its invention) and considering what the Chinese did in the case of the portugese muskets(sounds like sherlock homes), don't you agree there would have been a high possibility of China imitating or at least importing the invention. Had this occured, China would have been one of the first to industrialize, and would have doubtlessly retained her lead over Europe. The result would have been much better for China.

Now Qing did some thing completely different. Qing actually prohibited and limited contact with foreigners unless you were a very high ranking Jur'chen noble. Now I know Kangxi and others were contacting foreigners(and they weren't fools). But why did they not let their subjects do so? Their behavior in this regard validates what I had to say. They DID NOT CONSIDER THEMSELVES CHINESE. the first thing that would happen had chinese resumed their track would eventually end with the end of Jur'chen monarchy and possibly the end of the Jur'chen ethnic group(as what happened to Jie). Kangxi even foresaw, i think, once that "western barbarians would be ruin of Huaxia", but he did not do anything about it? Why would a ruler not mobilize his country which is very rich and strengthen it? The only answer is that the ruler would fear that modernization would end his rule. The only case when that can happen, is when the ruler's rule is based on continuing the status quo, or in other words, stagnating the country. Qing rule would not survive without special prileveges to the Jur'chens.

5. Was Europe the perfect place for IR(industrial revolution)? I don't think that before the 18th century, despite influx of New world silver and Indian gold, Europe could not match living standards in China. Now Europe's development was faster(Paper and printing press were already invented for them when they came out of feudalism) but they probably did not arrive at Song-Ming development levels before 1700. If Europe was able to give birth to the industrial revolution so quickly despite not arriving as fast, it shows that the industrial revolution may not necessarily happen, but it has a high probablity of doing so. Although New world silver and Indian wealth did not bring about industrial revolution, a certain amount of capital is needed for the transformation that Britain oversaw(for example, even if steam engine is invented, someone would have to market it, there would have to be markets, mines rich enough to buy it, etc...) New world silver and Indian wealth certainly helped it along quite a bit. In China, the accumulation is not so rapid; it is accumulated through dynasties, with each transition destroying a part of the stock(with Mongol and Manchu conquests particularly devastating; entire coastlines were cleared and villages burned! think of the destruction of stock(Adam Smith's word for capital).

6. As to my knowledge of Qing, I have read all the history of China, just like I have read the history of Rome, Europe, Economics, stock market, physics, etc... (Pretty weird for a teenager), so my information about Qing comes from many sources. It's not like my sole source about Qing is Du(Whose Marxist economics I'm not a big fan of anyways; he wants to abolish the stock market! What would a "Teen investor" do then?)

7. Lastly, I accept that Ming had weaker control over Xinjiang, Tibet, Manchuria, etc.. than Qing. But i think it is stronger than you would think; In the Mingshi, it is stated Ming appointed officials to govern two halves of Tibet, and appointed commandries' governors there. Also, in Xinjiang, Ming had commandries as west as the Tian Shan ridge, at least under Yongle. Had Ming had been able to acquire New world crops earlier, I believe they would be able to hold these regions on a permanent basis(They were certainly not incapable of doing so; the poorer Han and T'ang held these regions for hundreds of years. Song, again is exception due to special circumstances I mentioned in my 3rd reply.) I believe assertion that the Tibetan region was somehow "completely independant" are highly politically motivated.

8. As to speculation post-Ming, it is a pattern that appears too often in Chinese history. You should see Sui-Tang transition and others. I would say that even with collapse of Ming(which I attribute to Little Ice Age) China probably would have become reunified very quickly. Manchu conquest of China was probably the most devastating way; Li zicheng or Nanjing regime would have reunified Ming much quicker(didn't cut off Chinese heads for their hair!).

9. I would disagree with your contention that I think civilizations advanced rigidly forward. Civilizations can advance backwards, or stagnant. For example, the fall of the Roman empire, followed by the virtual extermination of the Roman population, was a move heavily backwards and went back to feudalism(not that Rome was a perfect model of pre-printing press mercantilism anyways; its dependence on slave laborers hampered its progress, so its economy was less advanced than Han. As adam smith observed, slaves appear to be inexpensive but in the end is most expensive.) The Wu Hu uprising in China in 304CE was also an example of going backwards(though not as much as Rome). Half the population died! Think about it, how much would history change if all the chinese had been killed in 350CE , Wu Hu now rules China and China was populated by millions of caucasians, eager for killing and looting and with tech of Han dynasty. They might make the Anglo-Saxons look peaceful!(no offence, I'm not a racist but British conquest of India and settlement of Americas is pretty bloody). India after the Gupta dynasty and before Mughals would be an example of stagnation, as the caste system reinforced feudalism)son must succeed father; basis of feudal society).

10. One example of Qing repression can be seen in this light: While rebellions in Han, T'ang, Song, Ming, etc.. are usually short in duration(except at end) and their slogans are something like: We need land, give us food, etc... in Qing all the slogans of rebellions(which were much longer) were something like this: 恢复中华, 驱逐鞑虏, 反清復明, etc... This can show that the Qing were highly unpopular due to their rule being more brutal(also, see my economic statistics above.)Teeninvestor (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Teeninvestor (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Check out new drafts

I've been working on User:PericlesofAthens/Draft for Economy of the Han Dynasty and User:PericlesofAthens/Draft for Science and technology of the Han Dynasty. I've developed the Economy draft a bit further than sci and tech, which is still in the making. Take a look at Economy, though; it won't disappoint (at least I hope).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops! That's a terrible mistake! I will fix it right away.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Are you sure? The Cambridge Histories Online says to cite his name like this:

Sadao, Nishijima. "The economic and social history of Former Han." The Ch'in and Han Empires, 221 B.C.–A.D. 220. Eds. Denis Twitchett and John K. Fairbank. Cambridge University Press, 1987. Cambridge Histories Online. Cambridge University Press. 06 February 2009 DOI:10.1017/CHOL9780521243278.012

Why would they put Sadao first, if it was not his surname?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I sure feel like a horse's patute. XD I'm trying to learn Mandarin Chinese, so Japanese is out of my ballpark. I should have consulted with my younger sister, she's learning Japanese! Sigh. Thanks for catching this problem. It sure does provide me with a clean-up chore, though.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll call my sister long-distance and annoy her with questions about Japanese when I begin learning it for sinology studies. ;)--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

She's officially here; check out Economy of the Han Dynasty!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sichuan

As a native of this province, i would ask you is the population decline of Sichuan attributed more to Manchu or Zhang? Although I'm not doubting ZHang's devastation of Sichuan, but Sichuan was able to continue resisting Manchu for another 16 years; Scorch-earth areas can't support warfare between hundreds of thousands of troops that long.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, on an unrelated note, what would you think are the differneces between Qing and Yuan? I tend to think that they're both foreign despotisms, but I tend to think also Qing is more advanced than Yuan. This may have something to do with China having more contact with Jur'chens. on the plus side, Yuan is better than Wu Hu who fought chinese troops with civillians as provisions or the Germans who overran Roman Empire. Had the Wu Hu succeeded, chinese civilization wouldn't exist today. Instead, you'd find a race of blond-haired caucasians.

On an unrelated note, I'm sure you would agree that characterization of all pre-industrial eras into one is not correct. THe feudal society was very backward compared to Han, T'ang or Rome, Abbasid. Han, T'ang, Ababsids is not as advanced as Song, Ming, 18th century Britain. These are all different stages. Teeninvestor (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Economic history of China

I plan to completely revamp it something like this:

Feudal Era

Beginnings- Xia

Further development, metallurgy- Shang

Jing tian- Zhou

"Bastard feudalism"- Spring & autumns

Mercantilist Era

Warring states- reforms, collapse of Jingtian/feudal system

Qin's reforms- Legalist, absolutist state established, China unified, standards, etc..

Han- early partial reversion, appearance of highly profitbale iron/salt industries, plantations, etc..

Three Kingdoms & Jin- Devastation, recovery.

Wu Hu& North/south dyansties- disruption of trade route, restoration of fedualism early on, etc...

Sui- instates examination system, revives Han laws, introduciton of Sotian system.

T'ang- government starts withdrawing, more liberalization, etc.., collapse of the Sotian system.

"Proto-capitalist" Era

Song- invention of printing press, economic revolution, paper notes, collapse of hereditary nobility, investment, first overseas trade, etc..

Yuan- Mongol devastation of North, state-sanctioned trade at Quanzhou.

Ming- expansion of Song, privatization of enterprises, merchant class is empowered through examination system, overseas trade expanded, economic imperialism(Langfang republic, Tungning kingdom).

Qing- Intial feudal disruptions(Booi aha), destruction of shore line, slow recovery in Kangxi, stagnation later, effects of opium, and gradual decline in 19th century.

Modern Era:

ROC- initial attempts at reform, militayr industries developed for war with Japan, stock markets, etc..

PRC(Mao)- transition to planned economy, Great Leap forward, cultural revolution & stagnation.

PRC(Deng)- transition to market economy, prosperity, liberalization, "chengbao" system, now almost 80% of US industrial production, revival of Chinese civilizations, etc...

I have only one source dealing with pre-ROC Chinese economic history, a 2000 page book called "5000 years of CHinese history". It has some details, but one paragraph for each section would do. Can you help me get some sources? thank you. Note: if you have info about Qing, i would thank you to provide as you would think im a bit biased towards Qing.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll rename the "proto-capitalist" era, the late imperial era, or something.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hua-Yi zhi bian

As to OR, I had some issues with it before, as in Comparisons between Roman and Han Empires. In the end, I had to find 4-5 sources comparing both to win afd. I restored the secitons and added references. More are coming. My view on wikipedia is that rather than deleting stuff, you should add references and do some research. This saves everyone pain and trouble. Unfortuantely, I will be working on other things(Economic history of China), so you and Arilang will have to find the references; don't worry, ive already added some(5000 years, book of Jin, etc...). As to Qing-Yuan Legitimacy debate, I will look over it once I'm done Economic history of China. I will need your help in editing these articles. We may have our own views, but I'm proud to have a scholar like you editing Chinese articles. Regards.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Economic history of China

I have a sinking feeling my ambition overran itself; check Economic history of China.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC) I have a new plan. As I finished the details for one section, I move it off to another article Economic history of Feudal China Economic history of Han dynasty, etc.. Because economy of and economic history of are two different things. As to modern era, the economic history is incomplete so I'll keep it on my own page.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Take a look at economic history of china in my sandbox, I have already written the lead of all the eras and the article. What do you think of the prose? By the way, I think that I'll need some help. Maybe you can help?Teeninvestor (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hua-Yi Distinction

The article has indeed improved immensely and is much more comprehensive. It still seems a bit fragmentary to me, perhaps because the editors have been trying hard to avoid any original research, as they should. I am very busy in the real world at present, but may tinker with the wording. Not changing the sequence, argument or facts, on which I am ashamed of my ignorance, but trying to improve the flow and focus. But this is a very interesting article reflecting a great deal of thought and effort, and clearly is a completely valid and useful article. I am very impressed. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Qing section on Economic history of China

Here's the update Pericles Agreed to do Han and Song sections. I have already finished Xia, Shang, Zhou, Spring & autumn, Warring States, Qin, Wei & Jin, and I wrote the intro for all the eras(Feudal, absolutist, mercantilist, modern). I am taking a break, but I will soon work on Wu Hu(barbarian uprising) and North-South soon. Would you object to working on the Qing section????Teeninvestor (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You bet your ass it is

Science and technology of the Han Dynasty is here to stay...bitch. Lol! I hope you enjoy that read; it's pretty long and packed with detail. Drop a message on its talk page if you notice anything that needs to be fixed or improved (the weaponry section is still in need of expansion, but everything else is fine). Later dude!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Son of a monkey! You're right! Deng (2005) was missing; but I just recently added him to the roster. Good catch!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Society and culture of the Han Dynasty; it's nothing compared to your dissertation, but it's one of my best Wiki articles to date. :) Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

History of the Han Dynasty is currently under GAC review, but Society and culture of the Han Dynasty currently has no one reviewing it, and it is a Good Article Candidate. Care to be the reviewer? I trust your judgment above many others.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine! Sooner or later someone will choose to review it on the GA page. As long as you at least take a look, I'll be satisfied. :)--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A quick note; unlike a Featured Article which takes in the opinions and votes of many editors, you are the only one who reviews a Good Article Candidate. Therefore, you do not have to wait for anyone else's opinion. You can pass or fail a nomination as you see fit, but you must warn the editor first what needs to be fixed if anything. It seems like you found no faults with the article thus far except for size constraints, which is obviously a concern with the monstrous articles that I write. If that is the case, I'll try to copy-edit the article today and I'll wait for your decision on passing the article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, how is your new email working out for you?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! I'll tell everyone about your email status. I hope you can pass the article as soon as possible. I've already started copy-editing.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Madalibi. I believe the email I sent you was only to ask you to review the article here! Lol. So you missed nothing important. If you need instructions on how to pass the article, go to Wikipedia:Good article nominations and at about the third box down, it gives you detailed instructions. Hope that helps. Thanks for reviewing the article!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Take a look at Government of the Han Dynasty. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wanyan Hanpu

Hello, Madalibi, and thanks for writing on my talk page.

I completely agree with what you said regarding the translation of the sentence from the 滿洲源流, and you'll find that I promptly reverted that sentence back to a state close to how you had left it, after some consideration as to the literal meaning of '新羅王金姓則金之逺派.' This was done only a few minutes after the first edit I made. Having read your guess as to why the Manchus would have supplied that sentence in the 滿洲源流, please let me inform you of my own.

It is my belief that although there is a chance that the information about the origin of Hanpu from Goryeo is inaccurate, it is almost surely not without merit. The fact that the names of the Jin Dynasty and the Kim royal family of Shilla are identical cannot be a mere coincidence, and I am sure that the life story of Hanpu as mentioned in the 滿洲源流 must have at least a bit of truth, if not a vast majority of it. Having studied the history of the Manchus just as you have, I am sure that you recognize that the Korean people and Manchu people sprung up from the same nation, a nation that called itself Joseon, and that before Hung Taiji renamed his people, the Manchu people were known as 'Jurchen,' which was pronounced jušen in the Jurchen language. The very similar prounciations of these two nations also cannot be just a coincidence -- what I am trying to prove is that the two people are not very dissimilar and that there has been an overwhelming amount of peaceful interaction between the two peoples in history, even from the very beginning. Another curious fact is that 愛新覺羅 contain the characters 新羅; although I do know that these characters were chosen for their phonetic value, it is hard for me to accept that the correlation between the two is mere coincidence as well. In essence, I think that the idea that Hanpu originated from the royal family of Shilla is not very far-fetched, if it is at all, and may very well be grounded in historical truth. I have also found a few more sources that confirm what the aforementioned sentences says, although I have not been able to find nor read the entirety of their texts of origin. With that said, having never seen these texts, I am not completely sure of the credibility of the following sources, but perhaps there is something from them that can be of use.

• 佛祖歷代通載 states that "女真阿骨打稱帝國號大金 (...本新羅人)"
• 大宋遗民 states that "完顏之始祖指蒲者，新羅人"
• 松漠紀聞 states that "女真酋長乃新羅人"
• 高麗史 states that the Jurchens remarked, "我祖宗出自大邦" (大邦 means 高麗 in this context)

You stated that the 滿洲源流 is a primary source, but I do not believe that this is so, especially in the context of Hanpu. As you probably already know, the 滿洲源流 was written a little under a millenium after Hanpu's existence -- in my eyes, this conclusively disqualifies it as a 'primary source' in the case of Hanpu's life story. In addition, I noticed that you mentioned that the 滿洲源流 is not a credible source to draw information from and that you also cited an article by Pamela Crossley. If you do not mind me asking, I would like to know what portions of the 滿洲源流 are inaccurate, and if these inaccuracies occur in the sections mentioning Hanpu's life. If you happen to have a copy of Crossley's article, would you mind if I asked you for one? Thank you.

Thank you also for providing that interesting bit of detail for me! I see that the 滿洲源流 expounds on the Hanpu/Shilla theory a bit further and even explicitly mentions a link between the Jin Dynasty's name and the Shilla royal family's family name. In my opinion, there seems to be no malicious intent in writing that sentence, especially since the state of Shilla collapsed a little under a millenium before the 滿洲源流 was written; I believe that this contributes to the potential credibility of the 滿洲源流, at least in regard to Hanpu's history. In fact, as the as of yet uncited, but potentially plausible tale of Hanpu's rise to power points out, it was because of the collapse of Shilla that Hanpu found his way to Manchuria and became accepted into the Wanyan clan. Maybe it was because of the fact that he was accepted into the pre-existing Wanyan clan (and being unable to use his former family name 金) that his son chose to name his country 金, finding no place else to leave the legacy of his former family name. Of course, this is all just speculation on my part.

As Hanpu existed on the borderline of the transition from Shilla to Goryeo, I believe that there really is nothing odd about the 金史 using the names Goryeo and Shilla interchangeably. Perhaps it could be said that Hanpu came from both Shilla and Goryeo, Shilla being his former country and Goryeo being the then-contemporary name of the territory he was born in. Perhaps it could also be said that I have gone on long enough with this post. It was nice to have the opportunity to read and respond to your post on my talk page -- thanks. (= Flamarial (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruption at Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty

This article has been heavily disrupted by a tag team, seeking to delete/merge it. My attempts to improve you have resulted in an edit war. Please check.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Economic history of China update

It is mostly finished, except for Han and Song sections in which Pericles did, and the Qing section, which I hoped you could do. Now I have to start the gargutan task of citign the damn article, and finding pictures.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Han Dynasty is complete

Seriously though. All five sub-articles and now...(drumroll)...the main article! Han Dynasty. Have a look.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you help me with this dispute?

An obstinate editor accused me of various things(I don't know what as of yet, as he is a terrible communicator). But what I've gathered is that he thinks my source "5000 years of Chinese history" is not necessarily what I said it is: "a chinese history book". Can you go to (Chinese) - "http://book.jqcq.com/product/30157.html", affirm this book is actually a chinese history book, and then go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration and make a comment. This would help the dispute a lot. Thank you.

Can you help me with this dispute?

An obstinate editor accused me of various things(I don't know what as of yet, as he is a terrible communicator). But what I've gathered is that he thinks my source "5000 years of Chinese history" is not necessarily what I said it is: "a chinese history book". Can you go to (Chinese) - "http://book.jqcq.com/product/30157.html", affirm this book is actually a chinese history book, and then go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration and make a comment. This would help the dispute a lot. Thank you.

P.S. that Qing section at user:Teeninvestor/sandbox/Economic history of China is still open!Teeninvestor (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)