Hua–Yi distinction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Hua-Yi distinction)
Jump to: navigation, search

The distinction between Hua () and Yi (), also known as Sino–barbarian dichotomy,[1] is an ancient Chinese concept that differentiated a culturally defined "China" (called Hua, Huaxia 華夏, or Xia 夏) from cultural or ethnic outsiders (Yi "barbarians"). Although Yi is often translated as "barbarian", other translations of this term English include "foreigners",[2] "ordinary others"[3] "wild tribes",[4] and "uncivilized tribes".[5]

The Hua–Yi distinction was basically cultural, but it could take ethnic or racist overtones (especially in times of war). In its cultural form, the Hua–Yi distinction asserted Chinese cultural superiority, but implied that outsiders could become Hua by adopting Chinese values and customs. When this "cultural universalism"[6] took a more racial guise, however, it could have harmful effects on those groups not considered 'Hua'.[7]

Historical context[edit]

Zhou dynasty cosmography of Huaxia and the Siyi.

Ancient China was composed of a group of states that arose in the Yellow River valley. According to historian Li Feng, who lived in Zhou dynasty (ca. 1041–771 BCE), the contrast between the 'Chinese' Zhou and the 'non-Chinese' Xirong or Dongyi was "more political than cultural or ethnic".[8] Lothar von Falkenhausen argues that the perceived contrast between "Chinese" and "Barbarians" was accentuated during the Eastern Zhou period (770–256 BCE), when adherence to Zhou rituals became increasingly recognized as a "barometer of civilization."; a meter for sophistication and cultural refinement.[9] It is widely agreed by historians that the distinction between the Hua and the Yi emerged during that period.[10]

Gideon Shelach claimed that Chinese texts tended to overstate the distinction between the Chinese and their northern neighbors, ignoring many intergroup similarities. He doubted the existence of the Hua–Yi distinction.[11] Nicola di Cosmo doubted the existence of a strong demarcation between the "Zhou Universe" and "a discrete, 'barbarian', non-Zhou universe"[12] and claimed that Chinese historian, Sima Qian's popularized this concept, writing of the "chasm that had always existed between China – the Hua-Hsia [Huaxia] people – and the various alien groups inhabiting the north."[13]

The conclusion of the Warring States period brought the first unified Chinese state-established by the Qin dynasty in 221 BCE-who established the imperial system and forcibly standardized the traditional Chinese script, leading to the first of the distinctions between the refined Hua and the increasingly marginalized Yi. The Han dynasty (221 BCE-206 CE) further contributed to the divide with its creation of a persistent Han cultural identity.[14]

The Han Chinese civilization influenced neighboring states Korea, Japan, Vietnam and Thailand and other Asian countries. Although Han Chinese superiority had only been sporadically reinforced by displays of Chinese military power, the Sinocentric system treated these countries as vassals of the emperor of China, literally "the Son of Heaven" (天子), who was in possession of the Mandate of Heaven (天命), the divine right to rule. Areas outside Sinocentric influence and the divine rule of the Emperor were considered to consist of uncivilized lands inhabited by barbarians.[15]

Throughout history, Chinese frontiers had been periodically attacked by nomadic tribes from the north and west. These people were considered barbarians by the Chinese who believed themselves to be more refined and who had begun to build cities and live an urban life based on agriculture. It was in consideration of how best to deal with this threat that the philosopher, Confucius (551 – 479 BCE) was prompted to formulate principles for relationships with the barbarians, briefly recorded in two of his Analects.[16]

The arrival of European trade and colonialism in the 18th and 19th centuries, exposed Chinese civilization to the developments that had long outstripped China's. As such, the nation was forced to undergo a modification of its traditional views of its relationships with those "barbarians".[17]

China[edit]

Confucius lived during a time of war between Chinese states. He regarded people who did not respect "li", or ritual propriety, as barbarians as he believed the workings of a state should be founded on ethical conduct rather than the relatively cruel social codes imposed by conquering princes. In the Ames and Rosemont translation of Analect 3.5, Confucius said, "The Yi and Di barbarian tribes with rulers are not as viable as the various Chinese states without them."[18]

The Disposition of Error, a fifth-century tract defending Buddhism, a religion that had originated in India, notes that when Confucius was threatening to take residence among the nine barbarian nations (九黎) he said, "If a gentleman-scholar dwells in their midst, what baseness can there be among them?"[19] An alternate translation of the philosopher's Analect 9.14 is, "Someone said: 'They are vulgar. What can you do about them?' The Master said: 'A gentleman used to live there. How could they be vulgar?'"[20] In both translations, the author is shown to believe in the superiority of the Hua culture over that of the Yi.

The prominent Shuowen Jiezi character dictionary (121 CE) defines yi 夷 as 平 "level; peaceful" or 東方之人 "people of eastern regions" and does not attempt to marginalize them and implies that the Hua-Yi distinction was not universally held.

Zhou Dynasty[edit]

The Bamboo Annals records that the founder of Zhou, King Wu of Zhou "led the lords of the western barbarians" on a journey to conquer the Shang dynasty[21] and while Duke Huan of Qi called upon the various Chinese states to fight the barbarian invasion and uphold the dynasty of the King of Shang, the Duke's defence of the Shang was ultimately unsuccessful, leading to the creation of the Zhou Dynasty that later contributed as much as the Shang to the Hua–Yi distinction.[22]

Not all Zhou regarded the Hua–Yi distinction as a cultural barrier that needed to be overcome to 'purify' China. Zhou philosopher Mencius believed that Confucian practices were universal and timeless, and thus, followed by both Hua and Yi people- "Shun was an Eastern barbarian;[citation needed] he was born in Chu Feng, moved to Fu Hsia, and died in Ming T'iao. King Wen was a Western barbarian;[citation needed] he was born in Ch'i Chou and died in Pi Ying. Their native places were over a thousand li apart, and there were a thousand years between them. Yet when they had their way in the Central Kingdoms, their actions matched like the two halves of a tally. The standards of the two sages, one earlier and one later, were identical."[23]

Jin Dynasty[edit]

In order to alleviate the shortages of labor caused by the Three Kingdoms wars, the Jin allowed millions of non-Chinese, Yi people to reside in Jin territory. Many officials opposed this decision in the name of the Hua–Yi distinction, claiming that if the barbarians did not identify with the Huaxia, they would conspire to destroy the empire.[24]

Wu Hu uprising[edit]

During the Uprising of the Five Barbarians (五胡) and ravaging of North China that occurred around 310 CE, the Jin dynasty and other Chinese appealed to entrenched beliefs in the Hua–Yi distinction when calling for resistance to the Wu Hu invasion and the Yi they represented.[25] The historians of the southern dynasties, who were all Han Chinese, portrayed the Wu Hu as barbaric.[26]

Ran Min's order to kill the barbarians[edit]

Main article: Ran Min
See also: Wei–Jie war

In 349 or 350 CE (disputed), the Han general Ran Min (冉閔) seized power from the last emperor of the Zhao and encouraged the Han Chinese to slaughter the Jie people, many of whom lived in the Zhao capital of Ye. In this massacre and the wars that ensued, hundreds of thousands of Jie (羯), Qiang (羌), and Xiongnu (匈奴) were killed. The "five barbarians" quickly unified to fight Ran Min, yet Ran Min won victory after victory. Despite his military success, however, Ran's regime was toppled in 353 CE. As a result of this period of turbulence, three of the five main "barbarian" ethnic groups in China disappeared from Chinese history.[27]

Ran Min continues to be a controversial figure. He is considered by some to be a hero, whereas others believe he bore extreme prejudice arising from the Hua–Yi distinction.[27]

Northern Wei[edit]

Emperor Shaowu of Northern Wei (a state that controlled the north of China), who was of the Xianbei (鮮卑) people attempted to eliminate Yi from his state by imposing Sinicization on his people. The Xianbei language was outlawed and Xianbei people began to adopt Chinese surnames; for example, the Tuobas became the Yuans.[28]

Sui Dynasty[edit]

In 581, Sui Emperor Yang Jian deposed the Xianbei ruler of Northern Zhou and restored Han rule over North China. This event marked the end of all power that the Xianbei and other non-Chinese groups had over China, and racial tension subsided.[29]

Tang Dynasty[edit]

During the Tang dynasty, various ethnic groups including Koreans, Indians and Tibetans journeyed to Chang'an and other major Tang cities for business or study. These people brought their religions and customs: Buddhism, Islam, Zoroastrianism (Xianjiao), Manichaeism (Monijiao) and Syriac Christianity (Jingjiao), all of which flourished.[30]

This cosmopolitan policy caused controversy among the literati, many of whom questioned the recommendation of the Kaifeng governor for the participation of Arab-born Li Yan-sheng in the 847 imperial examinations and several similar incidences of what they believed as incorrect racial privileging. Such was the discourse that Tang intellectual Chen An wrote an essay defending the governor's decision; The Heart of Being Hua (Chinese: 華心; pinyin: Huá xīn), which is often cited as expressing the sentiments of the "non-xenophobic" Chinese position on the Hua–Yi distinction. In the essay, Chen wrote: "If one speaks in terms of geography, then there are Hua and Yi. But if one speaks in terms of education, then there can be no such difference. For the distinction between Hua and Yi rests in the heart and is determined by their different inclinations."[31]

A prominent Tang Confucian, Han Yu, wrote in his essay Yuan Dao, "When Confucius wrote the Chunqiu, he said that if the feudal lords use the Yi ritual, then they should be called Yi. If they use Chinese rituals, then they should be called Chinese." Han Yu went on to lament that the Chinese of his time might all become Yi because the Tang court wanted to put Yi laws above the teachings of the former kings,[32] creating the possibility that although insiders could lose their culture, outsiders could similarly gain insider culture.

Arguments that excoriated the Tang's lax attitude towards foreigners were strengthened by the Yi-led An Lushan Rebellion (755–763), which propelled the Tang into decline.[30] An intellectual movement "to return to the pure... sources of orthodox thought and morality", including many of the concepts of the Classical Prose Movement, also targeted "foreign" religions, as exemplified by Han Yu's diatribe against Buddhism. Emperor Wenzong of Tang passed decrees in line with these views, especially restricting Iranian religions and Buddhism, but this policy was relaxed by his successors.[33]

Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms[edit]

The "Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms" was a period in which the north of China was ruled by a non-Chinese people, the Shatuo, for three short-lived dynasties while the south was ruled by Chinese. Their legitimacy was recognized by the Song Dynasty.[34]

Song Dynasty[edit]

The Song Dynasty saw both an economic boom and invasion by alien states. States like the Liao dynasty (遼) and Western Xia (西夏) began to take territories inhabited by large numbers of Chinese and asserted that they too were Chinese and successors to the Tang, and posed legitimacy issues for Song rule.

In response to rising concerns from citizenry and claims from Yi states such as the Western Xia, Song scholars stipulated that groups like the Shatuo (whom the Song largely succeeded and who largely continued the rule of the Tang) were not barbarian or "Yi" but Chinese or "Hua" and that the Song had only descended from ruling groups that were Hua. Secondly, the Song asserted that the Liao and Western Xia, and later the Jin (金), were barbarian states despite their control of large areas of Chinese territory because they had not inherited any mandate from a legitimate, "Hua" dynasty.[35]

Yuan Dynasty[edit]

Concerns over legitimacy were not limited to the Song alone: states rose up again in the Yuan dynasty, as its rulers were non-Han Chinese. However, the Yuan dynasty adopted a different approach to quelling the conflict. The Yuan asserted that the Song, Liao and Jin were all legitimate; therefore all three dynasties were given their own history, as recognition of their legitimacy.

Despite this, the Yuan racially segregated their people; dividing society into four categories:

  • Mongols (蒙古): the ruling group and hence, the most important
  • Semu (色目; "assorted categories"): a term for non-Chinese and non-Mongol foreigners who occupied the second slate;
  • Han (漢人): a term for the Han Chinese, Jurchens, and Khitan under the rule of the Jin dynasty;
  • Southerner (南人): a term for Han Chinese under the rule of the Song dynasty.

In addition, the Yuan also divided society into 10 castes, based on "desirability":[36]

  • High officials (大官)
  • Minor officials (小官)
  • Buddhist monks (釋)
  • Daoist priests (道)
  • Physicians (医)
  • Peasants (農)
  • Hunters (獵)
  • Courtesans (妓)
  • Confucian scholars (儒)
  • Beggars (丐)

The Yuan rulers were Mongols and were viewed as barbaric and humiliating for the Chinese,[37] although they did not last long in China (from 1271 to 1368).

According to historian Yao Dali, Chinese such as the "patriotic" hero Wen Tianxiang of the late Song and early Yuan period believed the Mongol rule to be legitimate. Wen was willing to live under Mongol rule as long as he was not forced to be a Yuan dynasty official, out of his loyalty to the Song dynasty. This shows that some pre-modern Chinese groups viewed culture and politics rather than race and ethnicity as the dividing line between the Chinese and the non-Chinese. There had been many cases when the Yi or non-Chinese had been later considered Hua or Chinese.

Ming Dynasty[edit]

In 1368, Zhu Yuanzhang proclaimed the Ming dynasty and issued a long manifesto, in which he labeled the Yuan as barbarians who had usurped the Chinese throne, and who had inflicted atrocities such as rape and murder. He lists incidents where the Mongols massacred men in entire villages and appropriated the women. Zhu's northern military expedition had been a success; Beijing was captured in the same year and China was again governed by Han.[38]

Although the Ming referred to the preceding Yuan as "胡元", or wild Yuan, they also accepted the Yuan before them as a legitimate dynasty. Zhu Yuanzhang indicated on another occasion that he was happy to be born in the Yuan period and that the Yuan did legitimately receive the Mandate of Heaven to rule over China. In addition, one of his key advisors, Liu Ji, generally supported the idea that while the Chinese and the non-Chinese are different, they are actually equal. Liu was therefore arguing against the idea that Hua was and is superior to Yi.[39]

During the Miao Rebellions, Ming forces engaged in massive slaughter of the Hmong and other native ethnic groups in South China; after castrating Hmong boys to use as eunuch slaves, Chinese soldiers took Hmong women as wives and colonized the southern provinces.[40][41][42][43]

Towards the end of the Ming dynasty, Ming loyalists invoked Hua-Yi zhi bian to urge the Chinese to resist the Manchu invaders.[44]

Qing dynasty[edit]

The Qing dynasty's order that all subjects shave their forehead and braid the rest of their hair into a queue was viewed as a symbolic gesture of servitude by many Han Chinese, who thought that changing their dress to the same as Yi would be contrary to the spirit of "Hua-Yi zhi bian."

Scholar Lü Liuliang (1629–1683), who lived through the transition between the Ming and the Manchu-led Qing dynasty, refused to serve the new dynasty because he claimed that upholding the difference between Huaxia and the Yi was more important than respecting the righteous bond between minister (臣) and sovereign (君王). In 1728, failed Imperial examination candidate Zeng Jing (曾靜), influenced by Lü's works, called for the overthrow of the Manchu regime. The Yongzheng Emperor (r. 1723–1735), whom Zeng accused of ten major crimes, took this event as an opportunity to educate the Qing's Chinese subjects. In a series of discussions with Zeng Jing, the emperor proclaimed that Chinese were not inherently superior to the barbarians. To justify his statements, he declared that King Wen, the sage king and the founder of the Zhou dynasty, was of Western Yi origin, but this did not hurt his greatness.

The Yongzheng Emperor also borrowed from Han Yu, indicating that Yi can become Hua and vice versa. In addition, according to Yongzheng, both Hua and Yi were now a part of the same family under the Qing. One of the goals of the tract Dayi juemi lu (大義覺迷錄), which the Yongzheng Emperor published and distributed throughout the empire in 1730, was "to undermine the credibility of the hua/yi distinction."[45] However, due to the fact that this tract also helped to expose many unsavory aspects of court life and political intrigues in the imperial government, Yongzheng’s successor the Qianlong Emperor (r. 1736–1796) recalled the tracts and had them burned for the fear that it would undermine the legitimacy of the Qing empire.

During the Qing, the Qing destroyed writings that criticized the Liao, Jin and Yuan using the Hua–Yi distinction.[clarification needed]

Sun Yat-sen also used the Hua–Yi distinction to justify the overthrow of the Qing dynasty.[29]

However, the Qing adopted Confucian philosophy and Han Chinese institutions to show that the Manchu rulers had received the Mandate of Heaven, while at the same time trying to retain their own indigenous culture.[46] Due to the Manchus' adoption of Han Chinese culture, most Han Chinese (though not all) accepted the Manchus as the legitimate rulers.

Republic of China[edit]

Historian Frank Dikötter (1990:420) says the Chinese "idea of 'race' (zhong [種], "seed", "species", "race") started to dominate the intellectual scene" in the late 19th-century Qing dynasty and completed the "transition from cultural exclusiveness to racial exclusiveness in modern China" in the 1920s.[47]

Following the overthrow of the Qing, Sun Yat-sen allegedly went to the grave of Zhu Yuanzhang and told him that the Huaxia had been restored and the barbarians overthrown.[citation needed] However, after the Republic of China revolution, Sun also advocated that all ethnic groups in China were part of the Chinese family.

People's Republic of China[edit]

The PRC did not abide by the concept of "Hua Yi zhi bian" and recognized the Qing and Yuan as legitimate dynasties. Initially, the CPC condemned all Chinese dynasties as "feudal oppressors".

Hua-Yi zhi bian has little practical and real significance in twenty-first century China.[48]

Conceptualization of the Hua–Yi distinction in non-Chinese states[edit]

Japan[edit]

Prince Shōtoku wearing Chinese court dress 

In the second unsuccessful Mongol invasion of Japan in 1281, 20–30,000 prisoners were taken but only 10,000 Southern Song Chinese were spared.[49] The Japanese separated the Song troops who had recently surrendered to the Mongols from the other prisoners, called them "Men of Tang", and enslaved them. The Northern Han Chinese, Khitan, Jurchens, Koreans, and Mongols who had been living in the Mongol Empire for a century, were executed.[citation needed]

Some Japanese philosophers, like the neo-Confucianists Yamaga Sokō and Aizawa Seishisai claimed that Japan was 中國 Chūgoku instead of China.

Korea[edit]

Korean ritual dress resembles Ming hanfu 
Korean court dress resembles Ming hanfu 
Joseon official dress inherited from the Ming dynasty 

Following the 1644 Manchu conquest, Joseon Koreans began to refer to themselves as "Sojunghwa"; literally "Little China". As the Joseon supported the Ming, they were reported to have extended a friendliness to the Ming that they did not display to the Qing dynasty.

Because Korea had been closely tied to Han Chinese "barbarianism ruling China" became a major issue for discussion there.

As the Ming dynasty fell, Korea was worried about its own security. This was due to previous instances in which Ming China aided Korea such as in the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98).[50] Long after the establishment of the Qing dynasty, the Joseon ruling elite and even the Joseon government continued to use the Chongzhen Emperor's era name (숭정기원, 崇禎紀元) of the last Ming emperor.[51] In private they referred to the Manchu Emperor as the "barbarian ruler" and Qing ambassadors as "barbarian ambassadors".[52] These feelings could not be expressed as the "barbarians" held great power over Korea following their successful invasion in the First Manchu invasion of Korea in 1627 and the Second Manchu invasion of Korea of 1637.

Over time the Qing government exerted more power over Korea. This would eventually turn Korea into a hermit kingdom to limit foreign influence

Ryūkyū[edit]

King Shō Shin wearing Chinese court dress 
Prince Shō Kyō wearing Chinese court dress 

The Ryukyu Kingdom was heavily influenced by Chinese culture, taking language, architecture, and court practices from China.[53] It also paid annual tribute to first the Ming and later Qing courts from 1374 until 1874.

Vietnam[edit]

Vietnamese court dress resembles Ming hanfu 
Prince Nguyễn Phước Miên Thẩm (Tùng Thiện Vương) wearing Chinese court dress 
Mandarin Cao Xuân Dục wearing Chinese court dress 
Mandarin Trần Đình Bá wearing Chinese court dress 
Emperor Bảo Đại wearing Chinese court dress 

Vietnamese dynasties considered themselves Hua, in the sense that their nation was civilized, and their kingdom as a polity was at the center of Earth and Heaven.[citation needed] Even with regard to China proper, Vietnamese dynasties competed for primacy, adopting the same descriptive term, "central state" (Trung Quốc 中國), while Chinese were "outsiders".[54] For example, Emperor Gia Long used Trung Quốc as a name for Vietnam in 1805.[55] Cambodia was regularly called Cao Man, the country of "upper barbarians".[citation needed]

In the 1800s, Nguyễn rulers such as Emperor Minh Mạng claimed the legacy of Confucianism and China's Han dynasty for Vietnam. Vietnamese called themselves as Hán dân (漢民) and Hán nhân (漢人),[56][57] while they referred to ethnic Chinese as Thanh nhân (清人) or Đường nhân (唐人).[58] For example, Emperor Gia Long said Hán di hữu hạn (漢夷有限, "the Vietnamese and the barbarians must have clear borders") when differentiating between Khmer and Vietnamese.[59]

As Vietnam conquered territory from the Khmer and Lao kingdoms and various tribes on the Central Highlands such as the Jarai and the Mạ, Emperor Minh Mạng implemented an acculturation integration policy directed at these peoples.[60] He declared, "We must hope that their barbarian habits will be subconsciously dissipated, and that they will daily become more infected by Han [Sino-Vietnamese] customs."[61][62]

Clothing was also affected by Nguyễn policies. Lord Nguyễn Vo Vuong ordered traditional sarong-type clothing to be replaced by Chinese-style clothing, particularly the tunics and trouser clothing of the Han Chinese during the Ming Dynasty,[63] although isolated hamlets in northern Vietnam continued to wear skirts until the 1920s.[64] The ao dai was created when tucks, which were close fitting and compact, were added to this Chinese style in the 1920s.[65]

The White Hmong have also adopted trousers,[66] replacing the traditional skirts that females wore.[67]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Pines 2003.
  2. ^ Morrison 1823, p. 586-7.
  3. ^ Liu 2004, pp. 10–11 Liu believes the Chinese in early China did not originally think of Yi as a derogatory term.
  4. ^ Legge, James. "Shangshu, Tribute of Yu". ctext.org. 
  5. ^ Mair 1998.
  6. ^ & Dikötter 1994, p. 3.
  7. ^ Terrill 2003, p. 41.
  8. ^ Li 2006, p. 286. Li explains that "Rong" meant something like "warlike foreigners" and "Yi" was close to "foreign conquerables".
  9. ^ von Falkenhausen 1999, p. 544.
  10. ^ Shelach 1999, pp. 222–23.
  11. ^ Shelach 1999, p. 222.
  12. ^ Di Cosmo 2002, p. 103.
  13. ^ Di Cosmo 2002, p. 2.
  14. ^ Ebrey, Walthall & Palais 2006.
  15. ^ Arrighi 1996.
  16. ^ Chin 2007.
  17. ^ Ankerl 2000.
  18. ^ Ames & Rosemont 1999.
  19. ^ "The Disposition of Error (c. 5th Century BCE)" City University of New York. Retrieved 11 Jan 2009
  20. ^ Huang 1997.
  21. ^ Creel 1970, p. 59.
  22. ^ Li & Zheng 2001, p. 116.
  23. ^ Lau 1970, p. 128.
  24. ^ Li & Zheng 2001, p. 381.
  25. ^ Li and Zheng 2001, 387–389
  26. ^ Li & Zheng 2001, p. 393–401.
  27. ^ a b Li & Zheng 2001, p. 401.
  28. ^ Li & Zheng 2001, pp. 456-458.
  29. ^ a b Li & Zheng 2001.
  30. ^ a b Li & Zheng 2001, p. 679-687.
  31. ^ Benite 2005, p. 1-3.
  32. ^ "孔子之作春秋也,诸侯用夷礼,则夷之;进于中国,则中国之."
  33. ^ Gernet 1996, pp. 294–295.
  34. ^ Li & Zheng 2001, p. 778–788.
  35. ^ Li & Zheng 2001, pp. 823–826.
  36. ^ Li & Zheng 2001, p. 920-921.
  37. ^ Li & Zheng 2001, p. 920-927.
  38. ^ Li & Zheng 2001, p. 920–924.
  39. ^ Zhou Songfang, "Lun Liu Ji de Yimin Xintai" (On Liu Ji's Mentality as a Dweller of Subjugated Empire) in Xueshu Yanjiu no.4 (2005), 112–117.
  40. ^ Tsai 1996, p. 16.
  41. ^ Schein 2000, p. 61.
  42. ^ Mote, Twitchett & King 1988, p. 380.
  43. ^ Bowman 2000, p. 43.
  44. ^ Li & Zheng 2001, p. 1018–1032.
  45. ^ & Liu 2004, p. 84. Lü's original sentence was "Hua yi zhi fen da yu jun chen zhi yi" 華夷之分,大於君臣之義.
  46. ^ Fairbank 1998, pp. 146–149.
  47. ^ Dikötter 1994, p. 420.
  48. ^ Li Bo and Zheng Yin (2001)
  49. ^ "Khubilai Khan and Yuan Dynasty (AD 1261–1368)" republicanchina.org. Retrieved 11Jan 2009
  50. ^ "Ch 12 - Japanese Invasions". Archived from the original on April 3, 2009. Retrieved January 12, 2009. 
  51. ^ Haboush 2005, pp. 131–32.
  52. ^ "In Chinese:朝鲜皇室的"反清复明"计划:为报援朝抗日之恩". ido.3mt.com.cn. 2009-01-24. Retrieved 2009-01-25. 
  53. ^ Kerr 1957.
  54. ^ Trần 2013, p. 25.
  55. ^ Alexander Woodside (1971). Vietnam and the Chinese Model: A Comparative Study of Vietnamese and Chinese Government in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century. Harvard Univ Asia Center. pp. 18–. ISBN 978-0-674-93721-5. 
  56. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20040617071243/http://kyotoreview.cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp/issue/issue4/article_353.html
  57. ^ Norman G. Owen (2005). The Emergence Of Modern Southeast Asia: A New History. University of Hawaii Press. pp. 115–. ISBN 978-0-8248-2890-5. 
  58. ^ Choi Byung Wook (2004). Southern Vietnam Under the Reign of Minh Mạng (1820-1841): Central Policies and Local Response. SEAP Publications. pp. 137–. ISBN 978-0-87727-138-3. 
  59. ^ Choi Byung Wook (2004). Southern Vietnam Under the Reign of Minh Mạng (1820-1841): Central Policies and Local Response. SEAP Publications. pp. 34–. ISBN 978-0-87727-138-3. 
  60. ^ Choi Byung Wook (2004). Southern Vietnam Under the Reign of Minh Mạng (1820-1841): Central Policies and Local Response. SEAP Publications. pp. 136–. ISBN 978-0-87727-138-3. 
  61. ^ A. Dirk Moses (1 January 2008). Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History. Berghahn Books. pp. 209–. ISBN 978-1-84545-452-4. Archived from the original on 2008. 
  62. ^ Randall Peerenboom; Carole J. Petersen; Albert H.Y. Chen (27 September 2006). Human Rights in Asia: A Comparative Legal Study of Twelve Asian Jurisdictions, France and the USA. Routledge. pp. 474–. ISBN 978-1-134-23881-1. 
  63. ^ Alexander Woodside (1971). Vietnam and the Chinese Model: A Comparative Study of Vietnamese and Chinese Government in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century. Harvard Univ Asia Center. p. 134. ISBN 978-0-674-93721-5. 
  64. ^ A. Terry Rambo (2005). Searching for Vietnam: Selected Writings on Vietnamese Culture and Society. Kyoto University Press. p. 64. ISBN 978-1-920901-05-9. 
  65. ^ Anthony Reid (2 June 2015). A History of Southeast Asia: Critical Crossroads. John Wiley & Sons. p. 285. ISBN 978-0-631-17961-0. 
  66. ^ Vietnam. Michelin Travel Publications. 2002. p. 200. 
  67. ^ Gary Yia Lee; Nicholas Tapp (16 September 2010). Culture and Customs of the Hmong. ABC-CLIO. p. 138. ISBN 978-0-313-34527-2. 

References[edit]

Further reading[edit]