Download ASIA 110: Introduction to China Instructor: Jennifer Lundin Ritchie

ASIA 110: Introduction to China
Instructor: Jennifer Lundin Ritchie
Tyranny of History Reading Comprehension Discussion
(class answers Sept 10, 2015)
Page 2
“Like any other state, China is a figment of the imagination, of many imaginations. There is no
inherent necessity determining the borders of the present Chinese state. Those borders are more
the product of the relative strengths of empire, Manchu and European, in the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries than of anything else. What we mean when we say China or Chinese, or
the equivalent words in other languages, is rarely closely defined, even when referring to the
present. When talking about thousands of years, the need to be more precise than we usually are
becomes even greater. Is the history of China the history of all and only the people who since the
last glaciation have lived in the territories now ruled or claimed by Peking? Such an approach has
an obvious appeal to officials who want their multinational empire, which holds most of the
territory of the Qing empire in its final form, to be seen as having by inheritance the right to rule all
peoples within its frontiers.”
Your summary: The main idea of this paragraph is to talk about the definition of China and Chinese. It
can be defined in many ways based on its culture, history, borders, and empires in different time
periods.
 something more to think about: Today, people often define “China” based on quite recent foreign
empires, especially the Manchu Empire. Does the fact that the Manchu people once conquered a
certain territory (e.g. Tibet, Xinjiang, Mongolia) mean that it should be considered “Chinese” territory
today?
Page 3
“It is almost impossible for a Han Chinese historian to treat of struggles between Han Chinese and
other ethnic groups without seeing the former as ‘us’ and the others as ‘them’. Few contemporary
Chinese would regard the wars between Han and Xiongnu (who may have been the ancestors of
the Huns) or the Qiang (proto-Tibetans) as Chinese civil conflicts in which ‘we’ were divided.
Endlessly retold stories about how the Song general Yue Fei fought the Jurchen (Jin) and raised the
slogan ‘Return our rivers and mountains’ do not give the impression of an ethnically neutral
struggle rival groups of Chinese. Yet in all three cases the ‘aggressors’ lived wholly or mainly within
the present frontiers of the Chinese empire.”
Your summary: In regards to an objective view of Chinese history, a Han Chinese historian cannot go
about it in an unbiased manner. The way Hans tell history makes us believe that certain struggles were
ethnically neutral, when actually they were wars between different ethnic groups.
 something more to think about: In the past, the Han Chinese fought against these 3 ethnic groups
(Xiongnu, Qiang, and Jurchen) and recorded them in the Chinese histories as “foreigner enemies” (i.e.
not “Han Chinese rebels”). They did not think of these groups as “Chinese” at the time; but today, they
are all called “Chinese.”
ASIA 110: Introduction to China
Instructor: Jennifer Lundin Ritchie
Page 3
“Non-Hans win approval to the extent that they allow themselves to be drawn into the Han
tradition. They could easily be assimilated on paper, even when they were not in reality, by the
homogenizing device of writing their names in Chinese characters and in a Chinese form. It is very
hard to imagine historical writing being published in Chinese that saw Han Chinese expansionism as
genocidal, though discrimination against Hans, when it does succeed, is invariably seen as a bad
thing. When official mainland historians treat of national clashes in which relatively less privileged
non-Hans fight—or fight back—against Hans they nearly always have to show the rebels as
opposing not an ethnic group or a culture but an exploiting class. History as it is written in China
makes it very hard even to consider the possibility that significant numbers of the subjects of
Chinese regimes have refused to think of themselves as Chinese or accept the legitimacy of any
Chinese rule over them and their territory.”
Your summary: Han people believe that the Hans are trying to bring their culture to the non-Hans;
However, the non-Hans believe that the “Han expansion is genocidal” and refuse to accept it.
 something more to think about: Chinese histories are written in such a way that it seems like
everyone is “Han Chinese”… or wishes to be. Conquered non-Hans are accepted into Han society if they
appear to accept Han language and culture, but it doesn’t mean the non-Hans actually accept it or want
to be Han.
 something more to think about: Han Chinese wrote the histories we read today, and they will never
describe themselves as expansionary or genocidal, even though they attacked an conquered many
foreign groups near them. After being conquered, non-Hans were usually poorer and had less power
than the Hans. Therefore, Han Chinese histories could hide the fact that ethnic groups were fighting
back against Han colonialism by saying it was an “economic” problem, or a rebellion by the “lower
class.”
Page 4
“This unified history has also been a powerful force for a kind of ethnic assertion. For most of the last
1,700 years of the dynastic period much or all of the Han Chinese lands were under the rule of nonChinese regimes ruling as tiny minorities over the conquered Hans. For the Han Chinese this was a
humiliation right up to the fall of the Manchu dynasty. The Manchus had constantly reminded the
Han Chinese of their ethnic subjugation by forcing them to wear Manchu instead of Chinese clothes
and making men shave the front of their heads a mark of their slavery. The accumulated shame and
resentment of many centuries gave the revolution of 1911 a violently racist aspect, with massacres
in the Manchu quarters of some cities. Yet, even while haring the Manchus, the revolutionaries
wanted to be their heirs.”
Your summary: For most of the last 1,700 years of the dynastic period the Han Chinese lost their
control of their own country to foreigners. For example, the Manchu dynasty, which is called a
“Chinese” dynasty in history, even though they are not Chinese.
 something more to think about: Why do the Han Chinese today treat the Manchu takeover as a
“Chinese” dynasty, when it was clear at the time of the takeover that the Manchus were not
Chinese, and racism between the groups was severe?
ASIA 110: Introduction to China
Instructor: Jennifer Lundin Ritchie
Page 4
“The attempts of other subject peoples of the Manchus, such as Mongols and Tibetans throughout
the twentieth century, to assert their independence have been as far as possible ignored by official
history and, when not ignored, abused. Conquerors such as the Mongols of the thirteenth century
and the Manchus of the seventeenth have been turned by historical labelling into Chinese dynasties,
so that their empires become Chinese empires and their territories sacred and inviolable. Thus
history as cultural invention has helped to keep today’s Han Chinese in the trap of imperialism, the
imperialism of the mind that finds self-affirmation in the subjection of others.”
Your summary: Han Chinese official history says that all groups in China are Han Chinese and/or
want to be “Chinese.” It ignores or hides the fact that some conquered ethnic groups (e.g. Mongols
and Tibetans) still want their independence. It also ignores or hides the fact that the Manchus and
Mongols were not Chinese, but actually foreign conquerors of the Han Chinese people.
 something more to think about: By hiding these facts, Chinese “history” becomes a made-up
story whose purpose is to keep Hans in power.
Page 4
“Nowhere has the homogenizing effect has been more successful than in creating the impression
that the Han Chinese themselves are a single ethnic group, despite the mutual incomprehensibility
of many of their mother tongues and the ancient hostility between such as the Han Chinese
nationalities as the Cantonese and the Hakkas. While the occupation of Tibet and East Turkestan
has failed to persuade most Tibetans and Uighurs that they are Chinese, so that they can be kept in
the empire only by force, historical myth-making has so far been remarkably effective not just in
inventing a single Han Chinese ethnicity but also—and this is a far bigger triumph – in winning
acceptance for it.
Your Summary: The homogenizing effect in China throughout history has led to the Han Chinese
believing that they are one single ethnicity, when in fact they have many differences, such as their
mother tongue.
 something more to think about: The idea of a single “Chinese” ethnic group is a myth created by
official Han histories, and this myth has been accepted by the Han Chinese public, but not accepted by
many of the minority groups in China (e.g. Tibetans, Xingjiang’s Uighurs, etc), who still fight to be
separate and independent from China.