De-Sinicization
De-Sinicization | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chinese name | ||||||
Hanyu Pinyin | qù Zhōngguó huà | |||||
Literal meaning | De-Chinese-ization | |||||
| ||||||
Korean name | ||||||
Hangul | 탈중국화 | |||||
Hanja | 脫中國化 | |||||
Literal meaning | De-Chinese-ization | |||||
|
De-Sinicization (de + Sinicization) is a process of eliminating or reducing
The term has its roots in attempts by ethnic Han to acculturate themselves and adopt non-Han customs, although it is now most frequently used to describe attempts by foreign countries to resist or undo over-reaching Chinese influence[citation needed].
In
Historical
Han dynasty General Li Ling defected to the Xiongnu and married a daughter of the Xiongnu Chanyu and acculturated to Xiongnu customs.
People of mixed ancestry or desinicized Han Chinese who adopted steppe people's culture and way of life existed in the sixth and seventh centuries A.D., and some even served in the Sui and Tang dynasties' military.[1]
Xianbei last names were adopted by Han Chinese as was Xianbei culture, militarism and clothing.[2] The Xianbei language was learned by several Han in the northern dynasties.[3] Xianbei surnames were assigned to Han troops and officers in the Northern Zhou.[4][5] Gao Huan and Feng Ba were Han rulers who adopted Xianbei culture. Feng Ba adopted a Xianbei name, Qizhifa 乞直伐.
All ethnicities who were of the literati were possibly called Haner[
Xianbeification happened to some sections of the Liu and Sima Han Chinese families.[9]
The language of the Xianbei was taught to a Han by his father who was an official.[10][11][12]
Tujue culture and language was practiced and spoken by Tang Prince Li Chengqian.[13][14][15] Meanwhile, several other acts of Li Chengqian, especially homosexuality, were also drawing Emperor Taizong's ire.[16][17][18][19] The mixed blood northwestern families were looked down upon by the pure blood Chinese aristocratic families.[20]
Liao dynasty
The Khitan Liao dynasty arranged for women from the Khitan royal consort Xiao clan to marry members of the Han Chinese Han (韓) clan, which originated in Jizhou (冀州) before being abducted by the Khitan and becoming part of the Han Chinese elite of the Liao and adopting Khitan culture.[21][22][23]
The Han Chinese Geng family intermarried with the Khitan and the Han (韓) clan provided two of their women as wives to Geng Yanyi and the second one was the mother of Geng Zhixin.[24] Empress Rende's sister, a member of the Xiao clan, was the mother of Han Chinese General Geng Yanyi.[25]
Han Durang (Yelu Longyun) was the father of Queen dowager of State Chen, who was the wife of General Geng Yanyi and buried with him in his tomb in Zhaoyang in Liaoning.[26] His wife was also known as "Madame Han".[27] The Geng's tomb is located in Liaoning at Guyingzi in Chaoying.[28][29]
Han clothing and Han culture was practiced by Han women who were seen as Han culture guardians in contrast to Han men who wore Khitan clothing and practiced Khitan culture.[30][31][32]
Ming dynasty
The early
A
The
The
Equestrianism and archery were favored activities of Zhu Di (the Yongle Emperor).[54]
Archery and equestrianism were frequent pastimes by the Zhengde Emperor.[55] He practiced archery and horseriding with eunuchs.[56] Tibetan Buddhist monks, Muslim women and musicians were obtained and provided to Zhengde by his guard Ch'ien Ning, who acquainted him with the ambidextrous archer and military officer Chiang Pin.[57]
Qing dynasty
This section may be too long and excessively detailed. (October 2018) |
Some Han Chinese during the Ming dynasty also joined the Manchu Eight banners and became "Manchufied". The Manchu people founded the Qing dynasty.
The Han Chinese banners were known as the "Nikan" Banners, made out of a massive number of Chinese POWs and defectors.
Manchu bannermen and Han bannermen were not categorized according to blood or ancestry or genealogy; they were categorized by their language, culture, behavior, identification and way of life. Many Chinese bannermen (Hanjun, or Han Bannermen) were descended from Sinicized Jurchen who spoke Chinese and served the Ming, while some ethnic Manchu Bannermen (Baqi Manzhou) were of ethnic Han origins who had defected to the Jurchens, assimilated into Jurchen language and culture and lived among them in Jilin before 1618.
The Qing regarded Chinese Bannermen (Hanjun, or Han Bannermen) and the non Bannerman Han civilian general population (Han min, Han ren, minren) as separate. People were grouped into Manchu Banners and Chinese Banners (Hanjun, or Han Bannermen) not based on their ancestry, race or blood, but based on their culture and the language they spoke. Ethic Manchu banners included Han who deserted the Ming, had moved to Nurgan (Jilin) as transfrontiersmen before 1618, assimilated with the Jurchen, practiced Jurchen culture, and spoke Jurchen, while Chinese banners (Hanjun, or Han Bannermen) included descendants of sinicized Jurchen who had moved to Liaodong, adopted Han culture and surname, swore loyalty to the Ming, and spoke Chinese. Nurhaci conquered Liaodong in 1618 and created the aforementioned Chinese banners.
Before 1618, some Han actively defected to the Jurchen in Nurgan by crossing the frontier into Jurchens' territory, and scholars called these people "trans-frontiersmen." These Han then adopted Jurchen identity and later became part of Manchu Banners. In comparison, some Han in Liaodong only defected after Qing's conquest, and scholars called these people "frontiersmen." This was because Liaodong was the frontier of Ming's territory, and these people never actively tried to cross the border. After the conquest, Qing put them into Chinese Banners (Hanjun, or Han Bannermen.)
Han Chinese defectors who fled from the Ming joined the Jurchens in Nurgan before 1618 were placed into Manchu Banners and regarded as Manchu, but the Ming residents of Liaodong who were incorporated into the Eight Banners after the conquest of Liaodong from the Ming from 1618 to 1643 were placed into the separate Chinese Banners (Chinese: Hanjun, Manchu: Nikan cooha or Ujen cooha), and many of these Chinese Bannermen (Hanjun, or Han Bannermen) from Liaodong had Jurchen ancestry and were not classified as Manchu by the Qing.[60] Nurhaci's Jianzhou Jurchen Khanate used geography, culture, language, occupation and, lifestyle to classify people as Jurchen or Nikan. Jurchen were those who lived Jurchen lifestyle, used the Jurchen language, and inhabited the original territory. Nurhaci considered those who did the opposite as Nikan (Han Chinese.) Some of these Nikan were of Korean or Jurchen ancestry but spoke Chinese and inhabited in the villages and towns of the newly conquered territory.[60]
People from both sides often moved over the cultural and territorial division between the Ming Liaodong and Jurchen Nurgan; Han Chinese soldiers and peasants moved into Nurgan while Jurchen mercenaries and merchants moved to Liaodong, with some lineages ended up being dispersed on both sides, and the Jurchen viewed people as Nikan depending on whether they acted like Han Chinese or Jurchens. People from the same lineage, like the Sinicized Jurchen Tong lineage of Fushun in Liaodong, served both Ming and the Qing. Some, like Tong Bunian, stayed as diehard Ming loyalists, while others faithfully served the Qing after Qing's conquest of Liaodong. Qing enrolled the Tongs in the Han Plain Blue Banner. Eventually, Emperor Kangxi transferred some members of the Tong lineage, like Tong Guogang and a few of his close relatives, to the Manchu Bordered Yellow Banner because the Tongs requested the transfer.[61][62][63][64]
Tong Guogang said in his application of transferring to a Manchu Banner that the Tongs were of Jurchen origin. However, the authority only transferred Tong Guogang's immediate family and company to the Manchu while leaving other Tong companies as Chinese. It was Qing's policy to transfer every closely related in-law of the emperor into a Manchu Banner, even if they were from another ethnicity. This was the most probable reason why Kangxi accepted Tong's application, despite Tong's insistence of his Jurchen origin.[65] At the beginning of its reign, the Qing was flexible and did whatever was political expedient at the time to determine people's ethnicity. Examples were Tong's transfer from a Han to a Manchu Banner and the assimilation of Han Chinese.[65]
The geographical, political, and cultural division was between the Ming Liaodong and the Jurchen-dominated Nurgan, which traded and interacted with Liaodong through Fushun.[60]
Nurhaci and Hongtaiji both viewed ethnic identity as determined by culture, language, and attitude but not by ancestry (genealogy.) People could change their identities and be transferred from one ethnic banner to another. The Qing associated Mongols with the Mongolian language, nomadism, and horse related activities, Manchus with the Manchu language and foremost being part of the Banners, and Han Chinese with their residence in Liaodong, the Chinese language, agriculture, and commerce.[59] When determining Manchu and Han identities, the Qing disregarded biological determinants and ancestry. Indeed, culture was the primary factor in differentiating between Manchu and Han, and occasionally the Qing blurred or altered people's identities.[66] Classification of peoples was not the motive behind the creation of separate Manchu, Mongol, and Han Banners. People's membership in the different banners primarily depended on whether they spoke Manchu, Mongolian, or Chinese.[67] It has been suggested that the Chinese Bannermen (Hanjun, or Han Bannermen) themselves were not very familiar with the exact meaning of "Hanjun", as the Qing changed the definition of what it meant to be a Manchu or a Han Bannerman.[67]
The Manchu official Duanfang had Han Chinese ancestors originating from Zhejiang- towards the end of the Ming, they had defected to the Qing and moved to southern Manchuria from their original home in Zhejiang province, they changed their surname to Tohoro from Tao to make it sound Manchu and registered it in the Manchu Plain White Banner.[68][69] Since the Manchus were willing to accept assimilated strangers, Han Chinese who defected to the Jurchens or were captured by them had integrated well into Manchu society.[70] These Han Chinese transfrontiersman from Liaodong embraced Manchu customs and changed their names into Manchu to the point where[70] they identified as Manchu rather than Chinese and resembles Manchus in their speech, behavior, and looks.[70] It is hard for historians to tell whether a Manchu was originally a Han transfrontiersman since they no longer used Chinese names or regarded themselves as Han Chinese, Frederic Wakeman suggested that is evidence that the Manchu Dahai's ancestors were Han Chinese transfrontiersman.[70] The Jurchen headman of Turun-hoton and arch-enemy of Nurhaci, Nikan Wailan, was also suggested to be a Han transfrontiersman by Wakeman, since his name literally meant "Chinese official".[60]
The Manchu word for Han, "Nikan" was used to describe people who lived like Han Chinese and not their actual ethnic origin, the Han Bannermen (Hanjun) was not an ethnic category and the Han Banners included people of non-Han Chinese blood.[62] When Liaodong was invaded in 1619 by Nurhaci, it became imperative for the Jurchens to secure the loyalty of the Han (Nikan) in Liaodong to their cause, by treating them equally as Jurchens were treated and even seizing Jurchen properties, grains, wealth, possessions and homes to grant them to Han, and having the aristocracy expand to include Han families in order to get Han to defect to Nurhaci's side.[60]
Some Han Bannermen and their lineages became successful members of the Qing nobility and their descendants continued to be awarded noble titles, like that of Li Yongfang who was ennobled by Nurhaci as third class viscount and enrolled in the Plain Blue Chinese Banner (Hanjun, or Han Banner), and his descendants continued to be nobles to the final years of Qianlong's rule and were ennobled with even greater titles.[62] The Manchus gave extensive titles and honors and marriage to Aisin Gioro women to pre-1644 Han defectors, like the marriage of Nurhaci's granddaughter to Li Yongfang and his sons registered in the Chinese Plain Blue banner (Hanjun, or Han Banner), and the title granted to the son of a Ming defector, Sun Sike (Sun Ssu-k'o) in the Chinese Plain White Banner, (Hanjun, or Han Banner) and the marriage of one of Kangxi's daughters to his son.[64]
At the beginning of the Qing, originally the sharpest distinction was drawn by Qing policy to emphasize difference between Han civilians and all Bannermen, and not between Chinese Bannermen (Hanjun, or Han Bannermen) and Manchu Bannermen. The Manchus used Nikan to describe Ming subjects in Liaodong who lived a Chinese lifestyle like sinicized Jurchens, Mongols, and Koreans, and not as a racial term for ethnic Han Chinese. A person only had to be originally a Ming subject and not ethnic Chinese to get categorized as a Han bannerman so people of Jurchen origin ended up in Mongol and Chinese Banners.[64] Nurhaci used culture to categorize people and allowed Han transfrontiersmen to identify as Manchu after assimilating, and ethnicity was regarded as flexible when Han Chinese and Mongols families were moved by Kangxi to Manchu Banners from their original Mongol and Chinese Banners (Hanjun, or Han Banners) .[64]
Li Yongfang's rewards for surrendering Fushun to the Jurchens and defecting included promotion in rank, Nurhaci's granddaughter as a wife, battling along with Nurhaci and induction into the Jin aristocracy as a Chinese frontiersman, which was different from how Nurhaci handled both the Han transfrontiersmen who assimilated into Manchu identity and captured Han bondservants.[70] The Chinese frontiersman were inducted into the Han Banners.[69] Nurhaci offered to reward Li Yongfang with promotion and special treatment if he surrendered Fushun reminding him of the grim fate that would await him and Fushun's residents if they continued to resist.[71] Freeholder status was given to Li Yongfang's 1,000 troops after his surrender, and the later Chinese Bannermen (Hanjun, or Han Bannermen) Bao Chengxian and Shi Tingzhu also experience good fortune in Qing service after their surrenders in 1622 at Guangning.[65]
Nurhaci used semi-literate interlocutors of Han (Nikan) origin to translate between different languages and trusted them a lot, developing close and friendly personal relations with some of them like Kanggūri and Fanggina. The Han Chinese Gong Zhenglu (Gong Zhengliu) who was abducted in the 1580s by the Jurchens from Liaodong with tens of thousands of others, originally came from Shaoxing in Zhejiang became a close confidant of Nurhaci and tutoring his sons, adopting the Manchu name Onoi, and being showered with wives, slaves, and a house by Nurhaci.[60]
The Manchu leader
The Manchus also lured Han Chinese Generals into defecting and joining the Banners by marrying them to women from the Imperial
The Han who classified in different ways had come under Manchu rule in three different eras, before 1618 the Han "transfrontiersmen" who threw in their lot with Nurhaci were effectively only Han Chinese by ancestry and blood since they practiced Jurchen culture and became part of Manchu companies (Niru) within Manchu Banners, while from 1618 to 1622 the Han captured in Liaodong and Liaoxi became either bondservants to Manchu Banners or Han Bannermen, and then finally the Han who deserted the Ming during Hong Taiji's rule to join the Manchu, and these were first placed into separate all Han companies (Niru) attached to Manchu Banners, and then when in 1642 the Manchu Banners ejected all their Han companies they were placed into separate Chinese Banners (Hanjun, or Han Banners) since they were the mostly not assimilated to Jurchen culture.[77]
At Guangning, Shi Tingzhu, a Ming soldier of Jurchen descent but who practiced Chinese culture, had surrendered to Nurhaci's Later Jin in 1622 along with Bao Chengxian and they were eventually placed into Chinese Banners (Hanjun, or Han Banners), after Bao suggested creating separate Chinese Banners (Hanjun, or Han Banners). Neither were all Han Chinese in the Eight Banners part of the Chinese Banners (Hanjun, or Han Banners), nor was the Chinese Banners (Hanjun, or Han Banners) made out of only Han Chinese, Han Banner membership did not automatically mean they were actual Han Chinese.[77]
The Jurchens under Nurhaci had classified people as Han Chinese (Nikan) according to whether they were former Ming subjects, behaved like Han Chinese, had a Chinese lifestyle, spoke Chinese language, dressed like Han Chinese, and had Han Chinese names, and all Jurchens who had moved to Ming China adopted Chinese surnames.[77] Chinese Bannermen (Hanjun, or Han Bannermen) rose to many powerful positions and prominence under Shunzhi, these Chinese Bannermen (Hanjun, or Han Bannermen) were descendants of Han defectors in Liaodong who joined Nurhaci and Hong Taiji, in the third or second generation.[70] They "were barely distinguishable from Manchu nobility." Geng Zhongming, a Han bannerman, was awarded the title of Prince Jingnan, and his son Geng Jingmao managed to have both his sons Geng Jingzhong and Geng Zhaozhong become court attendants under Shunzhi and married Aisin Gioro women, with Haoge's (a son of Hong Taiji) daughter marrying Geng Jingzhong and Prince Abatai's granddaughter marrying Geng Zhaozhong.[70]
The mistaken views applied to Chinese Bannermen (Hanjun, or Han Bannermen) about race and ethnicity missed the fact that they were actually a "cultural group" since a person could be a Chinese Bannermen (Hanjun, or Han Bannermen) without having to be an actual Han Chinese.[78] It was Qianlong who redefined the identity of Han Bannermen by saying that they were to be regarded as of having the same culture and being of the same ancestral extraction as Han civilians, this replaced the earlier opposing ideology and stance used by Nurhaci and Hong Taiji who classified identity according to culture and politics only and not ancestry, but it was Qianlong's view on Chinese Bannermen (Hanjun, or Han Bannermen) identity which influenced the later historians and expunged the earlier Qing stance.[61]
Qianlong also promulgated an entirely new view of the Han Bannermen different from his grandfather Kangxi, coming up with the abstract theory that loyalty in itself was what was regarded as the most important, so Qianlong viewed those Han Bannermen who had defected from the Ming to the Qing as traitors and compiled an unfavorable biography of the prominent Chinese Bannermen (Hanjun, or Han Bannermen) who had defected to the Qing, while at the same time Qianlong had compiled a biography to glorify Ming loyalists who were martyred in battle against the Qing called "Record of Those Martyred for Their Dynasty and Sacrificed for Purity".[60] Some of Qianlong's inclusions and omissions on the list were political in nature, like including Li Yongfang out of Qianlong's dislike for his descendant Li Shiyao and excluding Ma Mingpei out of concern for his son Ma Xiongzhen's image.[60]
From 1618 to 1629, the Han Chinese from eastern Liaodong who joined the Eight Banners were known as "tai nikan", the Han who defected to the Qing at Fushun were known as Fushan Nikan and were considered part of the Tai Nikan. The Tai Nikan were distinguished from the later Han Chinese who joined the banners between 1629-1643 and originated from western Liaodong, Shanxi, Shandong, and Zhili, and were known as "fu xi baitangga".[60] Both groups were part of the Chinese Banners before the Qing crossed over Shanhai pass in 1644, and as such were both distinguished from Han who were incorporated into the Chinese Banners after 1644 when the Qing ruled China. The pre-1644 Chinese Bannermen were known as "old men" 旧人 .[60] A mass transfer into the Manchu banners of every single Fushun Nikan, and specifically chosen tai nikan, Koreans, and Mongols was enacted by the Qianlong Emperor in 1740.[60]
Manchu Bannermen in Beijing were driven into poverty just decades after the conquest, living in slums and falling into debt, with signs of their plight appearing as soon as 1655. They were driven to the point where they had to sell their property to Han Chinese, in violation of the law.[79]
Originally in the early Qing the Qing emperors both took some Han Chinese as concubines and a 1648 decree from Shunzhi allowed Han Chinese men to marry Manchu women from the Banners with the permission of the Board of Revenue if they were registered daughters of officials or commoners or the permission of their banner company captain if they were unregistered commoners, it was only later in the dynasty that these policies were done away with and the Qing enacted new policies in their xiunu system of drafting Banner girls for the Imperial Harem by excluding daughters of Han commoners.[80]
Chinese Bannermen (Hanjun, or Han Bannermen) frequently married Han civilian women and this was permitted by the Qing emperors, however the Qing emperors were distressed to find girls in the Banners as a result of these intermarriages following Han civilian customs in clothing and jewelry when they ended up being drafted for palace service.[80] The Qing formulated policies to remove and shut out daughters of common Chinese Bannermen (Hanjun, or Han Bannermen) from serving in the Imperial palace as maids and consorts, exempting them from the draft, asserting that it was doing it out of concern due to the economic plight of Chinese Bannermen (Hanjun, or Han Bannermen), however, it may have been doing this after the Qing court was alarmed to find girls from Chinese Banners (Hanjun, or Han Banners) following Han Chinese civilian customs like wearing robes with wide sleeves, feet binding, and wearing a single earring, all of which were contrary to Manchu custom, daughters of Manchu and Mongol bannerman still had to submit to the draft where they would be selected to serve in the Imperial palace as maids or potential consorts.[80] Daughters of Han Bannermen were exempt from having to submit themselves to palace service.[78] It was not permitted for daughters of Chinese Banner (Hanjun, or Han Banner) to enter the selection as concubines to the emperor.[78]
The Manchu bannermen typically used their first/personal name to address themselves and not their last name, while Han bannermen used their last name and first in normal Chinese style.[81][82]
A lot of Han Chinese bannermen adopted Manchu names, which may have been motivated by associating with the elite. One Han Chinese bannerman named Cui Zhilu who knew Manchu had changed his name to the Manchu Arsai, and the emperor asked him how he came about his name.[65] Chinese bannermen also adopted Manchu personal naming practices like giving numbers as personal names.[65]
Chinese bannermen (Hanjun, or Han Bannermen) manchufied their last names by adding "giya" at the end.[83] However, some Han Chinese bannermen like Zhao Erfeng, Zhao Erxun and Cao Xueqin did not use Manchu names.[83] A lot of other Han Chinese bannermen used Manchufied names, one Han bannermen with a Manchu name of Deming also had a separate Chinese name, Zhang Deyi.[83]
Within the Manchu banner companies, there were various Han Chinese and Mongol persons dispersed among them, and there were Mongol, Korean, Russian, and Tibetan companies in the Manchu Banners. The Manchu Banners had two main divisions between the higher ranking "Old Manchus" (Fo Manzhou, Fe Manju) made out of the main Jurchen tribes like the Jianzhou whom Nurhaci and Hong Taiji created the Manchu Banners from, and the lower ranking "New Manchus" (Chinese transliteration: 伊車滿洲. 衣車滿洲 Yiche Manzhou; Chinese translation: 新滿洲; Manchu: Ice Manju) made out of other Tungusic and Mongolic tribes like the Daur, (Dawoer), Oroqen (Elunchun), Solun (Suolun), Hezhe, Kiakar (Kuyula), and Xibe (Xibo) from the northeast who were incorporated into the Manchu Banners by Shunzhi and Kangxi after the 1644 Qing invasion of Ming China, in order for them to fight for the Qing against the Russian Empire in the Amur River Basin.[84]
De-Sinicization elsewhere
Hong Kong
Since the British
As a
Language differences also play a major role in separating Hong Kong identity from mainland Chinese identity. While Mandarin is the official variety of Chinese in mainland China, the regionally traditional Cantonese variant has long been used in Hong Kong. The increasing presence of Mandarin-speakers in the territory since 1997, and expectations of mainland Chinese for Hong Kong residents to speak Mandarin, has caused conflicts and defensive measures by citizens to protect Cantonese against the encroachment of Mandarin.[88] Such actions include stigmatizing Mandarin as a language of communism, while Cantonese and English language are perceived as languages of democracy; reflecting the political differences between Hong Kong and China. This political linguistic view has also spread among Overseas Chinese communities, the majority of which are historically Cantonese-speaking.[89]
The lack of
Taiwan
Following the
De-Sinicization occurred most rapidly between 1992 and 2005, according to a survey by the
In 2001, proponents of
De-Sinicization accelerated under the
Concurrently, Chen introduced the
From 2005, Chen's
The name changing issue was a topic in the Republic of China presidential elections in Taiwan in March 2008. Former Taipei mayor
In the run-up to the 2024 Taiwanese general election, Chinese state media accused the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) of undertaking a de-sinicization campaign in the education sector.[98]
Thailand
Vietnam
Following the Fall of Saigon and communist reunification of the Vietnam, most Hoa in the former South Vietnam opted to immigrate to other countries, especially the United States, France and Australia, rather than communist-controlled China. Only ethnic Chinese persecuted by government in northern Vietnam chose to immigrate back to China, especially to Guangxi Province.[103] Overseas Chinese with origins from Vietnam usually interact with both local Chinese and Vietnamese communities. However, the presence of non-Cantonese speaking and/or mainland Chinese-descented communities results in the community identifying itself with the Vietnamese community instead, as in the case with the Chinese community in France.
North Korea
Using Hanja (한자,漢字), or Chinese characters in Korean language, was banned in 1949 in North Korea by Kim Il Sung. Kim banned the use of hanja because he viewed the abolishment of hanja as a symbol of decolonization and Korean nationalism.
South Korea
Kyrgyzstan
The
Indonesia
See also
- China Exodus - Global exodus from Chinese markets
- Cultural Revolution
- Sinocentrism
- Sinicization
- Hong Kong
- Taiwan
References
Citations
- ISBN 978-0-521-49781-7. Retrieved 3 June 2014.
0521497817.
- ISBN 9780984590988.|page= 181
- ISBN 978-0-19-987590-0.
- ISBN 978-0-914584-20-9.
- ISBN 978-0-521-12433-1.
- ISBN 978-90-474-3230-2.
- ISBN 978-90-474-3230-2.
- ^ Journal of Asian History. O. Harrassowitz. 1996. p. 53.
- ^ Journal of Asian History. O. Harrassowitz. 1982. p. 11.
- ISBN 978-0-87587-157-8.
- ISBN 978-0-300-07404-8.
- ISBN 978-89-85567-03-9.
- ^
- "Part II: From Concubine to Empress_海外逸士_新浪博客". blog.sina.com.cn.
- Charles Patrick Fitzgerald (June 1971). Son of heaven: a biography of Li Shih-Min, founder of the Tʻang dynasty. AMS Press. p. 174. ISBN 978-0-404-02404-8.
- C. P. Fitzgerald (1933). Son of Heaven. Cambridge University Press. pp. 174–. ISBN 978-1-107-49508-1.
- Alexander Monro (22 March 2016). The Paper Trail: An Unexpected History of a Revolutionary Invention. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. pp. 153–. ISBN 978-0-307-27166-2.
- X. L. Woo (2008). Empress Wu the Great: Tang Dynasty China. Algora Publishing. pp. 33–. ISBN 978-0-87586-662-8.
- ^
- Nigel Cawthorne (25 September 2007). Daughter of heaven: the true story of the only woman to become Emperor of China. Oneworld. p. 62. ISBN 9781851685301.
- Hing Ming Hung (2013). Li Shi Min, Founding the Tang Dynasty: The Strategies that Made China the Greatest Empire in Asia. Algora Publishing. pp. 178–. ISBN 978-0-87586-980-3.
- Carter Vaughn Findley (11 November 2004). The Turks in World History. Oxford University Press. pp. 57–. ISBN 978-0-19-803939-6.
- Amy McNair (January 2007). Donors of Longmen: Faith, Politics, And Patronage in Medieval Chinese Buddhist Sculpture. University of Hawaii Press. pp. 87–. ISBN 978-0-8248-2994-0.
- Marc S. Abramson (31 December 2011). Ethnic Identity in Tang China. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 34–. ISBN 978-0-8122-0101-7.
- Nigel Cawthorne (25 September 2007). Daughter of heaven: the true story of the only woman to become Emperor of China. Oneworld. p. 62.
- ^
- Lovell (2007) pp. 144–
- Jonathan Tucker (12 March 2015). The Silk Road - China and the Karakorum Highway: A Travel Companion. I.B.Tauris. pp. 76–. ISBN 978-0-85773-933-9.
- Jonathan Tucker (28 February 2015). The Silk Road - China and the Karakorum Highway: A Travel Companion. I.B.Tauris. pp. 76–. ISBN 978-1-78076-356-9.
- Beth E. Notar (2006). Displacing Desire: Travel and Popular Culture in China. University of Hawaii Press. pp. 63–. ISBN 978-0-8248-3071-7.
- Patricia Eichenbaum Karetzky (1 December 1995). Court Art of the Tang. University Press of America. pp. 29–. ISBN 978-0-7618-0201-3.
- ISBN 978-0-230-34411-2.
- ISBN 978-0-521-85558-7.
- ISBN 978-0-300-15404-7.
- ISBN 978-0-8108-6053-7.
- ISBN 978-0-307-47245-8.
- ^ Biran, Michal. "Michal Biran. "Khitan Migrations in Inner Asia," Central Eurasian Studies, 3 (2012), 85-108". academia.edu.
- ^ . 14 April 2014 https://web.archive.org/web/20140414060414/http://cces.snu.ac.kr/article/jces3_4biran.pdf. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 April 2014.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help) - ^ Cha 2005, p. 51. [1][2][3]
- ^ Yang, Shao-yun (2014). "Fan and Han: The Origins and Uses of a Conceptual Dichotomy in Mid-Imperial China, ca. 500-1200". In Fiaschetti, Francesca; Schneider, Julia (eds.). Political Strategies of Identity Building in Non-Han Empires in China. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. p. 22.
- ^ Orient. Maruzen Company. 2004. p. 41.
- ^ Orient. Maruzen Company. 2004. p. 41.
- ISBN 978-88-7439-332-9.
- ^ Jiayao An (1987). Early Chinese Glassware. Millennia. p. 12.
- ^ http://kt82.zhaoxinpeng.com/view/138019.htm[permanent dead link] MARSONE, Pierre (2011). La Steppe et l'Empire : la formation de la dynastie Khitan (Liao). Les Belle Lettres. Retrieved 8 November 2018.
- ISBN 9780824870300.
- S2CID 145295293.
- ISBN 9780824870300.
- ISBN 9780674028234.
Chapter 8
- ^ Slobodnik, Martin (2004). "Martin Slobodník: "The Relations between the Chinese Ming Dynasty and the Tibetan Ruling House of Phag-mo-gru in the Years 1368-1434: Political and Religious Aspects", Asian and African Studies, Vol. 13 (2004), No. 2, pp. 155-171". Asian and African Studies. 13 (2).
p. 166
- ISBN 978-0-312-38696-2.
- ISBN 978-1-135-93562-7.
- ISBN 978-0-521-24332-2.
- ISBN 978-0-521-24332-2.
- ^
- Jay A. Levenson; National Gallery of Art (U.S.) (1991). Circa 1492: Art in the Age of Exploration. Yale University Press. pp. 477–. ISBN 978-0-300-05167-4.
- Bernard O'Kane (15 December 2012). The Civilization of the Islamic World. The Rosen Publishing Group. pp. 207–. ISBN 978-1-4488-8509-1.
- Bonhams Auctioneers: A rare blue and white screen Zhengde six-character mark and of the period
- Oriental Blue and White, London, 1970, p.29.
- Jay A. Levenson; National Gallery of Art (U.S.) (1991). Circa 1492: Art in the Age of Exploration. Yale University Press. pp. 477–.
- ^
- Chiang, Han Hua Jennifer (28 April 2007). "Crossing Culture in the Blue-and-White with Arabic or Persian inscriptions under Emperor Zhengde (r. 1506-21)" (PDF). The University of Hong Kong. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 March 2012.
- Britannica Educational Publishing (2010). The Culture of China. Britannica Educational Publishing. pp. 176–. ISBN 978-1-61530-183-6.
- Kathleen Kuiper (2010). The Culture of China. The Rosen Publishing Group. pp. 176–. ISBN 978-1-61530-140-9.
- Britannica Educational Publishing (1 April 2010). The Culture of China. Britannica Educational Publishing. pp. 176–. ISBN 978-1-61530-183-6.
- Suzanne G. Valenstein (1988). A Handbook of Chinese Ceramics. Metropolitan Museum of Art. pp. 187–. ISBN 978-0-8109-1170-3.
- ^ Naquin (2000) pp. 213–
- ISBN 978-0-231-03801-0.
- ISBN 978-90-04-14844-4.
- ISBN 978-0-19-162435-3.
- ISBN 978-0-19-162435-3.
- ISBN 978-1-4422-0491-1.
- ISBN 978-0-674-04202-5.
- ISBN 978-0-674-01212-7.
- ISBN 9780674028234.
- ^ Teik, Toh Hoong (October 2000). "Shaykh 'Âlam: the Emperor of Early Sixteenth-Century China" (PDF). Sino-Platonic Papers (110).
- ISBN 978-962-209-501-4.
- ISBN 978-0-674-03561-4.
- ISBN 978-3-928463-64-5.
- ISBN 978-0-295-80022-6.
- ISBN 978-0-521-24332-2.
- ISBN 978-0-521-24332-2.
- ISBN 978-0-521-24332-2.
- ^ a b c Kagan (2010) p. 95
- ^ a b Kagan (2010)
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Crossley (1999)
- ^ a b Crossley (1999) pp. 55-56
- ^ a b c Rawski (1998)
- ^ Rowe (2010)
- ^ a b c d Watson & Ebrey (1991)
- ^ a b c d e Elliott (2001)
- ^ Hammond & Stapleton (2008)
- ^ a b Naquin (2000) p. 371
- ISBN 9780295804125– via Google Books.
- ^ a b Taveirne (2004)
- ^ a b c d e f g Wakeman (1985)
- ^ Lovell (2007)
- ^ a b c Spence (1990)
- ^ a b Wakeman (1977) p. 78
- ^ a b c d Walthall (2008) p. 148
- ^ a b Wakeman (1977) p. 79
- ^ Wakeman (1977)
- ^ a b c Crossley, Siu & Sutton (2006)
- ^ a b c Hayter-Menzies (2008)
- ^ "Muramatsu 1972, p. 2" (PDF). hit-u.ac.jp.
- ^ a b c Walthall (2008)
- ISBN 9780295804125– via Google Books.
- ISBN 9780295804125– via Google Books.
- ^ ISBN 9780295804125– via Google Books.
- ISBN 9780295804125– via Google Books.
- ^ Why living in Hong Kong as mainland Chinese is no piece of cake Yang, Joy. South China Morning Post, 21 May 2013
- ^ "HKU POP releases latest survey on Hong Kong people's ethnic identity". hkupop.hku.hk. Archived from the original on 22 December 2014. Retrieved 31 October 2014.
- ^ Hong Kong's Enduring Identity Crisis Veg, Sebastian, The Atlantic, 16 October 2013.
- ^ City University students deny teacher took class in Mandarin Luo, Chris, South China Morning Post, 14 October 2013.
- ^ China, Hong Kong and Cantonese: Dialect dialectric China Daily Mail, 10 July 2014
- ^ Think 228, Not Tiananmen: How Identity Drives the Hong Kong Vien, Thomas, The Diplomat, 22 October 2014.
- ^ Diamond, Larry; Plattner, Marc; Chu, Yun-han; Tien, Hung-mao (1997). Consolidating the Third Wave Democracies: Regional Challenges. JHU Press. p. 293.
[During] extended Japanese colonial rule (1895-1945)... the native elite was subordinated first to a state-orchestrated desinicization campaign and later a Japanization movement that proceeded in earnest during the Pacific war.... the state's [subsequent] effort to establish the supremacy of Chinese identity... through resinicization and Mandarinization programs [occurred] despite many shared ethnic heritages between the native and the newly arrived emigre group.
- ^ Sharma, Anita; Chakrabarti, Sreemati (2010). Taiwan Today. Anthem Press. pp. 21–22.
[T]he people of Taiwan have been enmeshed in a century long struggle with state-sponsored cultural programmes, from 'desinicization' at the early stage of colonial rule, to 'Japanization' at the subsequent stage, and to 'resinicization' under the KMT rule.
- ^ a b c d e f Hao, Zhidong (2010). "De-Sinicization under Lee and Chen and the Role of Intellectuals". Whither Taiwan and Mainland China? National Identity, the State, and Intellectuals. Hong Kong University Press. pp. 49–58.
- ^ Makeham, John (2008). Lost Soul: "Confucianism" in contemporary Chinese academic discourse. Harvard University Asia Center. p. 85.
Many proponents of indigenization in Taiwan regard it quite specifically as a project of De-Sinicization: an attempt to remove the yoke of "Chinese" colonial hegemony so that Taiwan's putative native (bentu) identity can be recognized and further nurtured.
- ^ ":::::Welcome to Taiwan POST:::::". Archived from the original on 10 May 2007. Retrieved 5 January 2011.
- ^ a b Hebert, David; Kertz-Welzel, Alexandra (2012). Patriotism and Nationalism in Music Education. Ashgate Publishing.
- ^ ":::::Welcome to Chunghwa POST:::::". 25 December 2007. Archived from the original on 21 August 2008. Retrieved 5 January 2011.
- ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 28 December 2023.
- ^ Taylor (2007), p. 255
- ^ Marr, White (1988), p. 77-89
- ^ Khanh (1993), p. 31
- ^ Khanh (1993), p. 30
- .
- ^ 杨谷 (16 August 2005). 将汉城改为"首尔"是另一种形式的"去中国化" (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 23 November 2006. Retrieved 15 June 2008.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help)
Sources
- Crossley, Pamela Kyle (1999). A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520928848. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Crossley, Pamela Kyle; Siu, Helen F.; Sutton, Donald S., eds. (2006). Empire at the Margins: Culture, Ethnicity, and Frontier in Early Modern China. Vol. 28 of Studies on China (illustrated ed.). University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520230156. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Elliott, Mark C. (2001). The Manchu Way: The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China (illustrated, reprint ed.). Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0804746847. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Hayter-Menzies, Grant (2008). Imperial Masquerade: The Legend of Princess Der Ling (illustrated ed.). Hong Kong University Press. ISBN 978-9622098817. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Hammond, Kenneth James; Stapleton, Kristin Eileen, eds. (2008). The Human Tradition in Modern China. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0742554665. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Kagan, Kimberly, ed. (2010). The Imperial Moment. Paul Bushkovitch, Nicholas Canny, Pamela Kyle Crossley, Arthur Eckstein, Frank Ninkovich, Loren J. Samons, Pamela Kyle Crossley. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674054097. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Lovell, Julia (2007). The Great Wall: China Against the World, 1000 BC - Ad 2000. Grove Press. ISBN 978-1555848323. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Muramatsu, Yuji (1972). "Banner Estates and Banner Lands in 18th Century China -Evidence from Two New Sources" (PDF). Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics. 12 (2): 1–13. S2CID 153197475. Retrieved 3 May 2014.
- Naquin, Susan (2000). Peking: Temples and City Life, 1400-1900. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520923454. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Rawski, Evelyn S. (1998). The Last Emperors: A Social History of Qing Imperial Institutions. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520926790. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Rhoads, Edward J. M. (2011). Manchus and Han: Ethnic Relations and Political Power in Late Qing and Early Republican China, 1861–1928. University of Washington Press. ISBN 978-0295804125. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Rowe, William T. (2010). China's Last Empire: The Great Qing. Vol. 6 of History of Imperial China (illustrated ed.). Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674054554. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- ISBN 978-0-393-30780-1.
- Taveirne, Patrick (2004). Han-Mongol Encounters and Missionary Endeavors: A History of Scheut in Ordos (Hetao) 1874-1911. Vol. 15 of Louvain Chinese studies (illustrated ed.). Leuven University Press. ISBN 978-9058673657. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Wakeman, Frederic (1977). Fall of Imperial China (illustrated, reprint ed.). Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0029336809. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Wakeman, Frederic (1985). The Great Enterprise: The Manchu Reconstruction of Imperial Order in Seventeenth-century China. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520048041. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Walthall, Anne, ed. (2008). Servants of the Dynasty: Palace Women in World History. Vol. 7 of The California world history library (illustrated ed.). University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520254442. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- WANG, SHUO (Fall 2004). "The Selection of Women for the Qing Imperial Harem" (PDF). The Chinese Historical Review. 11 (2): 212–222. S2CID 151328254. Archived from the original(PDF) on 11 January 2014. Retrieved 30 January 2014.
- Watson, Rubie Sharon; Ebrey, Patricia Buckley, eds. (1991). Marriage and Inequality in Chinese Society. Vol. 12 of Studies on China. Joint Committee on Chinese Studies (U.S.) (illustrated ed.). University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520071247. Retrieved 10 March 2014.