4 ms·

> > an ethnically integrated China is, in fact, a modern invention linked to the rise of nationalism at the end of the nineteenth century. > This idea is a ver

by hker 5y ago

> > an ethnically integrated China is, in fact, a modern invention linked to the rise of nationalism at the end of the nineteenth century. > This idea is a very sensible one in the context of China being forced to open up to the world. The narrative of “China being forced to open up to the world” is also a social construct, and in this case a political construct. For examples, Mao Zedong supported the Hunan self-government movement even as late as the 1920’s [1][2], quite some time after the end of the Qing dynasty in 1911. This clearly ran against the convention that China should be politically integrated as it is today. [1]: https://blog.dwnews.com/post-896926.html https://blog.dwnews.com/post-896926.html "毛泽东：我想建湖南共和国全国分为27国" [2]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/652585 https://www.jstor.org/stable/652585 "Mao Tse-tung and the Hunan Self-Government Movement, 1920: An Introduction and Five Translations"

justicezyx 5y ago
Mao was writing those after almost 80 years of forced opening up in Opium war. I don't think your facts supports your claim.
- hker 5y ago
  Mao’s 1920 proposal to split China showed that an ethnically integrated China, or a politically integrated China, was not a very sensible one in the context of China at that time. Mao disproved your claim. And that was my point: viewing certain historical events from a certain perspective is a social and political construct (the nationalism is a modern invention). The facts (Mao’s proposal) are supporting this view point: there could be alternative social constructs (for example, a split China). Mao’s 1920 proposal disagreed with your social construct (that an integrated China was a sensible thing at that time, due to being forced to open to the world).
  - justicezyx 5y ago
    Appreciate your efforts of laying our additional contexts. You led the discussion into a debate of conception or definition of words... I seem no fruitful results from this.
    - hker 5y ago
      Let me reword the article and the discussion to highlight what is happening, this time try to reuse existing terms. 1. Chinese (the official language) is an invention [1]. The article explains its title with the history and development of different language families and dialects in China. 2. The Han race (the identity) is an invention. The united Chinese history (the view point of uninterrupted dynastic civilization) is an invention [2]. > ... the Han race was really only constructed in the last 100 years, along with the national mythos of several millennia of uninterrupted dynastic civilization. 3. An ethnically integrated China (the identity and political system) is an invention. The Chinese nationalism (the ideology) is an invention. > an ethnically integrated China is, in fact, a modern invention linked to the rise of nationalism at the end of the nineteenth century. 4. The invention of an integrated China is sensible, because history [3]. > This idea is a very sensible one in the context of China being forced to open up to the world. 5. The invention of an integrated China is NOT sensible, because history [4]. > Mao Zedong supported the Hunan self-government movement even as late as the 1920’s. [1]: https://www.historytoday.com/archive/feature/invention-chinese https://www.historytoday.com/archive/feature/invention-chine... "The Invention of Chinese" [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29529921 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29529921 [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29525040 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29525040 [4]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29525343 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29525343 ===== Clear thinking of different concepts, and understanding what is being discussed, is needed for a fruitful discussion. Calling unfamiliar concepts as “a debate of definition of words”, and not understanding what is being discussed, is not fruitful for discussion. Note that throughout the discussion, we are using “invention”, “construction”, or “convention” as the same concept, and study their consequences to the society, to politics, and to history. Here, we are talking about created languages (Chinese official language), identity (Han), history (national mythos, narratives), ideology (nationalism), and politics (integrated China). This branch of social science, which studies created and accepted concepts, deals with “social constructs” [5]. [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism "Social constructionism"
      - justicezyx 5y ago
        All these statements are wrong. I'll list below. Before going into the details, one has to note the vastness of Chinese sphere has always been at least an order of magnitude bigger than any other national systems on earth. So it's often that one has no experience in their lifetime to intuitively appreciate the linage and internal logic of the Chinese history and heritage. Applying sweeping statement like "X is an invention", following the premise in the previous paragraph, usually is wrong automatically. Because the invention as a concept in smaller national system is not possible to be comparable to a much larger one. One has to perceive from the larger scope to appreciate the invention in the larger scope. Another thing, social construction is not invention. One has to build on foundation and use materials from history and culture to create some thing new yet deeply rooted in the society for it to be long enduring social construct. Now let's go into the details: > Chinese (the official language) is an invention No. It's built on top of writing system that has a clear linage dated to the tribal time: http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Historiography/oracle.html http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Historiography/oracl... > The Han race (the identity) is an invention No, Han race or group has been used dated at least back to Han dynasty. The concept of "people of hua xia (华夏)” was already a widely used term like in Hua Yi Zhi Bian (华夷之辩) I.e. the method of distinguish the hua xia people with the barbarian. The word Chinese is of course new, as Chinese consider then the center of mandate under haven, there is no sense to distinguish themselves as all others are barbarians. > An ethnically integrated China (the identity and political system) is an invention. The Chinese nationalism (the ideology) is an invention. No, ethnic integration happened volunterily and forcefully numerously over the history. From the early days of "Bavarians entering Hua Xia becomes part of Hua Xia" by Confucius in the spring autumn era. And Zhao WuLing Wang adopting babarian's horse riding and clothing custom https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%83%A1%E6%9C%8D%E9%A8%8E%E5%B0%84 https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%83%A1%E6%9C%8D%E9%A8%8E%... in the waring States era. And Sui dynasty's intermarriage between Xianbei and Han people in the north. This mingling ethnically and culturally have been happening constantly of the Chinese history. > The invention of an integrated China is NOT sensible, because history You supported this with Mao's statement when he was 27 (1893-1920), which himself througly discarded. That automatically price that the historical logic of unified Chinese and integrated China makes a lot of sense. > Clear thinking of different concepts, and understanding what is being discussed, is needed for a fruitful discussion. Sure. But throwing new concetps constantly and without clear context and explanation, is not effective either. > Calling unfamiliar concepts as “a debate of definition of words”, and not understanding what is being discussed, is not fruitful for discussion I think it should be that arguing in novel concepts would make the counterpart feel the discussion becomes a debate of definition of words. For that I think we are talking same thing. > Note that throughout the discussion, we are using “invention”, “construction”, or “convention” as the same concept, and study their consequences to the society, to politics, and to history. No, I do not use invention construction and convention as the same concepts. If you are, then we indeed are in a debate of word definitions. > This branch of social science, which studies created and accepted concepts, deals with “social constructs” [5]. Thanks for the pointer. I'll need to take a look after this post.

by hker 5y ago

justicezyx 5y ago

Mao was writing those after almost 80 years of forced opening up in Opium war. I don't think your facts supports your claim.

hker 5y ago
Mao’s 1920 proposal to split China showed that an ethnically integrated China, or a politically integrated China, was not a very sensible one in the context of China at that time. Mao disproved your claim. And that was my point: viewing certain historical events from a certain perspective is a social and political construct (the nationalism is a modern invention). The facts (Mao’s proposal) are supporting this view point: there could be alternative social constructs (for example, a split China). Mao’s 1920 proposal disagreed with your social construct (that an integrated China was a sensible thing at that time, due to being forced to open to the world).
- justicezyx 5y ago
  Appreciate your efforts of laying our additional contexts. You led the discussion into a debate of conception or definition of words... I seem no fruitful results from this.
  - hker 5y ago
    Let me reword the article and the discussion to highlight what is happening, this time try to reuse existing terms. 1. Chinese (the official language) is an invention [1]. The article explains its title with the history and development of different language families and dialects in China. 2. The Han race (the identity) is an invention. The united Chinese history (the view point of uninterrupted dynastic civilization) is an invention [2]. > ... the Han race was really only constructed in the last 100 years, along with the national mythos of several millennia of uninterrupted dynastic civilization. 3. An ethnically integrated China (the identity and political system) is an invention. The Chinese nationalism (the ideology) is an invention. > an ethnically integrated China is, in fact, a modern invention linked to the rise of nationalism at the end of the nineteenth century. 4. The invention of an integrated China is sensible, because history [3]. > This idea is a very sensible one in the context of China being forced to open up to the world. 5. The invention of an integrated China is NOT sensible, because history [4]. > Mao Zedong supported the Hunan self-government movement even as late as the 1920’s. [1]: https://www.historytoday.com/archive/feature/invention-chinese https://www.historytoday.com/archive/feature/invention-chine... "The Invention of Chinese" [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29529921 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29529921 [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29525040 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29525040 [4]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29525343 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29525343 ===== Clear thinking of different concepts, and understanding what is being discussed, is needed for a fruitful discussion. Calling unfamiliar concepts as “a debate of definition of words”, and not understanding what is being discussed, is not fruitful for discussion. Note that throughout the discussion, we are using “invention”, “construction”, or “convention” as the same concept, and study their consequences to the society, to politics, and to history. Here, we are talking about created languages (Chinese official language), identity (Han), history (national mythos, narratives), ideology (nationalism), and politics (integrated China). This branch of social science, which studies created and accepted concepts, deals with “social constructs” [5]. [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism "Social constructionism"
    - justicezyx 5y ago
      All these statements are wrong. I'll list below. Before going into the details, one has to note the vastness of Chinese sphere has always been at least an order of magnitude bigger than any other national systems on earth. So it's often that one has no experience in their lifetime to intuitively appreciate the linage and internal logic of the Chinese history and heritage. Applying sweeping statement like "X is an invention", following the premise in the previous paragraph, usually is wrong automatically. Because the invention as a concept in smaller national system is not possible to be comparable to a much larger one. One has to perceive from the larger scope to appreciate the invention in the larger scope. Another thing, social construction is not invention. One has to build on foundation and use materials from history and culture to create some thing new yet deeply rooted in the society for it to be long enduring social construct. Now let's go into the details: > Chinese (the official language) is an invention No. It's built on top of writing system that has a clear linage dated to the tribal time: http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Historiography/oracle.html http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Historiography/oracl... > The Han race (the identity) is an invention No, Han race or group has been used dated at least back to Han dynasty. The concept of "people of hua xia (华夏)” was already a widely used term like in Hua Yi Zhi Bian (华夷之辩) I.e. the method of distinguish the hua xia people with the barbarian. The word Chinese is of course new, as Chinese consider then the center of mandate under haven, there is no sense to distinguish themselves as all others are barbarians. > An ethnically integrated China (the identity and political system) is an invention. The Chinese nationalism (the ideology) is an invention. No, ethnic integration happened volunterily and forcefully numerously over the history. From the early days of "Bavarians entering Hua Xia becomes part of Hua Xia" by Confucius in the spring autumn era. And Zhao WuLing Wang adopting babarian's horse riding and clothing custom https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%83%A1%E6%9C%8D%E9%A8%8E%E5%B0%84 https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%83%A1%E6%9C%8D%E9%A8%8E%... in the waring States era. And Sui dynasty's intermarriage between Xianbei and Han people in the north. This mingling ethnically and culturally have been happening constantly of the Chinese history. > The invention of an integrated China is NOT sensible, because history You supported this with Mao's statement when he was 27 (1893-1920), which himself througly discarded. That automatically price that the historical logic of unified Chinese and integrated China makes a lot of sense. > Clear thinking of different concepts, and understanding what is being discussed, is needed for a fruitful discussion. Sure. But throwing new concetps constantly and without clear context and explanation, is not effective either. > Calling unfamiliar concepts as “a debate of definition of words”, and not understanding what is being discussed, is not fruitful for discussion I think it should be that arguing in novel concepts would make the counterpart feel the discussion becomes a debate of definition of words. For that I think we are talking same thing. > Note that throughout the discussion, we are using “invention”, “construction”, or “convention” as the same concept, and study their consequences to the society, to politics, and to history. No, I do not use invention construction and convention as the same concepts. If you are, then we indeed are in a debate of word definitions. > This branch of social science, which studies created and accepted concepts, deals with “social constructs” [5]. Thanks for the pointer. I'll need to take a look after this post.