The Economist had a similar article [1] about Han chauvinism leading to rejection of the Qing dynasty, and causing quite a headache for the CCP. > In China’s o

The Economist had a similar article [1] about Han chauvinism leading to rejection of the Qing dynasty, and causing quite a headache for the CCP. > In China’s official narrative, the country suffered a “century of humiliation” of foreign invasions, starting with the first opium war in 1840 and ending only with Mao’s rise to power in 1949. But the 1644 view—cheekily expressed by some online as “three centuries of humiliation”—argues that subjugation began with the Qing. According to this school, the Qing were anti-Han interlopers and, making matters worse, feckless in repelling foreign forces. > Dredging up all this history is uncomfortable for the party. The territorial boundaries claimed by modern China—including Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and Taiwan—were brought into the Chinese empire by the Qing, not the Ming. Grievances about the Manchus also cut against the ideal of ethnic harmony advanced by the party. Although much of what forms modern Chinese identity is derived from Han traditions, it is unseemly to talk openly about the dominance of this one ethnic group, which accounts for 90% of the Chinese population. The party looks askance at “Han chauvinism”, believing, with reason, that it may lead to more resentment from non-Han groups. [1]: https://www.economist.com/china/2026/07/20/why-criticism-of-the-qing-dynasty-scares-the-communist-party https://www.economist.com/china/2026/07/20/why-criticism-of-...