In Defense of Sinicization - Revision history

CelticWonder at 19:51, 10 November 2011

2011-11-10T19:51:22Z

CelticWonder at 19:48, 10 November 2011

2011-11-10T19:48:02Z

CelticWonder: Created page with 'In Defense of Sinicization by Ho Ping-ti Ho's thesis: 1. Manchu rulers between 1600 and 1800 made a unique contribution to the creation of the largest multiethnic empire in Chin…'

2011-11-10T19:42:45Z

Created page with 'In Defense of Sinicization by Ho Ping-ti Ho's thesis: 1. Manchu rulers between 1600 and 1800 made a unique contribution to the creation of the largest multiethnic empire in Chin…'

New page

In Defense of Sinicization by Ho Ping-ti

Ho's thesis:
1. Manchu rulers between 1600 and 1800 made a unique contribution to the creation of the largest multiethnic empire in China's history.
2. Population growth during that period was the outcome of more than a century of peace, prosperity, and fiscal reforms that brought an end to two thousand years of government oppression.
3. Manchu court carried out a policy of systematic sinicization with the implementation of the Ch'eng-Chu Neo Confucian orthodoxy as its core.
4. Ch'ing period was one in which traditional economic, political and social achieved a greater degree of inter-regional integration.
5. In the fields of material culture, fine arts, printing, and library resources, the Ch'ing period was one of leisurely fulfillment and enrichment.

Rawski's Distortion of Ho's thesis:

Rawski only considers the third point of the five points presented in Ho's thesis, and badly obscures its meaning. She fails to acknowledge the clear recognition presented in the first five points that Manchu emperors contributed to the growth of China as a consolidated multiethnic empire. The empire consisted of Manchus, Chinese, Mongols, Zunghars, Tibetans, and various aboriginal groups in the mountainous southwestern provinces. The Manchu success in governing China was achieved by drawing up Chinese tradition of policies and institutions. Rawski's arguments posits a false dichotomy between being Manchu and becoming Chinese. She rejects sinicization without putting in its place and explanation for what the Manchus did and said they were doing in ruling most of China.
Rawski defines sinicization as " the thesis that all of the non-Han peoples who have entered the Chinese realm have eventually been assimilated into the Chinese culture--is a twentieth century Han Nationalist interpretation of China's past." Rawski rejects the sinicization thesis and Ho claims that historigraphically Rawski's statement needs qualification because sinicization was not simply a term invented in the twentieth century, but it has been around since the late 1800's.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:51, 10 November 2011
Line 13:		Line 13:
	Rawski defines sinicization as " the thesis that all of the non-Han peoples who have entered the Chinese realm have eventually been assimilated into the Chinese culture--is a twentieth century Han Nationalist interpretation of China's past." Rawski rejects the sinicization thesis and Ho claims that historigraphically Rawski's statement needs qualification because sinicization was not simply a term invented in the twentieth century, but it has been around since the late 1800's.		Rawski defines sinicization as " the thesis that all of the non-Han peoples who have entered the Chinese realm have eventually been assimilated into the Chinese culture--is a twentieth century Han Nationalist interpretation of China's past." Rawski rejects the sinicization thesis and Ho claims that historigraphically Rawski's statement needs qualification because sinicization was not simply a term invented in the twentieth century, but it has been around since the late 1800's.

−	--[[User:CelticWonder\|~~CelticWonder~~]] 19:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)~~Kang Youwei~~	+	--[[User:CelticWonder\|Kang Youwei]] 19:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:48, 10 November 2011
Line 12:		Line 12:
	Rawski only considers the third point of the five points presented in Ho's thesis, and badly obscures its meaning. She fails to acknowledge the clear recognition presented in the first five points that Manchu emperors contributed to the growth of China as a consolidated multiethnic empire. The empire consisted of Manchus, Chinese, Mongols, Zunghars, Tibetans, and various aboriginal groups in the mountainous southwestern provinces. The Manchu success in governing China was achieved by drawing up Chinese tradition of policies and institutions. Rawski's arguments posits a false dichotomy between being Manchu and becoming Chinese. She rejects sinicization without putting in its place and explanation for what the Manchus did and said they were doing in ruling most of China.		Rawski only considers the third point of the five points presented in Ho's thesis, and badly obscures its meaning. She fails to acknowledge the clear recognition presented in the first five points that Manchu emperors contributed to the growth of China as a consolidated multiethnic empire. The empire consisted of Manchus, Chinese, Mongols, Zunghars, Tibetans, and various aboriginal groups in the mountainous southwestern provinces. The Manchu success in governing China was achieved by drawing up Chinese tradition of policies and institutions. Rawski's arguments posits a false dichotomy between being Manchu and becoming Chinese. She rejects sinicization without putting in its place and explanation for what the Manchus did and said they were doing in ruling most of China.
	Rawski defines sinicization as " the thesis that all of the non-Han peoples who have entered the Chinese realm have eventually been assimilated into the Chinese culture--is a twentieth century Han Nationalist interpretation of China's past." Rawski rejects the sinicization thesis and Ho claims that historigraphically Rawski's statement needs qualification because sinicization was not simply a term invented in the twentieth century, but it has been around since the late 1800's.		Rawski defines sinicization as " the thesis that all of the non-Han peoples who have entered the Chinese realm have eventually been assimilated into the Chinese culture--is a twentieth century Han Nationalist interpretation of China's past." Rawski rejects the sinicization thesis and Ho claims that historigraphically Rawski's statement needs qualification because sinicization was not simply a term invented in the twentieth century, but it has been around since the late 1800's.
		+
		+	--[[User:CelticWonder\|CelticWonder]] 19:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Kang Youwei