Do you agree that the Manchu and Qing emperors were the orthodox Chinese people?

The Yuan and Qing Dynasties were basically foreign invasions. The Han people suffered numerous casualties and never had any status. The Mongols and the Manchus had class advantages. Of course, the Mongols were even more exaggerated than the Manchus. The status of the Han people lower. But there is no need to say more about the hair-cutting order and the three massacres in Jiading on the 10th in Yangzhou. Could it be that if Jin destroyed Song, Jin would also be part of Chinese civilization? Why do people nowadays have such a big difference between Yuan and Qing?

Because Outer Mongolia became independent and because of the influence of modern nationalism. The traditional Taoist history concept agrees with it, but the national history concept from the West does not agree with it.

The Manchus are a native ethnic group in China. Except for immigrants, they are almost all in the mainland. The Qing Dynasty was relatively thorough in its sinicization. The Manchu nobles in the middle and late periods were basically good at calligraphy, and their thinking was no different from that of the Han people. The Yuan Dynasty always rejected Sinicization. So they were driven away within a hundred years.

If Outer Mongolia is not independent, the situation will be similar. Manchuria and Mongolia are all in China, and their people are mainly in China, so they are all Chinese, and there is no need to argue that the Yuan and Qing Dynasties are not Chinese. Outer Mongolia finally became independent. Under the nationalist view of history, they cut off from Chinese history.

This historical event made it very difficult for the domestic government to shape the Chinese historical outlook. Since there is a country called Mongolia, even if there are twice as many Mongolians in the country as in Outer Mongolia, it is difficult to ignore the national and civilizational attributes of the Yuan Dynasty. Together with this, the history of the Qing Dynasty was also questioned.

There will be many contradictions when using the modern national view of history to explain China’s feudal orthodox view of history. After all, nationalism was born in Western Europe in the 18th century, developed in the 19th century, and only began to have a profound impact on China in the 20th century.

The survivors of the Yuan Dynasty did not serve in the Ming Dynasty, which is difficult to understand under the nationalist view of history, but the Chinese Taoist view at that time praised them. Zhu Yuanzhang used the Taoist view of history to explain Yuan's gain and loss of the world to the Ming Dynasty: The king of Song lost power and the benefactor was unkind, so nature chose the king of Yuan... He took care of Zhongxia... and his heirs were found to be unruly, so heaven changed the fate of Yuan. Pay it to me. ?

China has always been a civilized country, not a nation-state, so we have the "Little China" idea of ??Japan, North Korea, and Vietnam. Of course, with the rise of the West in modern times, nationalism played a big role because it was a powerful tool to gather strength, and it also profoundly affected China in modern times.

Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam are now pure nation-states. Only China, as the successor of China, is trying to build a national and cultural identity for the entire nation, but it seems to have failed so far. State nationalism, based on national identity, is giving way to unitary nationalism.

Whether it is the exclusion caused by big nationalism or the separation caused by small nationalism, they are hurting the country.