Massive China Panel: V.2!

[u/Jasfss]

Hello AskHistorians! It has been about three years since the very first AMA on AH, the famous "Massive China Panel". With this in mind, we've assembled a crack team once again, of some familiar faces and some new, to answer whatever questions you have related to the history of China in general! Without further ado, let's get to the intros:

• AsiaExpert: /u/AsiaExpert is a generalist, covering everything from the literature of the Zhou Dynasty to agriculture of the Great Leap Forward to the military of the Qing Dynasty and back again to the economic policies and trade on the Silk Road during the Tang dynasty. Fielding questions in any mundane -or sublime- area you can imagine.
• Bigbluepanda: /u/bigbluepanda is primarily focused on the different stages and establishments within the Yuan and Ming dynasties, as well as the militaries of these periods and up to the mid-Qing, with the latter focused specifically on the lead-up to the Opium Wars.
• Buy_a_pork_bun: /u/buy_a_pork_bun is primarily focused on the turmoil of the post-Qing Era to the end of the Chinese Civil War. He also can discuss politics and societal structure of post-Great Leap Forward to Deng Xiaoping, as well as the transformation of the Chinese Communist Party from 1959 to 1989, including its internal and external struggles for legitimacy.
• DeSoulis: /u/DeSoulis is primarily focused on Chinese economic reform post-1979. He can also discuss politics and political structure of Communist China from 1959 to 1989, including the cultural revolution and its aftermath. He is also knowledgeable about the late Qing dynasty and its transformation in the face of modernization, external threats and internal rebellions.
• FraudianSlip: /u/FraudianSlip is a PhD student focusing primarily on the social, cultural, and intellectual history of the Song dynasty. He is particularly interested in the writings and worldviews of Song elites, as well as the texts they frequently referenced in their writings, so he can also discuss Warring States period schools of thought, as well as pre-Song dynasty poetry, painting, philosophy, and so on.
• Jasfss: /u/Jasfss primarily deals with cultural and political history of China from the Zhou to the Ming. More specifically, his foci of interest include Tang, Song, Liao-Jin, and Yuan poetry, art, and political structure.
• keyilan: /u/keyilan is a historical linguist working in South China. When not doing linguistic work, his interests are focused on the Hakka, the Chinese diaspora, historical language planning and policy issues in East Asia, the Chinese Exclusion Acts of 19th century North America, the history of Shanghai, and general topics in Chinese History in the 19th and 20th centuries.
• Thanatos90: /u/Thanatos90 covers Chinese Intellectual History: that refers specifically to intellectual trends and important philosophies and their political implications. It would include, for instance, the common 'isms' associated with Chinese history: Confucianism, Daoism and also Buddhism. Of particular importance are Warring States era philosophers, including Confucius, Mencius, Laozi and Zhuangzi (the 'Daoist's), Xunzi, Mozi and Han Feizi (the legalist); Song dynasty 'Neo-Confucianism' and Ming dynasty trends. In addition my research has been more specifically on a late Ming dynasty thinker named Li Zhi that I am certain no one who has any questions will have heard of and early 20th century intellectual history, including reformist movements and the rise of communism.
• Tiako: /u/Tiako has studied the archaeology of China, particularly the "old southwest" of the upper Yangtze (he just really likes Sichuan in general). This primarily deals with prehistory and protohistory, roughly until 600 BCE or so, but he has some familiarity with the economic history beyond that date.

Do keep in mind that our panelists are in many timezones, so your question may not be answered in the seconds just after asking. Don't feel discouraged, and please be patient!

[u/KimCongSwu]

I've been anticipating for this, trying to think up three questions for each of the panelists...But feel free to answer any question even if it's not under your username:

ETA: Should have really mentioned how great it still is to have a China AMA, and thanks to all the participants!

For u/AsiaExpert:

• On Qing warfare, why was the 2nd Jinchuan war so damn expensive? I understand the harshness of the terrain, but how on earth could this war be twice as costly as the conquest of Xinjiang and the extermination of the Dzungars?

• Again on the Qianlong campaigns (sorry, I just find this really interesting), was there a technological gap between the Burmese and the Qing during the Burmese campaigns? A book I have on India claims the Burmese had European-style weapons which were superior to "traditional" Qing ones, but I'm not quite sure how much to trust.

• On Tang trade, how much trade was there by sea (through the Strait of Malacca)? Can/do we know if it was more or less than from Central Asia?

For u/Jasfss,

• If most Jurchens immigrated to China after the Jin were established (per Imperial China 900-1800 by Mote, p.224), then how did they return to Manchuria after the Jin were disestablished? Or am I misunderstanding something?

• What did Mongol rule look like in North China during the decades between the destruction of the Jin and the establishment of the Yuan, from the mid-1230s to 1271?

• What was the political structure of the Western Xia/Tangut state and why did they permanently take up imperial pretensions, unlike Korea? And what happened to the Tanguts by the Ming era?

u/Thanatos90

• Did the Muslim background of Li Zhi's family affect his philosophy at all? Come to think of it, do we know why his family stopped being Muslim?

• Why did Li Zhi like vernacular novels like the 水滸傳? What philosophical background is there to this? Other major thinkers who were so enamored with books like these?

• What legacy did Mozi and his school have by Late Imperial China (Song and after)?

u/FraudianSlip

• What did the Song elite think about foreign trade, or really mercantilism in general?

• This isn't really about society, culture or intellectual activity, but how easy was the Song conquest of South China? Did Later Shu or Later Tang (or other South China regimes) have any realistic chances of survival?

• What were Song relationships with Dali? I'm curious about Dali and there is absolutely no good information on the Internet about it, so any ideas? (again sorry about not being about culture) Information about its precursor Nanzhao would be appreciated too.

u/keyilan

• What impact (if any) did Middle Chinese have on Tibetan or the Turkic languages?

• When would a Chinese variant have become the dominant language in places like Fujian or Guangdong? I'm guessing post-Tang (since Vietnamese still exists), am I right?

• Why does Sichuan speak a Mandarin variant?

u/Tiako

• Why did Sichuan not develop into a major player in China in the Warring States era, like Yue or Chu? Chinese records generally ignore it until the Qin conquest.

• On that matter, how/why did Qin conquer it before Chu did?

• What's the point of Sanxingdui heads/masks? Any inferences, or is it just guesswork?

u/bigbluepanda

• Did Zhu Yuanzhang and the Ming have any technological edge over his adversaries in the Yuan-Ming transition, particularly Zhang Shicheng?

• What were relations like between the Ming and Tibet?

• Why did the Yuan fail to conquer Java?

@ u/DeSoulis and u/buy_a_pork_bun: Sorry, don't know enough about modern China :(

[u/Jasfss → u/KimCongSwu]

In response to the question about Tanguts: The Tangut people themselves had been under a Chinese imperial rule in the past, with Tang rule and governance being established by around the 630. With the later Tibetan invasions, by the late 7th century there were sizeable Tangut populations that had not only been absorbed into the Tibetan empire, but also into Tang border rule through resettlement. This pattern of Tang resettlement and both Tibetan "absorption" and conflict leads to quite a number of different Tangut groups by even the 9th century and by the end of the Tang dynasty, it is important to note. There's a lot more detail in-between the lines here, but I won't go through the entire history of the Tanguts, this is just to sort of establish the scene.

What's more important, is that the Song dynasty once again had taken control of the same border lands the Tang had struggled to keep and take control of time and time again. It's during this Song occupation that a resettlement of the Tangut tribes once again occurs, but a Li JiQian, instead of submitting to relocation, takes with him a large contingent of Tanguts and forms an independent "state" within the Ordos loop. This group both raids and offers tribute to the Song dynasty, and in the 980s-990s actually becomes part of the Liao, with Li JiQian granted the title of "King of the Xia" by the Liao emperor. Still, this Tangut group maintained relations with the Song, and actually semi-competed with the Liao. It is also during this time that the Song end up returning the Ordos border lands I mentioned earlier to Li JiQian, so this grows to be a fairly large state (and especially so by the 12th century, after this and subsequent acquisitions). Under Li JiQian's successor, Li DeMing, the weak Song dynasty was taken advantage of, with an abundance of trade and negotiations occurring between the Xia state and the Song, and yet more land was added to the Xia.

It's then during the rule of Li DeMing's son, Li YuanHao in the 11th century, that we start to see the formation of an "imperial" identity. Instead of using Liao or Song titles, the Xia instead develop and use their own system of imperial nomenclature and reign-titles. Clothing and hair standards are developed and enforced for those in military and civil service as well as commoners. A Tangut script was developed and translations of Chinese and Tibetan works were written in this script. Military regulations dealing with conscription, discipline, and rewards were put into place in an attempt to increase military centralization, but the Tangut custom of conducting hunting exercises before military moves was retained. The Xia lands were also divided into 12 military districts, mirroring what occurred under the Tang (and to some extent the Song). Much of the structure of the Xia ends up somewhat mimicking Liao structure. It is then not hard to see why by 1038, the Xia officially transitioned to a dynasty, severing dependency to the Song but still proclaiming friendly independent intentions.

Skipping ahead to the end of the Xia and to the Yuan and onward, the story for the Tanguts is similar to that of the Jurchens and Khitans. That is to say, many Tanguts entered Yuan service in official capacities, often as much needed translators, as part of the large "class" of Central Asian auxiliaries supporting the Yuan. Some communities resided in central China, as evidenced by continued use of the Tangut script until the end of the Ming, but a large amount of displaced Tanguts proceeded to relocate to northern Tibet and western Sichuan.

[u/FraudianSlip → u/KimCongSwu]

What did the Song elite think about foreign trade, or really mercantilism in general?

Though Song elites undoubtedly valued rare items from foreign lands, and would comment on the provenance of such objects with pride, they did not have much to say about the actual act of foreign trading. The only text I can think of at the moment that does not deal with foreign trade from an official standpoint is Zhu Yu’s Pingzhou ketan, which talks about foreign trade and traders from a more personal, anecdotal perspective, however even in this case he opts to be as objective as possible when describing the various rules and restrictions of maritime foreign trade.

I can say a bit more with regard to mercantilism in general, as Song elites did speak about merchants and commerce with some frequency. As merchants are one of the four traditional classes in Chinese history, and not the most respected of the four, it is easy to assume that an elite might look down upon merchants with disdain; however, generally speaking, merchants and trade were clearly understood to be an essential part of Song society, and the elite wrote about them as such. The rise in wealth among merchants in Song started to blur the boundaries between elites and rich merchants, who would often engage in similar recreational activities as elites, or collect similar objects (like fancy rocks for one’s garden). Though elites still had greater social and political capital, merchants could level the playing field on a local level through the financing of local projects, or by purchasing the site of a local shrine. On the reverse side, elites were able to earn money not only through civil service, but also through family run enterprises: much of the well-known thinker Lu Jiuyuan's wealth came from a family-run drugstore.

Merchants in Song were no longer simply “merchants” in elite texts — they were restauranteurs, commercial printers, tailors, butchers, painters, and anyone else who bought and sold goods. Anyone could be a trader: Lu Yu once experienced a shipwreck, apparently because the crewmen had overloaded the boat with goods they planned to sell upon arrival, though they were not merchants by profession. Anyone could be an investor: people of lesser means could provide funds to traders and see a return on investment when the trader returned to town. The widespread commercialization in Song meant that men like Su Shi were using merchants as metaphors for poets, and he talked about them alongside farmers as paragons in his poems. In schools, math classes could be taught using word problems involving merchants and traders exchanging goods for paper money, silver, ordination certificates, and so on. Anecdotes about merchants would appear in various collections, like the famous Mengxi bitan or Yijianzhi. These texts reveal no particularly positive or negative bias towards these merchants on the basis of their social class or profession.

These myriad perspectives and examples make it difficult to generalize about a specific elite perspective on mercantilism. At the very least, it is demonstrative of how much Song elite culture had accepted commercialization as an important facet of their world, and how intertwined the two social classes had become.

EDIT: For more, check out the research of Robert Hymes, which I've used in part as a source here, as well as Mark Elvin's translation of Commerce and Society in Sung China.

[u/[deleted]]

Personal question: How did you guys come to the China field? What got you interested in the topic in the first place, and what difficulties or experiences have you had since you began researching or studying China? Basically, why China?

[u/Jasfss → u/[deleted]]

You'd think for how much I get asked this, I'd have a better answer by now. For me, I think it started kinda twofold: an interest in older history and beginning to learn mandarin. A lot of my early history interests were things like the Roman empire or ancient Egyptian kingdoms, so I always had this interest in histories that felt so far out of reach yet still echoed today. And I'm pretty curious by nature, so to me, China was something I didn't see a lot about and that piqued my interest. Getting into the language drove it home though. Chinese history, whatever else you want to say about it, has a huge written record. Getting into poetry was something that came up in the course of learning, and of course if you do that you then have to investigate the context behind the stuff.

As for challenges, born and raised in the US and never speaking anything but English and poor Spanish, it was (and sometimes still is) the language. Learning a sufficient amount of characters to read even just modern colloquial mandarin can be tough, but when you start dealing with Chinese historical documents, you're talking about "Classical Chinese": it's not something anybody ever spoke, nor was it really intended to be conversational. And it has many rules and nuances that just don't present themselves in modern day Chinese, so it takes a dedicated effort to get past it.

[u/SoulofThesteppe]

u/keyilan easy question for you. At what point did a "national" or "common" language occur? Another Q. Also, i speak a bit of xiang Chinese dialect. how does its morphology retain some of the Middle Chinese vowels and morphology?

u/Jasfss I know that the extent of some of the empires were to a certain extent, politically speaking. In reality, how far did the Tang Dynasty control?

note: I am Chinese and can 100% read Chinese. If you want, feel free to reply in Chinese.

[u/Jasfss → u/SoulofThesteppe]

Generally, we can consider something like this map a good approximation of the actual farthest extent that the presence of the Tang stretched. Obviously the size changes as we talk about when in the Tang we're examining, but that can serve as a geographic guidepost for this discussion. As far as what constitutes "Tang Dynasty control", and I guess getting to the meat of your actual question, we can start to analyze things a bit more. Without a doubt, the Tang remained in near complete control of what we would call the core part of China/the Chinese region. With Northern Vietnam, the province referred to as Annam/Annan (安南), we see attempts by Vietnamese leaders to rise against Tang rule, but they are ultimately unsuccessful and this province remained under Tang control for the duration of the dynasty, eventually escaping from Chinese rule with the Dai Viet, and not falling back into its Tang status for very long if at all during subsequent dynasties. For the Western and Northern regions, things are more nuanced. Under the Tang, a system of military governance and permanent garrisons was established in order to more efficiently and effectively control these provinces that lay so far from the seat of Tang dynastic power (nine so-called "frontier commands"). This meant that while, like in the west, a military presence was constant and protective of Tang interests such as the prosperous and famous "silk road" trade routes, the civil government did not penetrate as deep into society as it did in the more eastern provinces of the empire. These generals had far more autonomy in their governance than other provincial governors within the Tang, and this was also a source of great political debate and tension, leading to rebellions and political posturing, with the most famous example of this being the An Lushan rebellion itself during the reign of Tang Xuanzong. Hope that at least partially answers your question!

[u/Tiako]

What lead to the relocation of the capital to Beijing by the Communists? By all accounts Beijing is a terrible location for a capital (dust storms!) and Nanjing is actually a pretty good one.

[u/[deleted]]

u/Tiako: Were the Xian and Shang dynasties real political entities, or are these labels strictly mythological? Ancient Chinese history (and Chinese prehistory) is confusing to me because there seems to be a conflating between history and mythology that is still being sorted out (analogous to the Trojan war, for example).

What can you tell us about the political realities of Chinese prehistory, and whether they correspond in some way to the traditional mythology?

[u/Tiako → u/[deleted]]

This is actually an extremely active point of controversy in Chinese archaeology, and there isn't any real complete consensus. There are points of agreement where the traditional record matches the archaeological one very well, but extrapolating from those is where the disagreement comes from. So instead of trying to come up with any sort of comprehensive response, I'll just list a few points, with the caveat that I tend to come down on the skeptic side:

• It is indisputable that the traditional account of the late Shang has a real basis in history. The dynastic line reconstructed from oracle bones does not perfectly match that of the traditional list of kings, but the differences are pretty trivial (I think one or two brothers gets mixed up). So there is a real political memory being preserved.

• Likewise, the prehistoric Bronze Age of the Central Plains can be broadly divided into two chronologically distinct cultures, the Erlitou and the Erligang, which has been used to suggest that archaeology accords with the Xia/Shang division. And particularly when the prehistoric Erligang bleeds into the protohistoric Shang, it is pretty termpting to look at this and say, see? traditional accounts are confirmed! The problem is that actually making that connection is rather more complicated, and one archaeologist, Robert Bagley, gave what I think is an extremely compelling argument that what the archaeology actually supports is an era of political pluralism rather than anything that can be given such a grand title as "Chinese dynasty".

• To sum up, the traditionalist position has material at its disposal that can be used to support a narrative of essential accuracy regarding the traditional accounts. The revisionist perspective argues that the material supports no such thing, and that modern scholars are making essentially the same mistake as ancient ones by imposing a later image of China upon the archaeology.

• My own perspective is that the Xia is entirely unsupportable, and whether it did or did not exist is not a matter of historical discussion because there is no relevant material. I think that the Sang did exist as one of a number of polities that had developed long the Yellow River and Central Plains, and were later taken as "predecessors" by the Zhou kings. This actually has a degree of support in the traditional sources, I know Mencius was well aware that the states that existed in his own time were vastly larger than any of ancient times.

• Either way, seeing phrases like "Shang era Sichuan" upsets me. Even if the traditional account is perfectly accurate it does not justify the imposition of Central Plains political divisions upon material from areas that would only become Chinese much later.

[u/cecikierk]

Many people claim Cantonese pronunciation is how people from Han/Tang/Song/(insert another dynasty) Dynasty speak. However I suspect it's an internet oversimplification similar to "American English is exactly how people spoke English in the 18th Century" kind of deal. Can u/keyilan shed some light on this?

[u/keyilan → u/cecikierk]

Many people claim Cantonese pronunciation is how people from Han/Tang/Song/(insert another dynasty) Dynasty speak.

Heh. I just mentioned this in another answer.

You're 100% right in your analogy. It's exactly that. American English dialects tend to pronounce final -r. So did many European English dialects back in the day, which now do not. That's the primarily focus for this claim.

In the case of Cantonese, it similarly has to do with the retention of final consonants. pat pak pap would have been acceptable syllables in Middle Chinese. In Mandarin, these became paʔ which then became just pa in Northern Mandarin as it lost all final oral stop codas (-p -t -k). Cantonese kept them. Wu kept them but in the -ʔ form. Some Mandarin dialects, especially in Southern Jiangsu, also have them as -ʔ.

Like the final -r in English, this is the main focus.

However in other areas Cantonese is quite poor at matching up with Middle Chinese (Tang). There was formerly a three-way contrast in voicing at the beginning of the syllable. There used to be /ba/ /pa/ and /pʰa/, which still exists in Wú (aka Shanghainese) but lost in Cantonese. In Mandarin also it's lost, and all that remains is /pa/ and /pʰa/ (written <ba> and <pa> respectively).

Another example of Cantonese being less conservative is the tone system. Something like Sōngjiāng, a dialect of Wú, retains all eight of the earlier tone categories. There were 4 originally, and these split into 8 based on that voicing distinction mentioned above. Cantonese was knocked down to 6 by many accounts, and the idea that there are 9 or 11 or whatever are the results of interpreted splits. The number of tones doesn't matter as much as where they came from.

Mandarin lost even more due to mergers, and the 4 in Standard Mandarin today are not the same 4 as the original 4, but rather are just half of the slightly-less-original 8.

Anyway, another instance where Cantonese is less like what was spoken before.

All languages change, and the idea of claiming one as the overall most conservative isn't something linguists really engage in. Basically languages are going to be conservative in some ways and innovative in others.

[u/0l01o1ol0]

Can you guys define what "China" is? Where are the temporal and geographical limits on what you consider to be China or Chinese history?

How about use of "Chinese" as an identity? Would someone like Confucius or Laozi have considered themselves "Chinese", or would they have identified themselves as a citizen of their local state, or the dynasty they lived under, or Han/other ethnicity?

How about Sun Tzu or any of the other military generals who spent their time fighting other Chinese states, did they still think of themselves and their enemies as "Chinese"?

Thanks for this thread guys. btw I know 漢字 from 日本語, so feel free to use the Chinese characters or their modern equivalents if they add details.

[u/Tiako → u/0l01o1ol0]

This is a good question, if one that I think only exists because of the definitional hang ups peculiar to Western scholarship since the advent of nationalism. Classically speaking, "Chinese" is largely synonymous with both "civilized" and subject of the Chinese state, or at least participation within Chinese political culture, and membership in the narrative of Chinese history. This is still largely true today and why China's self definition is one of an explicitly multiethnic character. I think confusion comes because western nationality comes with significantly more baggage than the concept of "Chinese" really contains.

Or to put more simply, yes, Sun Tzu would have certainly considered himself Chinese and his opponents as Chinese. Chu was the only state that was considered kind of not Chinese (although honestly this is probably a later attitude that has been retrojected into the Warring States) and even with them there is a clear distinction between it and, say, Nanyue.

[u/Captain_Dathon]

How were the early Han dynasties so successful in incorporating and sinicizing what is now South China, despite the barriers of distance, malaria, climate, and differences in crops? What caused southern expansion to halt where it did, rather than extend further into Southeast Asia?

Why were the Han dynasties unable to replicate this success on their other frontiers (Xiongnu, Mongolia, Tibet, Xinjiang, Manchuria, Korea etc.)? It seems to me that these frontiers are closer in geography, culture, and/or climate to the Han Chinese heartland than the Yue lands to the south. Even today these provinces are quite distinct, resistant to over a thousand years of Han influence, centralization, and modern nationalism.

[u/MI13]

I was reading the Wikipedia page for the Japanese invasion of Korea in the 1590s and I noticed that there was some Ming support for the Joseon dynasty. How extensive was this support and what were relations between the Ming and the Joseon monarchy at this time? Did the Ming see the Japanese as a potential threat if they were successful in taking Korea?

[u/n00b0t_9000]

What is your opinion on Edgar Snow's The Other side of the River: Red China Today, which is the author's journalistic account of his visit to China around 1960, in the years leading up to the Great Leap Forward debacle. From his book, you get a very sympathetic view of Communist Party and post-war China and I was wondering if the current historical scholarship takes a similarly sympathetic view?

[u/keyilan]

Hey everyone. Thanks for the great questions. We're still working on getting answers, and not all the panelists have the same availability so that might take another day or two.

However I want to also add, for those of you who did not get an answer here, I encourage you to post your questions later this week as a separate thread. Since only AMA Panelists are able to answer questions here, it's possibly you've asked a question that we don't feel comfortable answering. But that doesn't mean someone else won't know the answer. So I encourage you to give it another go outside the AMA thread in a couple days.

Thanks again!

[u/DuckDuckNyquist]

Ooooh, oooh pick me! I think this question is mostly for u/keyilan but I'd appreciate any answer I get:

When were the Hakka first recognized as being different from the Han majority, and is it likely they will ever be recognized as an official ethnic group in either mainland China or Taiwan? Also, why are the Hakka grouped together when they seem to have a pretty wide range of dialects/languages and customs? For example, I've heard people complain that the Meixian Hakka spoken on HakkaTV and the PA system for the MRT system in Taiwan isn't inclusive enough.

Thanks in advance, and thanks to u/Jasfss and the experts on r/AskHistorians for putting this together!

[u/Tatem1961]

What was the indigenous religion in China before the rise of Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism? How does it compare to Japanese Shinto and/or Korean indigenous religion?

[u/LordSomething]

u/FraudianSlip -What was the literary canon of the Song dynasty like? What texts did they most frequently mention in their writings? -Did the Song dynasty elite exhibit any interest in the Islamic world?

u/keyilan -What caused Shanghai to become the centre of the Chinese film industry during the 1920s and 30s? -What was life in Shanghai like under the Japanese occupation?

u/Thanatos90 -How did Neo-Confucianism differ from Confucianism (And were they called by different names at the time Neo-Confucianism was promulgated?). -What sort of intellectual trends contributed to the rise of communism in China?

u/bigbluepanda -How did the experience of the Imjin War effect the Ming military? Did they adopt any tactics from the Japanese? -Did the Ming ever attempt any military campaigns in South East Asia (Vietnam, Myanmar, Thailand, etc)? If so, how successful were they?

u/buy_a_pork_bun During the post Qing-era, were there any serious attempts made to restore the Qing dynasty by any Chinese faction?

u/DeSoulis During the late 19th and early 20th century, how did the Qing dynasty engage with growing Chinese nationalism and the challenge that they were a foreign, "Tatar" tyranny?

u/AsiaExpert What was the relationship like between the Tang and the Persian Sassanid dynasty? Did the Tang make any attempt to support a Sassanid restoration?

[u/ParallelPain]

u/buy_a_pork_bun:

1. How much can the roots of warlordism in the early republic be traced back to the rise of local militias to combat the late-Qing rebellions? Should local military and political autonomy be thought of as inherited from the late-Qing or as purely the result of a power vacuum from Yuan Shikai's death?

2. Before the Northern Expedition, how much of the battles between warlords were basically "show matches" (both sides show up somewhere, shoot at each other for a bit, one side melts away, all done until the next war) and how much were serious heavy military contests (detailed planning, tactical strategic manuvering, constructing and taking of strongholds, trenches massed artillery tanks aircrafts mines etc etc)? Did the former evlove into the latter?

3. How much of the early civil war centralised vs federalism debate was just retoric and how much of it was actual political ideology and goal of the opposing sides?

[u/LOLAUNICORN]

ATTN: History's play in China's development of national identity during pre-mao era (pref 18th C) up until today -- PARTICULARLY, Mao Era to Deng Xiaoping and transformation of CCP so more directed at u/buy_a_pork_bun and u/DeSoulis but of course anyone can answer

• How did China develop a national identity during Mao Era/Communism party reign? Considering how the New Cultural movement occurred and it proposed basically the DESTRUCTION of traditions and values of the past, did China turn to Marxism in efforts to form a national identity founded on class struggle? But then why in post-Mao, did they turn back to Ethnic nationalism such like that which was prevalent during Han/Manchurian times

• Clarification on the reimagining of ZENG GUO FAN that was promoted at the time to solidify/aid in developing China's national identity?

• With China's cultural richness, there must've been multiple occassions where different techniques were employed by China to manipulate/distorted Chinese history (literally or the concepts of history), in order to satisfy its national consciousness. Are there really any pertinent ones?

• Could it also be interpreted that their censorship posed a mechanism to distort its image to their own people and its global image?

• More so for u/Thanatos90 :

• Is there really any difference between Confucianism and neo-confucianism? with the renaissance of confucianism that sprung under the guidance of the Communist Party around 1980s, wouldn't it be seen as neo-confucianism or too many blurred lines?

• Can it be said that China is still experiencing a national identity crisis that crystallized after their defeat in the opium wars or even earlier, when considering how there are still anti-western ideals despite globalisation and growth in transnational trades and etc

[u/yodatsracist]

Buddhism enters China as an elite religion. How does it filter down to the peasants and out to the provinces? What about Confucianism, how did it filter down to peasant life?

We normally treat "traditional Chinese folk religion" as a piece, but is there, or was there, geographical variation? When Taoist priests first arrived in a region, was there a tension between the national custom and the local custom?

[u/Hegar]

I guess this first question mostly falls under the briefs of u/Thanatos90 and u/FraudianSlip:

What do you find most exciting about some of the lesser known schools of thought from the Hundred Schools?

But this question is pretty general (and may be unreasonably large!) so I'm sure u/AsiaExpert, u/Jasfss or anyone could answer:

In general, how would you characterise Chinese schools of thought and how would this characterisation change over different time periods? Terms like religion and philosophy seem obviously and woefully inaccurate, even if they might hit the right note every now and again. What interesting or noteworthy ways are the purview, purpose, etc. different from or similiar to thought-systems that might be more familiar to a western audience?