summercomfort (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
summercomfort) wrote2005-10-31 07:51 pm
summercomfort) wrote2005-10-31 07:51 pm
A maybe-claim!
Monday is BA Seminar Day! So I've been inspired to write a claim/introductory paragraph based on the (miniscule) research I've done thus far.
Early Qing dynasty history has traditionally been placed in the context of "Sinification", wherein the Manchus physically conquered China, but were culturally conquered by the Han Chinese. Thus, Manchu successes can be cited as Chinese successes. The Ming-Qing transition was relatively smooth because the Qing simply took up the mantle of the Ming and renewed the bureaucratic efficiency of the early Ming. (cite) Recently, historians have problematized this view by pointing out the founding political and military structure that was adopted from the Mongols (cite), the distinctive Manchu treatment of foreign relations with the Zunghar Mongols and Czarist Russia, and domestically, the carefully segregated "Manchu-ness" cultivated by the court.
This wave of putting the Manchu back in the Qing, however, tends to focus on new evidence found in a new front: Pre-1644 Manchus, the "barbarians" to the west and the north, the inter-Manchu relations. There has not yet been a proper reconciliation between these new claims and the old evidence: the change from marauding barbarians to civilized elites upon arrival at Beijing, the Confucian-based tribute system between Qing and the "civilized" nations such as Korea and the Ryuukyuu islands, and the conversion of the Chinese scholar gentry by Kangxi's "110% Chinese-ness."
By looking at the early relationship between the Qing and the Choson dynasty of Korea, I hope to reconcile the old historiography with the new. The Choson dynasty rose on the heels of the Ming dynasty and espoused a strict Neo-Confucian world-view. Their close tribute relationship with the Ming was both politically and ideologically justified in Confucian terms. In addition to viewing Ming as the "superior nation", their Confucian bond was cemented when they fought the Hideyoshi campaign together. Korea was made a tribute state of the pre-1644 Manchus by a military campaign led by Hong Taiji in 1636. The reluctant tribute state remained loyal to the Ming well past 1644, and only in the Kangxi reign did they finally accept the Qing as their rightful superior nation. Naturally, Korea would be an excellent example to illuminate the supposed Ming-Qing transferal of political and cultural leadership. By examining the transitions between these stages of Manchu-Korean relations, I will show that the military success and cultural acceptance of the early Manchus came from a segregation of the cultural and political spheres. Specifically, the political manipulation of the tribute system by the early Manchus, and the cultural inheritance of the Koreans which allowed them to politically accept the Manchus. (Perhaps this will also shed light on the general Han scholars' acceptance?)
Yeah, this is my current ideal claim. It will shift and contract as I do further research, but ... what do y'all think?
The last paragraph is a bit wonky because I'm unsure how much bg to give on the Ming-Manchu-Choson thing. And yes, I know it's technically Joseon or Chosŏn, but I'm lazy.
Basically there's a few things that I can/wanna talk about thus far...
- breaking the 1644 line and showing that the political structure, etc, established pre-1644 was still functional post-1644, that it was a gradual transition, and that the superficial change in attitude comes mostly from finally having access to the resources of China proper
- the Kangxi/Sukchong reign where decisions were made on both sides to normalize relations. Qing by political and economic incentives, the Koreans by co-opting the Ming culture, allowing them to accept the Qing political without interfering with their ideology
- the Qing had set themselves up in the pre-1644 years as a counter-Ming, so they can't exactly turn in to a Ming once they get the throne... and they don't. They maintain their Manchu-ness and their non-Ming-ness. But their separation of the political and the cultural allows for political acceptance (they run a tighter ship than the Mings), and... what about the cultural? I'm not really sure...
Early Qing dynasty history has traditionally been placed in the context of "Sinification", wherein the Manchus physically conquered China, but were culturally conquered by the Han Chinese. Thus, Manchu successes can be cited as Chinese successes. The Ming-Qing transition was relatively smooth because the Qing simply took up the mantle of the Ming and renewed the bureaucratic efficiency of the early Ming. (cite) Recently, historians have problematized this view by pointing out the founding political and military structure that was adopted from the Mongols (cite), the distinctive Manchu treatment of foreign relations with the Zunghar Mongols and Czarist Russia, and domestically, the carefully segregated "Manchu-ness" cultivated by the court.
This wave of putting the Manchu back in the Qing, however, tends to focus on new evidence found in a new front: Pre-1644 Manchus, the "barbarians" to the west and the north, the inter-Manchu relations. There has not yet been a proper reconciliation between these new claims and the old evidence: the change from marauding barbarians to civilized elites upon arrival at Beijing, the Confucian-based tribute system between Qing and the "civilized" nations such as Korea and the Ryuukyuu islands, and the conversion of the Chinese scholar gentry by Kangxi's "110% Chinese-ness."
By looking at the early relationship between the Qing and the Choson dynasty of Korea, I hope to reconcile the old historiography with the new. The Choson dynasty rose on the heels of the Ming dynasty and espoused a strict Neo-Confucian world-view. Their close tribute relationship with the Ming was both politically and ideologically justified in Confucian terms. In addition to viewing Ming as the "superior nation", their Confucian bond was cemented when they fought the Hideyoshi campaign together. Korea was made a tribute state of the pre-1644 Manchus by a military campaign led by Hong Taiji in 1636. The reluctant tribute state remained loyal to the Ming well past 1644, and only in the Kangxi reign did they finally accept the Qing as their rightful superior nation. Naturally, Korea would be an excellent example to illuminate the supposed Ming-Qing transferal of political and cultural leadership. By examining the transitions between these stages of Manchu-Korean relations, I will show that the military success and cultural acceptance of the early Manchus came from a segregation of the cultural and political spheres. Specifically, the political manipulation of the tribute system by the early Manchus, and the cultural inheritance of the Koreans which allowed them to politically accept the Manchus. (Perhaps this will also shed light on the general Han scholars' acceptance?)
Yeah, this is my current ideal claim. It will shift and contract as I do further research, but ... what do y'all think?
The last paragraph is a bit wonky because I'm unsure how much bg to give on the Ming-Manchu-Choson thing. And yes, I know it's technically Joseon or Chosŏn, but I'm lazy.
Basically there's a few things that I can/wanna talk about thus far...
- breaking the 1644 line and showing that the political structure, etc, established pre-1644 was still functional post-1644, that it was a gradual transition, and that the superficial change in attitude comes mostly from finally having access to the resources of China proper
- the Kangxi/Sukchong reign where decisions were made on both sides to normalize relations. Qing by political and economic incentives, the Koreans by co-opting the Ming culture, allowing them to accept the Qing political without interfering with their ideology
- the Qing had set themselves up in the pre-1644 years as a counter-Ming, so they can't exactly turn in to a Ming once they get the throne... and they don't. They maintain their Manchu-ness and their non-Ming-ness. But their separation of the political and the cultural allows for political acceptance (they run a tighter ship than the Mings), and... what about the cultural? I'm not really sure...
no subject
"Weeeee are the rightful heirs of the Ming dynasty. We're so Confucianist puriant we don't know how we could praise ourselves more. We have sticks crammed so far up our asses they're jutting into our brainstems and we like it that way. WHOOPS... we've been taken over by Japan because we're so damn xenophobic. Silly us..."
This sounds like an awesome topic.
no subject
Glad that you approve of the topic! :D (I still remember that awesome Sirhak thing you were doing last ACen!)
no subject
no subject
That's a lot of writing...
i'm going to fail college...
*sob*
no subject
no subject
no subject
"Obviously as soon as the Greeks showed up on the shore the 'barbarians' immediately wanted to wear Greek dress(es), have symposia, and become 'Hellenized' and accept Greek culture. ...except that they only wanted wine and drinking ceramics, no garb... no weapons... no Greek writing... no coinage... for centuries after initial contact..."
no subject