alex994
Hail Divine Emperor!
Insane_Panda said:Your examples using the Qing dynasty and such societies are irrelevant to the discussion. Those societies, though they claim to be AGAINST European intervention, were founded upon imported ideas of nationalism, liberty, and the like.
As I said, the example of the Qing and Boxers were off topic.
But of course, those barely literate peasants were capable of accepting imported foreign ideas, perhaps those ideas were not imported? As shown by the resistance against the Mongol conquest of Song China and later the Qing conquest of Ming China by the COMMON PEOPLE. How do you think resistance lasted for more then 12 years against the Qing by the Ming? How do you think the Song fought against the Mongols for more then 3 years (Longer then all other states who fell to the Mongols) if the common people didn't support them and fight?Insane_panda said:If there was no war, and everything was peaceful, then that is even MORE reason AGAINST claims of national consciousness. Nationalism is defined by people uniting together because they are not a different group of people who live elsewhere. If there is no sense of conflict, then there is no sense of nationalism, atleast not among the peasentry.
My apologies if my vocabulary is inferior, but could you try to be more understandable? Just because there is no sense of conflict AT THE MOMENT does not mean the conflict does not exist. The underlying sense of nationalism, not the best but the nearest word, in China is what always pulls China back. Yes, it mostly affects the Upper Classes and the Middle Class, but the sense is still there in a more diluted form in the lower classes, or the peasantry. The massive conscript armies China used for most of her history existed because her people SUPPORTED their existance to defend their country, especially the peasants even if they didn't like it.Which shouldn't even exist in Min China, the peasants that is....
Insane_panda said:Furthermore, the Chinese, though they had "national" consciousness in the form of their loyalty to China (though it cannot really be termed "national"), were not dynastically loyal. They were content as long as their rulers were Han. Comparing England to China is like comparing Apples to Oranges. England is a highly urbanized and small society with a fairly small population. England goes by western philosophy which stresses individualism and the like. National consciousness forms because the English see that they are different from the other nations around them, and come to realize that all of the English people like them are in the same boat against foriegners. Also, in England, due to its small size and relatively small population, aswell as due to its parliamentry tradition, there is a deep connection to the government, and what the government does immediately effects its citizens. China, however, does not have that luxury. No matter how "unified" your country is, it can never be really unified due to the vast size of China. What the Emperor does little effects the rural peasentry.
The comparison with England in the 1500 was how far England had progressed to developing her national identity from a later point in time as opposed to China's own developing national identity earlier on. Though in 1500 under Henry VIII, England was anything but highly urbanized. The parliamentry tradition had hardly come to anything in the manner of direct rule aside from their control of the purse and the Crown still ran the affairs of the State. But I digress, that's not important.
The point is: "Is the Yuan Dynasty Han?" And according to you, the peasantry was satisfied as long as their ruler was Han. Thus the farmers and the peasants should be discontent or at least show some appearance of being discontent as the Yuan Dynasty isn't Han. Which they aren't showing which is something I'm trying to point out.
Insane_panda said:China, in essence, (during the 16th century) is much more like Oceania of 1984 than an actual nation-state. There is an elite who are very much so fervent about their domain, but to claim that the peasents care much about who governs them is like claiming that the proles cared as much for the Party in 1984.
The difference is that I'm talking about the China in this timeline. Not the OTL China. The difference in THIS timeline as opposed to the Ming China in the OTL 16th Century is that there is a large vibrant and flourishing middle class open and receptive to new ideas. This vibrant and flourishing middle class with her increased spending capabilities is a direct result of the Min Dynasty. A vibrant and flourishing middle class with a direct impact on the farmers and peasants in the form of increased demand for goods.
There are Two Chinas, one liberal, and one conservative. One focused on agriculture while another is focused on trade and industry. This is NOTHING LIKE 16th Century OTL China. And oh yes, I think the proles, unlike the peasants, would actually dislike the Party in 1984 instead of being generally apathetic. It's even more ironic that a misunderstood sarcastic statement began this....
I'm sure Das will come and express his opinion on the situation in THIS TIMELINE, either that or just watch us ramble on and on in amusement.



. I’ll have one more story pmed (along with basic stats) to you before the deadline Thlayli- one that actually has something to do with my people ;].