Talk:Anti-Qing sentiment

Anti-Qing sentiment was a sentiment in China?

Although the article says clearly that "Anti-Qing sentiment is a sentiment principally held in China against the Qing Dynasty", the list of Famous anti-Qing persons shows at least two foreigners. Can these people be regarded as "anti-Qing people"? Or are they simply in there as examples of statements critical of the Qing? The use of language is really quite sloppy, and the article seems to be trying to do things: (1) Describe anti-Qing sentiment, (2) Express anti-Qing sentiment. Can we get a bit of objectivity here?

I also made edits removing Koxinga's exploits in driving the Dutch out of Taiwan. The sentence in question seemed to be highlighting Koxinga's glorious example in expanding the territory of China (a Chinese nationalist view), which has absolutely nothing to do with his anti-Qing activities. The sentence about Deng Xiaoping expressed criticism of seclusionist policies, but clearly stated that these started in mid-Ming. So this quote can't be construed as meaning that Deng Xiaoping was a "famous anti-Qing person".

The whole section of anti-Qing people is rather poorly conceived. Perhaps it should be left out altogether.

The statement that "Anti-Qing is the opposition to the Qing dynasty, Qing governments and not necessarily against Manchu people" is unsourced and seems to represent the views of the author on the meaning of words like "anti-Manchu" or "anti-Qing" rather than any historically attested distinction. I've flagged it as needing a citation.

Bathrobe (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think to start off with this is a very badly-written article and some of the contents might be of original research. Basically the entire article used only one source, a book from 1866 titled A History of Taiping Revolution, and much of the material on this article isn't well-explained or elaborated. I think the article could probably merge with the anti-Manchuism article or merge with the history of the Ming Dynasty or early history of the Qing Dynasty. Also, many figures listed in this article are military leaders during the end of the Ming Dynasty who fought the Manchu forces and Ming rebels... thus the connection between them and anti-Qing is very vague (what necessarily makes them anti-Qing?).--Balthazarduju (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello everyone. The article is indeed very messy, and I agree that some parts of it would justify a merger with the page on anti-Manchuism. One solution would be to limit this article to anti-Qing movements and anti-Qing writings during the Qing, excluding the views of Westerners. Focus on the Qing would allow to include both anti-Manchuism and anti-Qing sentiment under one wiki. The article could then be divided chronologically, perhaps by centuries. The seventeenth century, for example, would include people who lived under the Ming, such as Gu Yanwu, Lü Liuliang, Wang Fuzhi, Koxinga, etc., preferably in alphabetical order. The lead paragraph would also need to explain the difference between the anti-Manchu rhetoric of Lü Liuliang and an organized uprising like the Taiping Rebellion. Finally, I don't think Yuan Weishi belongs here at all: he's a modern historian who is trying to redress biases in historical education in the PRC: he's not trying to be (and does not sound) "anti-Qing" to me. Any thoughts? --Madalibi (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

At anti-Manchuism I've added a link to Entry on "anti-Manchuism" at p 11, Modern China: An Encyclopedia of History, Culture, and Nationalism (Garland Reference Library of the Humanities) by by Ke-Wen Wang, Routledge, ISBN-10: 0815307209, which is a far better explanation of the entire issue than either this biased article or the patchy effort at anti-Manchuism.

Bathrobe (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Continual new edits while outstanding issues have not been addressed

This article is being subjected to continual new edits by the original author, edits of questionable content, while substantive issues raised concerning the content of the article are being ignored. There are several "Fact" tags on the page, which the editor is ignoring completely.

Unless these requests for citations are addressed, I suggest that these particular sections should be removed from the article without further notice.

Bathrobe (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed many issues to be addressed! I have left a constructive message on Arilang's talk page and I see he has already started reacting to it by creating sub-sections. This is only a beginning, obviously, but I suggest we give him one more day to make substantial structural improvements. If nothing happens, then I agree we should remove some dubious content without further notice. I hope this proposal will sound agreeable to everyone involved. --Madalibi (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we have reached a consensus here on what should be the nature and structure of this article. I just made the structural modifications without adding any new content. The lead paragraph still needs to be re-written in light of what we discussed. I will do more in a few days once I'm done with a project that is taking most of my time in real life. --Madalibi (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Worshipped as a god?

As proof that Koxinga was worshipped like a god, User Arilang has added links to sources on 鄭成功祠. I'm just wondering whether a 祠 is really proof of treatment as a "god" in the normal sense of the word. A 祠 is a kind of ancestral temple. Perhaps in the sense of ancestor worship a 祠 may be considered as housing a "god", but I'm just wondering whether it is totally accurate to refer to Koxinga as a "god" because of 鄭成功祠 (which I have, incidentally, visited).

The larger point is, of course, what relevance the worship of Koxinga as some kind of god has to this article. Perhaps it belongs at the page on Koxinga himself. Here it is right off the point of "anti-Qing sentiment".

Bathrobe (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Koxinga is a typical example of the Chinese apotheosis (or "deification") of historical people. A ci 祠 is a shrine where offerings are made to such deities, often apotheosized heroes. Instead of a "god," maybe we could say "deity." There is a lot to discuss about Chinese notions of "gods" and the nature of "ancestors worship," but let's not get into a new Chinese Rites controversy! For now I agree with Bathrobe that Koxinga's worship as a god may not belong on this page, though it would make a fine addition to the wiki on Koxinga. --Madalibi (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The material on deification was added to the article on Koxinga, but was still left here, meaning that 60% of citations to the article still pointed to a factoid that was basically irrelevant to this article.

The insertion of material at Koxinga was done clumsily. I've also found that the ancestral shrine has an article of its own, which means that THREE different citations is still overkill. A link to the shrine article would be quite sufficient.

Incidentally, with regard to the issue of deification, at the Koxinga Ancestral Shrine article it is clearly stated that the shrine was built by Koxinga's son. This means that it originally had the character of a 祠, or ancestral family temple.

Bathrobe (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A proposal for translating "da lu" 韃虜

Hi Arilang. I think da 韃 in dalu 韃虜 is short for "Dada" 韃靼 ("Tartars"), and lu 虜 usually means "prisoner of war," but here it's a pejorative term to refer to "strangers." Scholars working in English usually translate "Da lu" as "Tartar caitiffs": Google that phrase and you will find plenty of scholarly references to Sun Yat-sen's words and what historians say about it. That should help you strengthen the references for the Sun Yat-sen section. According to Wordnet, "caitiff" means "a cowardly and despicable person." Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

@Madalibi, I understand your line of argument. At the moment I used the Lin Yutang http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Lindict/ definition, which says 'Barbarian' very specifically. In future if some other users come up with some other definitions, we will discuss then.

Like I had mentioned elsewhere, English 'scholars' may have read the wrong books and hence may form wrong ideas, since you and me we all know that barbaric Manchu was used to burn books and twisted around with words. Arilang ^talk 09:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

At least three different scholars working in English and writing directly about anti-Manchuism in the late Qing dynasty have translated Sun Yat-sen's ethnic slur as "Tartar caitiff": Google that phrase and you'll find all three of them. And Lin Yutang was translating "Hu lu" 胡虜, not "Da lu" 韃虜. But anyway I will be neither disappointed nor surprised if you decide to use the translation of a wrong term and to ignore scholarship that is directly relevant to the content of this wiki. Madalibi (talk) 09:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

胡虜 or 韃虜 , the focus here is on 虜, Lin Yutang called it barbarian, I will stick to it, until you can prove him wrong. 虜 is a Han word that go back to thousands of years, 'western scholar' studied Han culture dated back to Marco Polo time, is only 700-800 years at the most, which versions of interpretation is up to you to pick, I shall stick to the ancient version. Regarding to your use of the term ethnic slur, if you happened to be one of the civilians living in Yangzhou during the Yangzhou massacre and a Manchu soldier is on the process of chopping off yor head, I doubt that you would call them 'Honey' or 'sweet heart'. Do you serious think that the Great Wall of China was built for fun? Arilang ^talk 11:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Arilang: you are making no sense, but as I said, I am not surprised. Madalibi (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Caitiff is a pretty negative term, but "barbarian" in the Western sense carries with it a heavily loaded meaning. If one was a "barbarian" in the historical context (going back to the encounters with foreign nomadic groups such as the Saka and sedentary Celtic and Germanic tribes during the ancient Greco-Roman era), they were stereotypically uncivilized, unclean and unshaven (lol, even though beards became popular in the latter half of the Roman empire), belonged to a roaming horde of tribes in an always unfixed location (hence the antithesis of a settled, urban civilization with non-tribal social hierarchy), and wreaked havok and destruction along their irrational war path. In regards to "韃虜" being translated as "barbarian" or "Tartar caitiff" in English, I do believe that there is no suitable direct English translation for "韃虜", because it is a term with its own loaded meaning in Chinese. I think the Manchus, with a palace at Shenyang (or Mukden) and upholding a state and society with a high level of Chinese acculturation, would hardly be classified by Westerners as belonging to the same category as the early Ostrogoths and Visigoths who invaded Rome (but perhaps maybe the later Ostrogoths and Visigoths who became "Romanized"). Hence the English translation of "韃虜" as "Tartar caitiff" seems more suitable, but that's just my opinion. Arilang, if you can find a substantial amount of scholars who explicitly call the Manchus by the English pejorative of "barbarian", then feel free to do so here. But if you can't, and there is already a wide consensus in the English-speaking scholarly community that "韃虜" should be translated as "Tartar caitiff," then that is the term which should be used on English Wikipedia. If a small amount of scholars translate it as "barbarian," then you can mention that at least once in the article, but the dominant term that should be used over and over should be "Tartar caitiff" if we are talking about 韃虜.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

References to translations of dalu as "Tartar caitiffs" in recent scholarship (in no particular order):

• Suisheng Zhao (2004), A Nation-State by Construction: Dynamics of Modern Chinese Nationalism, p. 64.
• Edward J.M. Rhoads (1998), Manchus and Han: Ethnic Relations and Political Power in Late Qing and Early Republican China, 1861-1928, pp. 11 and 14 (14 also explains lu as "an archaic term used in the Northern Song period to refer to the Khitan").
• Peter Zarrow (2004), "Historical Trauma: Anti-Manchuism and Memories of Atrocity in Late Qing China," History and Memory 16.2: 67-107 (not sure about the specific page number, because I don't have access to the entire article, but this article appears twice on the first page of a Google search of "Tartar caitiffs").
• James Leibold (2004), "Positioning minzu within Sun Yat-sen's Discourse of Minzuzhuyi [民族主義]," Journal of Asian History 38.2: 163-213 (pp. 5 and 6 in the pdf version available here.)

--Madalibi (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleting one reference

I deleted the reference to Barbarism and Civilization - Mongols And Manchu Emperors in the lead paragraph, because it is unrelated to the content of the sentence it is attached to. That sentence says: "Anti-Qing sentiment (Chinese:反清, pingyin:fǎn qing) is a sentiment principally held in China against the Manchu ruling during Qing Dynasty, which was often resented for being foreign and barbaric." The reference I deleted actually makes the opposite point:

“ In turn, the Ming were ousted by the Manchu (Tungusic descendants of the Ruzhen), who marked the beginning of the Qing dynasty. The Manchu were organized under banners or civil-military units distinguished by colored flags. Before 1644, their administrative units for conscription and taxation recruited Chinese and Mongols. By 1648, the "multi-ethnic army" of bannermen included less than 16 percent Manchu (see Naquin and Rawski, pp. 4–5). Like the Mongols, the Manchu adopted Chinese culture, allowing for a renaissance of ancient philosophy and literature (see Goulding). While the first emperor of China burned most of the books in the known world, the Manchu established the largest known library that included literature and philosophy of China's classical age (see Smith, p. 3; cf. Wilkinson, pp. 273–277, 485). Although censorship saw the destruction of many Ming books, the Complete Library of the Four Treasuries (1772–1782) resulted in seven sets of thirty-six thousand volumes (see Naquin and Rawski, p. 66). Whereas the Western world annihilated barbarians in a quest for civilization, the Eastern world accommodated them as co-constitutive elements of its yin-yang cosmology. ”

--Madalibi (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how Chinese scholars incorporated the Manchus (and other northern tribal peoples) into yin-yang cosmology. Any juicy quotes you are aware of, Madalibi?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Qing sentiment exists

Such sentiment does exist in China; the fall of the Ming dynasty in China in some ways is comparable to the fall of the western Roman Empire. Although the Manchus did not destroy chinese civilization, they didn't let it advance either. The speed of technological advance was stagnant, especially compared to the Ming, Song, Tang, Han(four great eras of China). Obviously when the chinese have been leading the world for 2000 years, and suddenly discovered they were backwards after being ruled by the Manchu, they would have Manchu sentiment.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

@Teeninvestor, thanks for your comment. Could you provide reference for this view point:"the fall of the Ming dynasty in China in some ways is comparable to the fall of the western Roman Empire." Is it you own conclusion or western scholar view point? If indeed this is western scholar view point then we can incorporate it into the article, with proper inline citing. Thanks. Arilang ^talk 02:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

@Teeninvestor. Yes, feelings, feelings. But first you have to show that the Manchus were the ones responsible. Other people trace the decline back to the Ming. It's a bit like blaming the financial crisis on George Bush when, according to some, decisions made in the Clinton era were a major contributor. We all love to hate certain people (e.g. George Bush), but you can't write articles based on "feelings".

Bathrobe (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just saying this because its not like this is made up; this actually does exist. By the way, I merely commented, did not incorporate it into article. Also, im pretty sure chinese sources exist in abundance and in english on this,not just western sources. You wouldn't consult only chinese sources on WWI on the chinese wikipedia, would you? Also some links to the belief in china that Qing Conquest of Ming and Mongol conquest of Song were comparable to German conquest of Roman Empire and Mongol destruction of the Abbasid Caliphate, though they may not be reliable resources<http://bbs.huanqiu.com/zongluntianxia/thread-104527-1-118.html><http://www.hanminzu.com/bbs/TopicOther.asp?t=5&BoardID=9&id=238675>. They are articles from hanminzu.com, a site in china that promotes traditional dress. One Intercept from a chinese author on this site shows: "日耳曼蛮族灭亡罗马帝国，五胡乱华，蒙古灭宋，满族灭明，都是文明的逆淘汰。印第安人的玛雅文明在西元9世纪也是突然走向败落的。就是说文明并不总是向前发展的，有时候可以突然倒退，数百年、甚至上千年后都难以恢复昔日的辉煌。" In whcih he compares the Yuan and Qing to the fall fo the Roman Empire. [[Teeninvestor (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Why quote Han minzu if it is not a reliable source and clearly has an axe to grind?

Bathrobe (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Better to stick to internet source ended with edu

User Bathrobe has a point. Blogs are generally not accepted as a reliable source in wiki, so it is safer to quote .edu web site. Arilang ^talk 03:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The Manifesto of The Tung-Meng-Hui, 1905

To be added to the article: By order of the Military Government, on the ___day,___month, ___year of Tien-yun, the Commander-in-Chief of the Chinese National Army proclaims the purposes and platform of the Military Government to the people of the nation:

Now the National Army has established the Military Government, which aims to cleanse away two hundred and sixty years of barbarous filth, restore our four-thousand-year-old fatherland, and plan for the welfare of the four hundred million people...

Now the men of Han(i.e., the Chinese) have raised a righteous (or patriotic) army to exterminate the northern barbarians...Besides the driving out of the barbarian dynasty and the restoration of China, it is necessary also to change the national polity and the people's livelihood.

References

Muslim pro ming rebellion against qing

A pro ming rebellion lead by muslims against the qing in northwest china

http://books.google.com/books?id=MC6sAAAAIAAJ&q=Ming+restorationist#v=snippet&q=Ming%20restorationist&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ciShtCrJijIC&pg=PA8#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=MC6sAAAAIAAJ&q=Ming+restorationist#v=onepage&q=Mi%20la%20yin&f=false

Purblio (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-Qing sentiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080926224557/http://www.chss.iup.edu/baumler/zourong.html to http://www.chss.iup.edu/baumler/zourong.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Hong Xiuquan.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)