Tinto Talks #73 - 23th of July 2025 - Middle Kingdom

[xaabiii]

I would add the condition to be more sinicized than unsinicized to join the IO

 

[Magj101]

Yes, there is a casus belli to claim emperorship, available to not only Chinese cultures but also Mongolian, Jurchen, and also some related cultures like Korean or Vietnamese. And if China and the Middle Kingdom themselves are destroyed, there's an option of recreating it.

Are Japanese a part of it as well?

 

[Magj101]

They will need to be of the appropriate culture for that.

What if they switch to the appropriate culture and switch back?

 

[AHumpierRogue]

Yes, under the continuous political tradition and huge absolute population in ancient China, the conquerors who make up the absolute minority of the population will have to be forced to rule China using traditional Chinese methods, which usually include a comprehensive range of content from language and culture to religious customs and political officials. These contents are so intertwined that it is difficult to choose only one part to learn. If they refuse, there will only be two outcomes: the almost non-existent local control caused by de facto local autonomy, or the ruling group being directly expelled from China.

The Yuan Dynasty resolutely reduced the influence of sinicization through a binary system, but the result was that the tax system of the Yuan Dynasty regressed directly from the Song Dynasty's large government and extremely fine tax control capabilities to tax farming system, with the grassroots completely controlled by Han landlords and the central government having almost no control. An extremely famous example: In the late Yuan Dynasty, a grassroots official from Henanjiangbei Province impersonated a central official, forged the emperor's orders, directly killed senior officials in the entire province, and directly controlled nearly a quarter of the size of China's land. However, the central government of the Yuan Dynasty discovered several months later that such a huge land was no longer under the control of the court due to issues with grain supply scheduling. This is enough to illustrate the extremely low control of the Yuan Dynasty over local areas.

The Qing Dynasty once attempted to accept only a portion of the political tradition, but the result was that they ultimately accepted the vast majority of the traditional Chinese plan. Only the extremely marginalized part of clothing was barely completed through the transformation of Han clothing by Manchu clothing, and it was not thorough. Even when the Qing Dynasty had just defeated the rebellion of Wu Sangui, the influence of Manchu language within the Qing royal family had already begun to decline. Even though Emperor Qianlong repeatedly demanded that all imperial families must master Manchu language, in fact, the Qing royal family hardly spoke Manchu since then.

They proved very able at managing the chinese political systems and learning them, and of course the sheer mass of chinese meant it was expedient to adapt existing practices and administration. But culturally the Manchu(and previous conquest dynasties like the Khitans and Mongols) remained ultimately distinct with their own traditions and their own elite position over the Han. They could adapt the trappings of chinese culture for administration, but especially for those not in the Imperial family(who were more exposed to Han culture and politics) they remained their own culture. It's not until the Manchu or Mongols fall that they begin to truly seamlessly blend into Han chinese culture, because they are no longer dominant and it's not smart to maintain a distinction anymore. But just because they can understand, and exploit, chinese governance does not mean they were culturally chinese, or no longer culturally Manchu or Khitan or Mongol or what have you.

 

[SodomBernstein]

We are aware of that, and also the fact that many things considered "Chinese" in the west are actually "Manchu" instead. However, we still thought that it would be clearer if we used the Manchu in both sides. If instead we used pure Han clothing on one side, the resulting image would seem like two different peoples instead of the same one transitioning from uncinicized to sinicized. Sinicization is not to represent the adoption of Chinese clothing, but instead the adoption of Chinese system and culture, and so Qing-style Manchu represent that in our opinion, as they did precisely that.

Traditional Chinese clothing is a key aspect of Chinese cultural identity. The Qing and, similarly, the Yuan dynasties were only partially Sinicized. Both the Red Turban Rebellion and the 1911 Revolution aimed to overthrow "barbarian" rule and restore Han Chinese sovereignty. The Ming dynasty revived Tang-Song style clothing, and the Republic of China mandated the cutting of the Manchu queue. Using Manchu clothing as a symbol of Sinicization is deeply disrespectful.

 

[Zerodv]

Traditional Chinese clothing is a key aspect of Chinese cultural identity. The Qing and, similarly, the Yuan dynasties were only partially Sinicized. Both the Red Turban Rebellion and the 1911 Revolution aimed to overthrow "barbarian" rule and restore Han Chinese sovereignty. The Ming dynasty revived Tang-Song style clothing, and the Republic of China mandated the cutting of the Manchu queue. Using Manchu clothing as a symbol of Sinicization is deeply disrespectful.

This only makes sense if you say sinizicization means "wanting to become Chinese" which indeed did not happen, it's just Chinese cultural influence and this influence could happen in different ways.

You could question using an example of a people that changed clothing less than other in a visual representation of "sinicization" but it's not wrong because the Manchu didn't sinicize, they definitely did but in a different sense.

 

[SodomBernstein]

This only makes sense if you say sinizicization means "wanting to become Chinese" which indeed did not happen, it's just Chinese cultural influence and this influence could happen in different ways.

You could question using an example of a people that changed clothing less than other in a visual representation of "sinicization" but it's not wrong because the Manchu didn't sinicize, they definitely did but in a different sense.

I’m not denying the Sinicization of the Manchu, but I believe it was only partial. Even Vietnam or Korea would serve as better examples—they adopted Chinese political systems, admired Chinese culture, wore Chinese-style clothing, and even referred to themselves as “Little China.” As some earlier posts mentioned, the Ottoman Empire was also heavily influenced by Roman culture. But would it be appropriate to use the Ottomans as a symbol of Romanization?

 

[Don Adriano]

Would it be correct for the Chinese tribute system to abandon money and use goods? For example, the Chinese emperor would annually demand some amount of 5-7 of China's most scarce resources - iron, copper, tools, weapons, horses. Then as a reciprocal gift he would return a 120-150% of that amount in traditional Chinese goods such as tea, porcelain, paper, jewelry. Suppose Korea hands over 10 horses worth 50 ducats as tribute and receives from the emperor 5 cases of porcelain valued at 35 ducats and 5 cases of tea also valued at 35 ducats.

 

[tribnia]

Sinicization is as terrible an idea as Westernization, a concept abandoned since Mandate of Heaven. Should we also have a Russification disaster for Kalmyks? Or Turkification disaster for Albania? Anglicisation disaster for Cherokee? A Sinicization vs Japanization for Ryukyu?

 

[NERTR]

Sinicization is as terrible an idea as Westernization, a concept abandoned since Mandate of Heaven. Should we also have a Russification disaster for Kalmyks? Or Turkification disaster for Albania? Anglicisation disaster for Cherokee? A Sinicization vs Japanization for Ryukyu?

I think westernization/modernization makes sense to some extent, the key is to give different benefits or penalties to choosing westernization and de-westernization, rather than simply restricting it, like VIC2 and early EU4. Another similarity between Sinicization and Westernization is that they are both actively chosen rather than forced.

 

[Mangi Qahan]

Sinicization is kind of overrated IMO. I am not actually sure I'd consider the Qing or Manchu super sinicized(tbh, I question the value of the term at times; at least beyond the sense of being "involved in the classical chinese literary world" which is often what it really means, even as almost all other aspects of the cultures of people we claim are "sinicized" remain very traditional.)

From a historian's point of view, the core of the controversy lies in the definition of "Sinicization".
In modern Qing history research, the Manchus or regimes from Inner Asia adopting the Chinese political system is usually regarded as the standard of Sinicization. However, if it is placed in the historical context of the 17th to 19th centuries, except for the Manchu-Qing, all the regimes recognized as Sinicized, such as Japan, Korea and Vietnam, none of them would think that the Qing was "Sinicized".
Why? Because in the standards of ancient East Asian culture, clothing, hairstyle, etiquette and political system have the same important status as the standard for determining whether you are Chinese. After the Manchus conquered China, they not only did not change to traditional Chinese clothing, but changed the Chinese clothing and hairstyle to the Inner Asian model.
Therefore, in the writings of Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese cultural elites, they all believed that the Manchu-Qing was not China, China had perished, or their own country had become China.

A Korean man named Kim Jong-hu (金锺厚) wrote a letter to Hong Dae-yong (洪大容), who had previously traveled as an envoy to the Qing Empire, saying:
"What concerns me is not that the Ming is no more, but that there is no more China after the Ming. I do not blame them (the Chinese) for not longing for the Ming; I blame them for not longing for China." (所思者在乎明朝後無中國耳，僕非責彼[指中國人]之不思明朝，而責其不思中國耳。)

He went on to say rather vehemently that, regarding China,
"What we esteem in the idea of 'Zhonghua' (China)—is it because of its territory? Or because of its lineage? If it is for the territory, then the barbarians who now occupy it are no different. If it is for the lineage, then even among Wu, Chu, the southern tribes, and the Rong and Di peoples, few are not descendants of sages."

In their view, China ought to be "Zhonghua" (literally: the Central Civilization). Since Zhonghua originally meant civilization, if that civilization no longer resided in the Qing state, then,
"I would rather willingly remain in the lowly status of an Eastern Barbarian than enjoy honor among them."
—See Collected Works from the Studio of Zhamheon, Volume 3, “Reply to Jikjae”; also refer to Hong Dae-yong’s Another Reply to Jikjae.

 

[Mangi Qahan]

I'm just going to repost a comment I wrote on the CK3 forum here; it more or less states my opinion on "sinicization" and how I feel most more radical western scholars would view it:

Unironically sinicization is overrated. The Khitan Liao managed to maintain their steppe heritage until the end of their dynasty, even if they did adopt chinese literacy and aspects of chinese culture they were ultimately still largely steppe oriented in their culture. The Jin IIRC sinicized a bit more, the Mongols really, really did not, and then the Qing also similarly did not get sinicized and tried very hard to both preserve their own culture and impose Manchu culture on China. Case in point the Queue; at the beginning of the dynasty men were willing to die to avoid having to shave their heads and dishonor their ancestors; by the end many men considered the Queue to be part of their Han chinese identity. The Manchu were more just overwhelmed by the population imabalance in the end, and then when the dynasty collapsed it was expedient to assimilate into the new lead way of things.

So ultimately the track record really isn't that good if you really think on it. It's less a story of "sinicization" and more a story of the pretty high cultural resillience of China, the unparralled size and scope of the chinese scholarly tradition, something that all dynasties tapped into and studied, even if they still tried to maintain a steppe way of life as the Khitan elites did as well as the sheer mass of Chinese. Conquest dynasties were ultimately always very tiny populations ruling over a very huge mass of Chinese, and so if the Conquerors got the boot(Yuan->Ming) or got conquered by someone else(Liao->Jin, Jin->Yuan), the 95% population of Han chinese just sort of kept trucking along. There were not roman colonias of Jurchens, Mongols, and Manchus moving into China, the core population especially in the South(where most people were) remained chinese and they were ruled over by Manchus, either distantly or in local administrative centers that were still overwhelmingly Chinese. That was why Chinese culture survived, not because they just "Absorbed" the conquerors. They only 'absorbed' them in the case where the conquerors lost and had to assimilate under the new regime(or get kicked out) and they otherwise maintained distinctions and an elite status while they were in power.

As for the second topic, you may have noticed that the degree of sinicization of the Inner Asian regimes actually declined linearly in Chinese history, and after the 17th century, there was a reversal of sinicization.
From the Xianbei-Wei regime, which chose to fully sinicize: requiring all Xianbei people to speak Chinese, use Chinese characters, wear Chinese clothes, and move their ancestral tombs to Luoyang.
Then the Tangut-Xia and Khitan-Liao people began to create their own writing, clothing and etiquette based on Chinese characters.
Then the Jurchen-Jin and Manchu-Qing only adopted the Chinese political system and forced the Chinese to shave their heads and change their clothes.
In this process, the definition of sinicization was constantly compressed, from a comprehensive social-national transformation to a thin and pitiful political system adoption.