Item — HN Reader

That ignores the massive expansion into Central Asia (Tibet, Turkestan, Badhkashan, Altai), Mongolia, Borneo, the Yenisei Basin, Yunnan, Kachin, the Miao/Viet/Tai/Hmong frontier, and Formosa/Taiwan that the Qing Dynasty (which itself is Manchu, not Han) lead. Modern China is very much a reflection of that mass expansion.

Also, Chinese are not homogenous. Ignoring the 20th century Han social construct, there have always been distinct ethnic and cultural differences among differing "Chinese" ethnic groups like Cantonese, Teochew, Hokkien, Hakka, Guangzhong, etc that were erased during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

2 comments

Except CCP/PRC resolved 12/14 land border disputes inherited from ROC, most of which involved ceding more territory during settlement. That's the opposite of expansion, and TBF hard to find another country that has voluntarily ceded more land under bilateral negotiations. PRC territory literally contracted under westphalian framework that these narratives are measured against.

No offense but I think you are completely ignoring the intent of my comment. I am not talking about post-Xinhai Revolution China. I am just showing that the idea of stable singular borders within the modern concept of "China" are a newish construct - new in the sense that it's not some 2,000 year old history but a result of the expansion that the Qing Dynasty, and that the idea of a singular "Han" or Putonghua speaking ethnicity are a social construct that was developed in the 20th century.

Also, if you want to go the route that you are arguing, then there's a reason why Mongolia, Tibet, East Turkestan, etc fought for differing levels of sovereignity in post-Xinhai China, or that ethnic Manchus made a faustian pact with the Japanese occupation to create Manchuko. Ironically, Mao and Zhou Enlai were much more open to minorities compared to post-1980s PRC politicans.

But then again, why am I arguing with a sock puppet account based on your comment history. Either you are a very hypernationalistic commentator, or an astroturfer at worst. @Dang, thoughts about the paradox of tolerance?

Agreed there is nuance, but the Han dynasty had similar borders 2000 years ago.

The Great Wall helped, it wasn't the easiest thing to move around.

Within "core" China yes, but that was questionable tbh. Most borders for nations before the 19th century are more hypothetical than reality. Without innovations like the telegraph, railroad, canned goods, etc, power projection outside of a core area was heavily hypothetical.

Hell, at one point in the late 18th and early 19th century, the village my family is from would have technically been Qing AND Sikh AND Dogra. Borders are artificial constructs that have historically been more fantasy than reality (at least until the late 19th to mid 20th century)