In defense of Sinicization: A Rebuttal of Evelyn Rawski's “Reenvisioning the Qing”

Abstract

In her recent presidential address, “Reenvisioning the Qing,” Professor Evelyn Sakakida Rawski attacks the “sinicization” theme originally presented as one of the five major aspects of my 1967 article, “The Significance of the Ch'ing Period in Chinese History” (Ho 1967). In her essay—frankly admitted to have been based exclusively on “recent secondary literature”—she states that “a notable outcome of the new scholarship is the rejection of the sinicization thesis and its Han-centered orientation in favor of an empire-building model that emphasizes the importance of the Chinese empire's cultural links with the non-Han peoples of Inner Asia” (Rawski 1996, 827). It ought to be pointed out at the outset that my 1967 paper was not delivered, as she mistakenly presumed, from the podium of the president of the Association for Asian Studies; for I did not receive this honor until 1975–76, when, after having shifted my research interest so far away from the Ming-Ch'ing period, I addressed the Association with a paper entitled “The Chinese Civilization: A Search for the Roots of its Longevity.” The 1967 paper was an AAS panel presentation, not a presidential address.

Interethnic marriage in Northeast China, 1866–1913

“…They continued to use their own written and oral language, dressed differently than the Han, chose recognizably different given names (Campbell, Lee, and Elliott 2002), and had different traditions for marriage, burial, and other ceremonies. While the Manchu adapted Confucian ideology to legitimate their rule, there is plenty of debate, as noted before, over the extent to which they actually assimilated to the majority Han culture (Crossley 1991(Crossley , 1997(Crossley , 1999Elliott 2001;Ho 1967Ho , 1998.…”

“…The case for sinicization was made most forcefully by Ho (1967Ho ( , 1998. He argued that the Qing embraced Confucianism as a way of legitimating their rule and that, following the example of previous conquest dynasties, the Manchu and other groups that were part of the banners were eventually assimilated into Han Chinese society.…”

“…One of the most vigorous debates in the study of Qing history concerns whether the descendants of the Manchu conquerors maintained an identity distinct from that of their Han subjects or were 'sinicized' via a process of assimilation and integration (Crossley 1991(Crossley , 1997(Crossley , 1999Elliott 2001;Ho 1967Ho , 1998Rawski 1996). On the one hand, Ho (1967) argued that, by the end of the Qing, the Manchus had lost their distinct identity and been assimilated into Han Chinese culture.…”

Late Qing Multilingualism and National Linguistic Practice in the Qing Borderlands

“…The New Qing history school has contributed to our understanding of the history of language, politics, ethnicity, and nationalism in late imperial China. On a basic level, after the debate between Rawski and Ho, the work of Pamela Kyle Crossley, Beatrice Bartlett, Nicola Di Cosmo, Mark Elliot, and many other scholars in East Asia, the USA, and Europe, emphasized the use of various languages in the Qing Empire, such as Manchu, Mongolian, and Tibetan.…”

Rethinking the IR theory of empire in late imperial China

“…The new Qing history is not without critics. For a canonical polemic against it, seeHo (1998). For a more recent defense of Sinicization, see Huang(Huang, 2011).IR theory of empire in late imperial China Page 17 of 27 at University of Toronto Library on December 9, 2014 http://irap.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from…”