Argument by some American scholars that the Qing was not another Chinese dynasty is quite preposterous. Since the 1990s, a new school, the "New Qing History" (NQH), has emerged in the United States, offering a so-called revision of the history of the Qing Dynasty (1616-1911).

According to them, the Qing Dynasty was founded by the Manchu nobility, who invaded and occupied not only the territories of the Han Chinese people but also Xinjiang, Xizang, and Mongolia. They have also argued that the Qing Dynasty was not the same as the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) in the way that it should be called the "Manchu Empire" which cannot be equated with China as China was only a part of this empire.

It is obvious that they are eager to exorcise China from the Qing regime, but they have totally ignored the blending and symbiosis of Manchu, Han, Mongolian, and Tibetan peoples in the Qing Dynasty as in other Chinese dynasties. If their argument were valid, the Manchus could not even be considered as Chinese, to which no one either in the Qing Dynasty or in today's China would agree.

By taking the book Huang Qing Zhi Gong Tu (Qing Imperial Illustrations of Tributary Peoples) compiled during Emperor Qianlong's reign (1736-1796) as an example, we can debunk the views of the NQH scholars.

The miraculous relic

In 1751, the 16th year of his reign, Emperor Qianlong (1711-1799) ordered Fu Heng, Grand Councilor of State, to lead the compilation of the Qing Imperial Illustrations of Tributary Peoples (hereinafter referred to as the Illustrations). These drawings and paintings with short descriptions depicted the appearance and costumes of officials from tributary states and tribes. For those tribes within the territory of China, provincial governors appointed painters to paint one male and one female representative for each tribe, and local officials to write textual descriptions. After the imperial court collected all the documents, Emperor Qianlong assigned ministers to revise the texts and commanded the imperial artists to standardize the artwork.

For some of those newly subordinated tributaries, such as the Torghut people and the Muslims of Afghanistan, Emperor Qianlong even personally inscribed his poems and names on prefaces and volumes. In fact, Qianlong himself was the editor-in-chief of the Illustrations. He made such great efforts editing, not to make a best-seller, but rather to show that his reign was the most illustrious dynasty in Chinese history and to celebrate the great unification of the Qing Dynasty.

The painted edition of the Illustrations has four scrolls. The Palace Museum in Beijing and Taipei Palace Museum both hold copies of its complete handscrolls, and the National Museum of China has an original collection of the second handscroll. The National Library of France also holds four volumes of the album. What readers can reach is the nine-volume edition collected in the Complete Library in Four Sections or the Wuying Dian block-printed edition.

The Illustrations is arranged according to regions. The first volume of the nine-volume edition only includes foreign states, like Yi's Choson, Ryukyu, Annan (Vietnam; Emperor Jiaqing renamed it to Yuenan in Chinese language in 1803), England, and France; the second volume introduces Xizang and Xinjiang; the third and fourth volumes cover northeast China, Fujian, Taiwan, Hunan, Hubei, Guangxi, and Guangdong provinces; the fifth to eighth volumes depict Gansu, Sichuan, Guizhou, and Yunnan provinces.

Following the completion of the Illustrations, the ninth volume is a continuation, incorporating new tributary states and tribes. It should be noted that the core regions ruled by the Qing Dynasty, such as north China, east China, inner and outer Mongolia, and the Shengjing region (or Mukden in Manchu) in northeast China, were not included in the book.

From the arrangements of the volumes we can clearly see Emperor Qianlong's self-identification with China as well as the extent of his dominion. Yi's Choson, Ryukyu, and Annan were defined as foreign tributaries, and were grouped together with "extraterritorial" France and England. Xinjiang and Xizang were portrayed as integral parts of China's territory, holding equal status with the core regions of the Qing Dynasty.

The absurdity of the NQH effort to separate the Qing Dynasty from China

Given the evidence in the Illustrations, it is obvious that the argument denying the Qing Dynasty's Chinese identity is absurdly false.

Firstly, such argument ignores the self-identity of Qing rulers as Chinese. In the Illustrations, whenever referring to foreign tributary states or European countries, the Qing Dynasty claimed itself to be China. Taking Italy as an example, the book recorded that "Matteo Ricci, a western missionary who claimed to be from Italy, sailed to China during the reign of Emperor Wanli (r. 1573-1620) in the Ming Dynasty, and people from Italy paid tribute in 1667 (the 6th year of Qing Emperor Kangxi's reign)." Another example is Annan, a tributary state with a long tradition. The Illustrations recorded: "Annan, the ancient Jiaozhi region, had been a tributary state of China until the Tang Dynasty (618-907) and had been unjustly occupied since the Five Dynasties (907-960). In 1666 (the 5th year of Emperor Kangxi's reign), Li Weixi sincerely submitted to Emperor Kangxi and was thus elevated to the title of King of Annan."

The records in this book not only show the identity of the Qing Dynasty as a legitimate Chinese Dynasty, but also explain the succession between dynasties, from Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming to Qing. Therefore, how could the Qing Dynasty be claimed as a "Manchu empire" rather than one of the dynasties in Chinese history? The so-called Manchu empire was no more than a fabricated term coined by the NHQ. Emperors of the Qing never identified themselves as rulers of a Manchu empire.

Secondly, the argument ignores the historical fact that the Chinese nation continued to form and develop as a community during the Qing Dynasty. Whatever related to ethnic groups on the Chinese territories in the Illustrations, the Qing rulers referred to themselves as "ben chao," "guo chao," or "wo chao," all of which mean "my own dynasty." The Qing rulers hereby not only demonstrated the historical relationship between ethnic groups and the central government, but also the continuity of the central government's governing policy toward ethnic groups as well as the Qing Dynasty's legitimate inheritance along the lines of Chinese dynasties.

For example, the records of Miao people in Tongren, Guizhou province in this book go: "In the Yuan and early Ming dynasties, officials appointed by the central government of the imperial court were assigned to rule the Miao people. During the reign of Emperor Wanli, due to the abolition policy of the original chieftain system, native officers in Tongren County were replaced by centrally-appointed non-hereditary officials. In 1730 (the 8th year of Emperor Yongzheng's reign), the central government quelled the rebellion of the Miao people in Songtao and appointed a vice magistrate to govern the area ever since."

Emperor Qianlong, by implementing such a bureaucratization policy, strongly consolidated the political integration of the central areas and the border areas, greatly facilitated the communication between ethnic groups, and successfully enhanced the community for the Chinese nation.

Thirdly, the argument overlooks that the essence of the Qing Dynasty's governance was the tri-force integration of the Manchu, Han, and Mongolian. As stated before, Emperor Qianlong, when compiling the book, excluded the northern and eastern parts of China, the Shengjing region of northeast China, and inner and outer Mongolia. The reason was that he saw them as the core regions of the Qing. His political intentions were obvious, he regarded the traditional Central Plains as the political center and counted the Manchus, Hans, and Mongolians as the core forces necessary to maintain central governance.

If the NQH argument were valid, Emperor Qianlong would have taken the Manchu headquarters north of Shanhaiguan Pass as his central administration, and he would never have regarded the Central Plains and inner and outer Mongolia as the core areas. Qianlong considered the union of Manchu, Han, and Mongolian peoples as the essential strategy to maintain his governance. He recognized China as a nation integrating Han, Manchu, Mongolian, Tibetan, Hui, and other ethnic groups. How ridiculous the "New Qing History" interprets everything with its shallow prejudice!

What the Qing emperors wanted to say most: "We are all Chinese."

The Qing imperial court compiled the Illustrations to commemorate the great unification under its reign. The Qing strongly consolidated the political integration of the central and border areas through cultural promotion and ideological communication in order to maintain national unity as a multi-ethnic country. The supreme rulers of the Qing Dynasty were from non-Han group who drove to the Central Plains from border areas. Proclaiming that "we are all Chinese," they opposed the narrow nationalism of "Han vs. non-Han distinction" and strove to forge a sense of national community between the central areas and the border areas. The Illustrations obviously illustrate such efforts.

Throughout 5,000 years of Chinese history, all central governments and people in border areas have contributed to the formation of a community for the Chinese nation, a notion formally articulated by Liang Qichao (1873-1929) in the late Qing Dynasty. Yet it is the Qing Dynasty that made the greatest contribution because it laid the foundation for today's territory of China.

The author is Cang Ming, professor of history and culture at Minzu University of China.

Liu Xian /Editor    Deng Zhiyu /Translator

Yang Xinhua /Chief Editor    Ren Qiang /Coordinator

Liu Li /Reviewer

Zhang Weiwei /Copyeditor    Tan Yujie /Image Editor

The views don't necessarily reflect those of DeepChina.