Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Oh so it doesn’t actually have anything to do with blood or descent. Just cultural inheritance from han dynasty.


sort by: page size:

This is BS. They perfectly acknowledge that some imperial dynasties were not Han and have no problem with it. These 'foreign' dynasties adopted Han culture. Certainly, Chinese culture did not turn Mongol when the Emperor was an ethnic Mongol.

Please don't spread nonsense.


> An unbroken lineage to people of ancient times, known as a descent from antiquity, still remains to be historically proven.

Such records exist in Chinese culture, in particular in Taiwan and the diaspora, as they have not been interrupted before the Cultural Revolution.


I don't think it's quite like that.

Yes, everyone in a region is likely related to ancestors +800 years ago from that region, it's not the same for regions with little migratory exchange.

Probably every Chinese person is a descendant of the 1st Han Emperor, but probably most Europeans are not, though they are probably all descendants of Charlemagne, whereas Chinese citizens are not. Etc.


Is this not Han dynasty? it’s rather well-known

As a descendant of somebody other than Sun Tzu, I’m not surprised to see it here. HN is pretty eclectic.

Chinese society was neither caste-based or ruled by a hereditary elite.

I mean that Han Chinese is a specific ethnicity. It's a documented thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_East_Asians...

> the northern and southern Han Chinese are genetically closest to each other and it finds that the genetic characteristics of present-day northern Han Chinese were already formed as early as three thousand years ago in the Central Plain area.[22]


I find this interesting, because Chinese identity, as much as it is tied to Han ethnicity, seems to be something that could include once-outsiders, as long as they assimilate into it. The OP itself cites how the Mongol invaders established the Yuan dynasty, and the Manchu did the same with the Qing. Despite there is always a separation between Han and non-Han, I've found that the traditional (pre-20th century?) idea of "Chinese" is more tied to cultural traditions and the Confucian ethos, than ethnic/racial divisions. In some ways it's almost comparable to the concept of being "American" as in from the U.S., though of course far less malleable and open to including outside traditions.

Consider the mythological origins of the Han: http://knowledgechina.blogspot.com/2010/02/origin-of-chinese...

"3000 years before the Han dynasty, when what we call China today was inhabited by various tribes, the mythical ancestors of the Han, the Huaxia, controlled swathes of land centered around the Yellow River. According to legend, the leader of the Huaxia, Huangdi, defeated the 4 surrounding tribes, to the North, South, East, and West of Huaxia and incorporated their people and territory. The 4 leaders of those tribes, along with Huangdi became known as the 5 Emperors. Legends also tell of Huangdi defeating and assimilate the tribe of Yandi. Together, Huangdi and Yandi have been viewed as the progenitors of the Han race, which refers to itself as 'descendants of yan and huang'."

Even from the beginning, the Chinese came from the intermingling of multiple peoples, not one specific race. So I think the identity of "Chinese" can certainly be more cultural than ethnic/racial, and so open to outsiders who self-assimilate.

The questions are, what is Chinese culture in modernity? And if traditionalist Confucianism makes some sort of comeback, how will the world outside China react to it?

Oh, and how do current Western/non-Chinese expats in China assimilate to local Confucian norms?


Different cultures have different relationships to authority. Han culture is very different from the west.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_distance


You said the foreign conquerors adopted Han culture.

It also has to do with how legitimization works within the Chinese culture. Things with lineages and ancestors are more seen as more legitimate, and the Chinese (historically at least) are not above borrowing it.

Related is the complex and rich history of Chinese martial arts. If you ask for the oral tradition for any modern school claiming a lineage, it is often founded by a mythical founder — maybe some Shaolin monk, or a Taoist monk. There is a good case that martial art lineages are much more likely to have evolved out of military skills. It does not help that most practitioners were illiterate, and often not well-educated.

What I don’t know is if the literate class also borrowed legitimacy. I don’t think they did, because I don’t think they had to.


The real reasons are almost certainly economic in nature and supported with some degree of rigor and data.

Also of course "let's extend the Chinese bloodline" doesn't sound convincing to you as a non-Chinese person, why should it lol


You got any links to more info on the ancient Chinese connection? Links or anything to google?

Meanwhile there's people alive today who claim main line descent from Confucius who lived in the 5th century BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Tsui-chang


Right, but what is the relationship to the Chinese?

Zhou defeated Shang, but the culture is inherited like the Chinese Characters.

Dynasty usually in China doesn't category as one civilization, it is just a episode in the Chinese history. And this is not a modern invention either, China has the great tradition of ??, literaly meaning the making of history, which means the later dynasty is responsible of recording the official history of previous dynasty, and by doing so it is treated as a testament to the current dynasty's legimacy.

Interestingly, even PRC is somewhat inherited this tradition, where an official account of Qing's history is set to publish this year, which is almost 30 million characters long.


China also has a continuous literary tradition between that time and now, so the claims are plausible.

I'm actually more impressed that the old Chinese imperial families are still around:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Zhao

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Zhu

In what I would think of as the "standard model" of history, one of the highest priorities for a new king is eliminating everyone who might theoretically be related to the old king.


OP is talking about western culture - there is no Chinese Legalism tradition in Western Culture so yours is a red herring.

The idea that the modern Chinese are descendanded from Peking man from 770k years feeds the common myth that many people hold that their particular ethnic group is inherently different/superior.

I found this article on the topic very interesting.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-asian-stu...

next

Legal | privacy