Related [1] [2]: the Han race was really only constructed in the last 100 years, along with the national mythos of several millennia of uninterrupted dynastic civilization.
The US and indeed most major nation states also use this kind of myth making as well, this kind of behavior isn’t specific to China. It’s just not taught in schools.
Would love to see some comparisons here.
I believe most Chinese do think Mandarin and Cantonese are parallel and won't consider Cantonese a dialect of Mandarin. It's better to put it this way: both Mandarin and Cantonese (and many others) are "dialects" of a fictional, idealized language "Chinese". Hence, "dialect" here might be an incorrect translation of "fangyan", which literally just means "regional language".
This idea is a very sensible one in the context of China being forced to open up to the world. It's like a man, living in wild, has assume he was alone, and have no idea he was actually a male. Until one day he run into a similar creature that is a female.
The undernote of this is that Chinese society is extremely complex. Easily orders of magnitude more complex. Comparing to the US continental, the geographical diversity and the cultural heritage shows such a vast range of changes that one should feel US is probably culturally only equivalent to a typical province in China! They eat differently, speak different in accent and words of expression, have different customs in almost every aspects of the life (child birth, birthdag, marriage, funerals etc etc)...
China is indeed a humongous collective of diverse human communities that defies any singular or universal interpretation.
Instead, compare China to Europe, which is far more rich and complex. Heck, there may be more dialects and recognized languages in Italy alone than in the large majority of China.
> This idea is a very sensible one in the context of China being forced to open up to the world.
The narrative of “China being forced to open up to the world” is also a social construct, and in this case a political construct.
For examples, Mao Zedong supported the Hunan self-government movement even as late as the 1920’s [1][2], quite some time after the end of the Qing dynasty in 1911. This clearly ran against the convention that China should be politically integrated as it is today.
[1]: https://blog.dwnews.com/post-896926.html "毛泽东：我想建湖南共和国 全国分为27国"
[2]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/652585 "Mao Tse-tung and the Hunan Self-Government Movement, 1920: An Introduction and Five Translations"
Mao disproved your claim.
And that was my point: viewing certain historical events from a certain perspective is a social and political construct (the nationalism is a modern invention). The facts (Mao’s proposal) are supporting this view point: there could be alternative social constructs (for example, a split China).
Mao’s 1920 proposal disagreed with your social construct (that an integrated China was a sensible thing at that time, due to being forced to open to the world).
1. Chinese (the official language) is an invention [1].
The article explains its title with the history and development of different language families and dialects in China.
2. The Han race (the identity) is an invention. The united Chinese history (the view point of uninterrupted dynastic civilization) is an invention [2].
> ... the Han race was really only constructed in the last 100 years, along with the national mythos of several millennia of uninterrupted dynastic civilization.
3. An ethnically integrated China (the identity and political system) is an invention. The Chinese nationalism (the ideology) is an invention.
> an ethnically integrated China is, in fact, a modern invention linked to the rise of nationalism at the end of the nineteenth century.
4. The invention of an integrated China is sensible, because history [3].
> This idea is a very sensible one in the context of China being forced to open up to the world.
5. The invention of an integrated China is NOT sensible, because history [4].
> Mao Zedong supported the Hunan self-government movement even as late as the 1920’s.
[1]: https://www.historytoday.com/archive/feature/invention-chine... "The Invention of Chinese"
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29529921
[3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29525040
[4]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29525343
=====
Clear thinking of different concepts, and understanding what is being discussed, is needed for a fruitful discussion.
Calling unfamiliar concepts as “a debate of definition of words”, and not understanding what is being discussed, is not fruitful for discussion.
Note that throughout the discussion, we are using “invention”, “construction”, or “convention” as the same concept, and study their consequences to the society, to politics, and to history.
Here, we are talking about created languages (Chinese official language), identity (Han), history (national mythos, narratives), ideology (nationalism), and politics (integrated China).
This branch of social science, which studies created and accepted concepts, deals with “social constructs” [5].
[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism "Social constructionism"
Before going into the details, one has to note the vastness of Chinese sphere has always been at least an order of magnitude bigger than any other national systems on earth. So it's often that one has no experience in their lifetime to intuitively appreciate the linage and internal logic of the Chinese history and heritage.
Applying sweeping statement like "X is an invention", following the premise in the previous paragraph, usually is wrong automatically. Because the invention as a concept in smaller national system is not possible to be comparable to a much larger one. One has to perceive from the larger scope to appreciate the invention in the larger scope.
Another thing, social construction is not invention. One has to build on foundation and use materials from history and culture to create some thing new yet deeply rooted in the society for it to be long enduring social construct.
Now let's go into the details:
> Chinese (the official language) is an invention
No. It's built on top of writing system that has a clear linage dated to the tribal time: http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Historiography/oracl...
> The Han race (the identity) is an invention
No, Han race or group has been used dated at least back to Han dynasty. The concept of "people of hua xia (华夏)” was already a widely used term like in Hua Yi Zhi Bian (华夷之辩) I.e. the method of distinguish the hua xia people with the barbarian. The word Chinese is of course new, as Chinese consider then the center of mandate under haven, there is no sense to distinguish themselves as all others are barbarians.
> An ethnically integrated China (the identity and political system) is an invention. The Chinese nationalism (the ideology) is an invention.
No, ethnic integration happened volunterily and forcefully numerously over the history. From the early days of "Bavarians entering Hua Xia becomes part of Hua Xia" by Confucius in the spring autumn era. And Zhao WuLing Wang adopting babarian's horse riding and clothing custom https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%83%A1%E6%9C%8D%E9%A8%8E%... in the waring States era. And Sui dynasty's intermarriage between Xianbei and Han people in the north. This mingling ethnically and culturally have been happening constantly of the Chinese history.
> The invention of an integrated China is NOT sensible, because history
You supported this with Mao's statement when he was 27 (1893-1920), which himself througly discarded. That automatically price that the historical logic of unified Chinese and integrated China makes a lot of sense.
> Clear thinking of different concepts, and understanding what is being discussed, is needed for a fruitful discussion.
Sure.
But throwing new concetps constantly and without clear context and explanation, is not effective either.
> Calling unfamiliar concepts as “a debate of definition of words”, and not understanding what is being discussed, is not fruitful for discussion
I think it should be that arguing in novel concepts would make the counterpart feel the discussion becomes a debate of definition of words. For that I think we are talking same thing.
> Note that throughout the discussion, we are using “invention”, “construction”, or “convention” as the same concept, and study their consequences to the society, to politics, and to history.
No, I do not use invention construction and convention as the same concepts. If you are, then we indeed are in a debate of word definitions.
> This branch of social science, which studies created and accepted concepts, deals with “social constructs” [5].
Thanks for the pointer. I'll need to take a look after this post.
Gene doesn't lie
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghan_Lun
https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B8%A9%E7%96%AB%E8%AE%BA
What's the reasoning behind this theory that Mao invented Chinese medicine, which has been in existence for more than a thousand years? Are you a fan of Mao, or are you mocking his inability to create modern medicine out of thin air? Or his manipulation of Chinese culture?
Chinese medicine gets people to drink urine. A Shaman spits alcohol on people. A witch doctor conjures spells. None can be considered effective until proven effective.
"Proven effective" means. 1) Follows the reliable method, results are published 2) The experiment can be verified and replicated by anyone anywhere anytime.
That is the difference between the scientific method (So called "western medicine") and scams.
Summarizing: A fungus can be medicine, when proven effective. The older you state Chinese medicine is, the worse for its cause. So much time to show proof of effectiveness, so little they can prove.
In extreme cases, this happens. And we also know that a lot of high impact cancer research results cannot be reproduced. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03691-0
And Chinese medicine for the most part is a discipline for nurturing human body through natural produces and elements for self healing. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-preventi...
It does not have scientific methods.
The modern Chinese medicine is adopting scientific methods. https://academic.oup.com/bib/article/15/6/984/180255
Condescending argument are not wrong, they are just logically imprecise. And can easily provoke negative emotions to your readers.
You say “So little they can prove” but I’m saying they have proven a lot, and non-western medicine just becomes western by virtue of being adaquatelty studied. We may be agreeing more than you think.
“Plants, People, and Culture: The Science of Ethnobotany” is an excellent book on the topic.