All these statements are wrong. I'll list below.
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.