Introduction

Vohra touches on this issue on P. 10, when he begins to discuss the political system of the Manchu dynasty.

One may say that, on the eve of the "modern era", China was beset with a conjuncture of crises and problems - two major categories, that is, problems from within China and within the existing system, and crises that came with external forces imposing themselves on China.

The "nationality" issue(s), in its (their) multiple dimensions, can really be seen as a line that connects the internal and the external problems that confronted China. It is certainly a major factor that determined the extent to which "China" - and particularly the Chinese state - could effectively deal with all the problems that cropped up in the early-modern and modern periods.
 

The Roots of the "nationality" problem

1. The Manchu "conquest" and "minority rule" of Manchu (2%) over Han (vast majority).

2. The further expansion of the empire and the incorporation of "new" minority nationalities and territories into the empire.
 

The Methods of Suppression and Co-optation

1. Suppression in the early-Qing period: Military suppression of the "Ming" loyalist forces and other Han "dissidents."

2. Suppression of ideas through the "literary inquisition."

3. Symbols of suppression: The Manchu queue.

4. The dyarchic governmental structure (having a Han officer and a Manchu officer in every bureaucratic office - "share power" but with the Manchu in slightly superior position) as a means of co-optation.

5. The examination as a tool of co-optation and suppression.

6. Divide and conquer tactics.
 

The Impact of the "Nationality" Problem in the Political Sphere

1. Deep, if not open rift, between the government and the people - Han government officials mostly low level; separation of authority between Han officials and Manchu officials.

2. Vohra speaks of Chinese officials in time becoming less and less considerate of the people whom they governed, becoming less and less the "father-and-mother magistrates" they were supposed to be. In the Manchu period, there was a "nationality -issue" related to this phenomenon.

3. At the higher levels, Manchu nobles (known as "bannermen") had power, not only as officials but as simply members of a nobility of the blood - a phenomenon that had been taken out of Chinese politics a long time ago but was re-injected into the system at this time - very "abnormal" polity.
 

The Impact of the "Nationality" Problem in the Socio-Economic Sphere

1. Adds significant "racial" dimension to the government oppression and exploitation of the various classes in society - landed interests and peasants (mostly Han) as well as industrial and commercial interests.

2. Manchu phobia about the growth of population.

3. Migration policies - moving Han populations out of areas of concentration and relocating in areas where they were forced to mingle with other ethnic groups.

4. Manchu view of the southern society and economy - marginalization.
 

The Impact of the "Nationality" Problem on Thought and Values

1. Limitations to Manchu "assimilation" to Han scholarship, ideas, ways and cultures.

2. Han scholars' resistance to the Manchu in the early-Qing.

3. The continuation of Han anti-Manchu ideas - till the very end.

4. Han scholars also criticized Ming scholarship for its "speculativeness" and "over-theorizing"; turn to "empirical" textual scholarship: Strong at first but eventually becomes too stultified and inflexible; no imagination - sapped Chinese thought of vitality just when it needed it most in the 19^th century.

5. Most evident symbol - the exams and the "eight-legged essays."
 

Conclusion

The "nationality" problem is complicated and multifaceted in Manchu China. When we think of the problem of Chinese "nationality" identities and interests in the late-Manchu period and in the 20^th century, we tend to think in terms of a "Chinese vs. West" issue, but clearly there is a whole other dimension to the "nationality" problem - Manchu vs. Han, etc.

In the late-18th and early-19th century, the phenomenon of "nation states" emerged in "the West," and rather rapidly became the "norm" of state-building in Europe in the 19^th century. Indeed, even in building new "empires," countries such as Britain and Germany depended heavily on an ostensible and presumed (and highly ideologized) "national cohesiveness." From the Western perspective, almost everything was scrutinized and evaluated from the "nationalist" perspective - from the perspective of the interests of Western nation states and the self-acclaimed "national" cultures that they embraced as their characteristics. As this sort of "triumphal nationalism" spread across Europe and spilled into the overseas empire-building and foreign relations of the European and American "nations," China was saddled with a fragmented nationality.

One might ask the question: Might "China" have been more effective in dealing with the "nation states" of the West if it had not had such a fragmentizing nationality problem at this time?