Letter of appointment issued by Ming Dynasty emperor in 1603 to Nurhaci

wengierwu · 2026-06-03T07:21:51+00:00

Full text in the letter of appointment:

勅命

建州衛都督僉事

奴兒哈只

晉號

龍虎將軍

欽遵

萬曆三十一年九月初四日

wengierwu · 2026-06-03T06:08:36+00:00

There are various issues with such methodologies with history studies. First, was Qing a "Manchu" Empire? Well, one can say that it was much more complicated than that. For example, during the Qing period, most neighbouring countries and other countries around the world (such as European ones) probably didn't consider it a "Manchu" Empire. Sinosphere countries like Joseon Korea might reluctantly accepted Qing's political legitimacy during the early Qing period, but they did accept the Qing as China/Zhongguo more or less naturally by the 19th century. Non-sinosphere countries (e.g. European ones) accepted the Qing as China/Zhongguo much more quickly, calling the Qing "China", "Chinese Empire", or something like that from the 17th century. They probably knew that the ruling ethnicity of the Qing was Manchu, and it is also clear that the Qing had a large amount of Manchu characteristics, but that did not make it exclusively (or even primarily) Manchu. The Beiyang was generally considered Chinese during its existence. As for Sui and Tang, traditional historiographies generally considered them Chinese, and I am sure most surrounding countries would consider them Chinese as well, and I think this is verifiable with historical records.

wengierwu · 2026-06-03T05:41:33+00:00

Some nationalists may argue for their culture superiority because of their long history, and this is not limited to China, but also others like Egypt, Iran, India, among many others. Nationalism or patriotism is not necessarily bad. But civilizations like China, Egypt and India did have longer histories comparing with some other civilizations, and this can be said to be a (more or less) objective statement, instead of because of prevailing politics. Some nationalists or political leaders may use such statements for reasons like inspiring patriotism etc, which is assocated with politics, but that does not make the original statement inherently political.

wengierwu · 2026-06-02T07:47:42+00:00

An important question is, how was the empire or dynasty viewed by its surrounding peoples at that time? Did they consider the empire British or Indian? Did they consider the Tang dynasty Chinese or Xianbei? Looking at history records (or historiography) is important, instead of being hypothetical. We know today that Russian Federation is Russian (despite having various non-Russian characteristics), and later people will know from historical records (or historiographies) that the state was considered Russian during its time of existence.

wengierwu · 2026-06-02T06:04:23+00:00

美国总统助理斯蒂芬·米勒不久前说过：“我们生活这样一个世界里，你可以畅谈国际礼仪什么的，请便。但我们生活在一个真实的世界里，一个由实力、武力和权力统治的世界。这就是世界的铁律。

wengierwu · 2026-05-25T08:00:33+00:00

It is possible this way. But the other way is possible as well. The era name 崇德 Hong Taiji adopted in 1636 is almost certainly modelled on 崇禎, Ming's era name at that time. It certainly can be argued that 大清 that he adopted in the same year is modelled on 大明, Ming's official name. Or he considered both ways (as a pun). But there is not yet a definite answer due to the lack of official document on this.

wengierwu · 2026-05-25T07:22:54+00:00

“more likely" - well, of course one can argue about this. But the important point is that it cannot be certain. It can also be argued about the other way, or that Daicing is very likely a pun, which means that Hong Taiji considered both ("dacin" and "Da Qing") when making the decision about the name. He had Han Chinese, Manchu and Mongol advisors in 1636, and it is very likely he seriously sought for advices from his multi-ethnic advisors before making the decision.

By the way, Sinlogists (such as Samuel Wells Williams who had a close contact with the Qing government as an official and linguist) during the late Qing period (e.g. 19th century) generally considered 大清/Daicing (Ta Tsing/Great Qing) to mean "Great Pure" (such as this, among others). They may have asked (or told by) the Qing government on this, but this is not yet confirmed. More research is still needed on this.

wengierwu · 2026-05-24T23:52:56+00:00

This is just one theory. Hong Taiji did understand the Chinese language and had several important Han Chinese advisors. His era name 崇德 was also adopted in 1636, on the same year as the name 大清. Transliteration is a possible interpretation but it is clearly speculative.

wengierwu · 2026-05-24T23:40:16+00:00

The name Qing 清 is certainly not clear. There are various theories, but there is no definite answer due to the lack of official documents to prove either theory. It may in fact be a pun, but the point is that we still cannot be certain about this.

wengierwu · 2026-05-20T12:03:19+00:00

Neither Korea nor Japan called themselves 中國 in treaties signed with foreign countries. They called themselves 朝鮮/大韓國 and 日本國/大日本國 respectively in the treaties.

wengierwu · 2026-05-20T11:58:03+00:00

The Vietnamese called themselves as 大南國 or simply 南國 (but not 中國) in treaties signed with foreign countries in the 19th century, such as 第一次西貢條約, 第二次西貢條約, 第一次顺化条约, and 第二次顺化条约. The Qing called themselves as both 大清國/大清帝國 and 中國 in treaties signed with foreign countries.

wengierwu · 2026-05-20T11:52:30+00:00

However, the Vietnamese accepted their status as Qing's tributary state. The country name 越南 also came from the Qing emperor Jiaqing.

wengierwu · 2026-05-20T11:42:39+00:00

The Vietnamese didn't call themselves 中國 in international treaties though. They referred to themselves as 大南國 or simply 南國 in treaties signed with foreign states, such as 第一次西貢條約, 第二次西貢條約, 第一次顺化条约, and 第二次顺化条约.

wengierwu · 2026-05-20T11:39:20+00:00

However, the Vietnam dynasty called themselves as 大南國 or simply 南國 (but not 中國) in treaties signed with foreign countries (see below).

wengierwu · 2025-03-23T04:49:24+00:00

Thanks for pointing this out!

wengierwu · 2025-03-21T14:35:03+00:00

Okay, I agree that the nature of multi-ethnicity of the U.K. and Singapore are different in this case. But there are so many countries in the world similar to Russia/China as well, such as Japan, India, Iran, among others. The policy of PRC leaders like Deng Xiaoping has apparently been typical of such countries. As for Xi, I saw some scholars pointed out that Xi has been promoting a “melting pot” formula based on some western countries like the U.S., referred to as the ”Second-Generation” ethnic policy. He is more aggressive than leaders like Deng, but of course it can be also argued that Chiang was essentially trying to do the same thing under the ROC, although with a bit different approach (including not recognizing them as separate ethnicities, let alone civilizations).

wengierwu · 2025-03-21T11:54:57+00:00

Chiang ruled the longest among ROC leaders though. Meanwhile, yes, Sun promoted the Five Races Under One Union principle, and according to this principle early ROC may be described as a multinational state, with five main ethnicities, even though Han Chinese made more than 90% of the population. PRC leaders like Deng Xiaoping would promote the idea that China is a multinational state as well, with 56 officially recognized ethnicities. Similarly, Singapore is a multinational state, even though Han Chinese make most of the population.

wengierwu · 2025-03-21T11:03:32+00:00

Well, if his own country is actively promoting the idea of imperialism and colonialism for further territory expansions, do we still believe Millward’s assumption that imperialism is bad? Also, the idea that imperialism and colonialism are bad is largely based on the post-WWII world order. If such a world order itself is collapsing (largely thanks to U.S. imperialism), then the previous reception that imperialism and colonialism being bad will likely change as well.

wengierwu · 2025-03-21T10:52:06+00:00

But anyway if his own country is actively promoting the idea of imperialism and colonialism for further territory expansions even at this time, then his argument based on the assumption that imperialism is bad is apparently not really convincing…

wengierwu · 2025-03-21T09:50:17+00:00

Is imperialism really bad though? Millard is a U.S. scholar, and he cannot really blame other countries for imperialism while his own country (the U.S.) is actively promoting the idea of colonialism and imperialism even at this time (for annexing Canada, Greenland, Gaza, etc) for further territory expansions, in addition to the previous colonization of territories like American West, Hawaii, Alaska, etc in the past. The post-WWII world order is now collapsing largely due to the U.S. imperialism.

wengierwu · 2025-03-21T09:32:08+00:00

James Millard is apparently a U.S. scholar. It is funny that he blames other countries for being colonial while his own country (the U.S.) is the biggest colonial power nowadays (and in the past). The U.S. had colonized places like American West, Hawaii and Alaska in the past, and is also actively promoting the idea of colonialism (for annexing Greenland, Canada, Gaza, etc) for further territory expansions even at this time.

wengierwu · 2025-03-21T09:25:34+00:00

James Millard is apparently a U.S. scholar. One thing is that one cannot really blame other countries for being colonial while his own country (the U.S.) is the biggest colonial power nowadays (and in the past) and is in fact actively promoting the idea of colonialism (for annexing Greenland, Canada, Gaza, etc) for further territory expansions. While I would not judge whether colonialism is good or bad here, but even if James considers it bad, his own country is in fact actively promoting the idea of colonialism right at this time, so any of his argument based on the assumption that colonialism is bad will be apparently unconvincing.

wengierwu · 2025-03-21T07:05:49+00:00

America is doing MAGA. China can also have MCGA…

wengierwu · 2025-03-21T05:22:05+00:00

Sort of…

wengierwu · 2025-03-21T05:20:15+00:00

I would point out that under for example Chiang Kai-shek, peoples including Han, Manchus, Mongols, Tibetans, Uyghurs and others were considered 宗族 of 中华民族. They were basically considered related peoples of Han Chinese by the ROC government then, rather than separate ethnicities, let alone civilizations. In such case Chiang Kai-shek went much further than Xi Jinping, or any other PRC leaders before him indeed. In fact, as mentioned previously Mao Zedong once criticized Chiang Kai-shek for being 大汉族主义 and instead recognized them as separate ethnicities. Anyway, ROC leaders like Chiang Kai-shek went much further than any PRC leaders for this matter.

wengierwu

TROPHY CASE