Why is Sinicization so powerful?

Iwasamwillbe

Austro-Bohemian-Flemish-Cretan-Japanese Mischling
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 14, 2018
Throughout its long and storied history, portions of what we now call China have been ruled by "barbarians" (i.e. non-Han Chinese peoples). Indeed, there have been two dynasties of "barbarians" that managed to secure control over all of China: the Yuan Dynasty (of Mongol origin), and the Qing Dynasty (of Jurchen-Manchu origin). Yet, every time a non-Han Chinese nation manages to conquer a bit of China, they start aggressively sinicizing, to the point where they effectively become Han Chinese themselves. This occurs despite the Han Chinese not being in control of that piece of land anymore, therefore having no real way to impose their own culture on the "barbarians", all of which would have more likely led to the Han in that area "barbarizing" instead of the non-Han sinicizing.

It honestly makes me wonder why sinicization was such a powerful cultural force in China.
 
if I had to guess it's another one of China's many diseases

that or China is like a part of the Warp on Earth, a part of the Warp that makes you really chinky instead of making you grow horns and tentacles and shit
 
At least part of it seems to have been that people just liked mainstream Chinese culture better. If you read Sima Qian's "Records of the Grand Historian", you already see sinicization taking place in the Spring and Autumn period. Duke Mu of Qin sent female Chinese musicians to the court of the Rong "barbarians" as a sort of deliberate act of cultural sabotage, and at least according to the history, it worked.

Qin itself seems to have originally been a semi-barbarian state that sinicized - there are references to their own traditional art forms being supplanted by those of more cosmopolitan eastern China.

Art aside, another factor is presumably that "barbarians" had less experience running an administrative state than the peoples they conquered, and would inevitably turn to the governing philosophies and practices that were in place already.
 
I'd say in the cases of the Yuan Dynasty and the Qing Dynasty, it's because the Mongols and the Manchu were both largely pastoral nomads who were impressed by the technological marvels and relative economic stability of Han society at the time. Plus, as @Kosher Dill pointed out, they rarely wiped out the conquered people or went out of their way to suppress the culture and often turned to their newly conquered subjects to help with the administration and day-to-day rule of society.

We see a similar thing with the Mongols who settled in the Middle East adapting Islam and Persian culture (Timurids) and with the Mughal Dynasty in India.

There's a similar phenomenon of sorts in the West. Romano-British and Gallo-Roman cultures both emerged thanks to the advanced nature of Roman society as opposed to backwards Celtic tribal society, although the Romans were invaders and the conquered people adapted the culture of their conquerors. But there's another example from Late Antiquity as well that's closer to the situations with the Yuan and the Qing and they're the Lombards and the Normans.

The Goths, Lombards, and other Germanic tribes that invaded Italy as the Western Roman Empire entered its death throes quickly Latinized and adapted Late Roman/Early Italian culture fairly quickly and a similar phenomenon happened a little later in Northern Europe with the Normans.

The Normans were originally Vikings from Norway and Iceland (Norman is derived from Norse Man) who settled in Northern France and after their chieftains converted to Catholicism, they quickly adapted French culture and then exported it all over Western Europe, most famously to England but also to Sicily and the Celtic countries.

A lot of stereotypical "medieval" aesthetics are derived from Norman culture, which was more or less the results of Vikings settling in rural France during the Dark Ages and "going native" since the Gallo-Roman/Frankish culture was a lot more stable economically and technologically
 
I can't imagine that "Han" culture is really anything like what "true, ethnic Hans" would practice. There must be a lot of interchange going on that you're overlooking. Han China is just Rome for the East; everyone claims to be "Han" just like the Byzantines, Germans, French, Brits, and Russians all claim to be "Roman".
 
  • Agree
Reactions: PozzedByCoronachan
I suspect it's less about "Han" civilization being superior and more about efficient Confucian bureaucracy swallowing up interlopers.
Also that there just weren't that many interlopers. For example it seems the best estimate of the Manchu population in the Qing dynasty was something from 2 to 5 percent of China's population.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Tookie
Back