Editing Barbarian (section)

====Cultural and racial barbarianism====
[[File:Great wall of china-mutianyu 3.JPG|thumb|right|The purpose of the [[Great Wall of China]] was to stop the "barbarians" from crossing the northern border of China.]]
According to the archeologist William Meacham, it was only by the time of the late [[Shang dynasty]] that one can speak of "[[Chinese people|Chinese]]," "[[Chinese culture]]," or "Chinese civilization." "There is a sense in which the traditional view of ancient Chinese history is correct (and perhaps it originated ultimately in the first appearance of dynastic civilization): those on the fringes and outside this esoteric event were "barbarians" in that they did not enjoy (or suffer from) the fruit of civilization until they were brought into close contact with it by an imperial expansion of the civilization itself."<ref>Meacham, William (1983). "Origins and Development of the Yueh Coastal Neolithic: A Microcosm of Culture Change on the Mainland of East Asia." In Keightley, David N., ed., [https://books.google.com/books?id=4-vdP2aZWhUC The Origins of Chinese civilization], p. 149. University of California Press.</ref>
In a similar vein, Creel explained the significance of Confucian ''[[Li (Confucian)|li]]'' "ritual; rites; propriety".
<blockquote>The fundamental criterion of "Chinese-ness," anciently and throughout history, has been cultural. The Chinese have had a particular way of life, a particular complex of usages, sometimes characterized as ''li''. Groups that conformed to this way of life were, generally speaking, considered Chinese. Those that turned away from it were considered to cease to be Chinese.&nbsp;... It was the process of acculturation, transforming barbarians into Chinese, that created the great bulk of the Chinese people. The barbarians of Western Chou times were, for the most part, future Chinese, or the ancestors of future Chinese. This is a fact of great importance.&nbsp;... It is significant, however, that we almost never find any references in the early literature to physical differences between Chinese and barbarians. Insofar as we can tell, the distinction was purely cultural.<ref name="Creel 1970, 197"/></blockquote>
Dikötter says,
<blockquote>Thought in ancient China was oriented towards the world, or ''[[tianxia]]'', "all under heaven." The world was perceived as one homogenous unity named "great community" (''[[Great Unity|datong]]'') The Middle Kingdom [China], dominated by the assumption of its cultural superiority, measured outgroups according to a yardstick by which those who did not follow the "Chinese ways" were considered "barbarians." A Theory of "using the Chinese ways to transform the barbarian" as strongly advocated. It was believed that the barbarian could be culturally assimilated. In the Age of Great Peace, the barbarians would flow in and be transformed: the world would be one.<ref>Dikötter, Frank (1990), "Group Definition and the Idea of 'Race' in Modern China (1793–1949)," ''Ethnic and Racial Studies'' 13:3, 421.</ref> </blockquote>

According to the Pakistani academic [[M. Shahid Alam]], "The centrality of culture, rather than race, in the Chinese world view had an important corollary. Nearly always, this translated into a civilizing mission rooted in the premise that 'the barbarians could be culturally assimilated'"; namely ''laihua'' 來化 "come and be transformed" or ''Hanhua'' 漢化 "become Chinese; be sinicized."<ref>Alam, M. Shahid (2003), "Articulating Group Differences: A Variety of Autocentrisms," ''Science & Society'' 67.2, 214.</ref>

Two millennia before the French anthropologist [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]] wrote ''[[The Raw and the Cooked]]'', the Chinese differentiated "raw" and "cooked" categories of barbarian peoples who lived in China. The ''shufan'' 熟番 "cooked [food eating] barbarians" are sometimes interpreted as Sinicized, and the ''shengfan'' 生番 "raw [food eating] barbarians" as not Sinicized.<ref>An alternative interpretation emphasizing power and state control as the main distinction at play, rather than the degree of cultural assimilation, is offered in Fiskesjö, Magnus. "On the 'Raw' and the 'Cooked' barbarians of imperial China." Inner Asia 1.2 (1999), 139–68.</ref>
The ''[[Liji]]'' gives this description.
<blockquote>The people of those five regions – the Middle states, and the [Rong], [Yi] (and other wild tribes around them) – had all their several natures, which they could not be made to alter. The tribes on the east were called [Yi]. They had their hair unbound, and tattooed their bodies. Some of them ate their food without its being cooked with fire. Those on the south were called Man. They tattooed their foreheads, and had their feet turned toward each other. Some of them ate their food without its being cooked with fire. Those on the west were called [Rong]. They had their hair unbound, and wore skins. Some of them did not eat grain-food. Those on the north were called [Di]. They wore skins of animals and birds, and dwelt in caves. Some of them did not eat grain-food.<ref>Legge, James (1885) [https://books.google.com/books?id=hNYIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA229 The Li ki], Clarendon Press, part 1, p. 229.</ref></blockquote>

Dikötter explains the close association between [[nature and nurture]]. "The ''shengfan'', literally 'raw barbarians', were considered savage and resisting. The ''shufan'', or 'cooked barbarians', were tame and submissive. The consumption of raw food was regarded as an infallible sign of savagery that affected the physiological state of the barbarian."<ref>Dikötter (1992), pp. 8–9.</ref>

Some [[Warring States period]] texts record a belief that the respective natures of the Chinese and the barbarian were incompatible. Mencius, for instance, once stated: "I have heard of the Chinese converting barbarians to their ways, but not of their being converted to barbarian ways."<ref>D. C. Lau (1970), p. 103.</ref> Dikötter says, "The nature of the Chinese was regarded as impermeable to the evil influences of the barbarian; no retrogression was possible. Only the barbarian might eventually change by adopting Chinese ways."<ref>Dikötter (1992), p. 18.</ref>

However, different thinkers and texts convey different opinions on this issue. The prominent Tang Confucian Han Yu, for example, wrote in his essay ''Yuan Dao'' the following: "When Confucius wrote the ''Chunqiu'', he said that if the feudal lords use Yi ritual, then they should be called Yi; If they use Chinese rituals, then they should be called Chinese." Han Yu went on to lament in the same essay that the Chinese of his time might all become Yi because the Tang court wanted to put Yi laws above the teachings of the former kings.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.confucianism.com.cn/detail.asp?id=25097 |title=孔子之作春秋也，诸侯用夷礼，则夷之；进于中国，则中国之. |publisher=Confucianism.com.cn |date=2006-10-04 |access-date=2018-07-12 |archive-date=2018-07-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180712183250/http://www.confucianism.com.cn/detail.asp?id=25097 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Therefore, Han Yu's essay shows the possibility that the Chinese can lose their culture and become the uncivilized outsiders, and that the uncivilized outsiders have the potential to become Chinese.

After the Song dynasty, many of China's rulers in the north were of Inner Asia ethnicities, such as the Khitans, Juchens, and Mongols of the Liao, Jin and Yuan dynasties, the latter ended up ruling over the entire China. Hence, the historian [[John King Fairbank]] wrote, "the influence on China of the great fact of alien conquest under the Liao-Jin-Yuan dynasties is just beginning to be explored."<ref>Fairbank, 127.</ref> During the Qing dynasty, the rulers of China adopted Confucian philosophy and Han Chinese institutions to show that the Manchu rulers had received the Mandate of Heaven to rule China. At the same time, they also tried to retain their own indigenous culture.<ref>Fairbank, 146–149.</ref> Due to the Manchus' adoption of Han Chinese culture, most Han Chinese (though not all) did accept the Manchus as the legitimate rulers of China. Similarly, according to Fudan University historian Yao Dali, even the supposedly "patriotic" hero Wen Tianxiang of the late Song and early Yuan period did not believe the Mongol rule to be illegitimate. In fact, Wen was willing to live under Mongol rule as long as he was not forced to be a Yuan dynasty official, out of his loyalty to the Song dynasty. Yao explains that Wen chose to die in the end because he was forced to become a Yuan official. So, Wen chose death due to his loyalty to his dynasty, not because he viewed the Yuan court as a non-Chinese, illegitimate regime and therefore refused to live under their rule. Yao also says that many Chinese who were living in the Yuan-Ming transition period also shared Wen's beliefs of identifying with and putting loyalty towards one's dynasty above racial/ethnic differences. Many Han Chinese writers did not celebrate the collapse of the Mongols and the return of the Han Chinese rule in the form of the Ming dynasty government at that time. Many Han Chinese actually chose not to serve in the new Ming court at all due to their loyalty to the Yuan. Some Han Chinese also committed suicide on behalf of the Mongols as a proof of their loyalty.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://history.news.163.com/special/00013PNN/vol13.html |title=百家博谈第十三期：从文天祥与元代遗民看中国的"民族主义"_网易博客 网易历史 |publisher=History.news.163.com |date=2009-11-17 |access-date=2013-09-30}}</ref> The founder of the Ming dynasty, Zhu Yuanzhang, also indicated that he was happy to be born in the Yuan period and that the Yuan did legitimately receive the Mandate of Heaven to rule over China.  On a side note, one of his key advisors, Liu Ji, generally supported the idea that while the Chinese and the non-Chinese are different, they are actually equal. Liu was therefore arguing against the idea that the Chinese were and are superior to the "Yi."<ref>Zhou Songfang, "Lun Liu Ji de Yimin Xintai" (On Liu Ji's Mentality as a Dweller of Subjugated Empire) in ''Xueshu Yanjiu'' no.4 (2005), 112–117.</ref>

These things show that many times, pre-modern Chinese did view culture (and sometimes politics) rather than race and ethnicity as the dividing line between the Chinese and the non-Chinese. In many cases, the non-Chinese could and did become the Chinese and vice versa, especially when there was a change in culture.