批判新清史观——


西方和日本的政界学界经常质疑中国的一个问题，就是中国为什么那么大，中国人为什么那么多？  提问者的主要动机啊？其实是质疑现代中国拥有现今领土和统治不同族群人民的合法性，70多年来西方操作所谓的中国侵略西藏的话题，近两三年来西方世界又操作所谓。中国在新疆实行种族灭绝的话题，印度从独立之日起就觊觎蚕食和鲸吞中国的领土，背后炒作的也是中国对西藏的主权议题，这些动作除了现实的政治理由以外，在学理上都是基于一种。

中国边疆史，在国际的学术界，通常被称作内陆亚洲史，这个研究领域在最近的30年来的世界历史学界和所谓的汉学界是一门显学，尤其从中国读者的角度看，最近20多年来。由美国的汉学研究界开启的新清史研究还进一步推动了这个趋势。

新清史和内陆亚洲史之所以在国际上成为某种显学，在一定的程度上，不是因为传统的国际学界对中国文化跟中国历史的好奇,而是因为其中有很多人觉得中国太大，中国这样大必定意味着中国有一个侵略扩张的传统，而现代中国继承这样大的领土，它的合法性恐怕也值得质疑。

这些年来，笔者一些学术文章，在论证传统中国大一统的史实和现代中国领土合法性这方面做了一点微小的工作。在我看来呢，这样的动机和推断造成了国际学界的所谓内亚史研究、中国史研究里面都出现了很多盲点，其中最主要的是误判了清朝成功统治中国的秘诀，误判了清朝的性质，也误读了中国境内的各个族群之间的关系，这使得中国以外的知识界和普通的受众受到误导。也对于近来很长一段时间内习惯跟随国际研究局势的中国知识界和学生产生了某种暗示。使那些本来就抱着汉民族主义偏见的人，（产生了）这一类跟事实差异很大的想法。所以，我想谈一谈我自己对这种现象的看法，跟各位分享一下我自己的研究啊，也希望跟相关的研究做对话，更期待跟大家互动。

中国为什么那么大？这些为中国历史文化骄傲的人会有这个疑问，疑惧中国发展的人更是经常发出这样的质疑。后面这种呢，是从西方的比较狭隘的历史经验出发，看到了拥有广袤国土跟各色人民的国家，马上就自动的把它推定为帝国扩张的产物。在这里呢，我们更必须注意到一件重要的事情，就是当西方和日本的政界在问，中国为什么那么大，中国人为什么那么多这两个问题的时候，他们所要质疑的重点还是现代，中国拥有现今领土的合法性。在他们看来，中国内部有那么多不同的族群，他们都生活在同一个国家体制内，这个现象背后一定有所谓不合理的背景，所以他们认为他们的政界和学界有义务去发掘其中的“不合理”。可是在我看来，即使依照西方所制定的国际法体系，现代中国继承清朝领土和人民遗产的合法性，也是没有疑义的，因为在内部经过大清国际条例和清帝逊位诏书这两个法律文件的确定。在外部还通过包括列强在内的各国跟清朝和后来的中华民国签订了一系列国际条约，以及第二次世界大战的结果所确立的国际秩序，而得到确定，那么西方政界的质疑，在法律上是不能成立的。新清史等等学派的核心论点在学理上也难以成立，所以在这个议题上中国学界无意识的盲从，或者不加分辨、不加批判地跟风实在很不应该。

那么，西方和日本的政治界提出这个问题的动机毫无疑问是跟政治相关的。


我们知道的近代西方殖民者来到亚洲以后，发现殖民中国的难度远远超过殖民其他亚洲国家，而中国呢，存在着广泛的多元族群多元文化现象，于是他们从西方的历史经验出发，把中国看成是一个由征服者建立的帝国。同时也希望借由中国的多元族群多元文化因素作为裂解中国的切入点。接下来呢，西方人和亚洲的日本就开始从政治和学术两个方向来强调中国的多元，否认中国的一体性，否认中国作为一个历史空间的连续性。

在极力追求西化的明治日本时代，部分的日本学者为了解释中国疆域，而将源自西方的一个词语China proper翻译成为中国本部，并且进一步提出元清非中国满蒙非中国论，认为在中国历史当中呢，不是起源于中原地区，而且不是由汉人统治的元朝，还有清朝，不是中国王朝，当时的中国是蒙元和满清的殖民地，而元清扩张的疆域不能被认为是中国的领土。

不能被认为是中国的领土。1923年呢，有个日本人叫矢野仁一，他写的《支那无国境论》和《支那非国论》，这里面呢，就表示了中国不能被称为所谓的民族国家，满蒙藏等原本就不是中国的领土，中国要建立民族国家，就应当放弃对边疆地区的控制，包括政治上的领属，还有历史上的叙述。满蒙非中国论很快就成为日本将它对中国的侵略正当化的理论。同时，也强烈影响到清末的中国革命派的一个驱逐鞑虏恢复中华的主张，在现代世界里面呢，日本的右翼史学、流亡印度的达濑集团台独论者，还有某些汉民族主义者依然对这个理论是趋之若鹜。


无独有偶，一九六十年代，中苏论争之际，苏联官方史学就抛弃了列宁谴责帝俄扩张的论点，在叙述沙皇俄国从清朝管辖的东西伯利亚和中亚地区攫取领土的历史的时候，苏联官方史学的标准答案是：从17世纪末起，俄国就成为西伯利亚东方边境地带的巨大政治势力，制止了满洲封建帝国向北方的扩张，宣告满洲帝国经济跟政治霸权的结束。俄国的政策是什么呢？是和平开发新地区，并且跟邻国和邻近民族建立友好关系。苏联官方史学在赋予俄国的扩张行动正当性的同时，他必须借由贬斥清朝在东西伯利亚、在蒙古和中亚地区的统治跟影响，进一步的来证实加强他的论点。官方学者认为俄国在中亚跟西伯利亚所面对的是两种对像，一个是自我统治的土著，就是仅向周边的强权交纳实物税的游牧部落或者是渔猎部落，第二呢，是准噶尔汗国、喀尔喀蒙古诸汗、漠南蒙古部落等等，跟俄国、清国并列的帝国和国家，这两者都不是清朝的边界。这些苏联官方学者，他把清朝跟蒙古各部之间的互动界定成为干涉蒙古内政，对蒙古诸汗独立造成了实际的威胁。可是，苏联人毕竟没有办法掩盖俄国占领这些地区的事实，为此他们不再使用列宁用于描述沙皇扩张时代使用的帝国主义的概念，转而呢，把俄国与清朝分别定位成为所谓新兴资本主义与封建野蛮落后。这样一来，Marx和恩格斯的这个历史逻辑理论，还有对所谓亚细亚社会的论述就可以派上用场了。

那么冷战结束前后，反对斯大林主义的俄罗斯史学，就开始试图立足于所谓比较中立和客观的态度，把俄国征服西伯利亚和中亚的行动，跟利用边界条约，从清朝东北跟西北夺取大片土地的行动合为一体，定位成为两个帝国扩张和竞争的结果，那么《尼布楚条约》、《爱辉条约》、《北京条约》的签订，无非意味着一个大陆扩张性帝国在跟另外一个大陆扩张性帝国的竞争当中，成为胜利的一方，在涉及中亚的问题上面呢，俄罗斯学者的文章是，他们的观点是伴随1757年清朝征服和准噶尔汗国，中俄两国一道瓜分了中亚地区。论点开始跟近30年来英文中国史研究界的相关论述趋近。

在近30年来，英文的中国式研究界出现了这个一些新的研究趋向，有一种趋向比较引人注目，一些学者主张，世界史的写作应当真正的把中国史研究整合进来，或者换一个更动听的说法，或者换一个更动听的说法，就是说观察中国啊，实在应该从世界史的角度切入啊，这个研究取向被称作新清史，具体而言有两个主要的派别，一个呢叫做Eurasian Similarity Thesis,另外一个叫Altaic school。第一派学者主张，改变所谓东方专制，就是Oriental Dispositism 的刻板印象，放弃所谓的早期近代假设这个early modern hypothesis改采一个所谓欧亚大陆近似理论叫Eurasian Similarity Thesis。这个假说推论，直到18世纪末为止，中国的经济动力完全不亚于同期的欧洲啊，因此呢，俄罗斯帝国和清帝国都是所谓现代帝国，都是MmodernEmpire。针对游牧帝国，这群学者也主张同样重视他们的自我演进过程。尤其是帝国向农耕地区征税的体制跟效能的逐渐完善，足以证明草原政权在简单地重复他们祖先的模式，另一派被称作这个阿尔泰学派Altaic School，他们强调，满洲朝廷跟这个清朝的欧亚大陆中心地区有共同的语言，文化背景，其中中文读者比较熟悉一个叫做Evelyn Rawski的也是罗友枝，这些人的主张清朝整个一代满洲统治集团，在接受汉文化的同时，更坚持致力于保持他们统治民族跟居于人口多数的，也就是汉人臣民的差别，这个满洲精英的这个边疆思维、国防思维跟汉人王朝存存在根本的差异，满洲式的殖民主义在蒙古、新疆和西藏的实施面临跟其他殖民帝国，比如说奥斯曼、莫卧尔、俄国相似的控制扩张、合法性税收等等问题，事实证明，这个跟所谓中国民族主义史学的论述不同，就说中国既不是西方帝国主义的独特受害者，也不是他的漫长官僚文化传统的独特受害者，那么整体来说，欧亚大陆相似理论跟阿尔泰学派，他们只是分别从社会经济结构和统治精英两个不同的角度来切入，前面那个是检视帝国的核心，后面这种是专注帝国的边疆。他们两者最终都是殊途同归，都是推论出在结合欧亚大陆中心价值跟这个农耕地区儒家文化以后，清新帝国的战略文化演变成为足堪跟17世纪世界最前卫的政治文化相拮抗的体系，并且直接导致了帝国向大陆中心的扩张啊，那么，西方读者对这个的理解就是说清帝国跟奥斯曼、土耳其、还有早期沙皇的俄罗斯帝国一样，都是属于早期的近代领土扩张性帝国，正如俄国把西伯利亚和中亚作为他的殖民地一样，清帝国呢，也把蒙古草原、天山南北和青藏高原的当作中国的殖民地，对这些地区进行了军事征服，跟政治，军事镇压，而中华民国跟中华人民共和国从来都没有固有领土，而成为殖民遗产的继承者。由于忽略了清朝的征服扩张史。这个所谓中国民族主义史学，对中国是西方帝国主义的受害者，这个描述就有误导读者之虞。厌弃中国民族主义的自由主义者呢，以及其他这个民族主义里反对所谓中国民族主义的这些人，也同时从欧亚大陆近似理论和阿尔泰学派的学说当中感受到他解构历史目的论的力道跟现实意义，他就推导出现代中国既不是古代王朝的当然继承者也不是不可分割的结论。欧亚大陆近似理论跟阿尔泰学派的主张，他们跟明治以来日本学界还有前苏联学界的主张，显然是有连续的内在的逻辑上的关联。美国的欧亚大陆近似理论，阿尔泰学派的学者特别向他的批评者澄清：他们的学术理论并没有支持日本的这个元清非中国论，他们跟二战之间主张满蒙非中国的日本学者在政治目的上面没有关联。从同行的角度我是宁愿相信欧亚大陆近似理论跟阿尔泰胎学派的这个学者的澄清，但是我对于这个学派的学术论点的渊源和逻辑还是有所保留。我觉得这个学派在很大程度上它是受限于西方历史经验的近代史，民族国家史和殖民史研究的范式，妨碍了他们自己对西区以外历史的深度观察。钟爱阿尔泰学派跟欧亚大陆相似理论的学者,在讨论近代中国问题和中国民族问题的时候，他们以不无惋惜的口吻对于中国没有能够依循奥特曼帝国，也就是那个被迫放弃的巴尔干半岛阿拉伯世界等地、收缩为局限在安纳托利亚半岛的现代土耳其的这种模式，来回归明朝的13省的版图范围感到遗憾。这个例子，我想可以作为阿尔泰学派跟欧亚大陆相似论在立论动机方面的一种佐证。

我想有的朋友可能会问我，西方和日本关注内陆亚洲史在学术动机以外也有政治动机，那么你研究这样冷门的历史是出于什么样的动机？我想我跟很多人一样，一开始只是一个历史控，但是一般而言，历史控还没有真正接触到作为一门人文学科的历史学的领域，有人说一切历史都是当代史这句话一部分就指射到历史学，历史学是当代人对历史的重新理解和重新诠释，它的价值就在于跟以往发生的事件间有很大的时间和空间的距离。这种距离让我们可以发现，以往的亲历者没有能够发现无法发现的那些现象之间的连接，而我们又可以不断的对历史提出新的问题，并且重新提出解释，我们可以想见我们的后人在看待今天的时候，会比我们更清楚，我们今天觉得难以理解的一些事，到我们的后人那里，可能就迎刃而解了，既然历史学要研究历史现象之间的连接，它也需要比较宽广的舞台背景，中国边疆族群政治史就是进一步放大了中国式的舞台，并且跟世界历史连接在一起，我们知道有不少日本学者对中国史的兴趣超过对日本史的兴趣，很重要的一个原因就是中国式的舞台要比日本式的舞台宽广，而在观看中国史舞台上演的京剧的时候，如果用日本能剧的标准。或者是西洋歌剧的标准，恐怕就会看偏，会理解错误，如果再把政治的动机加进来的话，那就更会荒腔走板了，这是我觉得我需要跟中文学界以外的同行对话的理由，很高兴跟各位朋友对话。
进一步提出元清非中国满蒙非中国论，认为中国历史当中，不是起源于中原地区，而且不是由汉人统治的元朝，还有清朝，不是中国王朝，当时的中国是蒙元和满清的殖民地，而元清扩张的疆域不能被认为是中国的领土。不能被认为是中国的领土。1923年有个日本人叫矢野仁一，他写的《支那无国境论》和《支那非国论》，这里面呢，就表示了中国不能被称为所谓的民族国家，满蒙藏等原本就不是中国的领土，中国要建立民族国家，就应当放弃对边疆地区的控制，包括政治上的领属，还有历史上的叙述。满蒙非中国论很快就成为日本将它对中国的侵略正当化的理论。同时，也强烈影响到清末的中国革命派的一个驱逐鞑虏恢复中华的主张，在现代世界里面呢，日本的右翼史学、流亡印度的达赖集团台独论者，还有某些汉民族主义者依然对这个理论是趋之若鹜。


批判新清史2

The ancient Chinese dynasties had not always been established and dominated by Han people. Non-Han people copied Han culture, that is broader in sense than Han people and undeniably appealing, thus entered to own the Central Kingdom(meaning of China). The conclusion that China is a ‘nation state founded in contemporary’ is a narration of Western European history forced upon Eastern Asian history.

古代的中国王朝，并不总是由汉人建立跟主导的。非汉人正是主动的模仿了，比“汉人”概念涵盖更广，而且呢，不可否认的，具有吸引力的“汉文化”才入主中国，而认定中国是近代才建立的民族国家啊，正是把对西欧历史的描述直接套用在东亚历史之上的一种描述。

I want to answer the common questions posed by political scientists in the West and Japan： Why China is so big？  Why are there so many Chinese people?  The motivation of those questioners is to challenge the legitimacy of modern China's territory and its rule over the multiethnic peoples within.  For 70 years, the west has been fabricating China's ‘invasion’ of Tibet.  In the past few years, it raised the topic of so called genocide in Xinjiang. India, since its independence, has his eyes on Chinese territory, challenging China's sovereignty over Tibet. Besides its actual political motivation, all these moves are based on an academically unfeasible hypothesis that modern China is a product of its ancient aggression and expansion.

我要回答西方和日本的政界、学界经常质疑中国的一个问题，那就是中国为什么那么大？中国人为什么那么多？提问的主要动机啊，其实是质疑现代中国拥有现今领土和统治不同族群人民的合法性。70多年来，西方操作所谓的中国侵略西藏的话题近两三年来。西方世界又操作，所谓中国在新疆实行种族灭绝的话题，印度从独立之日起就基于蚕食和侵吞中国的领土，背后炒作的也是中国对西藏的主权议题。这些动作除了现实的政治理由以外，在学历上都是基于一种难以成立的假设:那就是现代中国是古代中国侵略扩张的产物。

Today, I want to talk about two related topics.  First, the forming of the scales of China's territory and population.  Second, is the ‘New Qing History’ description of the Qing's rule over China as a colonial expansion justificable academically?

Let me explain first ‘why China is so big’. Western politicians’ main motivation in raising this question is to question the legitimacy of modern China inheriting traditional Chinese territory. The answer could be very simple. It is because that China has the continuous history of 5000 years and an unparalleled cultural inclusiveness. Therefore, they question further. How to expand territory without aggressive invasion?  How to rule the vast land and populous people within the technological limitation in ancient time? And, how did the land ruled indirectly by previous dynasty come into the modern state’s territory?

今天，我想讲两个相互关联的内容，第一，中国的疆域和人口规模是如何形成的？第二，新清史把清朝统治新疆描述成为殖民扩张，在学术上能不能自圆其说？

我先回答中国为什么那么大这个问题。西方政界一些人提出这个问题的主要动机是质疑现代中国继承传统中国领土的合法性。答案可以很简单，中国拥有5000年连续不断的历史，拥有举世无双的包容力，那么发问者还会进一步疑问啊，一个是不侵略疆域怎么扩大啊？另一个是在古代的技术条件下如何统治广土众民？那么第三呢？王朝仅仅能间接统治的土地，那么如何跟现代国家领土衔接啊？

Therefore, we needs to understand the complexity of the seemingly simple questions. First, how to expand the territory without aggressive invasion? China's territory generally was formed in two ways: “ Swelling” and “Joining”, both of which excluded Han people’s using violence for expansion.

Swelling means that Han people expanding their living sphere due to population growth.  That is continuously developing agriculture and exploring the unique geographic environment, thereby expanding their territory. This usually was done without the military support of the Han power.

这样，我们就有必要了解这个外表简单的答案背后的复杂性。首先，不侵略扩张疆域，怎么扩大?中国疆域的形成啊，基本上是属于膨胀和加入两种方式。这两种方式都排除了汉人的武力扩张。膨胀指的是汉人因为人口膨胀而扩大生存圈，也就是依托得天独厚的地理条件，不断的发展农业文明，从而扩大疆域。这通常并不是在汉人政权武力支持之下进行。

Joining means interaction and fusion of the northern steppe nomads and the Han’s farming society. The Han people had developed the advanced agricultural civilization that was self-sufficient.  However, the steppe nomads living in arid areas outside farmable lands needed agricultural products and some craft· goods.  In order to obtain these products, nomadic groups set up direct and indirect economic and cultural relations with the farming society in central plains through bartering, raiding, political alliance, and even overwhelmingly taking over by force.  

而加入指的是北方草原游牧群体和汉人的农业文明之间的交流和融合，汉人呢，发展出高度的农业文明，它足以自给自足，但在农耕区域以外的干旱区域生活的草原游牧群体却不能缺少农产品，还有部分的手工业产品.为了取得这些产品呢？游牧群体常常要利用产品交换，武力掠夺，政治联盟啊，乃至在武力后盾支持下全面入主等等方式呢，跟中原的农耕地区建立了间接或直接的经济、政治文化关系。

Qin and Han these unified dynasties set up communications with the nomadic powers.  After the decline of Qin and Han, nomadic groups swarmed into farming land of the yellow river drainage. They emulated Han’s political system, economy and culture and established a series of middle ancient polities which drove the Han political power into Yangtze River drainage areas. However, the quasi Han regimes established by nomadic groups themselves were quickly Sinicized. In the mid middle ancient time, the yellow river basin and Yangtze river valley were again unified. With the Han culture as the main body yet more inclusive, the unified Sui and Tang inherited and carried out the proper legacies of each Chinese and barbarian groups, enlarged the map of China in mid ancient time to the size similar to that of today. After the fall of the Tang dynasty, The Khitan founded Liao, Jurchen founded Jin, Mongol founded Yuan, and Manchu founded Qing Dynasties, all following the pattern of the five barbarians  ( migrate, conquer, then sinicize)，conquered the agricultural areas and partly or completely synthesized. In Yuan Dynasty, both Tibet dwelling Tibetans and Turkic speaking Muslims joined Mongols to rule over China, thus became Chinese.

秦汉等汉人主导的统一王朝跟游牧政权建立了交流关系。秦汉统一王朝衰微以后，游牧人群就大量的进入黄河流域农耕地区，仿照汉人的政治制度和经济文化，建立了一系列中古政权。把汉人政权逐往长江流域，但是这些由游牧群体所建立的仿汉政权本身迅速的汉化，到了中古中期呢，黄河流域跟长江流域再度统一，以汉文化为主体，但是包容性更多的新的统一王朝，隋唐接受了北南正确的遗产，并且发扬光大啊，使得中古时代的中国版图达到了跟现代中国大致相等的规模。唐朝衰亡了以后呢，契丹人建立的辽女真人建立的金，蒙古人建立的元和满洲人建立的清朝都是继承这个五胡的模式，入驻农耕区，并且部分的或者完全的汉化了。那么藏人跟他们居住的西藏还有讲突厥语的慕斯淋，都是在元朝加入，跟蒙古人一道加入中国的行列而成为中国人。

Mongolians and Manchus affirmed their Chinese identities once they became the ruling ethnic groups of China. The lands of Manchus, Mongols, Muslims (Turkic speaking) and Tibetans thereby became part of Chinese territory.

蒙古人和满人也是在成为中国的统治民族以后，确定了中国人的身份。满蒙回这里指的是会是突厥语，慕斯淋还有藏的区域，也随之成为中国疆土的一部分。

这段英语都有敏感词……不费劲了



那么其次，古代中国在缺乏现代交通、通讯、市场和军事技术的情况下，如何统治跟今天规模相比之下有过之而无不及的疆域？答案在于，朝廷并不直接统治古代国家的每一个角落。古代王朝设计出了一套核心区域做中心，向边缘逐次减弱的统治秩序，来应对技术和统治力量的局限。具体来说就是在传统的天下秩序之下，中央王朝在他的政治影响范围内，容忍郡县制和封建制的长期並侟。


Ever since prefecture and county system replaced the feudalism as the main political system of ancient Chinese dynasties, the goal of every court of every dynasty was to expand the county-prefecture system, that is to enlarge the range of direct rule. However, on one hand, the radiation of imperial power had its limit. On the other hand, enjoying the autonomy of high degree with its original feudalism protected by the central court, the periphery powers would inevitably resist the county system. This tug of war has lasted for more than 2000 years and is still not quite over until now.

Third, how did the land indirectly ruled by ancient dynasties become territories of a modern state. Part of the answer is that it is related to the bureaucratization of local rules, that is the  continuous expansion of direct rule and the shrinking of indirect rule or local domination.  
自从郡县制取代封建制，成为中国古代王朝的主要政治制度之日起，历代朝廷的目标都是要扩大郡县制，也就是扩大直接统治的范围。可是，一方面朝廷统治的辐射有它的极限，另一方面，原本在封建制下系接受朝廷保护，又享受大范围自制的边陲地方政治势力势必会抵制郡化。这个角力的过程持续了两千余年。都还没结束，第三，王朝仅能间接统治土地，怎么样变成为现代国家的领土？答案是一部分跟改土归流，也就是郡县制直接统治的持续扩大，封建制间接统治的持续收缩有关。

Since the late 13th century, the Mongol Yuan Dynasty combined the interaction between nomadic and sedentary areas and invented a perfected, strengthened and expanded county-prefecture system, known as provincial system. This system had been consistently yet timidly promoted to the ex-feudal, semi-agricultural and nomadic areas through Yuan, Ming and Qing three dynasties. The main driving force to the final acceleration of this process actually came from Western powers. When they invaded East Asia, they destroyed the traditional “all under heaven” order, pushing China to strengthen its borderlines. Even so, the borders of today’s China were not won by force. In fact, the boundaries were forced upon China by western powers. The boundaries had significantly shrunk down but also determined the national identities of the people within.

那么从13世纪后期开始，蒙古人建立的元朝合并了农耕区域和游牧区域的长期互动设计出了进一步完善、强化、扩大的郡县制度，就是行省制度。经过元明清三代持续将这个制度推广到原本实行封建制度的半农耕和游牧区域。这个过程的最终加速的主要动因其实是来自西方列强侵入东亚以后，用强权政治破坏了传统的天下秩序，逼迫中国加强藩篱。即使如此，现在中国的边界也不是中国人用武力抢来的，而是中国被迫接受列强强加给中国的条约，以疆域的大幅收缩的方式来确认了收缩后的国界以及国界内的人民的国民身份。

Western politicians asked another question: Why does China have so many people?  The motivation behind the question is to assert genocide of the Han people, to conclude that China is a product of colonial expansion.  We all know the main demographic base of Chinese nation is Han people. However, the so called Han people are not defined by blood.  Huaxia people are only one of the origins of Han people. So called barbarians nearby, Man yi, rong di. have been joining China throughout Chinese history. Quanrong, xiongnu, xianbei, jie, di, qiang, Tangut Khitan Jurcheb Goryeo, etc from the north and the west. Chu,Wu yue, dai and miao etc. from the south as well as Plain aborigines in Taiwan, etc, have all became historical terms, but they did not disappear, but all became Han Chinese.

西方政界提出另一个问题:中国人为什么那么多? 这个问题也隐含了质疑汉人灭绝其他族群的动机，企图进一步证明中国是殖民扩张的产物。我们都知道，现在中华民族的主要人口基础是汉人，但所谓汉人却不是纯以血统为标准构成的。华夏人是汉人的来源之一，但是周边的所谓蛮夷戎狄也是华夏分支或早已融合了华夏人，在不同时期又不断加入华夏，这个过程长期贯穿在。中国历史之中，北方与西部的犬戎、匈奴、鲜卑、羯、氐、羌、党项、契丹、女真、高丽等等，南方的楚、吴越、滇苗等等，还有台湾岛上的平普等等，都已经成为历史名词了，但他们 并不是凭空而来与华夏没有关系也并没有消失，而是最终全部成为汉人。

Regardless of ethnic intermarriage or intramarriage, over time, there are no “pure-blooded” Han people at all, but the Han people in Han culture.  Similarly, the phenomenon of han people assimilating into minorities since long existed in Chinese history. Today's Tibetans, Hui, Mongols, and even Uyghurs, have since middle ancient times absorbed large amount of neighboring Han people through conquest, slavery, intermarriage, adoption, conversion, acculturation, etc.  Pure blooded Tibetans or Mongolian Uighurs etc., do not exist at all.  And there comes the question: how do these peoples, of mixed bloodlines yet different cultural and political traditions, become Chinese, or Chinese nation, zhong hua min zu?  Why are there so many Chinese? The answer is the ancient Chinese monarch not only compared his relation to his subjects as parent to children, but also carried out this imagination in political practice. This allowed the subjects of the Chinese dynasty to have the notions of one family under heaven and all are brothers within four seas”.  After the mid 19th century. China has suffered a series of foreign invasions.  In the wars against foreign aggressions, especially the two confrontations against Japanese invasions, all peoples in China gained the same historical experience of one shared destiny of life and death that condensed into a unified modern national consciousness thus is formed China in modern sense.  

不论是族际通婚，还是族内的, 长期通婚的结果是根本不存在血统完全纯粹的汉人，只有汉文化之下的汉人。同样，中国历史上也长期存在汉人少数民族化的现象，今天的藏、回、蒙古等族群，甚至于维吾尔族啊，从中古以来，就是以征服啊、奴役啊、通婚、收养、皈依、含化等等方式，大量的吸收了邻近汉人的血统。所以，血统上的藏人、回人、蒙古族、畏兀儿人等也并不存在。那么问题又来了，这些血统混杂，但是文化传统跟政治传统仍然有差别的人群，如何成为中国人，中华民族？中国人为什么那么多啊？我想答案是，中国古代君主国家不仅把君主跟他的臣民比拟为家长和家庭成员的关系。也在政治实践当中贯彻这个想象，这使得中国王朝的臣民有天下一家，四海之内皆兄弟的认知。19世纪中期以后呢？中国遭受一系列外来侵略，在历次抵抗外敌的战争，尤其是两次对抗日本入侵的惨烈战争当中，中国境内的各个人群获得了生死与共、命运相连的共同历史经验，逐渐凝聚出一致的现代民族意识，现代国家，国民意义上的中国人，中华民族就是这样形成的。

Therefore, we now know that the legality and legitimacy of modern China’s inheriting the traditional Chinese territory and people is sufficient.  From this point of view, the discourse of the New Qing History school is problematic.  New Qing History, represented by Eurasian Similarity Thesis and Altaic School, focuses that Qing dynasty’s war against Dzungar Khanate in western Mongolia and the setting up Ili military governor in former Dzungar lands, that is Xinxiang, and establishing over lordship over Mongolia and Tibet. It considers all these  were acts of conquest and expansion, and equivalent to the expansion of European colonialism since the 17th century. Therefore, it has the same nature with Tsarist Russian colonial expansion in Central Asia and Siberia.  The New Qing History emphasizes that  today's Chinese nation state affirmed Qing’s conquest, so the modern nation state inherited the result of kings conquest. It reveals the blind spot of the Chinese nationalism narrative  that ignores the difference between the pre nation states empires and the modern nation and it is an political act to legitimize the improperness that a nation state inherits the legacy of the previous empire.

这样，我们了解到现代中国的继承传统，中国疆域和人民，它的正当性、合法性是充分的，从这个角度来解释新清史的论述，就会发现它存在一些问题，以欧亚大陆近似理论和阿尔泰学派为代表的新清史啊，特别强调清朝对抗西部蒙古准格尔部的战争啊，又在准格尔部的旧地，也就是今天的新疆建置了伊犁将军府，以及在此前后呢，跟蒙古和西藏建立了君臣关系的这个举动是一种扩张和征服行动，是跟17世纪以来。欧洲帝国主义拓展殖民地等量齐观的行径，它的性质跟沙皇俄国在中亚和西伯利亚的殖民扩张的性质相同。新清史强调清朝的征服行动得到了当今的中国民族国家的肯定，征服的结果被现代中国民族国家继承。这显示出中国民族主义论述的盲点。就是混肴前民族国家帝国和现代民族国家的差异，是把民族国家接收的帝国遗产的不当合法化的政治举动。

In other words, this school implies modern China is based on imperial expansionism.  Its inheritance of the Qing dynasties territory and peoples may be illegitimate. Let's look into the historical background under which Qing dynasty established Ili general governorship. And we would also compare the setting and the operation of Ili general governorship with Russia's eastward expansion policies and military governor system. Let’s put these in three points. First , the causes of the Qing Dzungar wars and the war goals of the Qing dynasty.  Second, the nature of Ili governor system. Third. Why despite having the capacity the Qing dynasty was reluctant to expand.

We can thus clearly see the fundamental difference between the two. Russia’s conquest of central Asia and Siberia with the goal of exploiting economic resources were typical colonial conquest. However, looking into Qing’s military action against the Dzungars and its rule over Xinxiang, we found after eliminating the huge military threat, Qing Dynasty constantly increased financial subsidies to Xinxiang.  It's an extension of the defense strategies of traditional agricultural China.

First of all, why were there wars against the Dzungars? What was the goal of the wars?   According to the New Qing History school, Qing initiated the war as an invasion, for colonial conquest. This conclusion already presupposed the default position of questioning china's territory, inevitably withholding some major historical facts. The awakwardness is just like shooting an arrow then drawing a target around it.

换句话说，这个学派暗示了现代中国是建立在接收帝国扩张遗产的基础之上的，它继承清朝的领土和人民遗产这件事不见得合法，那么让我们从几个方面对比一下。清朝设置伊犁将军府相关的前期历史背景，对比俄国东进政策和军事总督体制跟这个伊犁将军府的运作，那么包括三点，第一个清准战争的原因，清朝的战争目标，第二，伊犁将军府的性质，第三，为什么清朝有能力扩张却不愿意扩张？我们就可以清楚的看到。两者的根本差异，那就是俄国对中亚和西伯利亚的政府是以掠夺经济资源为目标，是典型的殖民政府，而清朝对准噶尔部的军事行动和对新疆的统治，却是在消除准部巨大的军事威胁之后，不断加大对新疆的财政补贴，是传统中国农业王朝战略防御政策的延伸。首先，清朝为什么同准噶尔发生了战争？战争的目标是什么？那么依照新清史学派的认知，战争是清朝主动发起的侵略战争，是殖民政府。这种判断出自质疑中国疆域范围的预设立场，势必会出现一个先画靶后射箭, 掩盖一些关键事实的现象。
According to the researchers of the former Soviet and New Qing History, the Qing was just like Russia, driven to enlarge imperial interests. They both saw other states as the targets for conquest, putting aside morality, ruthlessly attacking relatively weaker powers that has neither historical animosity nor actual threat. This description roughly fits Tsarist Russia but cannot explain the situation of Qing dynasty. How to interpret the intimate relationship between Mongolia and the Manchu dynasty? In the eyes of Soviet and New Qing history scholars, It was Dzungar and Khalkha princes allowing Manchus to interfere their internal affairs and Khalkha’s ambassador even flaunted the close relationship between the Tusheet Khan and Kangxi Emperor. This is a contradictory behavior only reflecting the unfamiliarity these scholars of European cultural background have when confronted with Asian political order.  In reality, the Dzungar submitted to the Qing dynasty for the same reason as that of the powers in Mongolian and Tibetan language regions. They need the support of the Chinese court to install their local political authority.  

依照前苏联学者和新清史学者的观点，清朝跟俄国一样，都致力于扩大帝国的利益，为此他们都不惜把其他独立的政权是为征服对象儿，把道德感放在一边，无情的攻打那些既没有历史渊源，也没有现实威胁的相对弱小的政治实体。这样的描述，其实它大致符合沙皇俄国的情形，但是却没有办法解释清朝的状况。怎么看蒙古跟满洲王之后之间的密切关系，在前苏联学者跟新清史学者的眼中，准噶尔和喀尔喀蒙古王公允许满洲人干涉他的内政，喀尔喀蒙古使节还在炫耀土西土汗跟康熙皇帝的亲密关系等等。这是一种自相矛盾的行为。这样的认知，其实显示出欧洲文化背景下的学者面对亚洲政治秩序的时候的一种陌生感。在现实当中呢，准噶尔向清朝称臣的原因跟其他的蒙古语藏语区域的地方势力一样，他们需要获得中国朝廷的支持才能确立他们在当地的政治权威。

Not only that. Dzungar and Turkic speaking Muslims in the sourtern foothills of Altishahr or the oases of today’s Tarim basin and Kahlkha Mongols on the steppe and the entire Tibetan area including the Qinghai, Kanqu and Weizang, have all maintained this inseparable political, economic and cultural relationship.  After Russia transitioned into capitalist imperial power, however, Siberia, central Asia, and Mongolian Khanates, including the Dzungars  did not pose any objective threat to Russian security. These political forces subjectively did not have any intention of Westward invasion or plunder of Russia.

In contrast the Dzungar Khanate not only targeted Khalkha for a long time but Also intervened in other Oirat tribes’ political affairs in Qinghai and Tibet, even launched military assault in the core area of Qing dynasty. It once reached Ulan Butung, only 300 kilometers away from beijing.

不仅如此，准噶尔部跟天山南路的回部，也就是今天塔里木盆地突厥语慕斯淋这些绿洲，具有蒙古草原的卡普以及包含青海和康区卫藏在内的整个藏区，都维持了这种政治的、经济的以及文化上的没有办法切割的密切关系。而自俄国转型为资本帝国强国，近代军事强国之后，包括准噶尔汗国在内的西伯利亚、中亚和蒙古族汗国在客客观上对俄国的安全完全不构成威胁。这些政治势力在主观上也完全没有去侵略掠俄国的意图。相反，准噶尔汗国不仅长期的基于卡尔卡普，并且介入其他厄鲁特部落控制的青海、西藏的政局，甚至像清朝的核心地区发动军事攻势啊，他一度达到了距北京只有300公里的乌兰布通。

In order to increase its odds  Dzungar Khanate even formed a military alliance with Russia  Just when the conflict between king and Russia in Siberia was escalating,  Russian and Galdan Khan entered alliance. Galdan launched fairly large scale military and political actions to cooperate with Russian forces in the Heilongjiang River basin, forcing Qing government to consider avoiding fighting on two fronts and giving up the insistence of Nerechinsk as the Sino Russian border during negotiation, giving big concessions to Russia. Also the Dzungar Khanate heavily intervened in the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama, severely challenging the Qing's authority on Tibetan Buddhism and its legitimacy in Mongolia. Clearly the Dzungars posed a major threat to the qing dynasty. If Qing dynasty did not strike back, The foundation of its state would be shaken.

Therefore, calling the Qing’s wars against the Dzungars “ invasions”,  is like a prepared excuse.

为了扩大自己的胜算，准噶尔汗国更跟俄国建立了军事跟战略同盟。所以，正当清朝跟俄国在黑龙江流域冲突的规模扩大的时候，俄国人跟噶尔丹结盟，噶尔丹用相当大规模的军事行动跟政治行动来配合俄军对黑龙江流域的侵略，迫使清政府考虑避免两线作战，放弃在中俄边界谈判当中，坚持以尼布楚为界的底线，向俄方大幅让步，不仅如此。准噶尔汗国还强力的介入达赖喇嘛的转世，对标榜以藏传佛教立国并且统治蒙古、西藏清朝政府的合法性构成了严重的挑战。显然啊，准部对清朝构成重大威胁，清朝如果不反击，它的立国基础就会动摇。这样，把清朝准噶尔的战争定义成为侵略，很像是一种欲加之罪。
Let's take a look at the war goal.

Chinese dynasties usually ignore the economic interests but were satisfied with the ancient way of marriage alliance to build an equal partnership with the nomads. Or they sought only formal subordination, at most indirect rule. Even after the establishment of the Ili general governor which was called a colonial tool buy English and Russian historians, the Qing government never attempted to extract economic benefits from Xinxiang.  Aside from taxation, from tutian soldiers (self sufficient peasant soldiers) the court must also mobilized provinces to subsidize Xinjiang’s fiscal and military needs with the assistance system while Mongolia and Uyghur upper classes and even the outer vassal Kazakh still enjoyed the financial subsidies and economic assistance in the name of tribute and return gift.

我们再来看。战争的目标。中国王朝通常忽略经济利益，仅仅满足于用通婚也是核心的古老方式建立具有平等意味的同盟，或者仅寻寻求形式上的臣服，最多，是实行间接统治。即使在被鄂文英文史学界称为殖民工具的伊犁将军府设立以后，清朝仍然没有一刻试图从新疆抓取经济利益，除了税源来自屯田士兵以外，朝廷还必须动员各省在协商制度下去补贴新疆的财政和军区，而蒙古、畏兀儿的上层，甚至作为外藩的哈萨克，依然享受着以朝贡回赐为名的财政补贴的经济援助。

In contrast, Russia’s motivation toward eastern Siberia and central Asia was just conquest and exploitation. Its policies were meant to set up the political and economic system that secures its conquest and exploitation. The characteristics of the modern Western European colonialism were the colonizing states using military force to coerce others to sign treaties, to seize the land for colonies, appointing governors in colonies, robbing raw materials and labor resources from colonies, selling industrial products it made to those colonies, inculcating its own cultural and religious values, suppressing the colonized peoples’ sense of autonomy and movements for the rights.

These characteristics fit western European countries. Russia, the US, Japan and those modern capitalist countries.  The role and expansion of ancient empires such as China, Arabia, Inca, Mughals and Ottonmans were significantly different from the modern colonialism and its characteristics. The Russian expansion, in terms of the essence, except for sea crossing, is not so different from other colonial empires, so official soviet scholars admitted after the 17 century, Russia’s westward expansion had two purposes. The first one is to search for soft fur gold and silver which were extremely valuable in Europe at the time.  The second one is so forth resident in central and northern Asia to surrender to the Tsar. In reality, Russia was not satisfied with mere nominal submission of Siberian and central Asian tribes.
相较之下，俄国政府对东西伯利亚和中亚的动机就是政府和攫取。它所实行的政策就是建立保障征服和崛起的政治经济体系，那么西欧型的近代殖民主的特征是殖民宗主国以鼓励胁迫来签订条约等等手段来夺取殖民地的土地，在殖民地人民总督掠夺殖民地的原料劳力这些资源，向殖民地来倾销本土的工业品，灌输它自己的文化宗教价值，压制殖民地民众的自主意识以及争取权益的一些行动。符合这些特征的是什么？西欧诸国、俄国、美国、日本这些具有近代资本主义性质的国家，而历史上的中国，阿拉伯、印加、阿莫尔、奥特曼这些古代帝国的扩跟统治，跟近代殖民主义、殖民帝国的特征是有显著差异的。俄国的扩张，除了跨越海洋之外，在特征跟性质上跟其他的殖民帝国并没有什么不同。所以苏联官方学者，也曾承认，17世纪之后，俄国东进的目的有两个，第一是寻找当时欧洲市场上价值非常高的软毛皮，还有金银矿，第二是让中亚北亚土地上居民归顺君主，事实上，俄国的甚至并不满足于在西伯利亚和中亚部落口头上宣示臣服。

Since Russia’s first contact with Dzungar Khanate it had determined “to turn Oirat princes into Russian subject and turn the subjects under the princes into masses that provide taxes to the Russian treasury and turn the land. they lived into Russian territory.”  The fact that Russia was willing to undertake large political risks for minor economic benefits expressed the capitalist and colonial characters of this empire.

Second, let's see if the Ili general governor was a colonial institution.  During the mid 18th century, the Qing government established “Ili general” in former Dzungar lands， renamed Xinxiang. This military governance system was not a new invention. From a traditional perspective the Han dynasty established protectorate systems in the western regions. The protector was the tuntian(the state run farms for the military)commander. Without setting up counties the imperial court used western region protectorate to indirectly govern each oasis city.  Tuntian armies use the way of tutian to fund itself.  Tang dynasty set up profectorates in western regions.  The positions of Jimi governors and bureaucrats were held by indigenous leaders. It's also indirect governance. The garrison army also used the same method of tutian to found itself.  So now, looking at the system of the Qing dynasty. The Ili general governor included the twin systems of administration and military affairs with civil administration, subordinated to military ministry, operated by local civil officials.

俄国人在接触噶尔汗国的开始就确立“把这些卫特拉王公变为俄国的臣民，把从属于这些王公的臣民，变成了向俄国国库提供实物税的属民，并且把他们居住的土地变成俄国领土”这个政策。所以，俄国人为不算可观的经济利益，甘愿扩大政治风险，凸显出这个帝国的资本主义殖民主义性格。第二，我们看伊犁将军府是不是一个殖民机构？18世纪中期，因这个清政府在被命名为新疆的准噶尔故地设置了伊犁将军。这个军府制度并不是一个全新的发明啊。从传统的角度看呢，汉朝在西域实行都护制，西域长史是屯田指挥官啊，不在当地设军县，朝廷是透过西域都护对各个绿洲实行间接统治。屯田部队呢，就是用屯田的方式来自筹军需。 唐朝在西域建立军府，就作为大都护府，他下面的羁縻都督府长官跟官吏都由土著首领来担任，也实行间接统治。，驻扎西域的军队，同样以屯田的方式来自筹军事。那么从清朝的制度看，伊犁将军府的民政、军事两套系统构成，他民政事务在军政大臣主持下，交给各地的民政官员办理。
The qing dynasty implement the Tuntian system in xinjiang. Which was described again by western scholars as military colonies. It also established the ethnically segregated twin cities around Tianshan. There was the economic basis of the Qing military in xinjiang. The tax income mainly came from soldier farmers and Han migrant peasants, as well as production from  pasturing and mining. This was called border feeding border avoiding directly taxing Turkic Muslim residents in Tarim basin. New Qing history scholars also admit tuntian and military migration were a Chinese tradition with a long history and was enormously costly. In addition to providing agricultural tools, seeds, and loans to soldiers and peasants, in the end, the crop taxes from han and muslim tuntian and peasants were often waived. It could only collect the income from the military farmers. We see here the Qing dynasty continued a long tradition from the Han and Tang.  So today's China continues the traditions of the Qing dynasty.  In addition to giving taxing power and income to local muslim secular officials. Qing authorities did not intervene local muslims social and cultural lives. These characteristics are clearly different from modern western colonialism. In comparison. The Russians were very passionate in spreading Orthodox religion and slavic culture.  This demonstrates the major difference between the Ili general governor and Russian colonies  in Siberia and central Asia. The Qing has no garrison troops in subject regions outside of Xinxiang such as Khalkha Mongolia, and Tibet. Nor did it exploit local resources. On the contrary, Beijing utilized the inter marriage with the Mongolian Nobility and the worship of Tibetan Buddhism , of course as well the use of it as political means. Upon its military conquest over Xinjiang for the purpose of defense other than expansion, Qing Dynasty did not apply a high hand rule backed by military forces. It's strategic goal of ruling xinjiang[1]  was still ensuring strategic security of agricultural areas.

驻扎西域的军队，同样以屯田的方式来自筹军事。从清朝的制度看，那么从清朝的制度看，伊犁将军府的民政、军事两套系统构成，民政事务在军政大臣主持下，交给各地的民政官员办理。清朝在新疆实行屯田措施。不过这个又被西方学者描述称为军事殖民，他又在天山南北，普遍建立了不同族区分割居住的双子城制度。屯田是清政府在新疆实行军府制度的经济基础，税收主要是来自屯田的士兵、汉人移民的屯田、跟畜牧还有矿冶的产出。这个被称作以边养边，借此避免向塔里木盆地突厥语慕斯淋居民直接征税。新清史的研究者也承认，军事移民就是屯田，是具有长久历史的中国传统，并且花费巨大。朝廷除了必须向士兵跟各族的屯垦民众提供农具、种子还有贷款之外，最终往往要蠲免“户屯”跟“回屯”这些屯村民的谷物税，他仅能将兵屯的士兵收益归公。我们在这里看到，清朝延续了汉唐的传统，那么今天的中国也延续了清朝的传统，除了把税收权利跟收益大致交由本地的慕斯淋世俗官员以外，清朝当局也不干预当地突厥语慕斯淋社会生活还有文化生活，这些特征显然不同于源于西欧的近代殖民主义。相照之下，俄国人对于传播东正教还有斯拉夫文化，它是抱有相当的热诚。这些都显示伊犁将军府跟俄国在西伯利亚和中亚的那些总督府的性质有着相当的差异。清朝对于新疆之外的喀尔喀，蒙古，西藏等等成熟地区的都没有实行驻军也没有掠夺当地资源，相反北京朝廷是采用的蒙古贵族通婚，尊崇、当然也利用藏传佛教的政治手段，即是面对基于防御需求，而不是扩张动机之下的以军事手段征服天山南北，清朝也没有实行以武力为后盾的直接高压统治，他统治新疆的战略目标依然是保障农业地区的战略安全。

Therefore, the essence of its rule of Xinjiang still remained security defense, no big difference from the tradition of the central plains dynasties of 2000 years.

New Qing History believes that the Qing Dynasty was following its geopolitical strategy with its Altaic culture advantage and linearly evolved smarter, smart enough to effectively compete with the states which were backed with capitalist system and military technologies under European cultural background.  This greatly overestimated Qing Dynasty’s power.  Of course, we admit , although Qing dynasty was not a modern capitalist nation state and had no colonialist characters, but in terms of political and military power, it still had the capabilities to expand. In fact, in Asia at the time, the system and civilization of Qing Dynasty had great appeal to surrounding peoples, but the Qing dynasty did not use its power for aggressive expansion. After the Qing Dynasty subjugated the Dzungars, Kazakhs and Kyrgyz along the border of Xinxiang, as well as Kokhand, Badakhshan Bukhara and Afghanistan in central Asia these tribes successively petitioned the Beijing court, requesting to submit and become subject of qing dynasty like Uighurs .   This phenomenon shows the system of Qing dynasty. was quite attractive to central Asia. But Emperor Qianlong rejected the demands of these polities.  He was only willing to view these states as outer vassals instead of annexation. The Qing Dynasty treated the affairs of outer vassals differently from inner vassals within china's border, like Mongolia and Tibet which had a formal administrative yet actually indirect rule. Instead, the outer vassals, such as Korea and Vietnam, formed the tributary relations to Qing China which only granted nominal titles to them without appointing officials, demanding taxation, interfering in their internal affairs, or intervening in conflicts among them.  After establishing the Ili governor general, Qing never send troops to any of its subject states, or set up any administration and military institution or appoint officials or receive taxation. If we turn our attention to southeast Asia. We will notice that. since the late Ming dynasty. Chinese immigrants there had notable numbers and status, an overwhelming economic influence. If Ming and Qing dynasties followed the colonialist path, expand into southeast Asia, I don't think it would take too much effort to turn south east Asia, which was still premodern and far from developing modern national consciousness, into their own spheres of influence. But neither the Ming nor Qing dynasty did so.

因而他仍不脱保守防御的性质，这个跟中原王朝2000年来的传统并没有截然的差异。新清史的认定，清朝是携着它的战略设计，地缘文化上的阿尔泰性，线性的演变得更聪明，聪明到足以跟欧洲文化背景下面以资本主义制度跟技术作为后援的军事帝国进行有效的竞争。这不免大大的高估了清朝能力。

第三，我们当然承认，尽管清朝不是资本主义近代民族国家，不具备殖民主义的特质，但是在政治和军事力量方面，它还是具有扩张能力的。事实上在当时的亚洲，清朝的制度和文明对周边具有很大的吸引力，可是清朝并没有利用他的能力进行侵略扩张。清朝对各部只要求名义上的臣服，不设置关税，不责贡赋，不干涉他的内部事务，不介入各部之间的纷争。在设置这个伊犁将军府以后，从来没派军队进入周边的藩属各国，不在他的地方设置任何行政机构跟军事机构，不委派官吏不征收税赋。如果我们把目光从中亚再转向东南亚，更会注意到从明朝后期开始。这个华人移民在这里的数量的地位，还有压倒性的经济影响。如果明朝和清朝依照殖民主义的思维和逻辑向东南亚来扩张的话，我想不需要花费太大的力气，就可以把这个仍然处在中国政治状态的，远远没有产生近代民族意识的东南亚区域变成自己的势力范围。但是明朝和清朝都没有这样做。

所以我们对比一下西欧各国，还有俄国，还有日本，他们在非洲、美洲、亚洲、大洋洲的做法差异就不言自明了。最后我们从学术洞察力，叙述方法的角度感兴趣的问题，二太学派强调应该重视汉人以外，周边其他族群本身的特质，尤其强调征服王朝，超越中国的意义。这个主张是尤以批判从现代汉人为主题的中国出发来追寻古代历史的这个不妥当的倾向，但是也意外的导致读者产生了一个汉人对中国的思想文明对周边的影响并不显著的印象。可是事实上古代的中国王朝并不总是由汉人建立跟主导的，非汉人正是主动地模仿了比汉人概念涵盖更广，而且不可否认的，具有吸引力的汉文化才入驻中国。而认定中国是近代才建立的民族国家，正是把对西欧历史的描述直接套用在东亚历史之上的一种描述。欧亚大陆相似论，着眼于扩大历史想象空间，但是却过分淡化了读者对于存在于东西方历史传统中的诸多难以忽略的差异。应该有的认知，像殖民地的概念本身就是源自西欧的近代历史经验西欧和追求西欧化的恶果，都把大幅度的跨越，空间局限，不限度的来追求民族国家利益，当作是国家目标。中国王朝的文化空间跟政治疆域，其实是从中心向四周逐渐扩散的，那么后面这种过程在时间上和空间尺度上都难以跟欧洲的殖民扩张相比。现代中国的诞生和国家意识的形成，跟欧洲的状态，正是由于现代中国民族国家，或者说是多民族国家，是从传统帝国蜕变而成的，那么现代中国民族国家或者是多民族国家。他的国家意识，其实是混杂了传统帝国当中没有边界的天下观和中外有别，就是核心和边缘有别的边疆民族观，才使得立足于西欧历史经验的苏联人，后来的俄国人和当代西方中国史研究界感到无从入手，而必须加以析解，使它来适应他们所熟悉的那个分析推理模式。

把中国史研究带向世界，是方向的必经之途，其实是在于回归对于东亚历史特殊性的考察，避免在这个历史想象里面把欧亚大陆东部和中部的古人西欧化、现代化。
※ 修改:·bocaj 于 Jun 10 03:39:29 2022 修改本文·[FROM: 222.131.240.*]
※ 来源:·水木社区 http://m.mysmth.net·[FROM: 114.254.2.*]

修改:bocaj FROM 222.131.240.*
FROM 114.254.2.*