Jinyong main character best!

[Ken Cheng]

I thought the Jurchen and Manchuarian peoples were actually the same group, separated by a few generations and with a new name.

[Ian Liew]

I thought the Jurchen and Manchuarian peoples were actually the same group, separated by a few generations and with a new name.

I believe they were. The Jurchens under the Jin Empire had little regard for ethnic relations, though, while Shunzhi and Kangxi were very conscious of it. I think the defection of Han talent to the Qing Dynasty during Abahai's reign (people disillusioned by the corruption in the Ming Court and the fickle nature of Chongzhen) had a lot to do with the respect the Manchurian court had for the Hans. That, and the fates which befell the Jin and Yuan dynasties. By the time the Qing occupied Beijing it already had a fair share of Han Chinese in employment, and it would have been easier to assimilate more into their Banner system. There was still prejudice, of course, but policy dictated that everyone was equal even if it wasn't so in practice. During the Jin and Yuan dynasties the Han were treated as little more than conquered vassals.

[Riverlake]

I don't think the Khitans were portrayed overly negatively - wasn't there this scene in DGSD where Han soldiers were butchering Khitan peasants, prompting a paradigm shift in Xiao Feng's thinking and making him realise there was no good country and bad country - just good people and bad people on both sides?

I don't think showing that Han Chinese were also capable of evil is evidence of positive Khitan portrayal, since Jin Yong has been doing the former throughout his novels. Remember the Khitan emperor in the same novel was presented as a villain and a coward, who refused to listen to Xiao Feng's advice to stop the invasion of the Song, but then did listen to him when his own life was in danger. Further the Khitans were always portrayed as the other side; we were always on the Song's side in terms of the view.

History hasn't given much credit to the Jurchens and Mongols either (at least where their handling of ethnic relations with the Han chinese citizenry they conquered are concerned), and other than Kublai, it is generally recognised that the Mongol regime was a really weak and oppressive one. It was the lessons learnt from the Jurchens and Mongols which prompted the Manchus to make efforts to practice inclusivity and equality among ethnicities. It didn't always translate into reality, but enough Han support came from the people that ensured Kangxi, Yongzheng and Qianlong would oversee over 150 years of development for China.

The Mongols were certainly not nice people, but Jin Yong portrayed them, previous to the invasion of the Song, as being more worthy of respect than either the Khitans or the Jurchens. I'd say in terms of portrayal, it actually goes Manchu > Mongol > Khitan > Jurchen. There might be a historical reason for this since the Jurchens were historically seen as having betrayed the Song's trust, since they were allies before the Jurchens decided to suddenly invade. But you still can't ignore the fact that Jin Yong specifically portrays certain Qing rulers as heroes in his works, while he doesn't do so for any of the other groups' rulers as long as they were enemies of Han Chinese.

In terms of history study, I think it's more argued these days that Qing inclusiveness is overrated and that ethnic inequality was the basis of their power. When Jin Yong wrote his books, however, the idea that the Manchus were basically sinicized & that their empire was very inclusive might have been popular. In any case, Jin Yong had personal reasons to believe this idea since his own family used to be wealthy and powerful under the Qing.

[Mandred Skavenslayer]

I don't think showing that Han Chinese were also capable of evil is evidence of positive Khitan portrayal, since Jin Yong has been doing the former throughout his novels. Remember the Khitan emperor in the same novel was presented as a villain and a coward, who refused to listen to Xiao Feng's advice to stop the invasion of the Song, but then did listen to him when his own life was in danger. Further the Khitans were always portrayed as the other side; we were always on the Song's side in terms of the view.

I wouldn't call the Khitan King a cowrd. He fought bravely during the civil war and was even ready to commit suicide in order to save his men. He was a loyal friend and good judge of character earning him the brotherhood of QF. His refusal to listen to QF was just an example of him being autocratic not a villain. Him negotiating for his life was merely him being sensible and adhering to Khitan custom.

The Mongols were certainly not nice people, but Jin Yong portrayed them, previous to the invasion of the Song, as being more worthy of respect than either the Khitans or the Jurchens. I'd say in terms of portrayal, it actually goes Manchu > Mongol > Khitan > Jurchen. There might be a historical reason for this since the Jurchens were historically seen as having betrayed the Song's trust, since they were allies before the Jurchens decided to suddenly invade. But you still can't ignore the fact that Jin Yong specifically portrays certain Qing rulers as heroes in his works, while he doesn't do so for any of the other groups' rulers as long as they were enemies of Han Chinese.

In terms of history study, I think it's more argued these days that Qing inclusiveness is overrated and that ethnic inequality was the basis of their power. When Jin Yong wrote his books, however, the idea that the Manchus were basically sinicized & that their empire was very inclusive might have been popular. In any case, Jin Yong had personal reasons to believe this idea since his own family used to be wealthy and powerful under the Qing.

The three 'good Emperors' are generally accepted as amongst the best rulers in China's thousands of years of history. Kangxi especially represents the enlightened despot. The man's respect and inclusion of Han culture is well known. I can think of few other Emperors who did half as much as he did to include a conquered people in his administration.

[Riverlake]

I wouldn't call the Khitan King a cowrd. He fought bravely during the civil war and was even ready to commit suicide in order to save his men. He was a loyal friend and good judge of character earning him the brotherhood of QF. His refusal to listen to QF was just an example of him being autocratic not a villain. Him negotiating for his life was merely him being sensible and adhering to Khitan custom.

Maybe coward is the wrong word to use, as Jin Yong's portrayal of actual emperors, regardless of ethnicity, have always been more negative than positive, except with respect to the Qing, which I find telling.

The three 'good Emperors' are generally accepted as amongst the best rulers in China's thousands of years of history. Kangxi especially represents the enlightened despot. The man's respect and inclusion of Han culture is well known. I can think of few other Emperors who did half as much as he did to include a conquered people in his administration.

This has been shown to be more propaganda than fact. I encourage you to read Mark Elliott's "The Manchu Way: The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China". Even though emperors like Kangxi and Shunzhi repeatedly issued statements to the effect that the empire was inclusive, that it treated all ethnic groups equally, etc. they never actually dismantled the institutional biases that enabled Manchu rule. Thus, Elliott describes the state of Qing ethnic relations as:

"Manchu-Han equality was largely a myth. Manchu and Han, that is, were not one family: Manchus lived in separate ghettos administered by the Eight Banners, enjoyed a special relationship with the emperor, were significantly privileged over Han in terms of entry and promotion in officialdom, systematically received all manner of financial and material bonuses, and enjoyed special legal preferences."

It is telling, in this respect, that Manchus filled >50% of all the highest government posts of the empire, despite making up less than 2% of its population, all the way till the end of the dynasty. The reason is that they could, for example, skip the imperial examinations altogether, and receive posts directly through the court. The Qing government was always careful to guarantee a majority of Manchus, or close to it, in high government.

Of course Jin Yong would not have known any of this at the time of writing the novels.

[Mandred Skavenslayer]

It is telling, in this respect, that Manchus filled >50% of all the highest government posts of the empire, despite making up less than 2% of its population, all the way till the end of the dynasty. The reason is that they could, for example, skip the imperial examinations altogether, and receive posts directly through the court.

Thanks for the ref, will check it out.

There will always be a privileged class in any society. Even during the Chinese golden age of the Tang Dynasty there were still many posts that was hereditary and noble families could by-pass exams.

We must also remember Kangxi's scholar programme which actively promoted Han culture. Can you name any Han Emperor who did the same for a conquered people.

[Riverlake]

We must also remember Kangxi's scholar programme which actively promoted Han culture. Can you name any Han Emperor who did the same for a conquered people.

The problem with this question is that no Han emperor ever sat on the throne of a foreign country. Han conquests took the form of a slow expansion of China's borders, and groups that submitted during the course of this expansion were always minorities living along the edge of the empire. It would make no practical sense to promote their culture in the heart of the empire. The Qing was just the opposite - it took over an existing empire, majority population, and culture. The conquest nature of the Qing made it fundamentally different, almost by definition, since you would never consider Han emperors promoting Chinese culture in the same light.

[Mandred Skavenslayer]

The problem with this question is that no Han emperor ever sat on the throne of a foreign country. Han conquests took the form of a slow expansion of China's borders, and groups that submitted during the course of this expansion were always minorities living along the edge of the empire. It would make no practical sense to promote their culture in the heart of the empire. The Qing was just the opposite - it took over an existing empire, majority population, and culture. The conquest nature of the Qing made it fundamentally different, almost by definition, since you would never consider Han emperors promoting Chinese culture in the same light.

Not sure why this should count against the Qing? They adopted a system that allowed them to effectively rule a much larger population than their own, while not imposing their own culture onto others. That is very hard to achieve when the conquest is so rapid, like in the conquest of America. The European invaders forced their own ideal onto the natives and destroyed the indigenous culture. By comparison the Qing was a much less intrusive invasion, requiring only a change of ruling class and some drastic hairstyle changes.

[Riverlake]

Not sure why this should count against the Qing? They adopted a system that allowed them to effectively rule a much larger population than their own, while not imposing their own culture onto others. That is very hard to achieve when the conquest is so rapid, like in the conquest of America. The European invaders forced their own ideal onto the natives and destroyed the indigenous culture. By comparison the Qing was a much less intrusive invasion, requiring only a change of ruling class and some drastic hairstyle changes.

It doesn't count against the Qing. I was responding to your question about why we can't find Han emperors who did the same for groups they conquer. The reason is that they were never in the same political situation.