Qian Qianyi's commentary (VIII) the concept of nationality in the modern sense cannot summarize the contradictions and struggles of the 17th century

As for the national contradictions, among these three contradictions they can only be the most minor contradictions, and can even be said to be a manifestation of other contradictions. Nationalism in the modern sense was born fairly recently until the 17th century, when it was accompanied by the emergence of the capitalist state, a collection of political, economic, and nation-states. However, as an ideology, it was not until the 19th century, when Napoleon swept through the old feudal forces of Europe that the idea of nationalism was invented. In the West, nationality became an ideology based on race and language as a basis for identifying with the legitimacy of state power. This ideology obscures the fact that its essential ruling classes are engaged in expansion and the struggle of oppression and exploitation. Before that, no language or ideology had ever had the concept of a nation. Even if there is, it is also a reference to a certain community, such as certain tribal alliances, blood relative groups, such as celts, Cherokee, etc., and for example, it is a collective term for the region, such as Arabs, Americans, Indians, and even simply indigenous peoples, there is no sense of mutual identity within these "peoples", and some have a lot of differences in language and culture, and sometimes even disagree with each other. In fact, these "nations" do not have the inherent basis for determining the legitimacy of rule based on national identity in the modern sense. Even in the West, before the 19th century, this ideology was not recognized. In medieval Europe, people fought not for the state, not for the nation, but for the duty of their lords. In 1640, when Charles I was representing England and Scotland in the Episcopal War, the domestic people were full of resentment, the soldiers did not fight hard, the parliament did not raise salaries, and the common people directly went to the Scottish army to take the initiative to ask to be their leading party; even the Catholics who donated to the king did not love the nation of England and felt that the nation had reached the most dangerous moment, but because of the loyalty of Catholics to the king, they supported the king, not the state, the nation. In the course of the Bourgeois Revolution in England, it was not uncommon for the English people to betray the interests of the "state", and in the end even the crown of the king was dedicated to william III, the ruler of the Netherlands. It was not until the beginning of the 19th century that nation-states based on race and language became the new ideology of rallying the masses of the people outside of kings and lords. It was not until the Napoleonic era that "nationalism" based on race and language became the tyranny of the ruling class after the fading of the lordlike society and against the tyranny imposed on it by other ruling forces, the most typical of which was the struggle of Poland, Hungary and other peoples for national independence and liberation. As Mises said: The original nationalists were not against foreign races, but against tyrants.

In China, there are some differences in this situation. Chinese civilization is a politically precocious civilization, and its large and unified territory has caused it to be extremely advanced in ideological speculation. China's dynastic state has never distinguished you and me by race and language. In ancient China, the theory of dealing with ethnic contradictions was the "Distinction between Huayi and Yi" (華夷之辨). The theory of "Huayi Discernment" is rooted in Confucian literature such as "Spring and Autumn", "Zhou Li", and "Li Ji", which is based on civilized etiquette as the standard for crowd discrimination, and those who conform to Chinese etiquette and customs are Hua, Xia, and Chinese, and those who do not conform are Yi, barbarians, and people outside. For example, if Zheng Guo was originally a Zhuxia, if his behavior was not in line with etiquette, he was also regarded as a barbarian; while Qin Chu and other foreign countries, as long as they agreed with the Chinese etiquette and customs civilization and actively moved closer to change, they would gradually be included in the category of Huaxia. After the pre-Qin Dynasty, the connotation of "Huayi Discernment" was constantly changing, and gradually changed into a national concept that determined the belonging of the nation with cultural and psychological identity, such as Cheng Yan of the Tang Dynasty pointed out in the "Neiyi Tan": "The people of the Four Yi have long been retranslated, and the benevolence and faithfulness of Mu Zhonghua, although they are out of a foreign land, can rush to China, I am not called Yiyi." The people of China have always been stubborn and kingly, forgetting to abandon benevolence, righteousness, and faithfulness, although they are out of China, they are rebellious and rebellious, and I am not called Huayi. Wang Fuzhi even clearly pointed out: the difference between Yixia and Yixia is relative, Yi and Xia are divided according to culture, not blood, and the essence of ethnic differences is cultural differences. It can be seen that ancient China was a nationalism in the cultural sense, not a simple blood nationalism.

When the Manchu Qing Dynasty first entered the customs, it was very cruel and barbaric, even more backward than during the reign of Emperor Taiji. The Ten Days of Yangzhou, the Three Massacres of Jiading, the shaving of hair and the change of clothes, and the great revival of the cultural prohibition were extremely drastic in the destruction of productive forces, civilization, and culture, and their deeds were heinous. This is obviously not what a civilized race should do. Judging from the traditional Yixia view, the Manchu Rulers were not Chinese at that time in terms of culture and civilization. They not only caused many massacres and caused great harm to people's hearts, but more importantly, they destroyed and attacked culture and civilization, causing an irreparable decline in the ideological fields and the shaping of independent personalities. This has led to a great retrogression of the whole society in all aspects of ideology, culture, politics and economy. Obviously, when the Manchu Qing First Entered the Customs, it still had a very backward and barbaric appearance, so resisting the Manchu Qing dynasty at that time was not only defending daming, but also defending the level of development of productive forces, defending the achievements of civilization, and defending the cultural bloodline, and the national contradiction was only a manifestation of this backwardness for advanced conquest.

At this time, the southern half of the country was still there, and the military and people in all parts of Jiangnan were fighting in blood, representing the blood of the Ming Dynasty that had once been unified--Tang Wang, Lu Wang, and Gui Wang, who were still claiming their own titles as emperors in eastern Zhejiang, Fujian, and Yungui, and continued to persist in the struggle against the Qing Dynasty, and still had considerable appeal to the people of the whole country. At this time, Qian Qianyi chose to surrender to the Manchu Qing, which was obviously not the right political choice. Qian Qianyi also saw this clearly in the short period of half a year of serving the Manchu Qing. Or rather, empathy, infinite yearning for the good days of the past, objectively implicitly meets the historical needs of defending civilization and culture. Therefore, he threw himself into the struggle against the Qing Dynasty and the restoration of the Ming Dynasty without hesitation, which is worthy of recognition. Although, as a literati, he did not play a much practical role. For him, the results of fighting with a pen are more effective and lasting than with a sword. Under his pen, we have a clearer understanding of that era full of hostility, the power of civilization and culture, and the determination not to compromise with barbarism.