Refuting the '1644 Historical View' Continuation

2) What is there to argue about? The Qing Dynasty, as the last feudal autocratic dynasty in Chinese history, is undoubtedly characterized by its brutality, corruption, and backwardness. Especially during the late Qing, the ruling class became corrupt and degenerate, failing to innovate, which led to national decline and repeated defeats, ultimately bringing China to the brink of national extinction. These are common knowledge and consensus. A history of modern China is essentially a history of repeated criticism and reflection on the late Qing rule.

3) Therefore, feel free to criticize the Qing Dynasty. Whether it's the ethnic segregation system, the 'literary inquisition', or the 'slave culture' that was vigorously promoted after the feudal autocracy reached its peak, all can be criticized freely.

4) However, if you say that it is precisely because of the existence of the Qing Dynasty that China fell behind in modern times, I think you should seriously read some serious history books. Don't think you've discovered 'truths' just because some people are talking nonsense online. The content in high school history textbooks is not as sensational or melodramatic as some online content, but it is the result of repeated research, discussion, and deliberation by historians. If you don't look at this kind of serious, professional content but believe what some people say online, you are really going down the wrong path.

5) China's backwardness in modern times is ultimately the inevitable result of feudal autocratic rule, not the result of the Manchus entering the Central Plains. Starting from the mid-Ming Dynasty, China had already gradually fallen behind the tide of world historical development. Under the feudal autocratic system, without the pressure of life and death brought by external forces, it is impossible to develop a prosperous capitalist economy, nor can there be a technological revolution or an industrial revolution. The Qing Dynasty was ineffective; even if the Ming Dynasty dragged on for another 300 years, it would still not work.

6) At the time of the Ming Dynasty's collapse and the Qing Dynasty's rise, even without the Manchus entering the Central Plains, if the peasant army led by Li Zicheng had unified the country, China would still have been backward in modern times. Those who understand history know that the quality and structure of the governing group under the Great Shun are far inferior to the rulers of the early and mid-Qing Dynasties. The greedy and corrupt rulers of the late Ming Dynasty are even more unmentionable.

7) I am thinking that to cope with the unprecedented major changes that had not occurred in the past three thousand years during the late Qing, there must be a bureaucratic system that is not yet completely corrupt and is functioning relatively normally. There must be an iron-fisted figure, like Zhang Juzheng, who is familiar with the operational rules of the bureaucratic system, yet has a very strong personality and is adept at adapting. Moreover, he needs to have the unreserved support from the royal family. Otherwise, perhaps only Emperor Taizong of Tang, Li Shimin, along with his exceptional civil and military officials, could give it a try.

The emperors of the Song Dynasty, from Zhao Kuangyin to Zhao Guangyi, couldn't even reclaim the Sixteen Prefectures of Yan and Yun, couldn't even defeat the surrounding ethnic minority regimes, so how could we expect them to successfully cope with the Western powers that were racing down the path of capitalism, full of evil practices?

The emperors after the Song Dynasty implemented the 'Qingli New Policies' and 'Wang Anshi's Reforms', but they only made a mess of things, let alone succeeded in the 'Self-Strengthening Movement' during the late Qing.

8) Similarly, even without the Qing Dynasty, if Chinese civilization does not make significant changes, it would also be unable to adapt to the world after the rise of Western capitalism. The rigidity of the imperial examination system was already severe during the Ming Dynasty. The idea of prioritizing agriculture over commerce was not exclusive to the Qing Dynasty. As long as the imperial examination system exists, China cannot cultivate a large number of talents capable of governing a modern nation. As long as the ruling class insists on prioritizing agriculture over commerce, capitalism cannot thrive, and therefore, there can be no technological revolution or industrial revolution. As long as the feudal autocratic system exists, China cannot develop a democratic capitalist system. This is not largely related to whether Han people or Manchus are in power.

9) Criticizing the Qing Dynasty is certainly acceptable, but we must note that you cannot direct your criticism of the Manchus and hatred of Qing rule towards today's Manchu compatriots. Isn't this undermining national unity?

10) We especially need to pay attention to the fact that when you say the Manchus' entry into the Central Plains was 'colonial rule', denying the Qing Dynasty's legitimacy, this objectively echoes the claims made by the Japanese invading forces back then, which also makes today's Chinese territory legally unclear. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?