"

Manchus

In April you reverted my edits with the comment that ""This paragraph was vandalized from previous revisions. It drastically changed from its original source."".

Whether the changes are justified or not, they were not vandalism as they were explained at the discussion page for Manchus (""Manchus and political football""). Before reverting edits on the strength of charges of vandalism, I would be grateful if you could check the talk page and first address arguments made there.

My objection to the statement that ""Much recent scholarship in ethnic identity emphasizes that ethnic categories, rather than being static and objective, are fluid and subjective"" is the fact that this could apply to ANY ethnic group, and could thus be placed at any article on any ethnic group. Making this specific point only at the article on the Manchus sounds like a rationalisation or excuse. It sounds highly defensive, as though there is no real basis for asserting Manchu ethnic identity other than the over-subtle distinctions of academics. We know that Crossley argued from this point of view, but is it necessary to incorporate this in the article? It's almost as if the article were saying ""We know the Manchus are not considered an ethnic group, but if ethnicities are regarded as fluid and subjective, we can perhaps recognise them as such"". 

The Qing dynasty was based on an apartheid-like situation where the Chinese and Manchus were kept apart. During the Qing the Manchus retained a consciousness of being a separate ethnic group, even after they mostly switched to speaking Chinese. There are still Manchus today who retain a consciousness of the separateness of Manchu culture, quite apart from the state-sponsored ethnic categories. So my point is, why do we have to bend over backwards to try and justify a viewpoint simply because it is at odds with the current consensus? Is there a need to be so pointedly defensive just in the case of the Manchus?

  "