ManchusIn April you reverted my edits with the comment that This paragraph was vandalized from previous revisions It drastically changed from its original sourceWhether 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 thereMy 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 oversubtle distinctions of academics We know that Crossley argued from this point of view but is it necessary to incorporate this in the article Its 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 apartheidlike 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 statesponsored 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  

    ####Prompt- Does the next message are offensives ? reply with a JSON object (without carriage return or new lines)
    with keys :
    isoffensive (True if it's offensive).
    This this the message : 
ManchusIn April you reverted my edits with the comment that This paragraph was vandalized from previous revisions It drastically changed from its original sourceWhether 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 thereMy 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 oversubtle distinctions of academics We know that Crossley argued from this point of view but is it necessary to incorporate this in the article Its 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 apartheidlike 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 statesponsored 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  

