标记“恶人”:清朝处理叛乱头目的帝国目的和想象边界,1786-1828

IF 0.1 0 ASIAN STUDIES
Daniel McMahon
{"title":"标记“恶人”:清朝处理叛乱头目的帝国目的和想象边界,1786-1828","authors":"Daniel McMahon","doi":"10.1163/22127453-12341330","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThis essay explores the administrative and ideological context of Qing borderland pacification through examination of the imperial response to apex rebel ringleaders. Presented are five cases of bureaucratic “discourse” (official description and physical management) processing Lin Shuangwen (1786-1788 Lin Shuangwen Revolt), Shi Sanbao (1795-1797 Miao Revolt), Liu Zhixie (1796-1804 White Lotus Rebellion), Lin Qing (1813 Eight Trigrams Revolt), and Khoja Jahāngīr (1826-1828 Jahāngīr Uprising). Considered comparatively, we find common procedures of identification, deposition, sentencing, and execution that established the challengers as “men of iniquity,” reinforcing imperially preferred understandings of rebel organization, culpability, Qing legitimacy, and martial success. This procedure was also adjusted to fit differing conditions and state goals. As the empire entered its final century, shifting boundaries were asserted between rebel lords and war-zone populations, suggestive of both military efforts to exploit social divisions and expanded embrace of peripheral peoples as compliant and border-defending imperial subjects.","PeriodicalId":38003,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Chinese Military History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/22127453-12341330","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Marking “Men of Iniquity”: Imperial Purpose and Imagined Boundaries in the Qing Processing of Rebel Ringleaders, 1786-1828\",\"authors\":\"Daniel McMahon\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/22127453-12341330\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThis essay explores the administrative and ideological context of Qing borderland pacification through examination of the imperial response to apex rebel ringleaders. Presented are five cases of bureaucratic “discourse” (official description and physical management) processing Lin Shuangwen (1786-1788 Lin Shuangwen Revolt), Shi Sanbao (1795-1797 Miao Revolt), Liu Zhixie (1796-1804 White Lotus Rebellion), Lin Qing (1813 Eight Trigrams Revolt), and Khoja Jahāngīr (1826-1828 Jahāngīr Uprising). Considered comparatively, we find common procedures of identification, deposition, sentencing, and execution that established the challengers as “men of iniquity,” reinforcing imperially preferred understandings of rebel organization, culpability, Qing legitimacy, and martial success. This procedure was also adjusted to fit differing conditions and state goals. As the empire entered its final century, shifting boundaries were asserted between rebel lords and war-zone populations, suggestive of both military efforts to exploit social divisions and expanded embrace of peripheral peoples as compliant and border-defending imperial subjects.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38003,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Chinese Military History\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-10-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/22127453-12341330\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Chinese Military History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/22127453-12341330\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ASIAN STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Chinese Military History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22127453-12341330","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ASIAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文通过考察帝国对最高叛乱头目的反应,探讨了清朝平定边疆的行政和意识形态背景。介绍了五个官僚“话语”(官方描述和物质管理)处理林爽文(1786-1788年林爽文起义)、石三宝(1795-1797年苗起义)、刘志燮(1796-1804年白莲起义)、林青(1813年八卦起义)和霍贾(1826-1828年贾起义)的案例。相比较而言,我们发现常见的鉴定、证词、判刑和处决程序将挑战者确立为“罪孽之人”,强化了对叛乱组织、罪责、清朝合法性和军事成功的帝国偏好理解。该程序也进行了调整,以适应不同的条件和州目标。随着帝国进入最后一个世纪,反叛领主和战区人口之间的边界发生了变化,这表明军事努力利用社会分裂,并扩大了对周边民族的接纳,将其视为顺从和保卫边境的帝国臣民。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Marking “Men of Iniquity”: Imperial Purpose and Imagined Boundaries in the Qing Processing of Rebel Ringleaders, 1786-1828
This essay explores the administrative and ideological context of Qing borderland pacification through examination of the imperial response to apex rebel ringleaders. Presented are five cases of bureaucratic “discourse” (official description and physical management) processing Lin Shuangwen (1786-1788 Lin Shuangwen Revolt), Shi Sanbao (1795-1797 Miao Revolt), Liu Zhixie (1796-1804 White Lotus Rebellion), Lin Qing (1813 Eight Trigrams Revolt), and Khoja Jahāngīr (1826-1828 Jahāngīr Uprising). Considered comparatively, we find common procedures of identification, deposition, sentencing, and execution that established the challengers as “men of iniquity,” reinforcing imperially preferred understandings of rebel organization, culpability, Qing legitimacy, and martial success. This procedure was also adjusted to fit differing conditions and state goals. As the empire entered its final century, shifting boundaries were asserted between rebel lords and war-zone populations, suggestive of both military efforts to exploit social divisions and expanded embrace of peripheral peoples as compliant and border-defending imperial subjects.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Chinese Military History
Journal of Chinese Military History Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: The Journal of Chinese Military History (JCMH) is a peer-reviewed semi-annual that publishes research articles and book reviews. It aims to fill the need for a journal devoted specifically to China''s martial past and takes the broadest possible view of military history, embracing both the study of battles and campaigns and the broader, social-history oriented approaches that have become known as "the new military history." It aims to publish a balanced mix of articles representing a variety of approaches to both modern and pre-modern Chinese military history. The journal also welcomes comparative and theoretical work as well as studies of the military interactions between China and other states and peoples, including East Asian neighbors such as Japan, Korea, and Vietnam.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信