Translated by Claude, edited by Sinocism.com

Source: 统战新语 United Front Work Department WeChat account | Byline: Li Defeng, Zhang Yide (李德锋、张懿德，内蒙古大学历史与旅游文化学院) | August 17, 2026

This narrative is not only riddled with academic flaws and difficult to sustain logically — more dangerously, at the practical level it severely erodes the historical foundations of the community of the Chinese nation.

这套叙事不仅学术漏洞百出、逻辑难以自洽，更危险的是，它在现实层面严重侵蚀着中华民族共同体的历史根基。

In recent years, the "New Qing History," originating in American academia, has spread within Chinese and international academic and public discourse. Flying the banner of an "Inner Asian perspective," this school of thought has carefully woven together a cognitive framework centered on "binary opposition" — splitting the Qing dynasty from China, opposing the frontier to the interior, and separating ethnic identity from national identity.

近年来，发源于美国学界的“新清史”在国内外学界与舆论场中扩散。该学说打着“内亚视角”的旗号，精心编织了一套以“二元对立”为核心的认知框架——将清朝与中国割裂、将边疆与内地对立、将族群认同与国家认同分离。

This narrative is not only riddled with academic flaws and difficult to sustain logically — more dangerously, at the practical level it severely erodes the historical foundations of the community of the Chinese nation. In response, it is necessary to set the record straight and mount a forceful rebuttal.

这套叙事不仅学术漏洞百出、逻辑难以自洽，更危险的是，它在现实层面严重侵蚀着中华民族共同体的历史根基。对此，必须正本清源，予以有力驳正。

(1) Three Core Fallacies Underlying the "Binary" Myth

（一）“二元”迷思下的三个核心谬误

The core problem with the "New Qing History" is that it tries to force a static, oppositional theoretical framework onto a dynamic, integrative Chinese history. Its fallacies are chiefly manifest in three respects:

“新清史”的核心问题在于，它试图用一套静态的、对立的理论框架，去套解一个动态的、融合的中国历史。其谬误主要体现在以下三个方面：

First, it splits dynasty from state, disregarding the Qing dynasty's "Chinese" character. The "New Qing History" proposes that "the Qing and China share only a limited identity" and that "China was merely part of the Qing empire," thereby treating the Central Plains, the Northeast, Mongolia, and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau under Qing rule as mutually unaffiliated, parallel blocs, and denying the Qing dynasty's historical status as an orthodox Chinese dynasty. This claim is entirely at odds with historical fact.

第一，它将王朝与国家割裂，无视清朝的“中国”属性。“新清史”提出“清朝与中国只具备有限的同一论”“中国不过是清帝国的一部分”，进而将清朝统治下的中原、东北、蒙古、青藏高原等区域视为互不统属的并列板块，否认清朝作为中国正统王朝的历史属性。此说完全违背历史事实。

As the last unified feudal dynasty in Chinese history, the Qing emperors and Manchu nobility held a strong sense of "Chinese identity." In his early Chinese-language letters to the Ming court and to Joseon Korea, Nurhaci referred to the Ming as "the court" and "the celestial dynasty," positioning himself as a local power guarding the frontier on behalf of the Great Ming.

作为中国最后一个封建大一统王朝，清朝皇帝及满族贵族具有强烈的“中国认同”。努尔哈赤早期在写给明朝和李氏朝鲜的汉文书信里，将明朝称为“朝廷”“天朝”，将自己定位为替大明看守边疆的地方势力。

When Hong Taiji changed the dynastic name to "Great Qing," he moreover treated the "imperial jade seal" as a symbol of the legitimacy of imperial authority — in essence, connecting to the Central Plains political tradition rather than to any so-called "Inner Asian khanate" system.

皇太极改国号“大清”时，更是将“传国玉玺”作为皇权合法性象征，其本质是对接中原政治传统，而非所谓的“内亚汗国”体系。

After entering the pass, successive Qing emperors regarded themselves as the "orthodox rulers of China," and administrative documents also referred to the entire territory under Qing rule as "China." For example, in the 28th year of the Kangxi reign (1689), the Treaty of Nerchinsk's provision that "the south bank of the river belongs to China, the north bank to Russia" explicitly referred to Qing territory as "China."