ntity, I mean it in a loose sense: i.e. that a person living in China at a given time identified himself as a subject of the ruling dynasty rather than of a tribe or a village (and I do understand that not everyone did). From a language standpoint, if I remember correctly, modern Chinese characters were formed post-Shang, and many elements of the culture like architecture and philosophy that would last for centuries to the modern day were set in place by the time of the Han. I would say a Chinese identity (again, in the broadest sense) was strongly in place by the golden age of the Tang.
I'm no professional historian, but I am an avid reader of Chinese history (and have lived in China previously). It's such an amazing subject, Chinese history. But please, take my posts as my own opinion and analysis, not fact.
[–]DaBIGmeow888 4 points 18 hours ago
Southern China was fully sinicized during the Song/Tang dynasties due to massive migration from Northern China.
There were rivalries between Yue and Hakka in some regions, that's all I know of.
[–]sf_davie 17 points 18 hours ago
Before the Mongols, there were significant periods of time where the place we call China today was split into many states. China was only really a unified entity for about 4 dynasties and they are often followed by centuries of turmoil (See Spring-Autumn after the Chou, Warring States before the Qin, Three Kingdoms and North and Southern Dynasties in between of Han Tang, and not to mention the drawn out instability of the later Song) . The people in the central plains were under constant invasion threats. That's why they build walls and developed archery.
[–]Sikindar[🍰] 39 points 19 hours ago
I believe the heterogeneous view of India came forth due to a mixture of several factors.
For example, when one observes Northern India you see a sense of homogeneity and a similarity in the culture which can be attributed to the Ganges water system which is shared throughout the north. This led to trade and the spreading of culture throughout Northern India. India is often underrated in terms of its size but when you look through its geography you see dense jungles with numerous mountain ranges, rivers, deserts and highlands which helped to isolate different people groups, not within the Ganges water system.
Also, the unification of India was not as frequent as in China, as only a couple of times had mostly India been united, namely: the Mauryan Empire, Delhi Sultanate, Mughal Empire, Maratha Empire, British Raj. The unification of culture is due in part to a centralized state which was commonplace in Chinese society along with strong Confucian values that encouraged integration with society.
[–]Eric1491625 [score hidden] 1 hour ago
There are indeed high mountains in China but the central plains between the Yangtze and yellow river are remarkably flat, and half the population lives there. The mountainous areas are mostly in the southwest and far west, but hardly anyone lives there. Precisely because the geography is rough there the population densities are low and as a result the Tibetans/uighurs/Min living in those mountains/deserts are utterly outnumbered by the Han who come from the large plains.
[–]bikbar 15 points 18 hours ago
As others have mentioned before, lack of a unifying empire was the main reason for not having a pan-Indian culture like China. The great empires of the Mouryans or the Mughals were not that centralized too.
The Indian empires were more like a federation of semi-independent states. For example, even during the Mughal empire at its zenith the subahs (provinces) like Bengal or Golkonda were mostly independent. The badsah of Delhi had almost zero influence in the faraway cities and villages.
[–]alter_pro[S] 11 points 20 hours ago
When I say Han I mean in the same context as in when someone says “I am Spanish, Not Catalonian” or “I am Scottish, not English”. So I would say Political unity that would be nationalistic in nature. I realize that someone in Guangzhuo lives a very different life and has vastly different customs to someone in Beiji