requestId:68518622dbb390.75509921.
From the distinction between Huayi and Yi, and value recognition: Revisiting the Confucian national view
Author: Zeng Zhenyu Liu Feifei
Source: The author authorized the Confucian network to publish, originally published by “History Monthly” No. 6, 2022
[Abstract] The distinction between Huayi takes the advancement of retreat to the tribute civilization as a transformation mechanism, and emphasizes the progress of “China”. The “multi-dimensional” format formed by this prompts students to hold “civilized national discussions” in front of the affairs of the ethnic minority, but this is difficult to form a real criticism of the affairs of the ethnic minority. China has upheld the national concept of disagreement among national affairs in modern times. The Confucian national view once regarded benevolence as a value concept recognized by the Chinese and Yi, and emphasized the dual cultivation of literature and morality and love for others to come to the court. We hope to win the people through the implementation of tyranny, maintain the strong color of fighting for the “nation”. Based on the distinction between China and Yi, the Song people tried their best to shape “Chinese views”, and they had no demands on “national recognition”. The ability to recognize the value of the whole country must be transformed through the distinction between public and private, and its contact with components, personality, rights and is a reaffirmation and certification of “the whole country is the whole country of the whole country”. For predecessors, “national” and “national” are the most basic and opposite values. Confusing the two even produces the consequences of dynasty collapse; for ancient people, “national” and “national” represent two civilizations and historical forms. Can the transformation of the concept from “national” to “national” is a problem explained by ancient and modern times.
[Keyword] National view; the distinction between Huayi; benevolence; ethnic nation; civilized country;
Author introduction: Zeng Zhenyu, professor at the Shandong Confucian Advanced Research Institute; Liu Fei, doctoral student at the Shandong Confucian Advanced Research Institute
The modern national view of China represents the overall understanding of human society by predecessors. The country is the most important unit of awareness that has been recognized. It touches many aspects of humanity, system, ethnicity, and graphic. Judging from previous research and discussion, students often refer to the problems of the Chinese and Yi in their assessment of national observations. When He Xiu explained “The Ram”, he expressed the fantasy nation as having no internal and external situations of not distinguishing the Chinese and “close to the same age” [1], that is, in a long historical process, he finally formed a peaceful nation by slowly educating and managing the wild animals. However, many historical confessions have been expressed that the Chinese and Xia’s education on Wuyi [2] did not form a complete and homogeneous group. This makes the diverse and unified imperial form in Chinese history seem unpredictable in front of today’s “national nation” incident in the East. Facing this situation, although the proposal of the “Civilized State Discussion” represents the efforts of the scholars to test the framework of national affairs, the discussion on the problems of why the civilized country itself is sufficient and how to shape and shape it needs to be profound. Job isTherefore, this article will take the current academic community’s discussions on the whole country as a priority. By analyzing the relationship between national view and Chinese and combining specific examples, it points out the powerlessness of the “civilized state discussion” in the “national discussion” and then tries to sort out and discuss several structural departments of Confucian national concepts, as a reflection of the thinking resource of the whole country and the country. The academic community has made a more sufficient and detailed assessment of the Confucian national view, but the author still hopes to review this again, determine its clues and connotations, and provide some new insights. It should also be pointed out that this article’s statement on “national” is a conceptual assessment, referring to what predecessors think about the whole country. Defining the boundary between concepts and facts is a very necessary step in the study of concept history.
1 Analysis of the distinction between national view and Huayi
Although scholars often emphasize the distinction between Chinese view and Huayi when discussing national view, the relationship between national view and Huayi has not been clearly defined. A more common phenomenon is that scholars regard the Chinese-East problem as the core or backbone of the national problem, and even replace the Chinese-East-related problem with Chinese-East-related problems, making the national view of modern China an abstract expression of the ethnic problem, and lacking attention to the mental mechanism, moral foundation, and value recognition problem that the national view is exposed to. The result is that the problem of Huayi gradually deviates from the native language of the country and becomes a specific phenomenon of ethnic ethnic coming that is comparable to the country’s view, and is no longer a national assessment of the history of the country.
In the history of thinking, whether it is the “Nine Costs” in “Zhou Rong·Xia Guan·Hao Fang” or the “Five Costs” in “Shang Shu·Yu Zheng”, they all regard the wild body area as the outermost part of the country. This body showed that Song Wei looked at the sweet little girl opposite, about eighteen or nineteen years old, a concept of using herself as the middle, and determining civilization and ethnic groups based on the earth. In this view, the difference between the Yi Yi and the Huaxia is advanced and the backward in civilization due to their proximity to the royal capital. At the same time, on the real level, the problem of Huayi is still a problem related to the graphic shape and social management. Its classic expression is the management strategy of the “Age” called “in the country but in the outside world but in the outside world but in the outside world”[3]. The above two aspects regard the whole country as a space for the Han Xia and the Wuyi, and the difference between Huayi lies in the differences in the level of civilization. This native relationship between the whole country and the Chinese have laid the foundation for the following argumentative methods for the whole country: nationalism and national order.
As a political and civilized concept, the “national” needs are presented in reality in a tangible, regulatory and systematic manner. What scholars call “nationalism” and “national order” are all products of the energy of “national” conception. However, the process of realizing from the perspective of the concept is not to fully and automatically develop the principles of the energy world, but has always been affected by other reasons other than this perspective. Identifying this will prevent us from many unnecessary disputes:
“Nationalism” is a foreign-related concept adopted based on changes in circumstances. It takes the Huayi relationship as the core, and can also be called the Huayi concept. The Chinese and Yi people’s view is divided into two categories: “opening” and “closing” based on whether the dynasty can pursue nationalism. “In the past, all prosperous dynasties often exposed their openness to each other. When the barbarians and Xia were evenly defeated or the barbarians flourished in the summer, scholars often emphasized the negative aspects of their closedness” [4]. Scholars have pointed out that this change in the UAE concept according to time “is a thing that the UAXIA dynasty deals with national politics and ethnic relations” [5]. However, only focusing on the Chinese and Chinese relations to assess the “national” will narrow the “national” and accept some unreflective arguments, neglecting the assessment of ethics, systemics, and mentality. Regarding the problem of Huayi, there was such a sound within Confucianism for a long time: the one who received the gift civilization was Huaxia, and the one who did not have the gift civilization was Huayi. We can find corresponding statements in Confucius and later Korean Yu (see below). This Confucian Chinese conception was outlined by today’s scholars as “…there is no absolute ‘other’, only the relative ‘me’. For thousands of years, the so-called ‘national’ is not that China thinks that ‘the world is as big as this,’ but that under the blue sky and white sun, it only takes a humanistic order of ethics.”[6] Nationalism is a broad theory of civilization, but if it is considered that national conception is just a set of civilization concepts, it is inevitable that it will be deviated. Because the reason why the Confucian tribute civilization was used by Huaxia to “examine” and “determined” to “examine” and “determined” was that the behavior of “examine” and “determined” had already set a certain “me-he
[/p> 音顯然不太對勁。 
