All Men are not Brothers: Ethnic Identity and Dynastic Loyalty in the Ningxia Mutiny of 1592

Abstract

This article attempts to shed some light on issues of ethnic identity and dynastic loyalty in late Ming China as seen through the lens of a mutiny, instigated by a Chinese officer, but blamed on one of his Mongol allies. The episode is important because it encapsulates a number of important issues in late Ming society, including the relationship between the expanding empire and its non-Han Chinese neighbors, most importantly Ming-Mongol relations, military administration along the frontiers, civil-military relations during the reign of Wanli (1573–1620), and the revival of Ming military power in the late sixteenth century as evidenced by Ming success in a number of concurrent campaigns. It also deals more generally with the perception of non-Han minorities in late Ming China and the recurrent question of the barbarian Mongol menace which so concerned Ming policy makers. The Ming, of course, were not the only Chinese state confronted with “barbarian troubles,” to draw on traditional terminology. In fact the entire history of imperial China can (and has) been read as the history of the interaction between the sedentary peoples and states of China proper with the nomadic peoples and states along China’s frontiers, and a lively secondary literature has emerged in response to questions of how different dynasties dealt with their respective “barbarian” troubles. 1 To grossly oversimplify, the general consensus seems to be that dynasties with at least one foot in the steppe, or, in other words, with at least some degree of non-Han Chinese blood in the ruling house, were better at dealing with these potential threats because they had a more nuanced understanding of the vagaries of steppe politics, as well as perhaps a more sustained martial tradition. 2 1 The most prominent recent example is Barfield 1992. Also see Jagchid and Symons 1989 and Lattimore 1940. 2 As noted, this generalization is based on a large body of recent secondary work encompassing virtually all of China’s imperial history. For more information, the reader should consult van de Ven, ed., especially: 15–21; 106–180; 252–288; and 433–442. This collection of essays, while a bit spotty in its overall coverage, provides a nice overview of some of the latest research in the field of Chinese military history. The issue of how to deal effectively with disparate populations and military management is treated in Skaff 1998.