本文關(guān)鍵詞： 土司制度 殖民活動(dòng) 內(nèi)政 侵略　出處：《貴州民族研究》2014年03期 　論文類型：期刊論文

【摘要】：中國(guó)土司制度與西方列強(qiáng)所從事的海外殖民活動(dòng)具有本質(zhì)的區(qū)別,兩者根本不存在任何一種相似性。土司制度是中央王朝為維護(hù)中國(guó)領(lǐng)土的完整、維系邊疆的穩(wěn)定,以及促進(jìn)內(nèi)地與周邊少數(shù)民族地區(qū)各種文化事項(xiàng)交往,因俗、因地而建構(gòu)的一套職官體制。它是中國(guó)傳統(tǒng)行政體制在元、明、清三代的具體體現(xiàn),是王朝職官體制中的一個(gè)有機(jī)組成部分。依法執(zhí)行土司制度純屬中國(guó)的內(nèi)政。然而,西方殖民活動(dòng)則是工業(yè)革命之后,為了向海外掠取資源、壟斷市場(chǎng)而采取的移民墾殖活動(dòng),是憑借堅(jiān)船利炮,強(qiáng)制進(jìn)入非西方地區(qū)的侵略行徑。隨著我國(guó)綜合國(guó)力不斷提升,以及昔日殖民地國(guó)家紛紛獨(dú)立,并致力于擺脫西方列強(qiáng)控制的今天,將土司制度與西方列強(qiáng)所從事的海外殖民活動(dòng)做簡(jiǎn)單的類比,乃是當(dāng)代西方學(xué)術(shù)思想的一種自我解嘲。其目的在于,為國(guó)外的反華勢(shì)力制造借口。為此,中國(guó)學(xué)人理當(dāng)做出必要的回應(yīng),澄清這兩者間的本質(zhì)區(qū)別,以維護(hù)中華民族的和諧和發(fā)展。
[Abstract]:The Chinese Tusi system is essentially different from the overseas colonial activities of the Western powers, and there is no similarity between the two systems. The Tusi system is to safeguard the integrity of China's territory by the central dynasty. To maintain the stability of the frontier and to promote the cultural exchanges between the interior and the surrounding ethnic minority areas, it is a set of official system based on customs and local construction. It is a traditional Chinese administrative system in the Yuan and Ming dynasties. The specific embodiment of the three dynasties of Qing Dynasty is an organic part of the official system of the dynasty. The implementation of the Tusi system according to law is purely an internal affair of China. However, Western colonial activities were after the Industrial Revolution. In order to take resources from overseas and monopolize the market, resettlement and colonization is an aggressive act of forcible entry into non-western regions with the aid of a strong ship and a sharp artillery. With the continuous improvement of our country's comprehensive national strength. And the former colonial countries have become independent, and committed to get rid of the control of Western powers today, the system of toast and the Western powers engaged in overseas colonial activities to make a simple analogy. It is a kind of self-explanation and mockery of contemporary western academic thought. Its purpose is to make excuses for foreign anti-China forces. For this reason, the Chinese scholars should make the necessary response to clarify the essential difference between the two. In order to maintain the harmony and development of the Chinese nation.
【作者單位】： 吉首大學(xué)人類學(xué)與民族學(xué)研究所;
【基金】：2013年國(guó)家社科基金項(xiàng)目“13BZS039” 2012年教育部人文社會(huì)科學(xué)研究規(guī)劃基金項(xiàng)12YJA850010”;“湖南省優(yōu)勢(shì)特色重點(diǎn)學(xué)科民族學(xué)學(xué)科”成果之一
【分類號(hào)】：K248
【正文快照】： 對(duì)國(guó)土司制度實(shí)質(zhì)的探討是一個(gè)值得反思的實(shí)例。無(wú)論是國(guó)外,還是國(guó)內(nèi),總有一些學(xué)人將中國(guó)歷史上所執(zhí)行過(guò)的土司制度等同于西方列強(qiáng)所從事的海外殖民活動(dòng)。然而,在核實(shí)史料的基礎(chǔ)上,對(duì)具體的歷史事件展開(kāi)對(duì)比分析,厘清其間的脈絡(luò)后,總能發(fā)現(xiàn)中國(guó)的土司制度與西方列強(qiáng)所從事的海

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 侯俊云;;試析鴉片戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)前清代走私貿(mào)易處罰律令[J];廣西師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年02期

2 傅衣凌;;關(guān)于鄭成功的奤價(jià)[J];廈門大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);1962年01期

3 蔣重躍;;關(guān)于周代的封國(guó)與希臘城邦之異同[J];河北學(xué)刊;2006年03期

4 郭澎;;從反殖民主義斗r-史方面奤價(jià)鄭成功[J];廈門大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);1962年01期

5 何桂春;;關(guān)于明清耶穌會(huì)士在華活動(dòng)評(píng)價(jià)的幾個(gè)問(wèn)題[J];學(xué)術(shù)月刊;1992年11期

6 陳占山;;“有識(shí)之士”的稱號(hào),楊光先實(shí)擔(dān)當(dāng)不起——與謝景芳先生商榷[J];汕頭大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年04期

7 賈慶軍;;明清之際傳教士東來(lái)之歷史背景[J];安陽(yáng)師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年03期

8 疏仁華;利瑪竇與西學(xué)東漸平議[J];巢湖學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年02期

9 ;[J];;年期

10 ;[J];;年期

，

本文編號(hào)：1483106