Question Description
I’m working on a writing multi-part question and need guidance to help me learn.
Common understandings of the nation-state purport that there is a congruence between language, ethnicity, and geography [this is something that we talked about in EAS103]. As a result, modern national histories tend to treat regions as having developed in isolation and as a linear progression to the present moment. James Hevia critiques this perspective of history, asserting that understanding the Qing empire simply as the last stage of Chinese imperial succession does not capture the complexity of the Qing or the mainland.
For your response, introduce two pieces of evidence that Hevia uses and explain how they support his argument. How does the information Hevia presents demonstrate that the region’s history is more complex than national histories allow it to be?
