Since ancient times, the realm of "China" has not been a fixed or predetermined concept based on ethnicity or geographical location. According to the
Spring and Autumn Annals, "Chinese" people who
adopt the ways of the "barbarians" would be considered "barbarians", whereas "barbarians" who
adopt the ways of the "Chinese" would be accepted as "Chinese". Hence, the idea of "Chinese-ness" is a fluid concept and is defined through self-identification and cultural affiliation. Having heavily participated what is now known as
Chinese culture, including connected political concepts, numerous Korean, Vietnamese and Japanese regimes identified themselves with descriptive names that are traditionally associated with what is now known as China. At the same time, these regimes considered themselves legitimate successors to that culture and civilization.
Korea The "Little China" ideology for Korea emerged in the background of Choson-Ming relations. The Korean
Yangban, the scholar gentry of the Choson Dynasty, regarded the Ming the leader of the
Tributary system of China. Bongjin Kim notes that "By entering the Ming tributary system, Choson's Confucian elites firmly believed as did their Chinese counterparts that Choson was superior among non-Chinese countries as sojunghwa". In the 17th century, when the
Manchu-led
Qing dynasty replaced the
Han-led Ming dynasty as the ruling dynasty of
China proper, the Joseon dynasty believed that the Qing dynasty was unworthy of succeeding the politico-cultural orthodoxy of "China". Instead, the
Confucianist Joseon dynasty asserted itself as the legitimate heir to the Chinese civilization and termed itself "Little Central Kingdom".
Vietnam Numerous
Vietnamese dynasties attempted to replicate the
Chinese tributary system in Southeast Asia, whilst maintaining tributary relations with
Chinese dynasties. Vietnamese monarchs of multiple dynasties adopted the imperial title "
hoàng đế" (; "emperor") domestically, but reverted to the royal title "
vương" (; "king") when dealing with China—a policy known as "
emperor at home, king abroad". On many occasions, some Vietnamese monarchs styled themselves as the "Central Kingdom" or "Central State" and referred to various Chinese dynasties as "
Bắc Triều" (; "northern dynasty") in relation to Vietnam, self-styled as "
Nam Triều" (; "southern dynasty"). In 1010,
Lý Thái Tổ issued the
Edict on the Transfer of the Capital that likened himself to
Chinese monarchs who initiated the relocation of the capital, effectively positioning the
Lý dynasty within the politico-cultural realm of China. The
Nguyễn dynasty considered itself the legitimate heir to the Chinese civilization.
Gia Long Đế once used "
Trung Quốc" () and "
Hạ" () to refer to the Nguyễn and earlier Vietnamese dynasties: In the
Poems on the Way to Min, Lý Văn Phức (a descendent of Ming Chinese refugees) escorted some stranded Chinese sailors back to Fujian province. However, when he arrived there, the guesthouse where he was supposed to stay had a sign over it which indicated that it was for "barbarians." Lý Văn Phức defended his position with an essay that highlighted that Vietnam followed the ways of China without the Manchurian influences of the 17th century and therefore should be considered "
Hoa" ():
Japan After the Qing dynasty had replaced the Ming dynasty in China proper, Japanese scholars declared that the Qing dynasty did not have the legitimacy to represent the politico-cultural realm of "China" whilst simultaneously explicitly identifying Japan as "China". In
Kai Hentai by
Hayashi Gahō and
Hayashi Hōkō, it was argued that Japan had replaced the Qing dynasty as the center of Chinese civilization. In
Chūchō Jijitsu by
Yamaga Sokō, "
Chūchō" (; used in a similar sense as "
Middle Kingdom"), "
Chūka" () and "
Chūgoku" () were adopted as alternative names for Japan, while "
Gaichō" (; "outer dynasty") was used to refer to the Qing dynasty. During the
Meiji Restoration, the
Emperor Meiji once issued an edict that referred to Japan as "
Ka" (): == See also ==