Who Are the Real Conquerors? Unpacking “Equal Unification” and Colonialism
In contemporary political discourse, “unification” is often assigned positive moral weight, symbolizing equality, integration, and progress; while “colonialism” is viewed as synonymous with oppression, exploitation, and backwardness. This binary framing appears reasonable, as unification implies eliminating inequality arising from differences, while colonialism explicitly acknowledges hierarchical relationships between rulers and the ruled.
However, when we examine the institutional logic and historical practices of expansion more closely, we uncover a startling paradox: political entities that champion “equal unification” often implement conquest that is more thorough and insidious than traditional colonialism; meanwhile, empires that openly acknowledge colonial relationships actually preserve greater space for agency among the ruled.
Understanding this difference is crucial not only for reexamining history, but also for grasping the deeper power structures of the contemporary world.
I. The Internal Logic of Two Types of Expansion
The “Honesty” of Colonizers: Acknowledging the Existence of Others
Traditional colonial empires—typified by Britain and the Netherlands—never concealed the nature of their conquest. They openly acknowledged the “otherness” of their colonies, maintaining clear institutional boundaries between the mother country and colonial territories.
This acknowledgment has important institutional implications: colonies were viewed as external territories, possessing relatively independent legal systems, administrative structures, and even cultural traditions. Although this separation was built on inequality, it preserved certain autonomous spaces for local societies. This institutional separation laid the groundwork for eventual decolonization—since colonies were never considered “integral territories” of the mother country, their independence possessed institutional and logical coherence.
The “Hypocrisy” of Annexers: Denying the Facts of Conquest
In contrast, political entities that implement annexation adopt completely different strategies. They refuse to acknowledge any acts of conquest, instead repackaging expansion as “unification,” “liberation,” or “realization of historical justice.” In this discourse, conquered regions “have belonged to the conqueror since ancient times,” and any resistance is defined as “separatism” or “foreign instigation.”
This narrative strategy serves a clear political function: by denying the historical reality of conquest, it provides moral cover for comprehensive assimilation policies. Since no “others” exist, eliminating differences becomes not oppression but “advancing equality”; since no conquest occurred, resistance becomes not justified but “undermining unity.”
II. Institutional DNA Determines Expansion Models
The Extension of Decentralized Tradition: The Internal Logic of the British Model
Britain’s colonial policy was not an accidental choice but a natural extension of its internal governance logic. Even within the homeland, Britain has always maintained institutional diversity: Scotland still retains an independent legal system and educational system, Northern Ireland enjoys special political status, and even Crown dependencies like Guernsey and the Isle of Man preserve their own internal governance systems.
This governance philosophy of “embracing diversity” embodies the deeper logic of decentralized tradition: the dispersal of power is not a threat but the foundation of stability; the existence of differences is not a problem but the wellspring of vitality. This institutional DNA naturally extends to overseas expansion, creating a relatively “restrained” model of colonialism.
The Projection of Centralized Instinct: The Coercive Logic of Integration
France and China represent another governance tradition: the centralized logic of integration. In this system, any differences are viewed as potential threats, and any decentralization is considered dangerous centrifugal force.
France defines its overseas territories as “overseas provinces,” implementing unified standards across all levels of law, language, and education; China goes further, systematically eliminating the particularities of border regions through household registration systems, language policies, and historical education. This integrative impulse is not a strategic choice but an instinctive reaction of centralized systems.
III. The True Face of “Equal Unification”
The Promise of Equality and the Elimination of Differences
“Equal unification” sounds so beautiful that it easily masks its true political meaning. In this discourse, all citizens enjoy equal rights, all regions receive equal development opportunities, and all cultures are equally respected.
However, what is the premise of this “equality”? Everyone must speak the same language, receive the same education, identify with the same history, and worship the same flag. This equality is not about seeking justice within differences but achieving “unity” through eliminating differences.
The Precise Design of Assimilation Policies
Modern assimilation policies are far more precise and thorough than any conquest in history. They not only conquer land and people but also memory and identity.
Language policy leads the charge: through the unification of educational systems, local languages are marginalized and eventually reduced to “dialects” or “informal languages.” Historical education follows: through unified historical narratives, the facts of conquest are repackaged as “ethnic integration” or “civilizational progress.” Household registration systems are more direct: through the redefinition of identity categories, original ethnic identities are incorporated into broader “national” frameworks.
The ultimate outcome is devastating: the conquered lose the very language and conceptual framework to articulate their conquest. When descendants of the Miao people begin to understand their own history through the lens of “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,” the conquest has achieved total victory.
IV. Historical Testimony: The Disappearance of Conquest
Scotland vs. Meishan Barbarians: A Contrast of Two Fates
Scotland and the Meishan barbarian region of Hunan, China, provide a perfect case study for comparison.
Scotland merged with England as early as 1707 but maintains strong national identity to this day. Scots know their history, remember their language, and maintain their cultural traditions. Although the 2014 independence referendum failed, Scotland’s political subjectivity has never disappeared.
In contrast, the Meishan barbarians, an independent civilization that existed for over a thousand years and was never sinicized, have vanished from history. Before the Song dynasty conquest, the Meishan barbarians possessed completely independent languages, religions, laws, and social organizations—a unique political and cultural entity that developed parallel to Chinese civilization. However, today’s residents of Xinhua and Anhua counties not only don’t consider themselves descendants of the conquered but might even feel confused or hostile when this history is mentioned. The memory of a thousand-year civilization has been so thoroughly cleansed that discussing the conquest itself has become “politically incorrect.”
The Politics of Time: The Naturalization of History
Time plays a crucial role in this memory cleansing. When conquest occurred hundreds of years ago, when the descendants of conquerors and conquered have “merged into one,” conquest loses its immediate political significance and becomes “ancient history.”
But this temporal distance is not accidental—it’s part of the annexation strategy. Through a sufficiently long assimilation process, differences erode with time, memories fade with generational changes, and resistance loses legitimacy under the banner of “development” and “progress.”
V. The Paradox of Victim Narrative
The Century of Humiliation and Millennia of Expansion
Modern China has skillfully constructed a “century of humiliation” narrative, defining 1840 to 1949 as a history of national humiliation. This narrative is so deeply ingrained that few notice a basic fact: while China was being “humiliated,” its actual controlled territory not only didn’t decrease but actually increased.
From the core regions of the Han and Tang dynasties to today’s 9.6 million square kilometers, China’s territory has actually expanded in modern history. The conquest achievements of the Qing dynasty in the southwest, northwest, and northeast were only completely preserved but consolidated to an unprecedented degree through modern state machinery.
The Victim Mask of Conquerors
This narrative strategy not only conceals the facts of conquest but also provides moral legitimacy for further assimilation policies. How does a political entity with a history of continuous expansion successfully portray itself as a victim?
The answer lies in the magic of discourse: reconstructing reality by redefining vocabulary, making conquest disappear in language. “Recovery” replaces “conquest,” “unification” replaces “annexation,” and “ethnic integration” replaces “cultural genocide.” In this discourse, conquerors are always righteous, and the conquered are always “liberated.”
VI. Who Are the Real Conquerors?
When we penetrate the fog of discourse, historical truth becomes clear: those political entities that shout “oppose colonialism” are often more thorough conquerors; those empires that acknowledge colonial relationships actually preserve more living space for the ruled.
Although colonizers established unequal ruling relationships, they also preserved spaces for others to exist. In contrast, annexers make others completely disappear in language, memory, and cognition. This “silent conquest” is more thorough than any form of colonialism because it not only takes away the land and freedom of the conquered but also takes away their language and concepts to express their conquest.
Conclusion: Tearing Off the Mask of Hypocrisy
“Equal unification” is a beautiful lie. It promises equal dignity for all while eliminating differences as the price; it claims to realize historical justice while systematically cleansing historical memory; it raises the banner of national rejuvenation while building on the conquest of countless small peoples.
In comparison, “unequal colonialism,” though cruel, is at least honest. It acknowledges the facts of conquest and therefore preserves the legitimacy of resistance for the conquered and the possibility of future liberation.
What truly needs vigilance is not the openly colonial powers but those annexing empires that never acknowledge their conquering nature. They conquer in the name of “unification” and commit genocide under the banner of “equality.” They are the most successful conquerors in history because they made the conquered lose the language and concepts to say “I was conquered.”
When we discuss the evils of colonialism today, let us not forget those conquering acts concealed under “anti-colonial” discourse. The most thorough conquests often don’t call themselves colonialism but quietly complete the total elimination of others under the beautiful names of “unification” and “equality.”
About The Author
