52 replies to this topic

[twofish]

Today's China is really a former multi-ethnic empire trying to redefine itself as a multi-ethnic nation. Benedict Anderson said as much in his 1991 classic Imagined Communities.

That's a very good summary of the situation. The only caveat is that this doesn't make the concept of China more "artificial" than any other national concept. Benedict Anderson's point in this classic was that *all* nations do this, and the concept of a "natural nation" is an artificial concept in itself. (I believe he used the example of Indonesia.)

Also, I would argue that China has largely suceeded in defining itself as a multi-ethnic nation, where success is defined in creating a national concept that is accepted by most of the polity. Certainly more successful than the Habsburgs, the Ottomans, or the Romanovs. It is interesting that when you list the major powers of the 21st century (the United States, China, India, Europe) all of them have had the challenge of creating a multi-ethnic national concept.

The other point is that the concept of "Han ethnicity" is itself a very interesting "artificial construction." The differences between different groups of "Han Chinese" are easily as great as those between different groups of Europeans. I think this accounts for the instinctive negative reaction that Chinese have toward challenges toward national unity. Because the idea of "Han ethnicity" is as much a construction as "Chinese nationhood" and effort to define China in ethnic terms is going to set up with a lot of small states the size of provinces.

[twofish]

This denies them an independent, autonomous history, and politicizes historiography.

1) When writing a national history, I don'tt see how you can avoid politicizing historiography. Constructing a historical narrative is fundamentally a political act.

2) Speaking as an American-born Chinese who has had to deal with a lot of the same issues from an American context, my feeling is that giving a minority group an independent autonomous history has the effect of marginalizing that group and denying them a place within the national history. It was a great thing in the 1960's when American history books started talking about the "first Americans" rather than starting American history with European colonization, and I think it would be a very bad thing if Chinese railroad workers of the mid-19th century were not treated as an integral part of American history or if Spanish colonization of the Southwest was considered outside the bounds of "American history." Similarly, my feeling is that including the history of the "border regions" as an inherent and integral part of "Chinese history" will actually be socially beneficial in allow minorities to make political demands (i.e. if Tibetans are just as much Chinese as people in Shanghai, then why can't we do X, Y, and Z).

The reason I bring up the United States is that I'm most familiar with it. It's been very successful at dealing with a lot of the issues that China has to deal with.

[twofish]

To continue my analogy, are the (permanently) emigrated Americans still part of the "American people"? Many "overseas American" still identify themselves as American-- aka the American culture/ civilization even though they are no longer American by "nationality".

One has to be careful about analogies. The interesting thing about the American identity is that it is defined solely in terms of citizenship and not in terms of ethnic blood relations. You are an American if you are an American citizen, and you are not an American if you aren't. I'm an American because I hold an American passport and I believe in the Constitution of the United States. It doesn't matter what language I speak, what I look like, or my cultural traits.

My opinion/ position is just that there is a "better" term to describe the culture/ ethnicity of overseas Chinese (which includes the Chinese citizen)-- "Huazu" (华族). Which is why we can safely seperate the discussion about the terminology (this thread) from the Chinese ethnicity/ identity (see other threads).

Malaysian and Singaporean Chinese make a strong distinction between the ethnicity (hua ren) and the nationality (zhong guo ren). Since I'm an American-born Chinese I tend not to, because I'd like to identify myself with the Chinese nationalist project. I can get away with this in part because Chinese-Americans make up an insignificant part of the US population, and hence identifying myself as a Chinese nationalist causes surprisingly few political problems. (I pledge allegiance to the flag and the US Constitution, and point out that if Irish-Americans and Polish-Americans can be nationalists, why can't I?)

It would cause problems if Chinese-Americans made up 30 or even 20% of the population.

[twofish]

One other thing, I've found that the strongest supporters of what I call "Han nationalism" tend to be Malaysian and Singaporean Chinese, and this is partly due to the special situations that Malaysian and Singaporean Chinese find themselves in.

[sg_han]

One other thing, I've found that the strongest supporters of what I call "Han nationalism" tend to be Malaysian and Singaporean Chinese, and this is partly due to the special situations that Malaysian and Singaporean Chinese find themselves in.

What special situations do the Malaysian and Singaporean Chinese find themselves in respectively?

[twofish]

What special situations do the Malaysian and Singaporean Chinese find themselves in respectively?

Basically, Malaysian and Singaporean Chinese have to define a "Chinese ethnicity" which is separate from the Malay ethnicity, yet cannot become part of the "Chinese nationalist project" without destabilizing the political situation in Malaysia and Singapore. I met a ethnolinguist who argued that a lot of what people think of as the "Chinese ethnic identity" was actually invented in Singapore to distinguish themselves from the native Malay.

This is different from other overseas Chinese contexts. In Thailand and Philiphines, ethnic Chinese tend to assimilate into the majority population, which is difficult in Malaysia and Singapore because of religion. In the United States and Indonesia, the number of Chinese is too small to develop a "communal identity."

The thing that is the case in the PRC, is that the People's Republic of China simply can't define Chinese in purely ethnic terms without the risk of losing a large amount of strategic territory and causing the entire nation to be at risk.

[Ohno]

I think it can be historically justified. Before around 1800, the Emperor of China was Emperor of the Entire World, and there are many ways of mapping the political situation pre-1800 to the current Chinese nation-state. One can argue that because the definition of Chinese includes Tibetans, that Tibetan history is automatically part of Chinese history. To me, it seems no more historically dubious than to claim Native Americans as part of American history or Mayans as part of Mexican history or the Picts as part of British history.

Also, this *isn't* to justify claims to Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, and Manchuria. The claims of the PRC are based on a formalistic reading of international law rather than based on ethnicity. The PRC doesn't attempt to justify claims to Mongolia or Singapore, for example.

Well said. Which international law were the claims based on?

[twofish]

Well said. Which international law were the claims based on?

The position of the PRC is that the Instrument of Surrender of Japan gave legal effect to the Potsdam Declaration which referenced the Cairo Declaration which stated that Taiwan was to be turned over to China after WWII, and that since the PRC is the successor state to the ROC, it is entitled to position of Taiwan. The PRC would also argue that there is an international consensus that there is "one China" and the PRC is the sole legitimate government of China.

Now before you start screaming at me..... Yes, I know that this position can be challenged in several dozen ways. Taiwan independence supporters question the validity of the Cairo Declaration, point out that the Treaty of San Francisco doesn't mention Taiwan, invokes the right of self-determination, and questions the level of international consensus requiring Taiwan. ROC supporters can question the successor state theory and the international consensus argument. (One rule of doing legal stuff is that you need to know your opponents arguments better than they do.)

But my point is this.......

In claiming Taiwan and Tibet (and not Singapore or Mongolia), the PRC is *not* using an ethnic argument but rather a legal one. You can dispute the legal argument, but my point is that the PRC is using it. Because the claim of Taiwan is based on a legal argument, the PRC is *very* sensitive to things that could undermine that legal argument and the implications of international law. The main implication is that it is fine for a state to use force to settle an internal dispute, but it is a "crime against peace" for a sovereign state to use force to annex another sovereign state. Likewise, the validity of using force to intervene in another states internal affairs is limited.

Right now, the PRC is very, very, very careful to avoid doing anything that would fatally kill their legal arguments. For example, if the United States or Japan were to recognize the Taiwan representative as "ambassador" and to accept a letter of credence, then PRC's legal position would be unsupportable. Similarly, other people are very, very, very careful to do anything that would make the PRC's legal position the only valid one, since the implication of that would be that the United States would have no legal right to intervene in the Taiwan straits.

The result of this is that people *deliberately* make the status of Taiwan ambigious so that everyone can pretend that their version of reality is correct. It gets very, very dangerous when people try to make things clear, because at that point, someone can no longer argue their version of reality and is likely to react in a bad way.

[lisisong]

I would classify any PRC/ROC natives as 中華民族 and also the 60 million strong overseas Chinese community as 中華民族 not what Ashura said "They are 中華民族 if they think they are, but they are not born to be"

I stumbled onto this site accidentally with an inquiry into the true origin of the yin-yang symbol which was misrepresented in a history textbook of one of my American eighth-grade students. I insisted that the true origin was not the light versus shade of a mountain, but developed scientifically through observation surrounding measurements using a pole. I am very happy that I was able to corroborate my understanding with a link provided from this forum. Thank you to the owners of this list.

Reading this topic, I am reminded of my own father-in-law's story, which required seperation from the homeland, then in 1949, forced exile, but in 1978, reconciliation. He never lost his dream to reunite with his beloved China (he grew up in ninbo and shanghai). He was happy to give China the information it had originally asked a young and ambitious scholar to find in America when he was allowed to return.

What I find perplexing is that there is so much fighting over this topic of what is Chinese, or more precisely 中華民族. It seems a moot point, because one is either mentally a member of 中華 or not. I am an American who is ethnically diverse in my lineage, however my 中国人 parents accept me as Chinese. This is because everything I do is Chinese, as I naturally behave and adapt to their way of thinking. It is not my place to tell them what to do, unless they ask me (which they are not afraid to do!). I am merely part of a continuum which begins with 孔子， 老子， and ends with this family.

Thank you for providing this forum. It is intellectually stimulating and quite diverse in opinions.

[rooster]

I am merely part of a continuum which begins with 孔子， 老子， and ends with this family.

Thank you for providing this forum. It is intellectually stimulating and quite diverse in opinions.

Thanks for sharing, I appreciate and respect your comments.

If I read it correctly, it means that your descendants will no longer be part of that continuum, and that they will have little to do with anything "chinese", no more than anything else. It is surely one's sole right to decide how to go about this. However, if by any chance later in life you get this feeling that you need to know more about chinese ancestry, heritage, history and culture that goes with it, you may find CHF offers more than just the "fighting" you perceive.

[lisisong]

Thanks for sharing, I appreciate and respect your comments.

If I read it correctly, it means that your descendants will no longer be part of that continuum, and that they will have little to do with anything "chinese", no more than anything else. It is surely one's sole right to decide how to go about this. However, if by any chance later in life you get this feeling that you need to know more about chinese ancestry, heritage, history and culture that goes with it, you may find CHF offers more than just the "fighting" you perceive.

是！

对！

<Bow and Smile>

李思松

[naruwan]

problem with this kind of topics are the following:

1. confusing nationality with ethnicity
2. confusing ethnicity with race
3. confusing common language with ethnicity
4. confusing historical interaction with ethnicity

and it only gets worse with the term 中華民族, because the term itself was created by confusing all these together, making any attempt to try rationalize such term futile.

Edited by naruwan, 11 January 2007 - 02:02 AM.

[rooster]

Thanks for sharing, I appreciate and respect your comments.

If I read it correctly, it means that your descendants will no longer be part of that continuum, and that they will have little to do with anything "chinese", no more than anything else. It is surely one's sole right to decide how to go about this. However, if by any chance later in life you get this feeling that you need to know more about chinese ancestry, heritage, history and culture that goes with it, you may find CHF offers more than just the "fighting" you perceive.

I guess lisesong got us stranded.

Anyone care to restart this?

Edited by rooster, 26 January 2007 - 08:42 AM.

[Richard Lim]

I guess lisesong got us stranded.

Anyone care to restart this?

What I find missing in the informed and interesting discussion that precedes is any appraisal of the non-cognitive content of a term such as Zhonghua Minzu (中華民族). To my mind it is designed, and indeed often succeeds, in arousing an emotion of belonging and community that defies (and does not require) detailed definition. What I am suggesting is that we will also need to approach this term as a rhetorical trope for individuals and groups to define their own identities in an active manner... i.e., not just as a term with a singular meaning dispense from some notional centre.

[rooster]

One of the important questions on this subject is, given that "Zhonghua Minzu" often succeeds in "arousing an emotion of belonging and community", in whm does it succeed in doing that? Does it sort by ethnicity? Does arouse positive emotion only in Hans? I would imagine that there are some other ethnic groups that fit into this category as well, viz Manchus, probably most Hui and some of the southwestern peoples (Zhuang, etc.) However, it seems unlikely that being included in "Zhonghua Minzu" evokes positive feelings among all of the 56 official ethnic groups of China.

As I am not a Chinese national, I do not really know what Zhonghua Minzu means to citizens in the PRC. If all citizens, Han or others, feel "all-chinese", as in the nationality, then that term will be defunct and unnecessary.

However, for those now living outside but possess lineage and heritage linked back to that land, the feeling may be different.
Less so, I would think for those who have comfortably settled down in other countries - and naturally.
In fact, I would think there are plenty who feel strange about the term.
For those who settled in other places but somehow feel discriminated against or sidelined may have a reason to feel strongly for that term.
There were times, I remember, that when a government of a certain country did not grant citizenship to them, the PRC came in to offer to take them.
I do not see the term as just to arouse emotions, but more of a human brotherhood notion that does provide something meaningful to some souls.

Outside China, those who still pick up chopsticks, drink chinese tea and watch chinese TV series would probably feel quite strongly about it.
When I walk the streets of chinatown in Melbourne or London or New York, I feel pretty good. That's because I am familiar with the language, the food and the stores. In contrast, those who have consciossly or unconsciously shed that "chineseness" will either dislike or indifferent about places like that. But then, I do not know if this feeling outside China is different from Han and Manchu or others. Perhaps someone in the right shoes can comment.