52 replies to this topic

[Yun]

Thanks for that reference!

The Yuan historians based their statement on the fact that the Khitan were related to the Yuwen Xianbei, and the Zhou Shu (compiled in the early Tang dynasty) claimed the Yuwen were descended from Yan Di/Shennong. However, according to the passage you quoted (Liao Shi Chapter 63), Yelu Yan's 耶律俨 "Huangchao Shilu" 《皇朝实录》, written in the late Liao, claimed descent for the Khitan from Huang Di. This text was still around in Yuan times, but unfortunately is lost today. The most likely interpretation is that the late Liao did claim descent from Huang Di, but the early Liao never claimed descent from Yan Di - this was merely inferred by the Yuan historians on the basis of the Zhou Shu.

Note that late Liao attitudes towards ethnic identity were probably rather different from early Liao attitudes. The Khitan seem to have been increasingly keen to assert themselves as legitimately Hua or Zhonghua people towards the end of the dynasty. I am basing this view on an article by Guo Kangsong published in the February 2001 issue of "Zhongguoshi Yanjiu".

[Ashura]

Because they have their own countries and those countries aren't inside PRC borders.

Miscommunication there. What I meant was why a Machurian can and should consider himself a 中華民族, is the exaclty reason why a Japanese or German could consider himself a 中華民族. If a Japanese cannot consider himself 中華民族 then an American born Chinese should not consider himself 中華民族.
National boundaries do not limite culture. Inside, outsied, next to PRC does not matter.

[doubleslacker]

[quote name='Yun' date='Oct 8 2006, 11:11 PM' post='4853386']
Hanul_Na wrote on another thread:



My reply:

What does it really mean to be a Chinese? I think, conceptually, the term Chinese is more similar to the term "european". China is but a United Europe with a more centralized government. Prior to the forced adoption of Mandarin/Putonhua(which is a modern movement, accelerated in the past 50 years), people from different regions couldn't really understand each other. And culturally, machuria, the north, Jiangnan, deep south are vastly different. Yes, we had shared a few philosophical views in the past, but a German or an Italian could very well believe in Voltaire. The ex-president of taiwan, Lee den-hue(a much hated figure in China), argued that China geopolitically, culturally, linguistically is made up of 7 unique "countries". Despite his biased political view etc., some of his assersions have certain merits. I am a Chinese, but am also distinctively shanghainese. Much like a French calling himself European. I have my own spoken language, well, a dialect (to denote less importance) spoken by close to 100 million (Wu dialects). We have our own customes and traditions, some shared with Chinese from other regions, some not.

[yau]

all arguments here seems to arise because whether zhonghua minzu is a cultural, political or ideological concept is up to anyone's interest.

Most Han Chinese agree everyone within Chinese boundary is politically Zhonghua minzu. They're true. But some, like tibetian or Xinjiang insurgents reject this idea culturally---indeed they're culturally true too. How could we expect a consensus on this term when we're actually comparing an apple to an orange?

[Yun]

The problem comes when PRC historians are routinely forced to get into the act and assert that from the beginning of history, the multi-ethnic Zhonghua nation has existed. In other words, history books have to portray the Tibetans, Mongols, Jurchens, Xiongnu, Yunnan tribes, even the Taiwanese aborigines as being as 'Chinese' (Zhongguo or Zhonghua) as the people of the Central Plains, regardless of which time period is being referred to. This denies them an independent, autonomous history, and politicizes historiography.

[yau]

Actually, that's why I support this new/technical usage of "Minzu" as nationality-- at least it's consistent. It's more like they are coining new jargon than reinventing history-- no one denies that the Tibetans, Mongols, Jurchens, Xiongnu, Yunnan tribes, even the Taiwanese aborigines are different "Zhongzu" or races/ tribes, they are just considered to be part of the current "Zhonghua Minzu", Chinese nationality.

It's very confusing to moderners who only speaks Chinese colloquially but also may confuse historians who know that "Minzu/ Zhongzu" could have meant different things in the past...

if we're only talking about a nationality, "Zhongguo congmin" is a modern and neutral word for describing this.
The underlying meaning behind "Zhonghua minzu" is different from "congmin".

[Yun]

no one denies that the Tibetans, Mongols, Jurchens, Xiongnu, Yunnan tribes, even the Taiwanese aborigines are different "Zhongzu" or races/ tribes, they are just considered to be part of the current "Zhonghua Minzu", Chinese nationality.

The key word here is "current". No one denies the PRC the right to now present itself as a multi-ethnic nation-state. But it is historically dubious for PRC government statements and historians to routinely say, "China has been a multi-ethnic nation throughout its history." This is done mainly for the purpose of justifying the claim to Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, northern Manchuria, etc. as inalienable parts of China, even though they are regions that were only relatively recently annexed by Central Plains regimes. I can see the political need for that, but it is not good history.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

I haven't read any PRC source which claim China always had the same 56 ethnic groups since the beginning of history. "China has been a multi-ethnic nation throughout its history" is not an invalid statement. The most I've seen is the claim that certain ethnic groups has been part of China "since ancient times". Yet the term ancient itself is ambiguous. In Chinese, it can mean anytime in the distant past.

One thing I hate about historiography nowadays(although there are changes) however, is its ethnological terminologies. Whenever a political state in the past does something, we use ethnological terms such as the Khitans did this or the Chinese(Han) did that, instead of using the state names themselves such as the Liao did this, or Song did that. The worst example is a case where I saw the history book calling the kingdom of NanZho the Thai state. And that "in the 8th century the Thai succcesfully resisted the encroachment of the Han Chinese." Political entities in the past are usually multi-ethnic, they have no concept of modern ethnic based statehood.

Edited by warhead, 24 November 2006 - 11:08 PM.

[Yun]

I haven't read any PRC source which claim China always had the same 56 ethnic groups since the beginning of history.

That is because there were other ethnic groups that supposedly got absorbed by the Han. However, I myself have never seen any statement that any of the present 56 official ethnic groups was ever not part of the Chinese nation even from the very beginning. In other words, the claim is made for more than 56 ethnic groups (including those that no longer exist), and not less than 56.

A typical example is the Foreword written by the PRC editors for the PRC edition of Bai Yang's Zhongguoren Shigang. They objected to Bai Yang's use of 'Zhongguoren' to mean mainly the Han, and asserted that the idea of Zhongguo/China 'expanding' to include places like Taiwan and Tibet is fallacious since the Chinese nation has always included the Tibetan and Gaoshan ethnic groups, even when they were not under a Central Plains regime. To them, the correct way of saying it is that a completely unified Zhongguo/China only came about in the Qing dynasty - Qing expansion is thus not imperial expansion, but rather national unification.

"China has been a multi-ethnic nation throughout its history" is not an invalid statement.

It is if "multi-ethnic" is defined such that all of the present 56 ethnic groups must be included at any time.

That permits such illogical statements as that the ancestors of the Manchus were also 'Zhongguoren' at the time of the Han dynasty, when the Han government hardly even knew about them.

But it is not invalid if "multi-ethnic" can be interpreted in a more flexible way that changes over time.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Thats really just playing with words. But its not unique to China; modern historiography tend to use the backward projection analysis in which they try to explain history as a process of events which naturally lead up to the present situation. Other countries do the same thing. The U.S. label Colonial period Britains as Americans as well, and Canada also labels early British colonists in Canada as Canadians. Britain consider themselves a mixture of the old Celtish culture with the Germainc culture, labeling all as British history. And Egypt even claim heritage to the ancient Egyptian civilization.
Its even more the case in Asia, since post modernism has not quite taken root there. India claim heritage to both the Dravidian and Aryan states, Turkey consider the Xiongnu and all other Turkish people to be part of its history with the notion of a "Pan-Turkish" nation. Korea consider the 3 kingdom to be always Korean until it led to unification of a "Pan-Korean" state. The only difference is that China incorporates multi-ethnicity in its definition of nationhood. So instead of "Pan Hanism(or sinism in the ambiguous western version)" it promotes a Pan-Chinese state that includes the 56 ethnic groups, but both are still artificial constructs nonetheless. But I highly doubt that the PRC view the Russians(one of the 56 ethnic group) as part of China's ethnic group since the beginning. They are selective about the ethnicities, only including those that are neibours of the central plains.

Edited by warhead, 26 November 2006 - 05:13 PM.

[Yun]

But I highly doubt that the PRC view the Russians(one of the 56 ethnic group) as part of China's ethnic group since the beginning. They are selective about the ethnicities, only including those that are neibours of the central plains.

Yes, I was wondering about this too. I think the only exceptions among the 56 would be the Russian and Korean immigrants, since Russians and Koreans have their own nation-states and it would be politically incorrect to claim them as part of the Chinese nation since ancient times. But the PRC historians choose not to state this problem openly, such that people often forget that Russians and Koreans are even included among the 56 ethnic groups.

While Mongolia is an independent state now, PRC historiography still counts the Mongols (and their predecessors on the Mongolian steppe, the Xiongnu and Turks) as part of the historical Chinese nation. The official explanation is that Outer Mongolia was only split off from the Chinese nation because of foreign imperialism.

modern historiography tend to use the backward projection analysis in which they try to explain history as a process of events which naturally lead up to the present situation.

The usual word for this is 'teleological'. All nation-based historiography is inherently teleological, because its purpose is to explain the formation of the present nation-state as an inevitable and natural process, in order to promote nationalism and prevent separatism.

[twofish]

They are 中華民族 if they think they are, but they are not born to be. If they don't think they are then the Chinese ethnicity means nothing to them. That's why I said the term has to be flexible. If a Manchurain is 中華民族, why can't a Japanese, Vietnamese, Italian, German be 中華民族? You see where I'm going?

One problem with these discussions is the assumption that any rule has to be consistent, and these labels are not consistent at all. There's no reason that any sort of ethnic/national/racial label has to follow any consistent rule, and requiring that it does causes more problems than it solves.

Personally, I think the solution is to recognize that all national identities are imagined and to a large extent arbitrary.

[sg_han]

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"

[twofish]

But it is historically dubious for PRC government statements and historians to routinely say, "China has been a multi-ethnic nation throughout its history." This is done mainly for the purpose of justifying the claim to Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, northern Manchuria, etc. as inalienable parts of China, even though they are regions that were only relatively recently annexed by Central Plains regimes. I can see the political need for that, but it is not good history.

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.

[twofish]

But I highly doubt that the PRC view the Russians(one of the 56 ethnic group) as part of China's ethnic group since the beginning. They are selective about the ethnicities, only including those that are neibours of the central plains.

What groups are and are not included as "Chinese since the beginning" is largely a function of currently politics. Russians, Mongolians, and Koreans will scream very loudly if they are included as "inherently Chinese" (and the Koreans did in fact scream very loudly recently over the boundaries of "Chinese"). What makes this tricky is that pre-1800, every civilized human was Chinese in Chinese thought.

This also applies to "overseas Chinese." During the 1960's. the PRC made a concerted effort to distance itself from overseas Chinese. Someone who was "ethnically Han" living in Thailand was expected by the PRC government to "become Thai." That's changed radically in the last decade because of globalization, and how "overseas Chinese" relate to the "Motherland" is something that is still actively being renegotiated/

The boundaries of "national history" are as arbitrary as national boundaries.