83 replies to this topic

[Jurchen Fuca]

I am a Manchu, but most of my family are pretty sicinized after all these generations of Chinese influence. Besides the fact that I still like to eat noodles over rice, and I like cold weather rather than warm. Mmm the one thing that bothers me is that shortly after the KMT took control of the Forbidden City in 1912, there was an Anti-Manchuism campaign going on about sending the Manchus back to where they belong (the northeast and outter Manchuria). Well in 1934 when the Imperial Japanese founded Manchuguo in Manchuria, I know by then there was already lots of Han Chinese that lived there for perhaps decades yet there were also many Manchus due to the conflict have decided to moved back to the Liaodong province. The thing is... why were the Manchus who participated in the Manchuguo campaign were actually called traitors according to the Han Chinese in 1949 when the Anti-Manchuism movement was solely focusing on removing the Manchus out of the Greatwall.

Excuse my ignorance if I don't get my historical facts straight, please do enlighten me because I know everyone who reads this prob. has the knowledge to to support a concrete validation.

So are Manchus Chinese? or have we been forgotten by history as an idenity? sigh.
-Quinn

Edited by Jurchen Fuca, 18 March 2007 - 06:50 AM.

[Yun]

The controversy goes back to the question of whether Manchuria is an integral and historic part of China. Right after the 1911 Revolution, the revolutionaries did not tend to think it was. Hence their willingness to contemplate 'deporting' all Manchus to Manchuria and excluding Manchuria from the new Chinese republic. After all, it was the homeland of a foreign people who had invaded and conquered China.

But the ROC government realized that letting Manchuria become an independent country would be tantamount to giving Russia or Japan a chance to make it a client state, and from there pose a threat to China. So the ROC incorporated Manchuria into its territory and encouraged more Han immigration to the region (which IIRC had already grown rapidly in the last years of the Qing when non-Manchu settlement in Manchuria was legalized). The ROC also promoted a new conception of Chinese nationhood, a Republic of Five Races (including the Manchus), so as to uphold the legitimacy of state borders that were inherited from the Qing empire.

In the early 1930s, Japan did try to justify its occupation of Manchuria by arguing that Manchuria was never part of China before the Qing, and thus rightfully belonged to the Manchu people alone. This led to the Manchukuo project. The ROC historian Fu Sinian led a team in writing "The Draft History of the Northeast" in 1932, which used many distortions of the historical record to 'prove' to the Lytton Commission that "the Northeast" (Manchuria) had been governed by Chinese dynasties since the beginning of recorded history.

The obvious flimsiness of the historical arguments used by Fu Sinian led other historians in the 1930s and 1940s to use a different approach in which the Manchus were Chinese because like the Han, Mongols, Hui, and Tibetans, they were all descended from the Yellow Emperor (Huangdi). They were thus just different branches of the same Zhonghua (Chinese) race.

The PRC has adopted a different approach to the question of who was historically Chinese: since the early 1980s, the official position has been that all ethnic groups living within the borders of the Qing empire at its height were naturally part of the Chinese nation, and therefore Chinese. The basis for this is the argument that the expansion of the Qing empire followed natural laws of history, such as the prior existence of strong economic and cultural ties between the Qing empire and those peoples whom it conquered. Therefore the Qing period marked the final complete unification of a Chinese nation that had previously never been under a single government.

The PRC argument is, of course, far too teleological and ideologically-motivated to be acceptable to historians outside China.

So the short answer to your question is: no, the Manchus have not always been considered Chinese, but since the early 20th century they have been considered Chinese because Manchuria for political reasons has to be considered Chinese.

No prizes for guessing how I voted in the poll

[Zorigo]

Manchus was NATION. Now it all depends on Manchus themselves, if you prefer to consider yourself Chinese, you are Chinese. If not, then go for Manchu.

There are so many facts ( you can find many, too many hard fact) that Manchus are not born to be Chinese. Only since 1911, for political reason, as Mr Yun stated. Manchus are considered as Chinese.

Political reason is not stable and truthful, it always changes.

Edited by Zorigo, 18 March 2007 - 12:47 PM.

[naruwan]

the last 2 options don't contradict each other in my point of view.

[Mei Houwang]

The last option is wierd. Being "just a nomadic ethnic group" and "still Manchu" does not mean "not Chinese".

[Richard Lim]

It would appear that English usages often lack the finesse that "written Chinese" has for considering this question. In the latter context, there would ordinarily be no question than ethnic Manchus would be counted among the peoples of China, i.e., Chinese citizens, albeit a minority when compared to those who identified themselves as Hua or Han (at 93% of total).

But often in English usages, being Chinese and Manchu are posed as mutually exclusive identities due to ignorance of the matter in question or laziness (i.e., not wanting to always say Han Chinese so end up saying Chinese instead in those contexts when in "written Chinese"). At other times, English writers take Chinese to stand for a nationality (PRC citizenship for instance) as well as an ethnicity (e.g., being Han Chinese) and use the two meanings interchangeably even in the same piece of writing, resulting in much hilarity and even more confusion.

This kind of slippage is apparent in today's Boston Globe Sunday paper by David Lague (International Herald Tribune) who happens to be writing the decline of Manchu language in today's China ("Voices of a Powerful Dynasty Fading"). Interestingly-and alarmingly, he reports that only 18 native Manchu speakers now remain and all of them live in an fairly isolated village of Sanjiazi (in the Northeast).

[Andy Lau]

i choose the 2nd option, why? well genetically and culturally(ie Linguistically and their usage of non-chinese characters) aren't the manchus different from Han?

Edited by Andy Lau, 18 March 2007 - 07:37 PM.

[Ashura]

There are couple ways to view the problem.

First you need to define "Chinese". China has always been a universal nation where various ethincities reside within it, so in this sense, anybody reside within the state of China is a Chinese. Think Roman Empire and modern Canada as examples.

A more precise question would be are Manchus Han Chinese? Could be, that depends how you are intergrated into the Han culture. At the end we just have to remind us that Han, Manchu etc are just words that help us to understand certain concepts. Take Italian-American for example, for a person being one it does not mean that he is less of an Amerian or Italian, it's merely a tool for the people in his society to recognize his background.

As to the question why Manchuria is an intergral part of China, it has to do with the socio-economic development over the course of history. Han Chinese had been migrating to various part of Manchuria for a few centuries, and during the Qing dynasty national resources had been spent into the development of Manchuria, thus the economy was intergrated with the rest of China. That's how Manchuria became part of the historical boundary of state of China and if anybody were to take that away it would be seens as an action against the state of China. It would be like if China invaded Canada and without Canadian permission, created a puppet state under the aboriginal people.

As for the anti-Manchus movements in the early part of the 20th cen., they were revenge attitude and resistance against against the Manchu montrosities at the beginning of Qing and Manchus absolute monarch ruling over China, which escalated into the nationalism that is manifested by the nationalist revolution. I know it is unpleasant to be the receiving end of nationalism; however, it was a historical phenomenon and had fade away already.

By all means, Manchus in China can keep their identity, and as a matter of fact, celebriting such identity is encouraged by the Chinese government; nonetheless, in such identity will not be recognize in the realm of basic level foreign relations, and in the eyes of a foreign state, Manchus will just be Chinese, just like Italian-American is American.

[Andy Lau]

of course Manchu are chinese in the sense that they live within the boundaries of China..but ethnically they r Manchu because they r culturally and genetically different.

Out of curiosity, during what period did Hans migrated to Manchuria? and why? I also heard that many of them came from Shandong province..is this true?

Edited by Andy Lau, 18 March 2007 - 09:39 PM.

[Ashura]

of course Manchu are chinese in the sense that they live within the boundaries of China..but ethnically they r Manchu because they r culturally and genetically different.

Well no one is arguing that the Manchu identity does not exist. And genetically different? Everyone in the world is genetically different from another. What exactly do you mean by that.

Out of curiosity, during what period did Hans migrated to Manchuria? and why? I also heard that many of them came from Shandong province..is this true?

One major wave in early-mid Qing, many migrated north for the lands. Second major wave in late Qing when Manchuria was beginning to industrialize.

[Jurchen Fuca]

An Italian-American sounds so much easier to define versus if I'd ever call myself Manchurian-Chinese-American (I believe no one has ever used it like this lol). I believe during the early/mid Qing dynasty, the Liaodong province was forbbided for Han Chinese to migrate, at least near the Changbai Mt. region.

As far as conversating to a common person, I realized not everyone knows about Manchuria (geographically & historically speaking). Everytime I mention my heritage people would just jump immediately and said "oh I've seen the Manchurian Candidate!" therefore I began to question myself about using a word to common Westerners who might actually know what I am refering to. (for sure Chinese does the job)

I voted option 2 before I read all of the replies simply because it is probably the most accurate based on facts as well as my own personal believe. The options listed above were just questions I've asked myself a million times. It's ironic how the Manchus were once the rulers of China, while other minorities got to keep their cultural, language, customes..etc but the Manchus have simply lost it.

If Manchuria was intergrated as part of China... how the heck did Mongolia get away and was able to declared independence from China. The word "China" is sounding bigger and bigger to me everyday.

[galvatron prime]

Manchu is a ethnic while Chinese is a race ,Manchu are in China more longer than those Hui why Manchu are not consider as Chinese ,they form 2 Major Dynastly Jin and Qing why not consider as Chinese, i vote Manchu is Chinese .

Edited by galvatron, 18 March 2007 - 11:33 PM.

[Intranetusa]

Cantonese, Manchu, etc are all considered Chinese. Although I'm not sure if Han was an ethnicity or a geographic designation.


"Manchu is a ethnic while Chinese is a race "

A race would be Mongoloid, Negroid, Caucasoid, Aborigines, etc
"Asian" is a race. "Chinese" is more like a nationality...

Edited by Intranetusa, 18 March 2007 - 11:44 PM.

[Mei Houwang]

Well no one is arguing that the Manchu identity does not exist. And genetically different? Everyone in the world is genetically different from another. What exactly do you mean by that.

Culture? It's arguable. Genetics? Ho, that's pretty racy. You can't be Chinese because you don't have the right DNA! Ouch.

[Jurchen Fuca]

Manchu is a ethnic while Chinese is a race ,Manchu are in China more longer than those Hui why Manchu are not consider as Chinese ,they form 2 Major Dynastly Jin and Qing why not consider as Chinese, i vote Manchu is Chinese .

I agree that Manchu is an ethnic, but disagree that Chinese is a race. I think Chinese is a nationality and mongoliod is what we would call ourselves when comes to race.

I cannot disagree with the Jin and Qing dynasties being part of the Chinese history, therefore Manchus are Chinese. I guess the concept of ethnic nationalism is purely fictional since no such nation contains only one ethnic which represents that country.