7 replies to this topic

[JiG]

I have a professor from Beijing University teaching my 20th Century Chinese History class and in one of his classes he brought up the topic of false western notions about Chinese history.

He stated that the western interpretation of "barbarian" (yi-fan) as "foreign" and "foreign" is wrong because "barbarian" in Chinese originally means uncivilized people or tribes. He then said that the Chinese never used this word to describe the civilized peoples who were foreign, like India and Rome, thus this western translation/notion is a wrong one.

Now here's the second thing he said, it had to do with the Western notion of "China Proper":

He stated that: Westerners used this term to refer to Central China, but the Chinese consider their current territory as a whole. The Chinese perceived that everywhere in the world is the Emperor's (All under heaven). The Chinese dislike the term "China Proper" because it may be used to justify separation on foreign conquest"

He also compared how the US has the original 13 colonies, yet no one calls this place the "US proper". I didn't think that was such a good example to explain why the notion of China proper was wrong, but I won't get into that.

I don't understand where the controversy is? The area outlined as China proper is roughly the traditional cultural area of China and also encompass the original territories united under the First Emperor Qin Shi Huang. I suppose it's the word "proper" which some Chinese, especially the PRC, may find as insulting or divisive since it sort of implies that this is what the China's "proper" boundaries should be.

Once again though I think it all has to do with how people are perceiving the use of this word "China proper", where the Westerners imply it on a cultural basis and the angered Chinese may perceive it on a political basis or with a divisive motive (which is a fair assessment since the term originated from the west at a time when China was being divided up by Western powers).

Edited by JiG, 18 January 2008 - 01:05 AM.

[fcharton]

I think your teacher is characteristic of a certain defensive attitude which is common on the internet these days, where people see slurs and implications behind every translation. It is sad to see it developping in China academia.

On the term "barbarians", the word in english means "uncivilised" it is often used in this way. Europeans called "barbarians" the less advanced (in their opinion) peoples who lived around them. And didn't use it for China and India. It is of course a translation, and as such imperfect, but it still is a pretty good one.

For what I know, the term China "proper" is often used in order to separate two notions which official PRC historiography tends to confuse. Most of the time, when people speak of the history of China, or Chinese civilisation, they refer, more or less, to the Han civilisation. Under this definition, China during the Springs and Autumns just covers a small area around the Yellow River and Wei valley, the ancient history of Tibet, or of some groups which are now on the territory of the PRC are not Chinese history, according to this definition.

The PRC, on the other hand, insists that Chinese history means the history of all groups now living inside the territory of the PRC. Which means bits of russian history are chinese history etc...

The term "proper" is used to clarify this. It has no separatist implication, except in the mind of a handful of nationalists.

I must say I find this obsession of some chinese scholars to correct what they perceive as "wrong uses" of foreign languages, slightly ridiculous, especially as their reasoning is often biased and incorrect (eg the barbarian example above). I don't think the development of this attitude (cf the recent spat about the Citroen advert in Spain) is a good thing for China, and the image of China abroad, but that's just me.

Francois

Edited by fcharton, 18 January 2008 - 03:51 AM.

[Yun]

I have a professor from Beijing University teaching my 20th Century Chinese History class and in one of his classes he brought up the topic of false western notions about Chinese history.

He stated that the western interpretation of "barbarian" (yi-fan) as "foreign" and "foreign" is wrong because "barbarian" in Chinese originally means uncivilized people or tribes. He then said that the Chinese never used this word to describe the civilized peoples who were foreign, like India and Rome, thus this western translation/notion is a wrong one.

Now here's the second thing he said, it had to do with the Western notion of "China Proper":

He stated that: Westerners used this term to refer to Central China, but the Chinese consider their current territory as a whole. The Chinese perceived that everywhere in the world is the Emperor's (All under heaven). The Chinese dislike the term "China Proper" because it may be used to justify separation on foreign conquest"

He also compared how the US has the original 13 colonies, yet no one calls this place the "US proper". I didn't think that was such a good example to explain why the notion of China proper was wrong, but I won't get into that.

I don't understand where the controversy is? The area outlined as China proper is roughly the traditional cultural area of China and also encompass the original territories united under the First Emperor Qin Shi Huang. I suppose it's the word "proper" which some Chinese, especially the PRC, may find as insulting or divisive since it sort of implies that this is what the China's "proper" boundaries should be.

Once again though I think it all has to do with how people are perceiving the use of this word "China proper", where the Westerners imply it on a cultural basis and the angered Chinese may perceive it on a political basis or with a divisive motive (which is a fair assessment since the term originated from the west at a time when China was being divided up by Western powers).

Some anti-Buddhist literati in the Tang period did refer to the Indians as Yi-Di (i.e. barbarians) in order to denigrate Buddhism as an inferior and barbaric religion. However, the usual generic words for Indians, as well as Arabs, Persians, and Central Asians, were 'Hu' or 'Fan'. 'Hu' was originally derived from an ethnonym used by the Xiongnu (probably Huna, the original pronunciation of 'Xiongnu'), but from the late Han period onwards was more often used to refer to foreigners or things from the far west. Unlike Yi or Di, 'Hu' was not usually used in a derogatory sense and thus should normally be translated as 'western foreigner' or just 'western' in the post-Han context, rather than 'barbarian'. The 'Five Hu' of the Age of Fragmentation are an exception to this rule - the term 'Five Hu' probably originated in the Southern Dynasties as a derogatory label for the Northern Dynasties. The Xianbi rulers of the Northern Dynasties certainly did not regard themselves as Hu - they used the Hu label only for such peoples as the Sogdians, Xiongnu, and Buluoji (i.e. Ji-Hu).

As for 'Fan', it was a term for 'foreigner' that arose in the early Tang period. Its origins are unknown, but like 'Hu' it did not have a derogatory meaning.

[大泽升龙]

China Proper < Greater China, that's it.

[babo]

"China Proper" is a geographical term more than a cultural or political one. It means all the territories below Great Wall to the South China Sea and from Sichuan/Gansu from the west to East China Sea. That's China and is different from ancient chinese empire, even now PRC is not 中国!
PRC encompass "China proper", Tibet plateau, Eastern Turkestan (or 新疆), Southern Mongolia and Manciuria; different areas under a unified central government.
From a cultural point of view you cannot say that Tibet or Turkestan is a part of China, while Hong Kong, Macao or Taiwan are obviously part of it.
From a potical point of view Tibet and Turkestan now are integral part of PRC, and Taiwan is not (maybe it will be in future).
台湾是中国的一部分，不是中华人民共和国的一部分。

Edited by babo, 18 January 2008 - 09:21 AM.

[Yun]

China Proper < Greater China, that's it.

'Greater China' is actually larger than even the PRC. Before 1997, the term encompassed the PRC, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan (ROC), and perhaps even the Chinese communities in Singapore and Malaysia. Nowadays the term is rather harder to define since Hong Kong and Macau have been unified with the PRC. One might say Greater China is the PRC plus Taiwan. See http://en.wikipedia....i/Greater_China

From a cultural point of view you cannot say that Tibet or Turkestan is a part of China, while Hong Kong, Macao or Taiwan are obviously part of it.

That seems to be saying that there is only one 'Chinese culture' and that it is synonymous with the 'Han' or 'Hua'. This view seems to be widespread outside the PRC, but is very politically incorrect in the PRC, which officially presents China as a multi-cultural state.

For what I know, the term China "proper" is often used in order to separate two notions which official PRC historiography tends to confuse. Most of the time, when people speak of the history of China, or Chinese civilisation, they refer, more or less, to the Han civilisation. Under this definition, China during the Springs and Autumns just covers a small area around the Yellow River and Wei valley

That is actually a separate concept, that of the original Zhongguo 中國 as opposed to what Zhongguo now denotes (i.e. the entire PRC). It was also known as Zhongyuan 中原 from the post-Han period onwards, and is still commonly known by that name today.

I would suggest that 'China Proper' is an 18th-20th century concept that excludes those territories added to the Ming Empire's maximum extent by Qing imperial conquests - namely, Tibet, Qinghai, Xinjiang, Mongolia, and Taiwan - as well as the Manchu homeland (Manchuria). The European powers (and later Japan) never fully accepted that these territories had become integral parts of 'China' - to them, 'China' was still defined by the Ming Empire's borders, since the Manchu emperors themselves were a 'non-Chinese' dynasty. They therefore came to regard these territories as fair game for their own colonial enterprises. By the late 19th century, the British Empire had interests in Tibet, and the Russians tried to establish their influence in Xinjiang, Mongolia, and Manchuria. Japan, of course, ultimately seized control of Taiwan and Manchuria.

So although most historians today are unaware of it, 'China Proper' does have some colonial/imperial baggage to it, which makes it outdated and potentially offensive. I personally do not use it - as I mentioned on another thread, the entire territorial extent of the PRC is 'China' in the present-day context and should be recognized as such. There are no 'more Chinese' and 'less Chinese' parts of China, because the criteria for 'Chineseness' can only ever be highly subjective.

See also http://en.wikipedia....ki/China_proper

[Bao Pu]

On the term "barbarians", the word in english means "uncivilised" it is often used in this way. Europeans called "barbarians" the less advanced (in their opinion) peoples who lived around them. And didn't use it for China and India. It is of course a translation, and as such imperfect, but it still is a pretty good one.

BARBARIAN
1338, from Middle Latin barbarinus, from Latin barbaria "foreign country," from Greek barbaros "foreign, strange, ignorant," from Proto Indo-European base *barbar- echoic of unintelligible speech of foreigners (cf. Sanskrit barbara- "stammering," also "non-Aryan"). Barbaric is first recorded 1490, from Old French barbarique, from Latin barbaricus "foreign, strange, outlandish." Barbarous is first attested 1526.

So it seems barbarian can mean both 'foreign' and 'uncivilized,' although 'uncivilized' is how the word is usually understood. I think JiG's teacher is saying "foreign" is a bad translation of Yi, but 'barbarian' is better, but I could be wrong.

[tongyan]

For what I know, the term China "proper" is often used in order to separate two notions which official PRC historiography tends to confuse. Most of the time, when people speak of the history of China, or Chinese civilisation, they refer, more or less, to the Han civilisation. Under this definition, China during the Springs and Autumns just covers a small area around the Yellow River and Wei valley, the ancient history of Tibet, or of some groups which are now on the territory of the PRC are not Chinese history, according to this definition.

The PRC, on the other hand, insists that Chinese history means the history of all groups now living inside the territory of the PRC. Which means bits of russian history are chinese history etc...

The term "proper" is used to clarify this. It has no separatist implication, except in the mind of a handful of nationalists.

I think the term 'China proper' irks some people because of its imprecision and its connotations. Essentially, it is built on the notion that China 'proper' only 'properly' includes areas that were under the direct administration of the last "Chinese" dynasty - the Ming. Although much of the areas that China 'proper' points to are indeed largely inhabited by Hans, areas such as Yunnan, Guangxi, Hainan, and Guizhou have large populations of minority peoples, (compare Manchuria which is almost exclusively inhabited by Hans). I would argue that the areas of Yunnan, Guangxi, Guizhou, and Hainan would not have been included in China 'proper' had they not been directly administered by the Ming (and were instead later incorporated by the Qing like the other areas not now considered China 'proper').