336 replies to this topic

[heyniceboard]

The Chinese didn't have a Western concept of race and ethnicity until the 1800's, before then there wasn't any Han Ethnicity that 92% of Chinese today claim. Ancient Chinese classified people by geography and political allegiance, not by ethnicity.

Does anyone know who pioneered the concept of a unified Han Ethnicity? What were the other proposals or alternatives? How was this notion propagated, and why was it so successful? And how were the diverse nature (linguistic, cultural, economic differences) of the Chinese peoples reconciled with a single broad and over-sweeping ethnicity? Was it a wise move in retrospect?

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

actually ethnicity is well known before 1800s, but the time that ethnicity come to its form is mainly in the age of fragmentation, becoming stronger during Song and reached its strongest form in Ming and Qing. The term Han come to be its present day meaning during the Qing.

[heyniceboard]

actually ethnicity is well known before 1800s, but the time that ethnicity come to its form is mainly in the age of fragmentation, becoming stronger during Song and reached its strongest form in Ming and Qing. The term Han come to be its present day meaning during the Qing.

There was a sense of kinship and an identification with a shared history, but before 1800's, China had neither a concept of race nor ethnicity. A unified Han Ethnicity was propagated and exploited by revolutionaries to overthrow the Qing Empire.

Western Europeans identify with a common history and civilization as well, migration also abounded throughout Europe's history, this does not make Western Europeans one ethnicity.

[General_Zhaoyun]

The han-chinese (people) already existed since han dynasty ..at least that's what the people residing in China came to be called. During the Qing dynasty, there was even talks about han-people rebelling against the Manchu to 'kick the manchu' out of China and restoring the Ming dynasty. This happened during the early Qing dynasty... the most famous rebels tended to be "Hong Hua Hui 红花会" (Red flower Association)

But I guess you're right.. the concept of Han-ethnicity only existed after 1800s..and the concept of 'chinese ethnicities' only appeared after ROC (republic of China) was founded. PRC further developed the chinese people into 56 ethnic nationals..

[Yun]

When the Mongols conquered China, they classified the former subjects of the Jin dynasty (including Jurchen, Khitan and northern Han Chinese) as Han people (Hanren 汉人), while classifying the former subjects of the Southern Song as Southerners (Nanren 南人). In terms of status, the "Southerners" were ranked below the "Han people". Does this suggest that even at this time, the people of south China were not considered as being fully Han? And that in contrast, even the sinicised Jurchen were considered to be Han because they lived in north China?

[Kulong]

When the Mongols conquered China, they classified the former subjects of the Jin dynasty (including Jurchen, Khitan and northern Han Chinese) as Han people (Hanren ??), while classifying the former subjects of the Southern Song as Southerners (Nanren ??). In terms of status, the "Southerners" were ranked below the "Han people". Does this suggest that even at this time, the people of south China were not considered as being fully Han? And that in contrast, even the sinicised Jurchen were considered to be Han because they lived in north China?

I believe they were differentiated in such a way because Song was conquered last by Mongols and were preceived as "different" than Northern Chinese and Jurchen, Khitan because they were of a different "nation" and "region". Obviously Jurchen and Khitan spoke a different language that is different from Chinese although they were HEAVILY influenced by Chinese.

Also, keep in mind that Southern Chinese being "looked down upon" isn't something new, especially by the time of Yuan dynasty.

[RollingWave]

These arguments could really go on.......... but I find that the concept of nation and race really did exist far before 1800. (of course..... some claim the opposite but many of the advocates tend to have a pretty distinct political affliation that lead you to question......)

Just as the most basic example, as late as the Shang dynasty the concept of Hua Tsia and Yi Di already existed ... is this not a racial concept?Distinction of Nomadic invaders have always been by race... if you do not have a counter distinction that you are also a race urself how do you identify foreign races????

if nation concepts really didn't exist why would there be so much interest in reuniting China during all it's fragmentation periods? the phrase 天下分久必合合久必分 The world (China)will split after long unities and reunite after long fragmentations did not come after 1800 did it? if this is not a national concept and REALLY referred to THE WHOLE world than I'd think China would be far more agressive in it's expansion.

From all i have learned... I really have to disagree with the concept that China had no racial nor national concept before 1800

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

"There was a sense of kinship and an identification with a shared history, but before 1800's, China had neither a concept of race nor ethnicity. A unified Han Ethnicity was propagated and exploited by revolutionaries to overthrow the Qing Empire."

No, ethnicity well existed before 1800s, the term Han was used widely by the Qing emperors such as Yong Zheng, as I said it got its present form during the Qing dynasty. As for nationality it exists too but not in the modern sense, its nationalism(loyalty by the common people) that didn't exist.

[heyniceboard]

When the Mongols conquered China, they classified the former subjects of the Jin dynasty (including Jurchen, Khitan and northern Han Chinese) as Han people (Hanren 汉人), while classifying the former subjects of the Southern Song as Southerners (Nanren 南人). In terms of status, the "Southerners" were ranked below the "Han people". Does this suggest that even at this time, the people of south China were not considered as being fully Han? And that in contrast, even the sinicised Jurchen were considered to be Han because they lived in north China?

That is a political tactic made by the Mongolians, as various spheres of influence. The closer you were located geographically to the Mongolians, the higher your "rank." It didn't really have a lot to do with race nor ethnicity. The Southerners were the lowest rank because they could not be conquered for the longest time, thus it made sense to raise the ego of the conquered (or would be conquered) north to help defeat the "backward south." It would be foolish to rank Northern and Southern China together, as that would lead to unification against the Mongolians. In fact, by having Jurchens and Khitans included along with the Northern Han, Japanese, and Koreans, it clearly shows that there wasn't a concept of ethnicity back then. It certainly wasn't based on language or even culture for that matter.

[MengTzu]

Hey Rolling Wave,

you wrote, "These arguments could really go on.......... but I find that the concept of nation and race really did exist far before 1800."

Define this concept. The modern concept of nation and race existed from Enlightenment Europe.

you wrote, "(of course..... some claim the opposite but many of the advocates tend to have a pretty distinct political affliation that lead you to question......)"

I wonder what that affiliation might be.

you wrote, "Just as the most basic example, as late as the Shang dynasty the concept of Hua Tsia and Yi Di already existed ... is this not a racial concept?"

No it's not. Tribal ties are familial. Racial ties are based social convention about physical features. Extremely varied ancestries are sometimes grouped together racially, while extremely similar ancestry is sometimes separated to different races. Tribal ties are actual and concrete, race is abstract and constructed.

Modern people have a habit of taking a similar thing of the past, which might be a precursor to something modern, to be exactly the same as that thing. This is called hindsight, and you've shown it.

Peace,

Michael

8-23-2004

[Ludahai]

When the Mongols conquered China, they classified the former subjects of the Jin dynasty (including Jurchen, Khitan and northern Han Chinese) as Han people (Hanren 汉人), while classifying the former subjects of the Southern Song as Southerners (Nanren 南人). In terms of status, the "Southerners" were ranked below the "Han people". Does this suggest that even at this time, the people of south China were not considered as being fully Han? And that in contrast, even the sinicised Jurchen were considered to be Han because they lived in north China?

This shouldn't be completely surprising as the people of South China generally spoke different languages than the people referred to as Hanren (漢人) in the north. Also, the people of northern China had been under the rule of steppe peoples (the Khitan, Jurchen, and then Mongols) for far longer than the peoples of southern China. It shouldn't be surprising that the steppe peoples (in this case the Mongols) saw differentiation amongst them.

[nishishei]

No, ethnicity well existed before 1800s, the term Han was used widely by the Qing emperors such as Yong Zheng, as I said it got its present form during the Qing dynasty. As for nationality it exists too but not in the modern sense, its nationalism(loyalty by the common people) that didn't exist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. The "Han" as an ethnicity only existed since the Republican era, NEVER before. There was an identification of being "people of the fallen Han empire," but it was neither based on ethnicity nor politics. Chinese before the Republican era never considered there to be a common Chinese culture either. People in the north (Jin,Liao) had their own cultures; people in the east (near the Yangtze river) had theirs; and so on. The entire "Han ethnicity" has been a remarkable fabrication achieved only in the past 150 or so years.

你也应该知道"汉族"作为一个"现代单一民族"是中华民国建立以后的事, 与孙文的种族理论有很大关系. "汉族主义"的理论基础是单薄的, 不能随便奉为真理. 也不是我不想当汉人了, 个人选择和学术最好分清楚点. 我祖先是珠矶巷移民, 几百年来都是三角洲和广府的主流群体, 这是不可任意篡改的. 但要不要"炎黄神话"作为"最大部落"的依据, 要不要把隋唐视为"华夏", 把辽金视为"夷狄", 要不要把一种工具通用语硬说成是"民族共同语", 要不要把同一套"汉服"从商汤时代穿到崇祯时代, 这是更加严肃的话题.

我认为, 汉族主义是封闭排外的, 严重地扼杀了近代国人的创造力和对汉文化和历史多元性的认识, 同时带有盲目西方民族主义和现代化的因素, 违反了东方文化心理的和谐. 特别提到的是最近的"汉服运动". 虽然我支持民主声音对北京"辫子文化"的批评, 也支持采薇作坊等对传统美学的努力, 但对该运动本身的片面性和排外性感到很遗憾. 不要以为"春秋的", "汉代的" 就代表最纯粹的汉认同. 这种纯粹主义会遮盖历史上汉文化多元的,时代独特的表达. 另外就是对阿尔泰民族太狠了, 忽视了他们对汉文化的贡献, 助长了中国人自大,固步自封的阿Q劣根性, 与汉唐的宽容和开放恰恰相反.
中国政治,文化,社会,经济对地方和族群的下放是很重要的. 没有COMPARTMENTS的轮船沉得特别快. 文化单一化,文化帝国主义的社会, 如纳粹德国, 苏联, "内陆美国", 特别容易产生群体疯狂和极端排外运动.

[nishishei]

Does anyone know who pioneered the concept of a unified Han Ethnicity? How was this notion propagated, and why was it so successful? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sun Wen, and the nationalistic intellectuals during the fall of the Qing Dynasty. The ROC, PRC helped promote the notion. The ROC (and late Qing intellectuals) made up the notion that the Han was one of 5 ethnicities; the PRC later expanded that 5 to 56 ethnicities. In any case, the notion of one Han ethnicity was completely contrived during the last 150 years. Consider it the power of modern nationalism and state propaganda.

What were the other proposals or alternatives?

An alternative at the time was dividing ethnicities linguistically (by mutual intelligibility). Mandarin speakers were one ethnicity, Manchu speakers another, Wu (Shanghainese) speakers another, Yue (Cantonese) speakers another, so on. Others included dividing by cultural identity (for example Jiangnan people share a common identity and would be one ethnicity).

[浪淘音]

they're were innumerable groups under Han dynasty juristiction that were not considered Han. The use of the term "Han ren" cannot be attributed to simple geographic boundaries. the aboriginals of the south were considered nan man barbarians despitre being within Han China's boundaries

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in regards to the Northern Conquest dynasties, Northern culture is not a hybrid of Han/Nomad. Nomadic elements came in but the same could be said about certain things about the south. every source i've read on the subject from Chinese to western scholars pretty much come to the conclusion that Northern culture is not a hybrid culture (i'm a northerner and i can pretty much speak for all my people that we don't drink wine made out of goat's milk )

the meaning of "Chinese" constantly changes and especially during SOuthern Song, this meaning changed to the bussiness oriented small, frail, rice eating southerners who make up the main image of "Chinese" and as a result, Northern culture is assumed to be "hybrid"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

anyway, back on topic. the Shang Chinese had terms like Li mian to describe southern aboriginal phenotypical features so its clear they had an idea of what race was.

also, the decapitated skulls from sacrifice victims found in Shang tombs: anthropolgists have have classified the skulls into various categories including Eskimoid, negroid,etc. sacrifice victims were brought in from areas outside of Shang China. The implications are limitless

[MengTzu]

in regards to the Northern Conquest dynasties, Northern culture is not a hybrid of Han/Nomad. Nomadic elements came in but the same could be said about certain things about the south. every source i've read on the subject from Chinese to western scholars pretty much come to the conclusion that Northern culture is not a hybrid culture (i'm a northerner and i can pretty much speak for all my people that we don't drink wine made out of goat's milk  )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If Northern Han people aren't hybrid, then what happened to ethnicities such as Xian Bei?