Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

Han Supremacism on the Internet


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#31 Gan

Gan

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 504 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Any chinese-related stuff
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    None really.

Posted 07 March 2011 - 03:47 AM

I think you might be thinking there is some sort of enterprise that mainland Chinese girls are more likely to go for someone who says they are overseas Chinese than simply overseas foreign and I'm bound to agree. But I would like to come back to the issue of Han supremacism and I'm wondering if this "feels" like blatant oppression or another one of those episodes of misunderstanding things and my question would be is this something that has been passed down from time immemorial or something recent.


Briefly speaking, I think the whole Han supremacist stance is probably very recent. The identity issue wasn't really clear cut since the Han dynasty. Some scholars, nationalists and amateurs like myself will pick point at little hints here and there back in history that suggested people had some sort of Han superiority issue. Even the whole Chinese are civilized and all others are Barbarian raison d'etre might be, and I am saying this as a matter of personal opinion, might be overblown in some cases.

Here's a very short list of things why I think this way.
First off, the Han concept is very fluid in reality, rather than theory.

Second, only a couple of centuries ago did many people in China, including fellow members of the "Han" group, saw themselves as the same people. Sometimes, each village would still see each other just as foreign as the national minorities of today or Westerners.

3rd, the cliche that the Chinese today are the descendants of many diverse groups is true. If people back then were really stringent about the Han identity, they would have come up with clear cut policies or traditions that would have made Chinese society much more exclusive than what it appears to be, today and the past. Today, the people are already diverse, so you all can imagine a bit that people in past would be more varied, probably by 10-fold.

4th, If the Han group of the past were aware and confident in their identity, chances are, the Chinese of the past would probably be more entice to venture off beyond their realms. Many Chinese in the past would be thinking there was more in the world than just China. Being aware of who you are would also implied you know who and what is different than you. The curiosity and assertiveness would be peaked. You all can imagine what the implications might be if such ideas in the past existed.

Again, all of this is just my amateur opinion.

Edited by Gan, 07 March 2011 - 03:49 AM.


#32 mariusj

mariusj

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 2,061 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History

Posted 07 March 2011 - 06:20 AM

Here's a very short list of things why I think this way.
First off, the Han concept is very fluid in reality, rather than theory.

Care to elaborate on how it is very fluid? Or, what exactly defines the Han concept?

Second, only a couple of centuries ago did many people in China, including fellow members of the "Han" group, saw themselves as the same people. Sometimes, each village would still see each other just as foreign as the national minorities of today or Westerners.

I disagree. Its more of a level of identification, and I can assure the degrees of foreignness will be there.

3rd, the cliche that the Chinese today are the descendants of many diverse groups is true. If people back then were really stringent about the Han identity, they would have come up with clear cut policies or traditions that would have made Chinese society much more exclusive than what it appears to be, today and the past. Today, the people are already diverse, so you all can imagine a bit that people in past would be more varied, probably by 10-fold.

It is pretty exclusive. It is also VERY rigid in policies and tradition. So I don't know what you are talking about.

4th, If the Han group of the past were aware and confident in their identity, chances are, the Chinese of the past would probably be more entice to venture off beyond their realms. Many Chinese in the past would be thinking there was more in the world than just China. Being aware of who you are would also implied you know who and what is different than you. The curiosity and assertiveness would be peaked. You all can imagine what the implications might be if such ideas in the past existed.

They are very aware of the difference. 華夷之辨 is as ancient as Han dynasty. They did want to venture out, and they in fact did venture out. It is far less of why didn't they venture out, but rather why did they pull back from their venturing?

So I am not sure what you are talking about.

#33 vorbei

vorbei

    Provincial Governor (Cishi 刺史)

  • Xiucai Exam Candidate
  • 30 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    china history

Posted 07 March 2011 - 09:42 AM

I think it's as another poster mentioned, balance seems to be the order of the day. Specific regional occurrences lend a hand in developing key attributes which set apart one region from the next and I think that is beneficial to engaging in the development of diversification and personal identification schemes which allow for cross cultural blending. In the past this may not have been as evident since it was more or less a power struggle between different ethnic groups and cultural economics but in today's world I think less focus should be given to the tensions that arise and more focus be given to the gains that can result due to the development of new and adaptive cultural significances. So whether or not there is a distancing gap between mainlanders and overseas or between the various mainlanders themselves isn't really the issue it's the fact there is something like Han supremacism which fights for equality and unity on the basis of racial purity that can be the causes of rather severe division if it gets out of hand.


1. I have pointed out those [ENTER AN ETHNIC's name] nationalism should blame CCP's miniority policy. If u had visited several other miniority forum, u can find they r not better.

2.CCP's miniority policy can be called "中华民族论". That's the copy of USSR and former Yugoslavia.It gave those miniority special benefit like extra point in university entrance exam, extra point in civil service exam and so on. But CCP wanted to creat a so called 中华民族 to replace ethnic concept or it has never encouraged cultural diversification but it encourage political diversification.
U can check professor Ma Rong's work, he is an ethnic Hui.
http://www.wyzxsx.co...0907/96239.html

3.Racial purity is just a reaction for those famous "输血论".Go and check 姜戎's 狼图腾.
4.Han nationalists(sorry although I know a lot of them r really stupid but I do not want to use the word like "supremacism") have different political view, there r pro-mao/pro-democracy/pro-confucianism and several other groups. That's why that famous hanminzu forum split into several sub-groups now.
5.Again those anti-oversea chinese r 中华民族论 or pro-china group. In their opinion, there is no ethnic concept. All ethnic living in china r chinese while oversea chinese r just traitors(some of them r not ethnic han in fact). Han nationalists, well although they share different political views but they do not have opinion "oversea chinese r just traitors".

Well,the thread is just about those han supremacism on internet. Not about oversea chinese vs mainland chinese. I believe most of u have never visited those [enter an ethnic] forums and u do not know their opinion and claim very well.

btw do not mistake me for members from forums like hanminzu and so on. I visited those ethnic forums but never made any post on it.

Edited by vorbei, 07 March 2011 - 11:26 AM.


#34 Gan

Gan

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 504 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Any chinese-related stuff
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    None really.

Posted 07 March 2011 - 03:36 PM

Care to elaborate on how it is very fluid? Or, what exactly defines the Han concept?


I disagree. Its more of a level of identification, and I can assure the degrees of foreignness will be there.


It is pretty exclusive. It is also VERY rigid in policies and tradition. So I don't know what you are talking about.


They are very aware of the difference. 華夷之辨 is as ancient as Han dynasty. They did want to venture out, and they in fact did venture out. It is far less of why didn't they venture out, but rather why did they pull back from their venturing?

So I am not sure what you are talking about.


No problems, I'll try to explain my own reasoning.

What I mean by fluidity is that the term changes around quite a lot. What is Han today, may not be Han in the past. There are a lot of small villages or village-towns where the customs of people are so different (One of my relatives by blood, they don't celebrate the Moon festival and do other traditions quite differently) that they're pretty much just as unique as the national minorities. Yet, today, they are considered part of the Han.

To be honest, I don't what the proper definition of Han is. My relatives by blood with different traditions do back to China quite a lot. Like several times a year. They're considered Han officially, but in the public's eyes, I don't know.

I'm not sure about the second quote what are you disagreeing with.

The third part I'm going to have to give you an example to explain that. Some traditions in the Levant, not just Jews but other small groups, have marriage customs that are very stringent. Sometimes, the really faithful would have little choice but to marry people who are close enough in blood relations where it would be considered as unhealthy today. The reason for that is so they can ensure their own identities. Overtime, not everyone could afford those things, but more or less those traditions are still being value and practice. The "Han" people may have had something similar in terms of marriage customs, but it wasn't for national identity per se. Part of the reason why there are so many Han people is because of intermarriage. The Mongols and Manchus had policies that were discriminatory to that extent, but not everyone was faithful.

Marriage traditions are pretty important, but so are other traditions as well. If I'm mistaken, let me know.

Regarding the fourth quote, yeah, you are right. It's my fault for not typing well. I should have said venture out more beyond their realms because in my mind, I was thinking of venturing out as in more explorations and conquests. The being aware of who you are part is about the capability of distinguishing yourself from others.

Edited by Gan, 07 March 2011 - 04:17 PM.


#35 Gan

Gan

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 504 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Any chinese-related stuff
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    None really.

Posted 07 March 2011 - 03:39 PM

1. I have pointed out those [ENTER AN ETHNIC's name] nationalism should blame CCP's miniority policy. If u had visited several other miniority forum, u can find they r not better.

2.CCP's miniority policy can be called "中华民族论". That's the copy of USSR and former Yugoslavia.It gave those miniority special benefit like extra point in university entrance exam, extra point in civil service exam and so on. But CCP wanted to creat a so called 中华民族 to replace ethnic concept or it has never encouraged cultural diversification but it encourage political diversification.
U can check professor Ma Rong's work, he is an ethnic Hui.
http://www.wyzxsx.co...0907/96239.html

3.Racial purity is just a reaction for those famous "输血论".Go and check 姜戎's 狼图腾.
4.Han nationalists(sorry although I know a lot of them r really stupid but I do not want to use the word like "supremacism") have different political view, there r pro-mao/pro-democracy/pro-confucianism and several other groups. That's why that famous hanminzu forum split into several sub-groups now.
5.Again those anti-oversea chinese r 中华民族论 or pro-china group. In their opinion, there is no ethnic concept. All ethnic living in china r chinese while oversea chinese r just traitors(some of them r not ethnic han in fact). Han nationalists, well although they share different political views but they do not have opinion "oversea chinese r just traitors".

Well,the thread is just about those han supremacism on internet. Not about oversea chinese vs mainland chinese. I believe most of u have never visited those [enter an ethnic] forums and u do not know their opinion and claim very well.

btw do not mistake me for members from forums like hanminzu and so on. I visited those ethnic forums but never made any post on it.


Yes, we do go off on tangents here quite a lot.

#36 mariusj

mariusj

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 2,061 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History

Posted 07 March 2011 - 07:50 PM

What I mean by fluidity is that the term changes around quite a lot. What is Han today, may not be Han in the past. There are a lot of small villages or village-towns where the customs of people are so different (One of my relatives by blood, they don't celebrate the Moon festival and do other traditions quite differently) that they're pretty much just as unique as the national minorities. Yet, today, they are considered part of the Han.

To be honest, I don't what the proper definition of Han is. My relatives by blood with different traditions do back to China quite a lot. Like several times a year. They're considered Han officially, but in the public's eyes, I don't know.

I can agree to that in a lesser degree.

I'm not sure about the second quote what are you disagreeing with.

You said people from different villages will treat each other as much as they will treat westerners and etc. Which is not true. The degree of foreignness is real and you cannot ignore that.
That happens in every nation, people from the same city same town will empathize with each other more than from other city, and those from the same states will probably do the same than those from different states, etc. It means nothing but a human psyche.

The third part I'm going to have to give you an example to explain that. Some traditions in the Levant, not just Jews but other small groups, have marriage customs that are very stringent. Sometimes, the really faithful would have little choice but to marry people who are close enough in blood relations where it would be considered as unhealthy today. The reason for that is so they can ensure their own identities. Overtime, not everyone could afford those things, but more or less those traditions are still being value and practice. The "Han" people may have had something similar in terms of marriage customs, but it wasn't for national identity per se. Part of the reason why there are so many Han people is because of intermarriage. The Mongols and Manchus had policies that were discriminatory to that extent, but not everyone was faithful.

Marriage traditions are pretty important, but so are other traditions as well. If I'm mistaken, let me know.

and

If people back then were really stringent about the Han identity, they would have come up with clear cut policies or traditions that would have made Chinese society much more exclusive than what it appears to be, today and the past.


The Han tradition is very clear cut, and the customs are as defining as the Jewish, prior to a certain period. After which, there were so much warfare and chaos that certain tradition might not be carried out for reasons other than the Chinese do not have clear cut policies.

I am disagreeing with the idea that you said the Chinese society is not exclusive, which I disagree completely. If you wish to be part of the 'Han' identity, and you do not follow certain protocols, my friend you are in a butt load of troubles. Whatever intermarriage the Mongols and Manchus have, it was very small in terms of identification.
Like I said, Hua Yi is EXTREMELY important to the survival of the 'Chinese' civilization as we know. Unlike the Romans, the Gauls, the Britons, the Indians, the Greeks, the unique identity in which we called 'Han' survived solely DUE to the fact that these people distinguish themselves, as 華夏貴胄 against man yi. The noble scions to Hua and Xia is something that these people kept so strongly that it is impossible for anyone to say they do not have an identification. I think you really don't have access to a lot of text that described how people deal with things, such as rituals and manners, because these are d**** complicated.

Regarding the fourth quote, yeah, you are right. It's my fault for not typing well. I should have said venture out more beyond their realms because in my mind, I was thinking of venturing out as in more explorations and conquests. The being aware of who you are part is about the capability of distinguishing yourself from others.

Again, they did. They did went out to exploration and conquests, and they return disappointed; they are also very clear on WHAT is a 'li yi da bang' - a mannered nation that could potentially be equal to Hua, and what is not. And it was very clear what they WILL NOT do and what they will do, compare to other nations that have weaker civilizations at their mercy.

One problem with the exploration and conquests of many marine empires rise from necessity. Spain NEEDS the trade route, much as G.B NEEDS these new markets, as much as Rome needs these plunders, etc. On the other hand, China most of the time is at the maximum potential, they can not venture any further, not only due to national policy, but to technology and economy.

#37 Gan

Gan

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 504 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Any chinese-related stuff
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    None really.

Posted 07 March 2011 - 09:48 PM

I can agree to that in a lesser degree.


You said people from different villages will treat each other as much as they will treat westerners and etc. Which is not true. The degree of foreignness is real and you cannot ignore that.
That happens in every nation, people from the same city same town will empathize with each other more than from other city, and those from the same states will probably do the same than those from different states, etc. It means nothing but a human psyche.


and


The Han tradition is very clear cut, and the customs are as defining as the Jewish, prior to a certain period. After which, there were so much warfare and chaos that certain tradition might not be carried out for reasons other than the Chinese do not have clear cut policies.

I am disagreeing with the idea that you said the Chinese society is not exclusive, which I disagree completely. If you wish to be part of the 'Han' identity, and you do not follow certain protocols, my friend you are in a butt load of troubles. Whatever intermarriage the Mongols and Manchus have, it was very small in terms of identification.
Like I said, Hua Yi is EXTREMELY important to the survival of the 'Chinese' civilization as we know. Unlike the Romans, the Gauls, the Britons, the Indians, the Greeks, the unique identity in which we called 'Han' survived solely DUE to the fact that these people distinguish themselves, as 華夏貴胄 against man yi. The noble scions to Hua and Xia is something that these people kept so strongly that it is impossible for anyone to say they do not have an identification. I think you really don't have access to a lot of text that described how people deal with things, such as rituals and manners, because these are d**** complicated.


Again, they did. They did went out to exploration and conquests, and they return disappointed; they are also very clear on WHAT is a 'li yi da bang' - a mannered nation that could potentially be equal to Hua, and what is not. And it was very clear what they WILL NOT do and what they will do, compare to other nations that have weaker civilizations at their mercy.

One problem with the exploration and conquests of many marine empires rise from necessity. Spain NEEDS the trade route, much as G.B NEEDS these new markets, as much as Rome needs these plunders, etc. On the other hand, China most of the time is at the maximum potential, they can not venture any further, not only due to national policy, but to technology and economy.


With the villager's quote, it is still true that many are and were very different. Enough where they could consider each other as foreigners. In the Guangdong region, yes, there were many local wars because of that sentiment, especially between the Hakka and others. That conflict spilled over in the overseas areas, even as far as the Americas. There were local wars among the Chinese miners who were labeled as gang rivalries but it was mostly village rivalries.

With the exclusive comment, I did not type it was not exclusive. What I said was that if there were very clear cut traditions, it would have been much more exclusive than it appears to be. I do have a little bias in that view, I admit, because I am comparing with the traditions among Chinese with others. In doing that, comparably speaking, the "Chinese" traditions are not as exclusive as the others.

With the quote regarding the ventures. I admitted I was wrong in that view and clarified that I wish they venture out more than they did. In a sense, that response was redundant. The first time I said this
"If the Han group of the past were aware and confident in their identity, chances are, the Chinese of the past would probably be more entice to venture off beyond their realms..."

The second time I said this.
"Regarding the fourth quote, yeah, you are right. It's my fault for not typing well. I should have said venture out more beyond their realms because in my mind, I was thinking of venturing out as in more explorations and conquests..."

Can you see the differences with those two?

About the 華夏貴胄, I was already aware that the manners and rituals the nobles carried out to distinguish different identities were complicated. IMO, I'm not sure whatever the nobles and upper stratas of society practice always translated to what everyone else in society did.

I don't have access to sources because I'm not an actual scholar, just an amateur, but I can search on the internet and in local libraries for information. Maybe you can direct me to some good links or references so I can learn more.

On further note, I have been reading some of the posts in the forums of some of these Han "nationalists" (if you all don't like the term supremacists) and that article linked by vorbei.

On further note, I have read some of the posts in those forums by Han "nationalists" (if you all don't like the term supremacists) and read that article linked by vorbei.

On further note, I have read some of those posts on the forums by Han "nationalists" (if you don't like the term supremacists) and read the article linked by vorbei.

#38 Gan

Gan

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 504 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Any chinese-related stuff
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    None really.

Posted 07 March 2011 - 09:54 PM

Here is another question I want to ask.

How would have the general population of the past, who probably were not literate or understood the basic spoken language of officials, have known they were part of Han or the general consensus demographic group?

#39 mariusj

mariusj

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 2,061 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History

Posted 07 March 2011 - 10:19 PM

With the villager's quote, it is still true that many are and were very different. Enough where they could consider each other as foreigners. In the Guangdong region, yes, there were many local wars because of that sentiment, especially between the Hakka and others. That conflict spilled over in the overseas areas, even as far as the Americas. There were local wars among the Chinese miners who were labeled as gang rivalries but it was mostly village rivalries.

That is certainly true, but I find it difficult to believe they would be indifferent b/w foreigners and people from other village w/out any incentive, which is what I mean when I say degrees of foreignness. Also, local fighting for some resources, natural or not, were recorded far back, and I remember the earliest I seen was during Qin time [not the Empire] where a recorded cases of several villages fighting for water sources and lot of people died; it then went on mention that they also went to war together against the other states. Which is why I said there is a degree of foreignness, like human anywhere anytime, we have layers circles in which we place all objects in them according to our perception of 'like me?'

Local customs on many things are different, much like anywhere else in the world, and I believe its due more to geological and natural resources than it is to anything else.

With the exclusive comment, I did not type it was not exclusive. What I said was that if there were very clear cut traditions, it would have been much more exclusive than it appears to be. I do have a little bias in that view, I admit, because I am comparing with the traditions among Chinese with others. In doing that, comparably speaking, the "Chinese" traditions are not as exclusive as the others.

Which is exactly what I am disagreeing with.

These customs and tradition are VERY CLEAR CUT.

For example, on marriage, what kind of gifts you can give, what kind of gifts you cannot give, the departing words the father offer to the daughter, the kind of cloth she can wear if it was her first marriage, or if it was not her first marriage. Was she the main wife, or other consorts. Was she the oldest in the family? Did she have children with her?

Or the kind of home you can build, what kind of wood you can use, what kind of color you can use, what kind of door statue and door knob you can use.

Or, when you visit people, what kind of calling card you have to bring, what kind of gifts you have to bring depending on your relationship with that person, what kind of returning and confirmation card you will receive after you send a calling card, what kind of gift you will receive after you bring your gifts, etc.

Or, at what time do you enter a family celebration of holidays, at which seat, at which hour, with what kind of cloth. Where do you get to place your name on roaster, where is your tomb, what kind of tomb can you have, how large the stone and the decoration, etc.

Ancient China is DEFINED by these clear cut tradition, from what you wear, to what you eat, to what you drink, to when you eat and drink, to when you can do your private things, all these have more than just unspoken rules but written rules.


With the quote regarding the ventures. I admitted I was wrong in that view and clarified that I wish they venture out more than they did. In a sense, that response was redundant. The first time I said this
"If the Han group of the past were aware and confident in their identity, chances are, the Chinese of the past would probably be more entice to venture off beyond their realms..."

The second time I said this.
"Regarding the fourth quote, yeah, you are right. It's my fault for not typing well. I should have said venture out more beyond their realms because in my mind, I was thinking of venturing out as in more explorations and conquests..."

Can you see the differences with those two?

When you add the beyond their realms, what do you mean?
Are you saying they didn't venture out enough? I am not too sure but the difference isn't too much to me. Are you saying there wasn't a lot of explorations and conquests? Because if you are, well, no modern nation was formed without conquests of some sort, and China didn't become her size today by peaceful expansion.

About the 華夏貴胄, I was already aware that the manners and rituals the nobles carried out to distinguish different identities were complicated. IMO, I'm not sure whatever the nobles and upper stratas of society practice always translated to what everyone else in society did.

Actually, I was never talking about nobles. The idea of nobility is not strong in China as in other territories, the gentries are far more powerful from the time of Han and down.

The phrase was never intended to distinguish a class, but rather EVERYONE who was Hua Xia is noble scion, rather than a class of nobility that really mingled with the gentries.

And while it is true many practices of the upper class might not translate to what everyone else was doing, the idea that been Hua Xia is superior is most likely in everyone's mind, or at least those under Han control territory.

I don't have access to sources because I'm not an actual scholar, just an amateur, but I can search on the internet and in local libraries for information. Maybe you can direct me to some good links or references so I can learn more.

Few people here are.
If you can read Chinese, this is an excellent site.
www.guoxue.com

On further note, I have been reading some of the posts in the forums of some of these Han "nationalists" (if you all don't like the term supremacists) and that article linked by vorbei.

I couldn't care less what they are called. Nationalism of any sort is ugly.
I am not really arguing that they don't exist, but I do think that most things exists for a reason, ugly or not. For example, I can completely understand why there is a rampant nationalism in Korea, for very piratical reason that they need to remain Korean and not be swallow up by some large nation exporting their culture and claiming everything everywhere. I can also understand why China needs some form of nationalism, but due more to the Kang You Wei style than what is more popular now days. I would prefer some rationale in the irrational love.

#40 mariusj

mariusj

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 2,061 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History

Posted 07 March 2011 - 10:23 PM

Here is another question I want to ask.

How would have the general population of the past, who probably were not literate or understood the basic spoken language of officials, have known they were part of Han or the general consensus demographic group?

Because while general education was not available, any self respecting emperor and minister would love to promote schools of some sort, and unless you are in the most backwater village in the middle of no where in some god forsaken mountain that you don't even pay taxes, you have a school of some sort, and the teacher/instructor/xiu cai will do the reading for you.

#41 Gan

Gan

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 504 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Any chinese-related stuff
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    None really.

Posted 07 March 2011 - 11:12 PM

I couldn't care less what they are called. Nationalism of any sort is ugly.
I am not really arguing that they don't exist, but I do think that most things exists for a reason, ugly or not. For example, I can completely understand why there is a rampant nationalism in Korea, for very piratical reason that they need to remain Korean and not be swallow up by some large nation exporting their culture and claiming everything everywhere. I can also understand why China needs some form of nationalism, but due more to the Kang You Wei style than what is more popular now days. I would prefer some rationale in the irrational love.


Sorry about the last quote. That wasn't directed towards you per se but it was meant to be a general comment for everyone. It wasn't an edit, but supposed to be a quick reply, but it was added on that post. That's why it was on there 3 times.

#42 mohistManiac

mohistManiac

    Prime Minister (Situ/Chengxiang 司徒/丞相)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 1,867 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Mythology
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 08 March 2011 - 01:17 AM

Interesting discussion. Qin was rather considered barbarian and yet its specificity regarding the designs and motifs on bronzeware were more conservative and following of ancestral tradition while its neighbors were the ones adopting new designs and motifs. Chu had affiliation with Zhou kings or Shang kings and yet began distancing themselves with the adoption of new customs found in the south. Nanyue was headed by someone from Qin and yet the sinitic customs were matched more closedly to the native culture and tastes of the Yue locality. If even "Han" elite culture finds opportunity to change and become more than one singular idea then doesn't this reveal fluidity? or would Han fluidity mean something else altogether? Your thoughts.

I have the fortune of living in the part of the world which has use for toilet paper, but not douches.


#43 mohistManiac

mohistManiac

    Prime Minister (Situ/Chengxiang 司徒/丞相)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 1,867 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Mythology
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 08 March 2011 - 03:08 AM

1. I have pointed out those [ENTER AN ETHNIC's name] nationalism should blame CCP's miniority policy. If u had visited several other miniority forum, u can find they r not better.

2.CCP's miniority policy can be called "中华民族论". That's the copy of USSR and former Yugoslavia.It gave those miniority special benefit like extra point in university entrance exam, extra point in civil service exam and so on. But CCP wanted to creat a so called 中华民族 to replace ethnic concept or it has never encouraged cultural diversification but it encourage political diversification.
U can check professor Ma Rong's work, he is an ethnic Hui.
http://www.wyzxsx.co...0907/96239.html

3.Racial purity is just a reaction for those famous "输血论".Go and check 姜戎's 狼图腾.
4.Han nationalists(sorry although I know a lot of them r really stupid but I do not want to use the word like "supremacism") have different political view, there r pro-mao/pro-democracy/pro-confucianism and several other groups. That's why that famous hanminzu forum split into several sub-groups now.
5.Again those anti-oversea chinese r 中华民族论 or pro-china group. In their opinion, there is no ethnic concept. All ethnic living in china r chinese while oversea chinese r just traitors(some of them r not ethnic han in fact). Han nationalists, well although they share different political views but they do not have opinion "oversea chinese r just traitors".

Well,the thread is just about those han supremacism on internet. Not about oversea chinese vs mainland chinese. I believe most of u have never visited those [enter an ethnic] forums and u do not know their opinion and claim very well.

btw do not mistake me for members from forums like hanminzu and so on. I visited those ethnic forums but never made any post on it.


What would you account for Han supremacism then, in your view it seems like there isn't such a thing. I think it's those that push for the whole equality and nationalistic/unity agenda of Han in the stead of outright hostility against minorities and that Han ethnicity requires more of this and that being very needy and not exactly considering why there is a policy to alleviate the burdens of minorities and their pursuit of security in a largely Han majority nation.

I have the fortune of living in the part of the world which has use for toilet paper, but not douches.


#44 mariusj

mariusj

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 2,061 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History

Posted 08 March 2011 - 03:47 AM

a policy to alleviate the burdens of minorities and their pursuit of security in a largely Han majority nation.


That is racist is it not?

You are giving preference SOLELY on the basis of one's predetermined birth.

On the other hand, if the argument would be due to one's historical background, they are usually socially and economically disadvantaged, then it should be all people who belong to that social and economic group that gets the benefit, instead of one specific group of people.

Of course, one is racist, and the other is socialist.

#45 mariusj

mariusj

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 2,061 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History

Posted 08 March 2011 - 04:06 AM

Qin was rather considered barbarian and yet its specificity regarding the designs and motifs on bronzeware were more conservative and following of ancestral tradition while its neighbors were the ones adopting new designs and motifs.


To dispel the illusion that somehow Qin is barbaric in this forum, all one need to do is read about Qin.
Shiji said

秦之先,帝颛顼之苗裔.

The ancestors of Qin, were direct decedent of the Emperor Zhuan Xu, son of the Yellow Emperor.
Then, as to how Qin came about, it said


非子居犬丘,好马及畜,善养息之。犬丘人言之周孝王,孝王召使主马于汧渭之闲,马大蕃息。孝王欲以为大骆适嗣。申侯之女为大骆妻,生子成为适。申侯乃言孝王曰:“昔我先郦山之女,为戎胥轩妻,生中潏,以亲故归周,保西垂,西垂以其故和睦。今我复与大骆妻,生适子成。申骆重婚,西戎皆服,所以为王。王其图之。”于是孝王曰:“昔伯翳为舜主畜,畜多息,故有土,赐姓嬴。今其后世亦为朕息马,朕其分土为附庸。”邑之秦,使复续嬴氏祀,号曰秦嬴。亦不废申侯之女子为骆适者,以和西戎。

Basically, Da Luo is decedent of E Lai惡來, decedent of Zhuan Xu, and his younger son is named Fei Zi. He is very good at raising horses. Zhou King wishes to remove his older brother Chen and make Fei Zi heir to Da Luo, but Chen's maternal grandfather, Earl of Shen, asked King Xiao to not to something silly. King Xiao agreed, and decide he will reward Fei Zi without hurting Chen, by making Fei Zi a noble and giving him the name Yin.

Chu had affiliation with Zhou kings or Shang kings and yet began distancing themselves with the adoption of new customs found in the south.

He did not adopt new customs found in South, but rather he wishes to be King himself when Zhou was in turmoil. I think Chu called it self barbarian in order to seek the opportunity to attack various nobles without any justification.

Nanyue was headed by someone from Qin and yet the sinitic customs were matched more closedly to the native culture and tastes of the Yue locality.

He was given the office from Qin, but he is from Zheng Ding, in Chang Shan.

If even "Han" elite culture finds opportunity to change and become more than one singular idea then doesn't this reveal fluidity? or would Han fluidity mean something else altogether? Your thoughts.

The thing with culture is, whenever it does not change it stagnant and devolve, thus ALL culture evolves. So no culture is a singular idea, but rather an evolution of a core idea which may have various branches but the core remain the same, otherwise it breaks away and become something different.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users