86 replies to this topic

[Gan]

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.


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.



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.


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.


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


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.

I think I have an idea of what you are talking about regarding degrees of foreignness, what you describe as the different levels of who is the closest "like me".

Although sometimes, IMO, I think these degrees of foreignness can be quite murky on the individual level, especially for some individuals who only think of themselves, which results in being closer to the foreigner far away than the fellow who is only a village away.

With the customs being clear cut quote. There are many different types of customs among Chinese today, and probably many more in the past. Even if there were an orthodox, written into law policies, I kind of doubt that everyone would respect that or even know about them. Some of the very stringent rules would be only applicable and could be afforded among certain members of society, not the general public. Not to mention, every elite family of society probably have a few traditions which are only unique to their own. Ex. for some people, only women can enter the kitchen while men can't. However, in some families, there is no such philosophy. Some can not allow women to work in certain occupations, while in some places, women do everything. I don't think we can ignore the diversity of such ideas or the conditions that support them.

Regarding venturing out, yes, I do mean more conquests and explorations. That's all. You're right, it probably doesn't really matter. I did stated that it was a matter of my own opinion.

My bad for mentioning the nobility part. Though after being on this site for quite a while, I probably should have known that.

The part about Hua Xia is superior was on everyone's minds in the past. Maybe or maybe not. I don't know what to think of it. I don't know exactly what Hua Xia is defined by, geography, administration, ethnicity or what? How would it have been defined in the past? Even today, superiority complexes among many people is still hard to analyze.

BTW, thank you for the link.

Edited by Gan, 08 March 2011 - 04:24 AM.

[Gan]

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.

Maybe it's just my idea, but I think there probably were places like that you describe (the most backwater place that would have been very hard to reached).

Considering the pace of information in the past, the identification phase would have taken quite a while to set in.

[mohistManiac]

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.

No because they are on the periphery of the modern economic setup and that's why they are the minorities and it doesn't have to be predetermined. They can be given funds which would not otherwise come to them simply because they have been late in the program to receive such benefits by not being in the predominantly Han cities when such funds or incentives were handed out. When a bank of america machine is only operating on the english and mandarin basis do you think people from all over are going to be able to arrive in cities and use the systems? Concessions were made to mandarin speakers and the same should be for the others.

[vorbei]

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

I believe those "han supremacism" would feel angry about these discussion here. A lot of them have this mind “用肚皮占领地球”.

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.

There is such a thing and it s normal.
That's some truth in mainland now.
1.All those han rulers became miniorities these years. If u had problem with it, then u r a han chauvinism.
2.At least 30-50 million ethnic han changed into ethnic miniority in the past 30 years because those miniority policy.
3.In several conflict between Han and ethnic miniories, including last 7.5, government always stand with miniories, even when they r wrong.
4.岳飞/Yue Fei isn't hero anymore because the war between southern song and Jin were internal affair, while 白彦虎(the one who caused 同治陕甘回乱.20 million han +5 million Hui died in that conflict) became the hero.
...
I know most of those han nationalists r very stupid, a lot of them even do not know the 旗袍 we see today origined from 1920-30s brothel of shanghai. But that can't be prevented.

And I do not think fighting for equal right can be called needy. Well or in your opinion, ethnic han, including those living in SEA country r inferior race and should be treated as secondary class?

BTW hostility to miniority?Well, that forum is just very against some certain miniorities and it feel kinship to some other miniorities(although all the miniorities, at least, share some similiar attitude to ethnic han. Because we r the majority of china). Remember those nationalists r just some one who r lack of "political wisdom".


a bit out of topic: well, since some of u had complained "view as outers by the other mainland or taiwan born chinese", I have some better advice, why not learn more about china/chinese and then to make conclusion?


BTW again I think u all here confused with several concept "华夏""蛮""夷""汉""女真""满洲族""满族"

[Gan]

a bit out of topic: well, since some of u had complained "view as outers by the other mainland or taiwan born chinese", I have some better advice, why not learn more about china/chinese and then to make conclusion?


BTW again I think u all here confused with several concept "华夏""蛮""夷""汉""女真""满洲族""满族"

We are trying learn about the Chinese in china. On the internet, there are some varied viewpoints about their lives. In person, we (or at least I ) have met Chinese from China and interact with them at my workplace. They are what you might call, potential sea turtles as they grew up there and are only overseas for a short duration. A few of them claim to be of Manchu heritage as well. Not just that, but occasionally I contact some Academics in China for some information.

The complaints are only venting out some steam at "some" cases, not everyone, as we mention it already.

I would like to learn about all those terms you say we are confused about. To be honest, I am confused as well and the people I meet in person don't really say a whole lot in detail.

Edited by Gan, 08 March 2011 - 02:40 PM.

[Eidolon]

The article is a typical liberal post-nationalist critique of a fundamentally ethno-nationalist phenomenon. The comparison of being "Han" in modern China to being "white" in modern America is compelling, but there is a tendency to "over-deconstruct." "White" as a racial identity existed, of course, long before the backlash against affirmative action and civil rights, and was in some sense woven into the original concept of being an American citizen (ie when blacks, Asians, etc. were excluded from equal status). Its meaning changed, however, as minorities were given equal status in America and the state had to contend with its multi-racial reality. Just the same, "Han" as an (arguably) ethnic identity existed long before the twentieth century, but took on its modern meaning in the context of the ROC and then PRC desire to create a nation from an empire.

Even so, America's experience with minority populations can and should serve as an example for Chinese leaders, more so perhaps than the Soviet Union, which has, after all, gone the way of the dinosaurs. Affirmative action is a prickly issue - many white Americans see it in the same way as Han Chinese do in terms of affirmative action according unfair benefits to certain groups based only on their ancestry, especially to groups (ie new immigrants) to whom America theoretically owes nothing. At the same time, however, sociologists have long pointed out the tendency for ethnic majority groups to practice in-group favoritism (a manifestation of majority chauvinism), which affirmative action is supposed to be a political counter-weight to. Then again, opponents of affirmative action would contend that it is precisely such policies that keep minority groups from assimilating and are therefore responsible for the in-group/out-group problems in the first place. Of course, in the liberal multi-ethnic conception of the nation-state, assimilation may just be another form of majority oppression.

Among the insightful gems of the article, however, is the tracing of Han nationalism and its more extreme form, Han supremacism, to the Hanfu movement, Hanwang, and the backlash against the "Qing reappraisal" movement which, arguably, has a powerful presence in Chinese media even today in light of all the new Qing dramas that attempt to, effectively speaking, cast the Qing as a sort of romantic/comedic backdrop of Chinese history as opposed to a period of foreign rule and ethnic tension/strife. This is one of those untold stories that sheds a great deal of light on the internet's ability to accentuate rather than eliminate ethnic differences, and as a hidden cache of pent-up social disaffection against the political ideology of the day. Without siding with the Han nationalists, I would rather point out that the CCP's practice of controlling the media and suppressing dissent renders it a rather extreme version of "politically correct" America, with similar counter-reactions.

Here, however, it is necessary to depart from the analogy of China as America. White identity in America has always been the dominant identity, not only in terms of numbers but also in terms of politics. White supremacism in the US is therefore an extension of white dominance, and while affected from time to time by a pseudo-victim mentality due to affirmative action policies and political correctness, is characteristically more concerned with the loss of white dominance, which is tellingly attributed to the fault of the white elite (except in the case of the neo-Nazis, who attribute it to the Jews). In China, however, it is different. Han identity has not always not been the dominant political identity. The immediate period preceding the republican revolution, the Qing, was a period of non-Han rule. In this way, Han identity is fundamentally associated with a historical victim mentality and a nativist "sons of the soil" conception of China. Parallels of such a conception can be found in various de-colonized countries around the world, and leads to different paradigms of articulation than that which is expressed through majority dominance alone.

There is thus a powerful revanchist element to Han identity, which separates it from the majority counter-lash against pro-minority policies in many other countries. But it would be a mistake to say that Han nationalism/supremacism isn't a reactionary movement. Rather, it simply taps into long-standing resentments that were clearly manifest during late imperial China. Nonetheless, there would be no Han identity without minority identities, and I think the following parts of the article are especially pertinent:

As Professor Peng Yongjie彭永捷, Deputy Director of the Philosophy Department at Renmin University, admitted in a 2005 interview, Han culture is already the collective identity of all the ethnic groups in China and thus does not possess any unique features that are not shared by the rest of the great Zhonghua nation. Asserting that it is inappropriate to advocate the promotion of a pure Han consciousness, Professor Peng highlighted the fact that as early as the Spring and Autumn Period, Han culture and people melded together with the ethnic minorities making its assimilationist power one of the most unique and important characteristics of the Chinese people.43 Similarly, Beijing-based academic Zhang Xian张跣argues that the promotion of Han clothing is a hollow “totem,” which serves to mislead and deceive people about the underlining racist and regressive nature of the movement. By stressing the purity and superiority of Han culture, the Hanist are denigrating rather than reviving national consciousness, and thus represent a deviation and distortion from the mainstream of cultural nationalism in modern China.

The presumption here is that because Han culture is a collective identity (is it?) of all the ethnic groups in China, it cannot be a distinct identity. Yet, it is precisely the promotion of ethnic minorities as being distinct that has necessitated the existence of Han-as-ethnicity in the first place. If the minorities of China were not presented as ethnic minorities, as they are in almost every apparatus of the PRC state organ, there would indeed be no need to conceptualize the Han as an ethnic majority. However, because minorities are defined as being distinct from the Han, the statements by Peng Yongjie and Zhang Xian are self-contradictory: Han cannot be the collective identity of all ethnic groups when Han is used as the "norm" around which each minority's ethnic distinctiveness is actualized, and Han cannot be a symbol of the assimilationist power of historical China if minorities are encouraged to de-assimilate through the promotion of their ethnic differences.

In sum, I think much of the issues surrounding Han nationalism and supremacism must ultimately be attributed to the policies of the PRC and the contradictory signals it has generated regarding what its goal for nation-building is (if any). To be sure, China has been a historical melting pot, into which many groups have assimilated overtime. But historical China is not modern China, and the historical world is also not the modern world.

Edited by Eidolon, 11 March 2011 - 11:38 AM.

[vorbei]

We are trying learn about the Chinese in china. On the internet, there are some varied viewpoints about their lives. In person, we (or at least I ) have met Chinese from China and interact with them at my workplace. They are what you might call, potential sea turtles as they grew up there and are only overseas for a short duration. A few of them claim to be of Manchu heritage as well. Not just that, but occasionally I contact some Academics in China for some information.

The complaints are only venting out some steam at "some" cases, not everyone, as we mention it already.

I would like to learn about all those terms you say we are confused about. To be honest, I am confused as well and the people I meet in person don't really say a whole lot in detail.

If u d like to learn, then I also would like to share my opinion. But most of time, some oversea chinese held the mentality that "we r from a more free country and we have more broadened mind than u".

Chinese has two meanings, nationality and ethnic. In the ancient time, the 2 concept r the same. Well, a lot of ethnic co existed in china. But most miniority were ruled by their own leaders.Of course they also can choose to go out but that means assimilation. Even ethnic like manju conquer china, they also built their own political system to isolate them with Han.
This condition was destroyed by westerner's definition to "ethnic""country" in modern times. Mao has attempted to re-build the point "nationality=ethnic". That's why he abolished the dual-citizenship and forced some miniority to be assimilated. (OK, he did the miniority classification job, but china's miniority classification is really some c**p. )
Although he failed in the end, but actually china became a country of "multi-ethnic".
And these days most chinese can not distinguish the concept "nationality""ethnic".
(If I had time, I d like to write some thing about 胡耀邦 and his miniority policy)


Return to the topic.
Huaxia was just the subcollection of Han. It just means 中国之人. Or in another word earlier time "chinese"
Both man and yi don't have derogatory sense in old chinese. It just means some people living in some direction and have some special culture.That s why Mengzi call 周文王 west Yi. Obviously here Yi doesn't mean barbarian.

Jurchen is the native of manjuria, they spoke south tungusic language. They can be divided into 东海女真（野人）,海西女真,建洲女真. They may origin from modern time amur river region and later migrate to the south.

Manju was created by Nurhaci. Its primary components were jurchen or be more accurate Haixi jurchen+jianzhou jurchen+ a small part donghai jurchen. And it also including some other ethnic, like han/korean/mongol. And all those ethnic would changed their clan into manju/jurchen style when they were assimilated. For example, the top 1 manju clan was 佟佳/Donggiya.The clan 佟/Tong was han origin.

Banner people including 3 banners,han/manju/mongol, and han banner took up 75% of the 8 banner system. And Qing dynasty carry on "旗汉不婚" policy, which means banner people(either han/manju/mongol)can marry each other but they can't marry other chinese. And even in banner system, there r still caste, manju>mongol>han.

Modern time manju, u can say that's just some politic term.
In the later Qing dyansty, there were only 1.3 million manju banner. And later a lot of them were assimilated. Till 1980s, there were around 2.5 million manju---------->this manju contain some han/mongol banner. After "reverse discrimination", a lot han banner and even ordinary han changed their ethnic from "han" to "manju". That's why manju's population increased so fast, from 2.5 million to now 10 million.

As Professor Peng Yongjie彭永捷, Deputy Director of the Philosophy Department at Renmin University, admitted in a 2005 interview, Han culture is already the collective identity of all the ethnic groups in China and thus does not possess any unique features that are not shared by the rest of the great Zhonghua nation. Asserting that it is inappropriate to advocate the promotion of a pure Han consciousness, Professor Peng highlighted the fact that as early as the Spring and Autumn Period, Han culture and people melded together with the ethnic minorities making its assimilationist power one of the most unique and important characteristics of the Chinese people.43 Similarly, Beijing-based academic Zhang Xian张跣argues that the promotion of Han clothing is a hollow “totem,” which serves to mislead and deceive people about the underlining racist and regressive nature of the movement. By stressing the purity and superiority of Han culture, the Hanist are denigrating rather than reviving national consciousness, and thus represent a deviation and distortion from the mainstream of cultural nationalism in modern China.

OK, now all people see even the official attitude to ethnic Han(well in spring and autumn period there is no such concept "han", and a lot of so called assimilation rn't peaceful and romantic") then it is easily to understand han nationalism on internet.And unluckily it became more and more popular,especially after 7.5.
A funny thing, those anti han supremacism always share the same attitude to those han supremacism. They would believe han is non pure, but other ethnics r all pure. LOL, there is no pure ethnic on this world.

Edited by vorbei, 12 March 2011 - 12:38 AM.

[YuenKamSiu]

Let's just agree that any type of supremacism is based on a false ideology.

There's no pure ethnicity in this world today.

Even if there was, it certainly won't be the Han Chinese. 5000 years of history and the world's largest population both past and present gives us a homogeneous identity? That's practically an insult to human intelligence.

[vorbei]

Let's just agree that any type of supremacism is based on a false ideology.

There's no pure ethnicity in this world today.

Even if there was, it certainly won't be the Han Chinese. 5000 years of history and the world's largest population both past and present gives us a homogeneous identity? That's practically an insult to human intelligence.

There r a lot of supremacism in china. Like I have said if u wanted to blame someone, then blame government first.
Han is non pure--------->obviously. Han is the most mixed ethnic group on this world because of its huge population. Then I disagree with this. A lot of ethnic has a much smaller population but actually they r more diversified, like mongol/miao/japanese and a lot of other ethnic.
Any ethnic has its own history. I have noticed a lot of people r too lazy to study how han formed but just believe "han is a mixture". That's also very wrong.
Well, for example, the last persian prince migrated to china and I believe his decedents r han now. But obviously that's not mainstream. We can't claim we r persian's decedents.

And correct a mistake, han was formed as an ethnic group only 2000-3000 years. U can call people living in Shang dynasty proto-sinitic speakers, but they rn't han.

[mohistManiac]

Han is a mixture alright look at the different looks of the people that call themselves Han. Just because there was an original Han exclusivity and began with relatively small place of origin Luoyang/Xian doesn't mean the culture of Han ethnic group didn't snowball by including other group's cultures. I suspect that is why it is called Han and not Qin because Han seems more inclusive like it propelled itself to more more territories but yet did't practice the legalism of Qin as being the rule of law originating from one place. It was a syncretic backlash against Qin otherwise Han ethnic group would be called Qin ethnic group. Why shouldn't it have been called the Qin ethnic group because Qin dynasty only lasted a decade and got replaced but it is important to realize that Qin stood for the concept of absolute empire. It would have been called for names like Shang and Zhou but those identities may have already seemed confusing by the time of the Han dynasty since many groups were entering into the area. This "Han" ethnic group we speak of is nothing more than a big rubber band ball or melting pot of many peoples and their cultures starting from the neolithic period of Longshan and others.

[vorbei]

Han is a mixture alright look at the different looks of the people that call themselves Han. Just because there was an original Han exclusivity and began with relatively small place of origin Luoyang/Xian doesn't mean the culture of Han ethnic group didn't snowball by including other group's cultures. I suspect that is why it is called Han and not Qin because Han seems more inclusive like it propelled itself to more more territories but yet did't practice the legalism of Qin as being the rule of law originating from one place. It was a syncretic backlash against Qin otherwise Han ethnic group would be called Qin ethnic group. Why shouldn't it have been called the Qin ethnic group because Qin dynasty only lasted a decade and got replaced but it is important to realize that Qin stood for the concept of absolute empire. It would have been called for names like Shang and Zhou but those identities may have already seemed confusing by the time of the Han dynasty since many groups were entering into the area. This "Han" ethnic group we speak of is nothing more than a big rubber band ball or melting pot of many peoples and their cultures starting from the neolithic period of Longshan and others.

I have noticed a lot of people didn't like to read some paper and then just say "han is a mixture". Then how about the mixing process?

1. no ethnic on this world have the same looking. Even andamanese who r isolated with the mainland for thousands of years till today r diversified in physical appearance.
From anthropology, most of chinese belong to subgroup of mongoloid east asia type.
2. In chinese, apple was Ping guo. Does that mean apple!=Pingguo?
3. And no evidence can prove longshan people speaking a proto-sinitic language, the first sinitic language is the language on oracle bones.
4. The people of longshan/Yangshao culture was named "old central plain type", which is closet to modern time "Guangdong+Fujian+hainan" group.


It is really annoying to hear that comments "han is a melting pot". If han is a melting pot, then how about the other ethnic with more complex mixing history? Bloodline is the history of an ethnic. An ethnic without history is really pathetic. So please respect your history and study more about how han formed.

"Han is a melting pot" and "han is pure", in fact the 2 opinion r no different, both of which did not respect the reality.

Edited by vorbei, 12 March 2011 - 12:39 PM.

[mohistManiac]

I have noticed a lot of people didn't like to read some paper and then just say "han is a mixture". Then how about the mixing process?

1. no ethnic on this world have the same looking. Even andamanese who r isolated with the mainland for thousands of years till today r diversified in physical appearance.
From anthropology, most of chinese belong to subgroup of mongoloid east asia type.
2. In chinese, apple was Ping guo. Does that mean apple!=Pingguo?
3. And no evidence can prove longshan people speaking a proto-sinitic language, the first sinitic language is the language on oracle bones.
4. The people of longshan/Yangshao culture was named "old central plain type", which is closet to modern time "Guangdong+Fujian+hainan" group.


It is really annoying to hear that comments "han is a melting pot". If han is a melting pot, then how about the other ethnic with more complex mixing history? Bloodline is the history of an ethnic. An ethnic without history is really pathetic. So please respect your history and study more about how han formed.

"Han is a melting pot" and "han is pure", in fact the 2 opinion r no different, both of which did not respect the reality.

Most important thing you said was no ethnic on this world have the same looking and this means that Han ethnic group like I described because it has so many different looking peoples it's really diverse in fact extremely extremely diverse compared to something like an ethnic group that is entrapped on a super small island. The one that comes to mind can be the one which created many gigantic face statues on an island. My theory is that they created these faces due to the fact that they only see these sets of faces and no others. So China isn't a very small island and so it isn't just one ethnic group in reality. Han is just a label for the cultural aspects and language that are unique as a combination of those many ethnic groups that have come to coexist through some similarities in culture and language just like melting pot means the land on which these many ethnic groups live. There are minorities probably with even more extremely diverse mixing histories than Han but this doesn't negate the fact that Han is pretty diverse to the point that people go about pointing out little differences in the Mandarin or other dialect.

[YuenKamSiu]

There r a lot of supremacism in china.

And it is based on false ideology.

Like I have said if u wanted to blame someone, then blame government first.

I don't remember the PRC government promoting Han supremacism.

Han is the most mixed ethnic group on this world because of its huge population. Then I disagree with this. A lot of ethnic has a much smaller population but actually they r more diversified, like mongol/miao/japanese and a lot of other ethnic.

Regardless of whether the Han are the most mixed or not is irrelevant. I'm not sure how one measures such a statistic anyways. We do know that Han is not a pure ethnicity as you yourself already mentioned.

Any ethnic has its own history. I have noticed a lot of people r too lazy to study how han formed but just believe "han is a mixture". That's also very wrong.

You just stated earlier that "Han is non pure--------->obviously." Now you're saying they are not a mixture? You are now contradicting what you stated earlier. Doesn't make much sense.

Well, for example, the last persian prince migrated to china and I believe his decedents r han now. But obviously that's not mainstream. We can't claim we r persian's decedents.

Of course not but we can claim a small # of us (Very miniscule) did partially descend from some Persians. Like I said, it's a very small amount and it only pertains to those direct descendants but then again those people are still a part of our ethnic family today it would once again confirm that the people known as the Han Chinese today are not pure and mixed.

And correct a mistake, han was formed as an ethnic group only 2000-3000 years. U can call people living in Shang dynasty proto-sinitic speakers, but they rn't han.

Nobody said they were.

Besides your comment did not even address my main point.

Any type of ethnic supremacism is based on a false ideology. It is based on the idea that one's race is superior to another. There's nothing superior about being Han just like there's nothing superior about being white, black, hispanic or if you want to break it down even further, Italian, Arab, Japanese, Irish, etc.

Edited by YuenKamSiu, 12 March 2011 - 04:03 PM.

[vorbei]

Most important thing you said was no ethnic on this world have the same looking and this means that Han ethnic group like I described because it has so many different looking peoples it's really diverse in fact extremely extremely diverse compared to something like an ethnic group that is entrapped on a super small island. The one that comes to mind can be the one which created many gigantic face statues on an island. My theory is that they created these faces due to the fact that they only see these sets of faces and no others. So China isn't a very small island and so it isn't just one ethnic group in reality. Han is just a label for the cultural aspects and language that are unique as a combination of those many ethnic groups that have come to coexist through some similarities in culture and language just like melting pot means the land on which these many ethnic groups live. There are minorities probably with even more extremely diverse mixing histories than Han but this doesn't negate the fact that Han is pretty diverse to the point that people go about pointing out little differences in the Mandarin or other dialect.

OK. Why don't u go and read some academic paper? Then come and post your lyric comment?
Like I have ever said u r no better than those so called supremacists. Both belong to "make comments without any source".
BTW a lot of ethnic rn't ethnic till 1953. Use the word "tribe" is better.

And it is based on false ideology.

Could u find some new words? Have u ever seen their claim? Have u ever studied why they made those claim?

I don't remember the PRC government promoting Han supremacism.

I have said clearly enough. That's normal reaction to government's comments/policy.

Regardless of whether the Han are the most mixed or not is irrelevant. I'm not sure how one measures such a statistic anyways. We do know that Han is not a pure ethnicity as you yourself already mentioned.
You just stated earlier that "Han is non pure--------->obviously." Now you're saying they are not a mixture? You are now contradicting what you stated earlier. Doesn't make much sense.

"Han is pure" and "Han is melting-pot", actually those comments r all the same.
Both do not make sense.

Of course not but we can claim a small # of us (Very miniscule) did partially descend from some Persians. Like I said, it's a very small amount and it only pertains to those direct descendants but then again those people are still a part of our ethnic family today it would once again confirm that the people known as the Han Chinese today are not pure and mixed.
Nobody said they were.
Besides your comment did not even address my main point.
Any type of ethnic supremacism is based on a false ideology. It is based on the idea that one's race is superior to another. There's nothing superior about being Han just like there's nothing superior about being white, black, hispanic or if you want to break it down even further, Italian, Arab, Japanese, Irish, etc.

Hey. Could u stop making some meaningless comments like above? Even primary school students know that.


Out of topic: considering some of u have complained that mainland chinese do not view u as chinese, I think first u should ask yourself "would u still like to learn more about mainland/chinese/china?"

Edited by vorbei, 12 March 2011 - 11:36 PM.

[mohistManiac]

OK. Why don't u go and read some academic paper? Then come and post your lyric comment?
Like I have ever said u r no better than those so called supremacists. Both belong to "make comments without any source".
BTW a lot of ethnic rn't ethnic till 1953. Use the word "tribe" is better.

I'm not sure how you will perceive the examples I give so I try to find some simple ones. Easter Island should make it evident enough the Island is pretty small and its inhabitants reflect a single identity throughout the island due to the same kinds of statues found clustered over the entire island. Tribe I learned is what political entities are named for like nation state/state and chiefdom due to the kinds of economical and power distribution or hierarchy imposed and structured by the various ethnic groups and they progress and get larger as they accumulate more separate peoples under its political affiliation. It also implies Han is made up of extremely diverse peoples starting since the neolithic period.