91 replies to this topic

[fcharton]

Migration is the success of a nation to expand to all areas of the globe and that's why Chinese are the most successful people. The fact is you originated from China.

By this definition, the most successful people would probably be some european nation (english, or spanish, I'd say...), because their migration started earlier.

Seriously, 2nd or 3rd generation chinese still consider themselves chinese because they immigrated fairly recently, but in the long run, integration, intercultural marriages, etc. will probably make that broad definition quite untenable. I see this happening right now in Europe, 3rd or 4th generation chinese would mention their chinese roots, but I honestly don't think they consider themselves as chinese (and I believe they are right doing so: most of them would not move back to china, and would not integrate in the chinese society).

Francois

[Kulong]

Seriously, 2nd or 3rd generation chinese still consider themselves chinese because they immigrated fairly recently, but in the long run, integration, intercultural marriages, etc. will probably make that broad definition quite untenable. I see this happening right now in Europe, 3rd or 4th generation chinese would mention their chinese roots, but I honestly don't think they consider themselves as chinese (and I believe they are right doing so: most of them would not move back to china, and would not integrate in the chinese society).

I don't believe it's the same case in all the adopted countries of oversea Chinese.

I believe it has more to do whether the local culture is more "popular" / globally recognized than Chinese culture. For example, in Southeast Asia, most oversea Chinese still speak Chinese, practice Chinese culture and are in general very proud of their Chinese heritage. However, those who live in the West tend to be more integrated into their local society, which in turn loses some if not all of their Chinese heritage. This is because we live in a world dominated by Western (European/American) culture. Of course, this is not to say that ALL oversea Chinese are one way or another as we're talking about millions of people, not just a handful...

BTW, this opinion is based on my personal observation and no I don't have any stats to back them up. Feel free to provide stats to proof otherwise though if possible...

[fcharton]

I don't believe it's the same case in all the adopted countries of oversea Chinese.

I believe it has more to do whether the local culture is more "popular" / globally recognized than Chinese culture. For example, in Southeast Asia, most oversea Chinese still speak Chinese, practice Chinese culture and are in general very proud of their Chinese heritage. However, those who live in the West tend to be more integrated into their local society, which in turn loses some if not all of their Chinese heritage. This is because we live in a world dominated by Western (European/American) culture. Of course, this is not to say that ALL oversea Chinese are one way or another as we're talking about millions of people, not just a handful...

BTW, this opinion is based on my personal observation and no I don't have any stats to back them up. Feel free to provide stats to proof otherwise though if possible...

I absolutely agree. Everything here is based upon personal observation (I don't think there are meaningful statistics on how much "chineseness" oversea chinese retain).

For southeast asia, a difficult thing is that many of the adoptive countries culture has lots of links with chinese culture. One point I would like to make, though, it that a number of chinese from Vietnam, who settled in France after the war (ie between 1950 and 1975) tend to speak of their root as Vietnam, even though they will also tell of their chinese heritage.

My general impression is that we are moving (at different rates in different countries) from a situation where many oversea chinese considered themselves as "chinese living abroad", to a situation where they would define themselves as "americans (or french) of chinese origin". This is not a new situation, you could probably observe the same in many american communities (italian, irish, or black)

Francois

[Kulong]

For southeast asia, a difficult thing is that many of the adoptive countries culture has lots of links with chinese culture. One point I would like to make, though, it that a number of chinese from Vietnam, who settled in France after the war (ie between 1950 and 1975) tend to speak of their root as Vietnam, even though they will also tell of their chinese heritage.

I believe that also has to do with how accepting and tolerant the adopted countries of oversea Chinese are.

For example, I seriously doubt that we'll see the terms "Chinese-Japanese" for Chinese who live in Japan (or even Korean-Japanese or American-Japanese for that matter) anytime soon... On the other hand, most likely because of cultural similarity and the general openness of the Vietnamese culture (when compared to the Japanese culture that is), many oversea Chinese in Vietnam tend to have a easier time associating themselves with being Vietnamese but also Chinese.

Having lived in Houston for the past 15 years where we have what I heard the second largest Vietnamese community in the U.S., most, if not all, "Chinese-Vietnamese I've encountered are still very proud of their Chinese heritage, much like most of their other counterparts in other Southeast Asian countries.

My general impression is that we are moving (at different rates in different countries) from a situation where many oversea chinese considered themselves as "chinese living abroad", to a situation where they would define themselves as "americans (or french) of chinese origin". This is not a new situation, you could probably observe the same in many american communities (italian, irish, or black)

That solely depends on how long that family have been living in their adopted country. I have several friends who are 3rd or 4th generation Chinese-American who are probably more American than Chinese and think of themselves as American first, much like Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans... etc. However, there are still many new immigrants coming in the U.S. all the time, although not so much from Taiwan but much more from mainland China. These new immigrants will still associate with their birthplace for quite some time to come.

On a more personal note. I am what some would consider "1.5th generation" immigrant meaning I came to the U.S. when I was very young and therefore was very deeply influenced by American culture even though I wasn't born here. I consider myself Chinese-American only because I am an American citizen. So unless when asked in a political context, I would just say I am Chinese, and to be more specific, "Chinese from Taiwan". I don't think I would ever feel "truly American" as I see the U.S. as a white country.

Edited by Kulong, 19 December 2005 - 07:10 AM.

[yingxiong]

By this definition, the most successful people would probably be some european nation (english, or spanish, I'd say...), because their migration started earlier.

Seriously, 2nd or 3rd generation chinese still consider themselves chinese because they immigrated fairly recently, but in the long run, integration, intercultural marriages, etc. will probably make that broad definition quite untenable. I see this happening right now in Europe, 3rd or 4th generation chinese would mention their chinese roots, but I honestly don't think they consider themselves as chinese (and I believe they are right doing so: most of them would not move back to china, and would not integrate in the chinese society).

Francois

Unfortunately early migration doesn't denote success because people in countries migrate and expand to other regions for resources and land, which england and spain did not have much of relative to China. That would suggest early migration because they had already seen what their country could offer whereas China is a vast country and takes a longer time to explore and has much more resources. That's why Chinese are the most successful people because of the amount of expansion to all areas of the world.

Despite generations away from China, they are still Chinese and especially considered by westerners. Just because of the time away from China they may not feel the same because they haven't set foot in China. However, when they do they find their place and see their roots they do realise there is another home besides the country that they were raised in. And why not? Chinese are more than happy to welcome family that have been away from home for a long time

[fcharton]

Unfortunately early migration doesn't denote success because people in countries migrate and expand to other regions for resources and land, which england and spain did not have much of relative to China. That would suggest early migration because they had already seen what their country could offer whereas China is a vast country and takes a longer time to explore and has much more resources. That's why Chinese are the most successful people because of the amount of expansion to all areas of the world.

Well, if you look at england in the past (when colonisation happened), it did have pretty large resources, and land, compared with its population. Besides, colonisation worked on the principle that new territories were added to the country, this is not the case with chinese migration (unless you mean that china should one day reclaim all the "chinatowns" in the world as her territory).

To me, it is not a matter of success or failure. Lots of chinese are poor, and move to other countries to get better standards of living. Curiously, some of them become more nationalist in the process, which strikes me as a bit contracidtory, but that is another story...

Despite generations away from China, they are still Chinese and especially considered by westerners. Just because of the time away from China they may not feel the same because they haven't set foot in China.

This is the old nationalist saw : foreigners are racists. My experience here is that many chinese do integrate well in european societies. To be precise, I know quite a few second generation chinese kids here in france (most of them friends of my children), and a couple of older ones, who are just plain french citizens and considered as such. It is not that visible now because most of chinese immigration is very recent.

However, when they do they find their place and see their roots they do realise there is another home besides the country that they were raised in. And why not? Chinese are more than happy to welcome family that have been away from home for a long time

I am sure that some of the oversea chinese which joined China in 1949 to help building the new china, just to get criticised as rightists (and often killed in the process) by the 50s would tell a different story, but then, the dead cannot speak.

Francois

[yingxiong]

Well, if you look at england in the past (when colonisation happened), it did have pretty large resources, and land, compared with its population. Besides, colonisation worked on the principle that new territories were added to the country, this is not the case with chinese migration (unless you mean that china should one day reclaim all the "chinatowns" in the world as her territory).

England had not much resources and land compared to China and went looking to invade other countries to consider their own land. Look at how many countries originated from english invasion. Despite this Chinese migration doesn't seek hostile takeover because Chinese are a paceful race and if China were to have done the same thing in the past then I definately cannot say the world would belong to China. And even today the amount of Chinese everywhere in the world surpass the amount of any other race. However, despite this fact Chinese are not rude enough to take others' country (even though there should be no objection especially from westerners since that is how westerners have ended up today).

This is the old nationalist saw : foreigners are racists. My experience here is that many chinese do integrate well in european societies. To be precise, I know quite a few second generation chinese kids here in france (most of them friends of my children), and a couple of older ones, who are just plain french citizens and considered as such. It is not that visible now because most of chinese immigration is very recent.

Elders are also wise and it is logic that you are the people from where you originated from. A significant and convincing majority of westerners view Chinese no matter where they came from as Chinese.

I am sure that some of the oversea chinese which joined China in 1949 to help building the new china, just to get criticised as rightists (and often killed in the process) by the 50s would tell a different story, but then, the dead cannot speak.

Regardless of differences in ways people want the country to run, they both want the same goal and that is a great successful nation. Both want to belong to this ideal of China, therefore want to be home not in the body but in the mind.

[MengTzu]

True. though I think Jew is just an exception.

Because Jewish people had no nation for a period of at least 1500 years. The term Jew is NOT a nationality.

Small but important correction: from the point of view of religious Judaism, the Jews have always had a nation. In reality they were a nation not in possession of a land, but Palestine is always their home to them. For the 2000 years the Jews saw themselves as a nation, although the definition of this is religious (definitely not racial, as some people still mistaken it to be.)

According to you, if one is to talk about Austronesian as a whole, and you want to point out Austronesians of different region, then you want to say Hawaiians are American Austronesians, instead of Austronesian Americans?

It depends on the context. As I said before, the first word is restrictive. If a Hawaiian is identifying himself as a subset of Americans, then he would say he is an Austronesian American (unless he has no idea how the English language works.)

Same applies to your other questions about Asians and Chinese. While "Chinese" is not an ethnicity in China, it is certainly one in America. I know this sounds very confusing, and very difficult for Chinese in Asia to understand, but the mark of an ethnicity is a distinct identity within a larger group. Chinese American is therefore certainly an ethnicity, although Chinese in China isn't.

Pick one... personally... I still fail to see the difference.

Well, there are nuances in the English language, and they definitely make a big difference. As said before, the first word is usually an adjective. Moreover, the first word is usually more restrictive. It depends on the context of what is perceived as the larger group.

[Kediren]

Despite this Chinese migration doesn't seek hostile takeover because Chinese are a paceful race and if China were to have done the same thing in the past then I definately cannot say the world would belong to China.

i dont think that a chinese are "peaceful race"("chinese race".. Are you rassist?)


We have:

- not all Emigrants from China are ethnical Chinese..

- Majinority of "chinese emigrants" don't will a "peaceful conquer" an future Homeland, but will became their citizens..

- independent countrys dont' will to became a "peaceful" conquer by Emigrants from China.. And china have nothing to say what this countrys have to make for their demografic development.. (human right question are not same..)

- not all emigrants from china will be in a future "chinese"..

- Many emigrants get mixed with a other emigrants and native people..
(cultural/genetic/economical)

However, despite this fact Chinese are not rude enough to take others' country (even though there should be no objection especially from westerners since that is how westerners have ended up today).

Ok, should we make our Mao and make Communist Diktatorship?
I dont see where a chinese Society is better as others..

And one more;

Australia are british-australian not west!

New Zeland is british-mäori not west or east!

Europe are european and have very different socjetys not west or east..!! (dont forgot many of european sitizens are Samoa/Indians (Overseas Departments))

USA are north-american not west!

Brasil are south-american not west!

And if we get a new Sitizens, their are our Citizens now(!!!) not a Chinese!
Dont forgot it!
And their loality have to be european!!

I think you are very brainwashed by propaganda in a time of Cold war..

Elders are also wise and it is logic that you are the people from where you originated from. A significant and convincing majority of westerners view Chinese no matter where they came from as Chinese.

False!!

Many of natives see at first in a face and not a "originate"
(don't forgot a "chinese" are originate from Africa)..

I know many Asians be calling sometimes "vietnamese", later "thais" another time cal someone they as "mongols"..
And someone stupid rassist cal they as "appes" or "yellows"..

I dont think that we muss hear a stupid rassists? Or do you think differently?

Edited by General_Zhaoyun, 21 December 2005 - 08:21 PM.

[fcharton]

England had not much resources and land compared to China and went looking to invade other countries to consider their own land. Look at how many countries originated from english invasion.

Despite this Chinese migration doesn't seek hostile takeover because Chinese are a paceful race and if China were to have done the same thing in the past then I definately cannot say the world would belong to China. And even today the amount of Chinese everywhere in the world surpass the amount of any other race.

I have a lot of trouble to understand the terms of your comparison. The British Empire (in the most general meaning) expansion was a colonial venture : paid for, organised, supported by britain. My impression remains that it did not happen because england was lacking land or resources (many smaller european nations, with less resources did not expand), but because Britain had the ability to do it. (not because they needed it, but because they could do it).

Now, chinese migration is just that : migration, not a government policy, but the result of a choice of many chinese (for various, mostly economic, reasons). As such, it is probably closer to the Irish (or later central european and italian) migration to America. Would you say that the number of Irish (or Italians) in America proves the success of Ireland, or Italy in the late 19th early 20th century???

As for hostile takeover, although I agree that Chinese as usually peaceful (with a couple of exception in history...), I have never seen a case of hostile immigration apart from colonial ventures... I don't think this proves anything.

However, despite this fact Chinese are not rude enough to take others' country (even though there should be no objection especially from westerners since that is how westerners have ended up today).

Here it comes again, no one should object...

I suspect a number of people would disagree with you as for china not taking someone else's land, but that is another subject, which hardly results in anything constructive.

Elders are also wise and it is logic that you are the people from where you originated from. A significant and convincing majority of westerners view Chinese no matter where they came from as Chinese.

Just quoting my western experience from a number of chinese living here... Whether their reaction is logical or not, I don't know. Yet, if you were born in France, raised in France, educated there, if you work there and speak french better than chinese (which is the case for most of the 2nd generation), I'd suggest that you are better off thinking that you are french than living in a dream of being a member of the country your parents or grand parents came from...

As for the western reaction, I must be living in the wrong place, for I have never seen that significant and convincing majority...

Francois

[CCL]

I was born in Malaysia,
worked in Singapore for many years and now
am living/working in Perth, Australia,
I have never heard of people using the term "Chinese Malaysian".
I think "Malaysian Chinese" has been commonly used.

[MengTzu]

Kediren,

Warning: That picture you posted is wildly inappropriate.

[yingxiong]

Can someone explain kediren's first point?

The term westerner that I am using is a general term for convenience. For example, how england invaded other countries in other continents such as usa. Lots of europeans invaded and massacred natives and stole their country. In australia, british invaded and also slaughtered Aborigines and stole their land. This is the general usage of the term westerner that is used in the posts, if that is what you're misunderstanding or trying to understand. Otherwise, I don't know what is your misinterpretation or point in the second point.

Similarly with your third point, I don't know what you're saying false to but natives of a country are able to discriminate the nationality of people that share the same continent. For example, Chinese know how to tell the difference between Korean and Thai. However for westerners in general they don't have that ability.

Regardless of your post, there's no purpose other than antagonism due to reasons I'll let you explain for yourself. Chinese is still a Chinese no matter how far the generation distance migrated outside China, foreign genetics it may be diluted with. People that migrated and settled are still a migrated Chinese. People that migrated, settled, have diluted genetics with other cultures have a part of their genetics from a Chinese that migrated. People that migrated, settled and established a colony or country are still Chinese that came from migration, settlement. That is how successful all the races of China are.

fcharton, regardless of the british going out, invading, destroying, taking over; calling it colonising is merely a water-down word for the obvious because they don't want to consider themselves unreasonable suppressors that tried to impose their culture on others to wipe out native culture. Hitler and Nazi Germany did it and everyone is happy to label him without watering it down with the term colonisation but other europeans like the french in addition to the british as well as portguese stealing Aomen don't refer to this label but prefer the watered-down term. Bottom line is, they are those countries' people that invaded and if they settled, they are still considered and some were proud to consider themselves under their ruler. Similarly for Chinese people that used a peaceful method of migration instead of invading and massacring, they are also Chinese that migrated and settled.

Regardless of your experience, Chinese that were born in france due to migration, raised in france due to migration, speak more french than Chinese due to them migrating there and not having the environment for Chinese language are still Chinese that have migrated. No one considered me french when I was there and that was by native french and Chinese emigrants and Chinese born there. That's why it's Chinese are still Chinese no matter what

[fcharton]

fcharton, regardless of the british going out, invading, destroying, taking over; calling it colonising is merely a water-down word for the obvious because they don't want to consider themselves unreasonable suppressors that tried to impose their culture on others to wipe out native culture. Hitler and Nazi Germany did it and everyone is happy to label him without watering it down with the term colonisation but other europeans like the french in addition to the british as well as portguese stealing Aomen don't refer to this label but prefer the watered-down term. Bottom line is, they are those countries' people that invaded and if they settled, they are still considered and some were proud to consider themselves under their ruler. Similarly for Chinese people that used a peaceful method of migration instead of invading and massacring, they are also Chinese that migrated and settled.

I don't think 'colonisation' or "colonialism" is a water down word. Most westerners would consider it as pretty negative. Just to give an example, there was a very heated debate in France recently because one lawmaker had said "colonisation had some positive aspects" (ie not saying that it was all good, mind you, just saying that it brought a couple of good things,...). By the shocked reaction of the French public, I would say that "colonisation" is very close to an insult these days...

Using the term colonisation is not an attempt to paint these things in rosy colours, and many (if not most) westerners would agree with you that the suppression of native peoples was a bad thing. I believe it is more a technical term, to explain that

1- it usually concerned regions which were far from the colonising country, and were considered non/less-civilised by the colonising people (as opposed to the invasion of an equally developped neighbour)
2- as such, it meant that the colonisers would take over all the government of the said country, and have settlers (in varying numbers...)
3- it implied something different than annexion : colonies would not quite be part of the country

As such, I think colonisation is a bit different from both invasion/annexion of other states, and voluntary migration of individual people, and this is why I believe to comparison you make is not very valid.

Regardless of your experience, Chinese that were born in france due to migration, raised in france due to migration, speak more french than Chinese due to them migrating there and not having the environment for Chinese language are still Chinese that have migrated. No one considered me french when I was there and that was by native french and Chinese emigrants and Chinese born there. That's why it's Chinese are still Chinese no matter what

That you were not considered french while staying in france is no wonder. And yes, I agree that it does take some time for migrants to integrate in the adoptive society.

My impression is that we disagree because you view nationhood (being chinese in this case) as a "blood" question, whereas I see it as a cultural/intellectual thing. For you (please care to tell me if I misinterpret), being chinese means "having chinese blood" (ie some chinese in your family tree).

I basically have several issues with this vision:
1- what about half-bloods, people who are say 1/4th chinese? Are they chinese? Western? Both? An interesting question would be what about citizens of the PRC who have non-chinese blood in them, because they originated from people coming from other countries? These countries, following your example, would claim them as theirs, wouldn't they?
2- if this definition stands no matter how many generations have passed, aren't we all africans? to which extent can a number of southern chinese say, I am not chinese but vietnamese, or thai (some of them would certainly have a lot of origins in other south-asian countries ? etc...
3- while you are perfectly allowed to see it as you see it, how about the opinion of the migrants? Don't you think that one more or less "becomes" chinese, or french, or american, because he assimilates, integrates, and at some point decides that he is so?

Francois

[Kediren]

My impression is that we disagree because you view nationhood (being chinese in this case) as a "blood" question, whereas I see it as a cultural/intellectual thing. For you (please care to tell me if I misinterpret), being chinese means "having chinese blood" (ie some chinese in your family tree).

I basically have several issues with this vision:
1- what about half-bloods, people who are say 1/4th chinese? Are they chinese? Western? Both? An interesting question would be what about citizens of the PRC who have non-chinese blood in them, because they originated from people coming from other countries? These countries, following your example, would claim them as theirs, wouldn't they?
2- if this definition stands no matter how many generations have passed, aren't we all africans? to which extent can a number of southern chinese say, I am not chinese but vietnamese, or thai (some of them would certainly have a lot of origins in other south-asian countries ? etc...
3- while you are perfectly allowed to see it as you see it, how about the opinion of the migrants? Don't you think that one more or less "becomes" chinese, or french, or american, because he assimilates, integrates, and at some point decides that he is so?

Francois

My Point..

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

Western = a term that was born in a time of a "cold war"..
Where we had 2 big Blocks: West (kapitalistic- democratic countrys/Nato) and East (communist dictatorship's /Warsaw Pact+chinese comunists)

I hope we dont have a cold war more..

--

Edited by Kediren, 22 December 2005 - 10:39 AM.