[Tibet Libre]

I noticed that some posters on this forum still speak of "OUTER Mongolia" like a duck takes to water, curiously often the same ones who complain elsewhere about "Western Ethocentrism".

I am interested in Ethnocentrism both in thinking mode as in the use of language. Note that I am more apologetic on European ones.

So lets make a brief list of Chinese and European Centrisms.


CHINESE:

Geographical Names:

- "Annam" (=Vietnam): literal meaning: "Pacified South". Tacitus (?) famous saying comes readily to my mind: "They made a desert and called it peace."

- "Outer" and "Inner Mongolia": Harmless, but on the other hand very revealing name. Old style ethnocentrism at its best. Asking the Mongolians themselves, isnt it actually rather the other way round? But then again, who is asking them when it comes to their own land and people... Silly me.

- "Zhongguo": Pinnacle of Ethnocentrism, really a unique gem of politico-ideological propaganda, must have taken quite some Mandarin brainpower to figure that out (didnt they work?).. Only second (down to the pre-eminence of metaphysical over wordly affairs) to the Western challenge cup of "Gods own Country" (once GB, now USA).


EUROPEAN:

- Gods own country: see above

Geographical Names:

- "Middle East", "Far East", etc.: Undoubtedly a Eurocentrism, but I would argue a harmless one, since these geographical names are neutral as such and void of even implicit cultural arrogance. I mean, how could it be worse to be labelled "East" or "Far East" than, say, "West", "Northwest" or "Southsouthwest...?!

Other:

- World Maps with the Northern Hemisphere much bigger than the Southern:
Ever heard of the Mercator projection and the land mass on the Northern Hemisphere bigger than on the southern (leading to mmuch higher degree of distortion with regard to Europe, Russia and Northern America)? Case closed for conspiracy nuts, better work on your general education, simple science at work here.

- World Maps with Europe (and Africa) in the center, flanked to the left by NA (and SA) and the right by, well, the unpronouncable rest:
Thats an interesting one, since there are pros and cons, depending on the criteria one applies to.

Geographical argument: Its better to depict Euroafrica in the center. Why? Because the other two choice are worse when it comes to depicting as much land mass as much in the middle. With Asia-Australia in the center (or the Americas for that matter) you have that frigging big Pacific taking much of the map space in too prominent a place. Who wants to have a map world-rocking places like Vanuatu, Guam and Papua-New Guinea occupying prominent map spaces near the cdenter just in order to have their own little towns and cities being placed in the middle?

Man is a land animal and as such it is his NATURAL way to place as much land in the middle as possible. Period.

Population argument: Its better to place Asia-Australia in the middle. Why? Because every second human being lives in the half circle from Pakistan and India over SE Asia to China and Japan. And since maps are ultimately about humans and the way they see the world, place those areas in the middle and not overaged, underpopulated diva Europe. Period as well.


You take over.

[somechineseperson]

Tibet Libre, on Jan 22 2006, 10:45 PM, said:

I noticed that some posters on this forum still speak of "OUTER Mongolia" like a duck takes to water, curiously often the same ones who complain elsewhere about "Western Ethocentrism".

I am interested in Ethnocentrism both in thinking mode as in the use of language. Note that I am more apologetic on European ones.

So lets make a brief list of Chinese and European Centrisms.
CHINESE:

Geographical Names:

- "Annam" (=Vietnam): literal meaning: "Pacified South". Tacitus (?) famous saying comes readily to my mind: "They made a desert and called it peace."

- "Outer" and "Inner Mongolia": Harmless, but on the other hand very revealing name. Old style ethnocentrism at its best. Asking the Mongolians themselves, isnt it actually rather the other way round? But then again, who is asking them when it comes to their own land and people... Silly me.

- "Zhongguo": Pinnacle of Ethnocentrism, really a unique gem of politico-ideological propaganda, must have taken quite some Mandarin brainpower to figure that out (didnt they work?).. Only second (down to the pre-eminence of metaphysical over wordly affairs) to the Western challenge cup of "Gods own Country" (once GB, now USA).
EUROPEAN:

- Gods own country: see above

Geographical Names:

- "Middle East", "Far East", etc.: Undoubtedly a Eurocentrism, but I would argue a harmless one, since these geographical names are neutral as such and void of even implicit cultural arrogance. I mean, how could it be worse to be labelled "East" or "Far East" than, say, "West", "Northwest" or "Southsouthwest...?!

Other:

- World Maps with the Northern Hemisphere much bigger than the Southern:
Ever heard of the Mercator projection and the land mass on the Northern Hemisphere bigger than on the southern (leading to mmuch higher degree of distortion with regard to Europe, Russia and Northern America)? Case closed for conspiracy nuts, better work on your general education, simple science at work here.

- World Maps with Europe (and Africa) in the center, flanked to the left by NA (and SA) and the right by, well, the unpronouncable rest:
Thats an interesting one, since there are pros and cons, depending on the criteria one applies to.

Geographical argument: Its better to depict Euroafrica in the center. Why? Because the other two choice are worse when it comes to depicting as much land mass as much in the middle. With Asia-Australia in the center (or the Americas for that matter) you have that frigging big Pacific taking much of the map space in too prominent a place. Who wants to have a map world-rocking places like Vanuatu, Guam and Papua-New Guinea occupying prominent map spaces near the cdenter just in order to have their own little towns and cities being placed in the middle?

Man is a land animal and as such it is his NATURAL way to place as much land in the middle as possible. Period.

Population argument: Its better to place Asia-Australia in the middle. Why? Because every second human being lives in the half circle from Pakistan and India over SE Asia to China and Japan. And since maps are ultimately about humans and the way they see the world, place those areas in the middle and not overaged, underpopulated diva Europe. Period as well.
You take over.

You forget the name "Mediterrean" which literally means "Middle of the Earth". The ancient Greeks and Romans thought they were the "Middle Kingdom" too. In fact, in the ancient Chinese account of the Roman Empire it is stated that the Romans thought their country was "another Middle Kingdom".

The term "barbarian" itself originally came from the Greek language.

The "God's own country" idea probably started in the West after the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as its state religion.

How about terms like Pax Romana, Pax Britannica?

This post has been edited by somechineseperson: 22 January 2006 - 06:11 PM

[fcharton]

somechineseperson, on Jan 23 2006, 12:03 AM, said:

You forget the name "Mediterrean" which literally means "Middle of the Earth". The ancient Greeks and Romans thought they were the "Middle Kingdom" too. In fact, in the ancient Chinese account of the Roman Empire it is stated that the Romans thought their country was "another Middle Kingdom".

I don't think mediterranean means "middle of the earth", but rather "surrounded by land" This basically states the fact that the mediterranean sea (which the romans called mare nostrum, "our sea"...) is almost an inland sea.

As for Zhongguo, originally, the term did not mean Middle Kingdom (this is, partly, a late western translation), but referred to the "central kingdoms of China" (Lu, Jin, Song, etc...) as compared with the outer ones (Chu, Wu, Yan I think). Center here referred more to their central position in China than a central position in the world.

Francois

[LYY]

Quote

As for Zhongguo, originally, the term did not mean Middle Kingdom (this is, partly, a late western translation), but referred to the "central kingdoms of China" (Lu, Jin, Song, etc...) as compared with the outer ones (Chu, Wu, Yan I think). Center here referred more to their central position in China than a central position in the world.

And to a deeper extent - the "Middle Zone" where Yin/Yang proliferates.
It is like the middle position of the "Carbon" in the Periodic Table with 4 electrons in the outermost orbit. Probably that allows carbon to be one of the most important player in the organic structure.

This post has been edited by LYY: 22 January 2006 - 09:12 PM

[Yun]

Quote

CHINESE:

Geographical Names:

- "Annam" (=Vietnam): literal meaning: "Pacified South". Tacitus (?) famous saying comes readily to my mind: "They made a desert and called it peace."

- "Outer" and "Inner Mongolia": Harmless, but on the other hand very revealing name. Old style ethnocentrism at its best. Asking the Mongolians themselves, isnt it actually rather the other way round? But then again, who is asking them when it comes to their own land and people... Silly me.

- "Zhongguo": Pinnacle of Ethnocentrism, really a unique gem of politico-ideological propaganda, must have taken quite some Mandarin brainpower to figure that out (didnt they work?).. Only second (down to the pre-eminence of metaphysical over wordly affairs) to the Western challenge cup of "Gods own Country" (once GB, now USA).

Context, context. You're making too much of products of historical context.

1) Annam was just one of four 'pacified protectorates' in the Tang dynasty: Anbei, Anxi, Andong, Annan in the north, west, east, and south respectively. A naming convention, no more.

2) Outer/Inner Mongolia dates from the Republican period, when (Outer Mongolia) was able to break away from China but Inner Mongolia (which today is still a province by that name in the PRC) was unable to. I personally just call the independent country 'Mongolia', but it can get confusing.

3) 'Zhongguo' originally referred to the Central States (plural), those feudal states that were on the Central China Plain during the Spring-Autumn and Warring States. In other words, south China, northeast China and northwest China were not Zhongguo, and strictly speaking even Qin was on the fringe. 'Zhongguo' only expanded conceptually to include south China after the Age of Fragmentation. In other words, it was a fluid geographical concept. Ethnocentric, yes, because the people who first used it were the Central States themselves. But not that hard to come up with.

BTW Tibet Libre, the guy who started the thread with the title "Should Outer Mongolia be part of China?" is a Mongolian nationalist. He was using the name to bait us.

[Tibet Libre]

Yun, on Jan 22 2006, 09:37 PM, said:

Context, context. You're making too much of products of historical context.

Ok, agreed, but then again, you in turn seem to make not enough of the ideological aspect. The question is why did Republican China come up with the adjectives inner and outer when they could have just as well come up with, say, North and South Mongolia, in order to differ sufficiently between thse two parts?

The answer is because they were still thinking in the imperial center-periphery-scheme. And people still using this term nowadays, unwillingly or not, show a bit of that attitude, too, whether they like it or not.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

'Zhongguo' originally referred to the Central States (plural), those feudal states that were on the Central China Plain during the Spring-Autumn and Warring States.

The earliest term ZhongGuo found in the Western Zhou period actually refers to the kingdom of Zhou alone.

[General_Zhaoyun]

Tibet Libre, on Jan 23 2006, 12:19 PM, said:

Ok, agreed, but then again, you in turn seem to make not enough of the ideological aspect. The question is why did Republican China come up with the adjectives inner and outer when they could have just as well come up with, say, North and South Mongolia, in order to differ sufficiently between thse two parts?

The answer is because they were still thinking in the imperial center-periphery-scheme. And people still using this term nowadays, unwillingly or not, show a bit of that attitude, too, whether they like it or not.

It's not strictly north and south Mongolia. Many parts of "inner Mongolia" (the region where it's bordering with Manchuria) are in the same latitude as "Outer Mongolia".

[LYY]

Tibet Libre, on Jan 23 2006, 12:19 PM, said:

Ok, agreed, but then again, you in turn seem to make not enough of the ideological aspect. The question is why did Republican China come up with the adjectives inner and outer when they could have just as well come up with, say, North and South Mongolia, in order to differ sufficiently between thse two parts?

The answer is because they were still thinking in the imperial center-periphery-scheme. And people still using this term nowadays, unwillingly or not, show a bit of that attitude, too, whether they like it or not.

The question is why did Republican China come up with the adjectives inner and outer when they could have just as well come up with, say, North and South Mongolia, in order to differ sufficiently between thse two parts?

interesting...
While i am a bit naive about the historical background of the NAME of "inner" or "outer" Mongolia, but i tend to think in a slightly different way.

First "inner" and "outer" is only a dichotomy used in Yi (or I Ching) to form a Hexagram.
You need an inner Trigram and an Outer Trigram to form a complete Hexagram.
A complete meaning could be established by transcending the outer and the inner Trigram into ONE Hexagram.

The relationship between the outer and the inner Trigram is also found in the position of the line:
- 1st line (inner Trigram) corresponds to 1st line ( in the Outer Trigram) in a Hexagram
- 2nd line (inner Trigram) corresponds to 2nd line (of the Outer Trigram) in a Hexagram
- 3rd line (inner Trigram) corresponds to 3rd line (of the Outer Trigram) in a Hexagram

The then Republican China may view the "inner Mongolia" as a context-sensitive case which need to address cautiously and tackfully.

This post has been edited by LYY: 23 January 2006 - 12:47 AM

[jwrevak]

Tibet Libre, on Jan 22 2006, 02:45 PM, said:

- World Maps with the Northern Hemisphere much bigger than the Southern:
Ever heard of the Mercator projection and the land mass on the Northern Hemisphere bigger than on the southern (leading to mmuch higher degree of distortion with regard to Europe, Russia and Northern America)? Case closed for conspiracy nuts, better work on your general education, simple science at work here.

Yeah, but do you know who invented the so-called Mercator projection? The Chinese in the 10th century. See Robert Temple’s The Genius of China: 3,000 Years of Science, Discovery and Invention.

[Tibet Libre]

General_Zhaoyun, on Jan 22 2006, 11:44 PM, said:

It's not strictly north and south Mongolia. Many parts of "inner Mongolia" (the region where it's bordering with Manchuria) are in the same latitude as "Outer Mongolia".

Alright, even taking Mongolias awkward geographical position into account (though I dont think it played a big role in the mind of those Republican Chinese who invented these names), it doesnt take away anything from my argument: Shouldnt they have rather labelled then the two parts the other way round ('North' Mongolia = Inner Mongolia, 'South' Mongolia = Outer Mongolia)?

[lobster]

Tibet Libre, on Jan 23 2006, 10:41 AM, said:

Alright, even taking Mongolias awkward geographical position into account (though I dont think it played a big role in the mind of those Republican Chinese who invented these names), it doesnt take away anything from my argument: Shouldnt they have rather labelled then the two parts the other way round ('North' Mongolia = Inner Mongolia, 'South' Mongolia = Outer Mongolia)?

Should we call Turkey and the Balkans "Near West", Western Europe "Middle West" and North America "Far West"?

(From the "Middle East's" POV.)

This post has been edited by lobster: 23 January 2006 - 01:45 PM

[fcharton]

lobster, on Jan 23 2006, 07:44 PM, said:

Should we call Turkey and the Balkans "Near West", Western Europe "Middle West" and North America "Far West"?

(From the "Middle East's" POV.)

That would be fair, even though I think america would more properly be the "far east" (as any china-centered map would show) and western europe the far west. So, the West would the become the Far (far eastern america+far western europe), and I would be ... a fareigner ???

Francois

[Juchechosunmanse]

Tibet Libre, on Jan 23 2006, 10:41 AM, said:

Alright, even taking Mongolias awkward geographical position into account (though I dont think it played a big role in the mind of those Republican Chinese who invented these names), it doesnt take away anything from my argument: Shouldnt they have rather labelled then the two parts the other way round ('North' Mongolia = Inner Mongolia, 'South' Mongolia = Outer Mongolia)?

To China proper, what is called "Inner Mongolia" now is considered "inner", and "Outer Mongolia" is considered "outer". The Mongolians (of the PRM) call them north and south Mongolia respectively. So what's the problem?

The North Koreans call the Chinese "East Sea" "West Sea" because it is to the west of the peninsula. The Chinese so far don't seem to have any problem with it.

I find some South Koreans rather oversensitive when they demanded the UN and other international organizations to change "Sea of Japan" to "East Sea".

This post has been edited by Juchechosunmanse: 24 January 2006 - 07:24 PM

[ChiangAP]

Juchechosunmanse, on Jan 25 2006, 12:40 AM, said:

I find some South Koreans rather oversensitive when they demanded the UN and other international organizations to change "Sea of Japan" "East Sea".

You are not kidding! Korea and Japan are still arguing today over the name East Sea/Sea of Japan. In addition to touring every charting office to convince them of the merit of using the "proper" term, both Japan and Korea appointed special ambassadors to deal with this very hot issue.

Once, we made the terrible mistake of writing on our official charts "Sea of Japan (East Sea)"; this was not diplomatic enough; we got a rocket from our Foreign Office, following some official complaints from Japan.The charts had to be withdrawn.

If Japanese feel so sensitive, why don't they change the name of their own capital Dong Jing/東京/Tokyo to something more politically correct?