[Yun]

This is a passage from Zhao Fengnian's essay "How I turned from a Chinese nationalist to a Han nationalist":

我们对待那些曾经屠杀几千万同胞的罪犯的后代，从来没有迫害过，而是以诚相待。被**疯狂咒骂的朱元璋，在推翻屠杀了几千万中国人民的凶手蒙元政权后，立刻就宣布蒙古人色目人虽然不是华夏，但只要遵守华夏礼法，就可以当作华夏同胞对待。世界上还有比这更宽容善良的民族吗?在我们汉族文化中，从来没有种族歧视，对各民族一视同仁。只有蒙元和满清政权，才有赤裸裸的种族歧视，把自己民族利益，凌驾于中国的利益之上。蒙古勾结阿拉伯人来欺压中国人民。满清更是公开宣扬“宁予友邦，不予家奴”。他们根本不认为自己是中国人。中国人民的利益根本就不在他们考虑范围之内。

Translation: We have never persecuted those descendants of criminals who murdered tens of millions of our kin. In fact we treat them with sincerity. After Zhu Yuanzhang (who has been savagely cursed and damned) overthrew the murderers of tens of millions of our kin, the Mongol-Yuan dynasty, he immediately announced that although Mongols are not Huaxia, as long as they follow Huaxia customs and law, they can receive the same treatment as their Huaxia kin. Is there any more magnanimous and kind-hearted people in the world? In our Han culture we have never discriminated by ethnicity, treating all ethnicities the same. Only under the rule of the Mongol-Yuan and the Manchu-Qing, do we see discrimination based on ethnicity, putting the interests of their own ethnicity above that of the interests of all China. The Mongols colluded with the Arabs to oppress the people of China. The Manchu Qing openly declared that they would "rather hand power to a friendly state, than pass it to these family slaves (i.e. the Han)". They simply didn't see themselves as Chinese (zhongguoren). The interest of the Chinese people just wasn't within their area of consideration.

- Do you agree or disagree, especially with the sentences in bold? Please explain your reasons and provide historical evidence where possible.

[somechineseperson]

Of course there were racists among Han people in ancient times. But the general cultural trend of the Han nation is against racism. For example, the saying 夏入夷则夷，夷入夏则夏. As long as "barbarians" accept Han civilisation they should be treated as the same as Han people. So in principle there should not be racism but we all know things never go completely according to principles in our world.

[Yang Zongbao]

Well?

I would say that culturally, Han are still people, and still liable to the weakness of discriminating against another people, simply for different practices or appearance.

Which is why other ethnicities were often given a -nu suffix (slave), such as Xiongnu and Wonu, or -man (savage), like the coverall term nanman. All human races tend to some extent or another think they're superior, more refined, or always in the right. Huaxia culture is no different in this aspect.

Full blown racism would probably be more likely though when China faces enemies of other ethnicities stronger or as strong as it is. It's always a good way to make the people more inclined to fight when you either paint a picture of how righteous your race is, or demonize entire races. We're not above doing that. When other peoples are less of a threat, then you likely won't see Ran Min leading an army on genocide. That almost seemed as if his viewpoint was that of a threatened creature, a viewpoint of a threatened Hua race that led his soldiers to mercilessly exterminate those who were different. Germans felt threatened by Jews before WWII, having been indoctrinated that Jews are 'bloodsuckers' among other things due to the jobs that they tended to take, which made it all the easier for Hitler to convince the people that they were worthy of being exterminated...because he portrayed them as threats, and put the people in a threatened animal mentality.

And when China is even more powerful than the 'barbarians' around it, it is also good to paint them as savages, and your own race as being righteous to give people the belief that it is right to fight, and that killing and taking their lands are justified. Such as what America did in the Indian Wars. They let the people believe how savage the Natives were, and how it was their duty to expand America to the pacific, and made the people believe that expansion was their destiny, and taking the lands justified. I don't see how we're any more immune, or prone, to racism than other people.

But to say Hans never practiced racism is just a preposterous idea. Of course, the same goes for any other race, but trying to say we're superior in that aspect is plain bullcrap, IMO.

[snowybeagle]

*sigh* Yun, I had hoped we would not even be discussing zhao's article since I am wishing for them to be removed from CHF.

Yun, on Feb 2 2006, 12:33 AM, said:

This is a passage from Zhao Fengnian's essay "How I turned from a Chinese nationalist to a Han nationalist":
We have never persecuted those descendants of criminals who murdered tens of millions of our kin.

Uhm, if we were to look at history, how many did the "Chinese" murdered or enslaved in the process of expanding from a small valley kingdom to an empire?

Yun, on Feb 2 2006, 12:33 AM, said:

"In our Han culture we have never discriminated by ethnicity, treating all ethnicities the same."

Let me try to recall ... off the top of my head, there was a Jin Ri Bi who was passed over as regent because of his ethnic background, no?

Even if there was no official policy (none that I could think of at the moment), there was institutional discrimination through the official census by legislating certain families as superior to others, granting them privileges and leniency from the court of law.

It is not racism as we understand it, but this type of discrimination is no less malignant.
Tao Kan of the Western/Eastern Jin experienced taunts because of his ethnic background.

Let's not forget the 良民 and 贱民.

"非我族类, 其心必异" was taken from 《左传》.
In the original context, it was referring to the rivalry between the State of 晋 and the State of 楚 (楚虽大，非吾族也。)

Futhermore, it is incorrect to say that all ethnicities are treated the same through the different dynasties.
What is unstated is that the people had to adopt ethnic Han culture, education etc.
Zhu YuanZhang insisted that if the Mongols adopted the HuaXia customs, which mean they had to give up the Mongol customs which conflicted with the HuaXia customs.

Can we delete the original articles now and let zhaofengnian speak for himself from scratch?
Then there would be no possibility of making him shoulder miscommunications by somechineseperson.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

Only under the rule of the Mongol-Yuan and the Manchu-Qing, do we see discrimination based on ethnicity, putting the interests of their own ethnicity above that of the interests of all China.

Since when has the imperial Qing code treat ethnicity differently? There was no barring of marriage when carefully examining the first imperial edicts.

Quote

"In our Han culture we have never discriminated by ethnicity, treating all ethnicities the same."

Yeah, is that why they created the most number derogatory terms to describe the various barbarians?

But seriously, why is there so much discussion on this article of third rate historical facts.

[qrasy]

Quote

We have never persecuted those descendants of criminals who murdered tens of millions of our kin

Only need one counterexample?
We have a thread called "Ran Min, the Hitler of East Asia". It could be said to be "nore really racism" (is Xianbei etc. really different in "race" from him?)
And actually what I say is not contradictiory to "夏入夷则夷，夷入夏则夏". (夏 vs 夷 may not be "racial" problem)

This post has been edited by qrasy: 01 February 2006 - 11:02 PM

[urofpersia]

qrasy, on Feb 2 2006, 11:59 AM, said:

Only need one counterexample?
We have a thread called "Ran Min, the Hitler of East Asia". It could be said to be "nore really racism" (is Xianbei etc. really different in "race" from him?)
And actually what I say is not contradictiory to "夏入夷则夷，夷入夏则夏". (夏 vs 夷 may not be "racial" problem)

Oh I see, so this means when the Fujianese or Cantonese discriminated against the Hakka, we can't really consider it racism right? After all they are all Han.

[TrueViet]

In a website that tells the history of the Hakka by a Hakka writer, it says in China history, the central government once discriminated against the Hakka, killing people with high nose and the appearance of the Hakka at that time. He said that the Hakka was originally in the high north of China.

I do not know whether the story told in this website was true, but it is a reference we may want to look at.

[qrasy]

TrueViet, on Feb 2 2006, 09:11 PM, said:

In a website that tells the history of the Hakka by a Hakka writer, it says in China history, the central government once discriminated against the Hakka, killing people with high nose and the appearance of the Hakka at that time. He said that the Hakka was originally in the high north of China.

I don't know whether the author is trying to equate Hakka with people of high noses.
Killing people of high nose should be in early Ming dynasty, since Zhu Yuanzhang had some hatred toward foreigners. ("Semu people", the foreigners, were treated higher than Han in the Yuan dynasty)
Hakka were just a term whose literal meaning is roughly "guests", as opposed to "Punti" ("native").

Quote

I do not know whether the story told in this website was true, but it is a reference we may want to look at.

Do you still remember the website? Or is it the same website that assume Chinese were primarily Caucasoid because of the Chinese character 皇 ? By Lee M Lock?

This post has been edited by qrasy: 02 February 2006 - 08:22 AM

[Yun]

Quote

*sigh* Yun, I had hoped we would not even be discussing zhao's article since I am wishing for them to be removed from CHF.

However, because I am a historian and currently working on a thesis about ethnic relations and inter-ethnic cultural interaction during the Age of Fragmentation, I found it interesting to pursue the issue further. It is indeed a very pressing issue in current Chinese historiography, which is still labouring under the outdated sinocentric stereotype that China simply overcame foreign conquerers by 'sinicizing' them with its attractive and superior culture. Sorry if the thread is worrying to you.

Quote

Let me try to recall ... off the top of my head, there was a Jin Ri Bi who was passed over as regent because of his ethnic background, no?

Jin Ridi, a Xiongnu minister serving the Han court, was not passed over for the regency. He declined a joint regency with Huo Guang and requested that Huo Guang alone be regent, out of humility. He is actually often cited as an example of Chinese openness to foreigners in government.

Quote

In a website that tells the history of the Hakka by a Hakka writer, it says in China history, the central government once discriminated against the Hakka, killing people with high nose and the appearance of the Hakka at that time. He said that the Hakka was originally in the high north of China.

Let me guess - is this Lee Siu-Leung? His website mentions a theory that the Hakka were originally Xiongnu. Probably he is talking about the Ran Min massacre against Jie and Xiongnu.

.....

My take on this question is that cases of ethnic discrimination by the Han people against other ethnicities are far too many in historical records for the "never" to be credible. The difference is that rather than advocating genocide, the Han usually tried to either promote the 'civilizing' of 'barbarians' with Confucian values and customs, or keep the 'barbarians' at a safe distance and rule them indirectly with a 'loose-rein' (jimi) system.

There is a reason why Tang Taizong famously said such lines as: "The people of the Central States (Zhongguo) have been universally favoured at the expense of the 'Barbarians' since ancient times. I love them all without discrimination." He is much respected for being a far more open-minded ruler on ethnic relations than most of his predecessors.

[somechineseperson]

Yun, on Feb 2 2006, 02:19 PM, said:

My take on this question is that cases of ethnic discrimination by the Han people against other ethnicities are far too many in historical records for the "never" to be credible. The difference is that rather than advocating genocide, the Han usually tried to either promote the 'civilizing' of 'barbarians' with Confucian values and customs, or keep the 'barbarians' at a safe distance and rule them indirectly with a 'loose-rein' (jimi) system.

There is a reason why Tang Taizong famously said such lines as: "The people of the Central States (Zhongguo) have been universally favoured at the expense of the 'Barbarians' since ancient times. I love them all without discrimination." He is much respected for being a far more open-minded ruler on ethnic relations than most of his predecessors.

"The difference is that rather than advocating genocide, the Han usually tried to either promote the 'civilizing' of 'barbarians' with Confucian values and customs"

While for a Christian genocide and racially discriminating against other peoples is clearly evil, "cultural discrimination" is not necessarily so. Some cultures (I mean cultural values not the people themselves) are closer to the Truth than others, sorry if this sounds bad in the current intellectual climate that favors relativism. Jesus said I come as a testimony to the Truth therefore we should accept the Truth elements in all cultures. It's just that some have more Truth in them than others do. IMHO Confucianism and certain other Chinese schools of thought have a lot of truth in them, as well as many of the ancient Greek philosophical schools.

This post has been edited by somechineseperson: 02 February 2006 - 10:56 AM

[TaiE]

Quote

Of course there were racists among Han people in ancient times. But the general cultural trend of the Han nation is against racism. For example, the saying 夏入夷则夷，夷入夏则夏. As long as "barbarians" accept Han civilisation they should be treated as the same as Han people. So in principle there should not be racism but we all know things never go completely according to principles in our world.

I must point out, SCP, you another time mislead people by your own interpretation here.

As you said: "As long as "barbarians" accept Han civilisation they should be treated as the same as Han people."

It should be:' When "barbarians" enter the middle kingdom and accept the civilization, they are chinese.


The true origin of this word is far before the han ethnic come to form.





This time, i 'd like to post an historical article about what is the "华裔之辨“ for reference，but it is in chinese, real hard work for me to translate.

http://www.zisi.net/...-10-20738.shtml

先秦华夷之辩杂论



作者：王易遁



　　一、华夷之辩的“华”的意思


　　华夷之辩又可以称为夏夷之辩，主旨就是华夏族和夷族的区别。
　　“华”和“夏”指的是华夏族。“华”和“夏”有“华夏族”之意，这是后起的意思，那“华”和“夏”的本义是什么呢？历来的学者认为“夏”的本义有二：一是地名，一是华美之义。
　　禹受封为夏伯，根据孔颖达所注的〈尚书〉“颛顼以来，地为国号”，因此在禹子启建立夏朝时，便沿用此|“夏”号，金景芳说：“夏也叫做大夏，原为地名，自启凭借父禹的基业夺取政权在这里建立了以华夏族为基础的奴隶制度的国家后，才变成历史上的一个朝代的名称”。这样以居住地为姓氏或是部落名称的例子在上古时期很多，如颛顼因初居高阳，而称为高阳氏，帝喾曾因初居于高辛而称为高辛氏，尧因初居于陶后又居于唐，而称为陶唐氏或称为唐尧，舜因初居于虞而称为有虞氏，夏的情况亦是如此，夏朝的这种朝代的命名方式表明了夏时血缘关系的没落和地缘关系的建立，夏朝的建立不再以血缘也就是不再以血统为基础，而是以地理位置和文化的差异来编制和划分国民。
　　《尔雅，释诂》曰：“夏，大也。”《尚书》云：“冕服采章曰华，大国曰夏。”《尚书》正义曰：“冕服采章对被发左衽，则为又光华也，释诂云：‘夏，大也，故大国曰夏，华夏，谓中国也’”，从上面的可以看出，“夏”的意思是“大”或者“大国”的意思。这些都是因为夏朝的建立后，夏国无论是在管理的人口和管辖的区域和文化方面都非其他的方国可比，“夏”的含义也就由原来的“夏地”变为“大”或者“大国”。
　　《禹贡》云：“羽畎夏翟。”这里的“翟”是雉名，“夏翟”即五彩之旌旗；《周礼。天官》：“秋染夏。”贾公彦疏：“秋染夏者，夏谓五色，”这些“夏”的意思均为“华美”的意思。
　　关于“华”的本来的意思，有如下的记载：
　　《诗.周南.逃夭》：“灼灼其华。”《淮南子.时则训》：“桃李始华。”这些“华”都是“花”或者“开花”的意思。
　　在古代，“华”同“花”，“化”同“花”，“华”又同“化”。
　　“化”为何意？《华严经.音义上》：“教成于上而易于下，谓之化”，许慎释“化”为“教行也”。因此，“化”就是“教化”之意，“华”同“化”，也就是说“华”有教化的含义，教化则必然要和“文”联系到一起来，“华”其实就是要以“文”而“化”之。
　　“华”同“夏”，“华”和“夏”的意思可以通用， 所以，“华”，“夏”，“华夏”，“中华”的意思都有“教化”的意思。《唐律名例疏义释义》有言：“中华者，中国也，亲被正教，自属中国，衣冠威仪，习俗孝悌，居身礼义，故谓之中华。”这里对中华的解释很精辟，把是否自属中国诸华夏族，是否属于中华的标准定义为是否“亲被正教”也就是是否奉行中华文化传统，一言以辟之，无论是何族，只要继承中华文化，也就可以成为中华成员，亦即成为华夏族。


　　二、华夷之辩的“夷”的意思


　　早在殷朝的甲骨文中就有了“夷”的记载。甲骨文“尸”“儿”就是“夷”，郭沐若说：“甲骨文1183片，‘贞尸方不出’，尸方者，夷方也；甲骨文1130片中的‘伐儿方’，儿方当即夷方。”许慎的《说文解字》对“夷”的解释是：“夷，平也，从大，从弓，东夷人也”。
　　“夷”原是华夏族族对非华夏族民族的统称，这个“夷”意是广义上的“夷”，从《禹贡》，《诗经》，〈淮南子〉等文献中可以看出只要是不同于华夏族的民族，不管是在什么方位都统统以“夷”来称呼，如《尚书.大禹谟》：“无殆无荒，四夷来王。”《淮南子.愿道训》：“禹施之以德，海外宾伏，四夷钠服。”《毛诗正义》：“幽王时，四夷交侵，中国皆叛。”这些“夷”均带有“四”字，则“夷”者是四方非华夏族的统称。从西周开始，“夷”又多指东方之民，即是“东夷”，这个是“夷”的具体化。
　　史料上具体的非东方的夷有：
　　北方的畎夷，《竹书纪年》：“帝癸（夏桀）即位，畎夷入歧。”
　　西方的昆夷，《诗.大雅.采薇》序云：“文王之时，西有昆夷之患。”
　　南方的夷，《春秋公羊传注疏》：“南夷与北狄交，中国不绝若线。”
　　这些都可以看出，“夷”是四方的民族的统称，非仅指东方之民族，周朝有“东夷，北狄，南蛮，西戎”之说，这个时候的“夷”又演变为有专指东方的非华夏民族之意，这个是狭义上的“夷”，但是广义上的“夷”仍继续沿用，直到现代。


　　三、“华”和“夷”的区别

　　关于“华夏族”和“夷族“的民族特征和区别，史料为我们提供了很详细的记载。
　　《礼记.王制》：“中国夷狄五方之民，皆有性也，不可推移。东方曰夷，被发文身，有不火食者矣；南方曰蛮，雕题交趾，有不火食者矣；西方曰戎，被发衣皮，有不粒食者矣；北方曰狄，衣羽毛穴居，有不粒食者矣。中国夷蛮戎狄，皆有安居，和味，宜服，利用，备器，五方之民，语言不通，嗜欲不同。”从名称（夷狄戎蛮中国），方位（五方），饮食，服饰，居住等方面指出中国夷狄戎蛮的特征和区别。文中的“雕题”是指刻其肌肤以丹青涅之，和“文身”差不多，“交趾”就是足相向，是南方人不穿鞋子跣足的反映。
　　《左传》襄公十四年，诸侯会于向，戎子驹支曰：“我诸戎饮食衣服，不与华同，挚币不通，语言不达。”
　　《淮南子 .坠行训》：“东方，其人兑行小头，隆鼻大嘴鸢肩企行，长大早知而不寿；南方，其人修行兑上，大口决龇，早壮而夭；西方，其人面未偻，修颈印行，勇敢不仁；北方，其人翕形短颈，大肩下尻其人愚蠢禽兽而寿，中央四达，其人大面短颈，美须恶肥，惠圣而好治。”
　　从上述的史料可以看出，地域上华族大体上居于中华的中部，夷狄戎蛮基本上居于诸夏的四方，“华”和“夷”无论是在文化，语言，风俗，饮食，服饰，甚至是在人形方面都有着非常明显的特征和区别。


　　四、华夷之辩的内容

　　史料中关于华夷之辩的内容主要有如下几个方面：
　　首先是诸夏一体的意识。
　　《春秋》：“内诸夏而外夷狄。”“不以中国从夷狄，不与夷狄之执中国也。”
　　《春秋左传正义》齐管仲云：“戎狄豺狼，不可厌也，诸夏亲昵，不可弃也。”
这些其实都是要明确诸夏诸国乃一体，诸夏国家之间应该不分彼此，应该相互帮助相互扶持，相亲相爱。西周以来特别是春秋时期正是夷狄戎蛮势力壮大，影响到诸夏发展生存的时期，华夏族面临历史上从未有过的严重的非华夏族的入侵。周王室的东迁，就是在狄戎灭亡西周的形势下的不得以之举。这个时期，北方的山戎活跃于我国的北部地区，并且深入于今天的山西，河北中部以及黄河以南，和中原诸夏频繁战争。周桓王六年（公元前714年）北狄伐郑，十四年（公元前706年），北狄伐齐，惠王十三年（公元前664年），山戎病燕，十五年（公元前662年），狄伐邢，十七年（公元前661年），狄伐卫，襄王二年（公元前650年），狄灭温。南方自称“蛮夷”的楚国也北上中原与诸夏争夺霸权，相距灭掉淮河流域和南方许多诸夏国家，春秋时期诸夏在这种受到四方民族，特别是来自北方和南方的异民族的压力下，许多诸夏之国和诸夏之民和诸夏之地亡于夷狄戎蛮，诸夏民族意识，民族认同在和夷狄的交战中得到强化，“华夷之辩”就是在这种民族危机的形势下不断丰富深化。
　　其次是贵“华”贱“夷”，以“华”为贵，以“夷”为贱，贬低蔑视非华夏族的民族。
　　《论语注疏》有云：“夷狄之有君，不如诸夏之亡也。”
　　《礼记正义》云：“东夷，北狄，西戎，南蛮，虽大曰子。”
　　周大夫富辰云：“狄，豺狼之德也。”
　　“华”贵，“夷”践，是“华夷之辩”中的主要内容，“华”贵“夷”践，其实就是以华夏的文化，礼仪制度为贵，贬“夷俗”，确立“夷”必须从“华”的观念。
　　再次是“要服”“荒服”之制。
　　周穆王时祭公谋父云：“先王之制，邦内甸服，邦外侯服，侯卫宾服，蛮夷要服，戎狄荒服。甸服者祭，侯服者祀，宾服者亨，要服者贡，荒服者王，日祭，月祀，时亨，岁贡，终王。”“要服者贡”就是向周天子贡献物品，“荒服者王”就是要承认天子的统治地位，所谓的“终王”即每代戎狄之君继位，要朝见周天子，周天子新王继位也要觐见，以表示对周天子的臣服关系。如夷狄之君未按照周天子指定的“要服”“荒服”规定做，周天子就“修名”“修德”，即以尊卑职贡之分和感之以德，使其来贡来朝；“修名”“修德”仍不来者，就要“修刑”，就是要以武力战争来“刑诛”，甚至要灭其国，亡其民。


　　五、儒家的华夷之辩

　　让我们来看看先圣是如何看待华夷之辩的：
　　孔子作《春秋》曰：“夷狄入中国，则中国之，中国入夷狄，则夷狄之”，也就是说， 夷狄到了中原地区，习用了华夏文化习俗，他们就成了华夏族，而中原华夏族如果进入了边远地区，习用了夷狄的文化习俗，他们就成为了夷狄，是夷狄还是华夏不在于血统，而在于所习用的文化，就是说华夷之辩不是血统上的区别而是文化上的差异。
　　孟子继承了孔子的这样的民族区别的观念，进一步提出“中国圣王无种说”，认为中国的任何一个民族只要他有志气有才能，都可以统治中华成为圣王正统，他说：“舜生于诸冯，迁于负夏，卒于鸣条，东夷人也，文王生于歧周，卒于郢，西夷人也。”更强调要“以华变夷”，反对“以夷变华”这里的“变”是“改变”的意思，就是要用华夏的文化礼仪制度来改变四夷的文化礼仪制度，把四方之民纳于华夏文化之下，化“夷”为“华”，也就是主张民族同化融合。


　　六、华夷之别非血统之别乃文化之别

　　华夷之辩也就是华夷之别，华夏族和四夷之间的区别不是血统上的区别乃是文化上的不同。原本是夷狄戎蛮民族，在和华夏族接触的过程中习用了华夏的文化礼仪制度，从而认同华夏族，就会转变成为华夏族，这个就是由“夷”变成“华“；原本是华夏族的因为僻处四方，和中原诸夏不相往来，习用诸夷狄的文化礼仪制度，就会给排除出诸夏之列，不在以华夏族来对待，这个就是由“华”变成“夷”。因此无论血统本来是“华”还是“夷”，只要习用华夏族礼仪，就可以成为诸夏；只要屏弃了华夏族之礼仪，就可以归之为“夷”。
　　观之前面的“华”“夏”“夷”的意思与华夏族和夷狄戎蛮的民族特征和区别，可以看出华夏族和其他非华夏族的区别其实是以文化为基础，不是以血统来区别，“华”者，化四方民族也！
　　民族的定义是“具有相同的地域，共同的语言，共同的经济生活和表现在共同的文化上的共同的心理素质的人们共同体。”观察民族形成的历史，形成民族的首要条件就是以血缘（血统）关系为纽带的氏族的瓦解，因此民族的根本性是文化，“华夷之辩”实质就是不同民族之间的文化高低之辩，非血统之辩。
　　先秦和随后的史料中关于“华”变成“夷”的记载颇多。举其要者由“华”变成“夷”：
　　《史记.五帝本纪》有云：“流共工于幽陵以变北狄，放驩兜于嵩山以变南蛮，迁三苗于三危以变西戎，殛鲧于羽山以变东夷。”驩兜，三苗的族属历来多有争议，但是共工和鲧的族属，则多认为是华夏族，共工和鲧原为华夏族，后来因为共工和鲧及其部分后人因为战争失败的缘故（流，殛）僻处于于四方，不和中原诸夏相往来，弃华夏礼仪不用，习用诸夷之文化，由“华”变成“夷”。
　　《史记.匈奴传》云：“匈奴其先祖夏后氏之苗裔也，曰淳维，桀崩，其子淳维妻其众妾，遁于被野，随畜转徙，号荤育，逮周日盛，曰 猃狁 。”
　　《魏书.序纪》云：“后魏之先，出自黄帝，黄帝之子曰昌意，昌意少子，受封北国，其后世为君长，统幽都以北，广漠之野，黄帝以土德王，北俗谓为拓，谓后谓跋，故以为氏（拓拔氏）。”

　　七、从楚国民族认同来看“华夷之辩”

　　按照中国的史书记载，楚人原为华夏族，但是在春秋时期，根据当时的记载，楚国人多认为自己是蛮夷，不是华夏族，到了战国时期，楚国人才又再次认为自己属于华夏族，从史料的记载来看，则楚国经历了由“华”变成“夷”，再由“夷”变成“华”的过程，这也为我们提供了华夷之辩乃文化之辩，非血统之辩的依据，即是，华夷的区别是文化，不是血统。
　　1，楚国的来源是华夏族。关于楚人的来源，中国的史料都一致认为楚人乃黄帝之后，尤其以《史记》的记载最为详细。
　　《史记》云：“楚之先，出自帝颛顼高阳氏。黄帝生昌意，昌意生颛顼，颛顼生称，称生卷章，卷章生重黎，因其能光融于天下，故命之为祝融，重黎死，其弟吴回继为祝融，吴回生陆终，陆终生季连；季连，芈姓，楚乃其后也，周文王时，季连苗裔鬻熊事文王，成王时，封鬻熊之后熊铎于荆蛮之地。”
　　从以上的记载来看，则楚国从血缘关系上而言是属于华夏族。
　　2，西周春秋时，楚国在民族认同上已由“华”变成“夷”，民族属性已是南蛮，这个时期，楚国又多称为蛮荆，荆或者蛮。关于楚国自己认为是蛮夷和中原诸夏认为楚国是蛮夷的记载，春秋和战国初期的史料颇多。如《诗.采岂》曰：“愚而蛮荆，大国为谁谁，显允方叔，征伐猃狁，蛮荆来服。”
　　周夷王时，楚君熊渠兴兵伐庸和扬粤，至于鄂，自以为乃“蛮夷”，“不与中国之号溢”。
　　楚武王三十五年（公元前706年，周恒王是四年），楚伐随。随曰：“我无罪也。”楚曰：“我蛮夷也，今诸侯皆叛，或相侵，或相杀，我有敝甲，欲以观中国之政，请王室，尊我号。”
　　楚文王六年（公元684年），秋九月，《春秋》云：“荆败蔡师于莘，以蔡侯献舞归。”荆，楚国也；献舞，蔡侯名；以献舞归，即是蔡侯为楚国俘获而去。孔子云：“何不言获，不与夷狄之获中国也。”孔子认为楚国乃夷狄之国。
　　《史记.楚世家》：“楚成王六年（公元前671年），楚使人献周惠王，惠王曰：“镇尔南方夷越之乱，无侵中国。”周王室亦认为楚国乃夷也。
　　楚成王十六年（公元656年），楚与齐盟于召陵，《春秋公羊传》云：“楚有王则后服，无王则先叛，夷狄也，而亟病中国。”
　　楚成王十六年（公元前639年）秋，《春秋公羊传注疏》云：“宋公，楚子，陈侯，蔡侯，郑伯，许男，曹伯会于霍。宋公与楚子期以乘车之会，宋公子目夷谏曰：‘楚，夷国也，强而无义，请君以兵车会往。”
　　《国语》云：“楚大夫王孙圉聘于晋有言‘楚虽蛮夷，不能宝也。’”
　　从这些史料记载可以看出在春秋时期，不仅诸夏国家把楚国当成蛮夷，不属于华夏族之列，楚国的君主和大臣也都把自己当成是蛮夷。之所以出现这样的民族认同，主要是因为楚国的国土在蛮夷之地，楚国即使原来在血统上是华夏族血统，但是因为封国于荆蛮之地，僻居于南方，与当地的“南蛮”“荆蛮”民族有教多的接触，其国四周均是蛮夷之人，其统治的国民也多是蛮夷之人，在这种的地理大环境下，语言，文化，礼仪制度，习俗等各个方面深受当地的蛮夷之俗所影响，慢慢地同化于当地的蛮夷。
　　3，春秋末期开始，楚国的民族认同开始发生变化，掀开了由“夷”变成“华”的过程，这个时期，关于楚国的族属记载的史料有楚庄王时，楚大夫曰：“若民烦，可教训，蛮夷戎狄其不宾也久，中国所不能用也。”楚国开始把自己和蛮夷戎狄区别开来。
　　《韩诗外传》云：“越王勾践使廉稽献民于荆（楚），荆使者曰：‘越夷狄之国也，臣请欺其使’。”
　　从上面的记载可以看出，这个时候的楚国已把自己当成中国之人，认为自己是华夏族，开始把自己和蛮夷区别开来。到了战国时期，记载楚国自己认为是中国之民，属于华夏族的记载就更多了，在此不一一列举。之所以有有这样的一种民族认同上的改变，原因主要是因为这个时候各国之间的战争不断，国与国之间的交流和了解也在不断地深化，楚国通过战争的方式兼并了淮水流域的众多的诸夏国家，和诸夏的文化的交流也就随之扩大，特别是从楚庄王北上和中原诸夏国家争夺霸权，华夏的各种文化礼仪开始大量地影响楚国原有的蛮夷文化，楚国的民族认同也就开始了由“夷”转变为“华”的过程了。直到最终认为完全华夏化。

　　从楚国的由“华”变成“夷”，再由“夷”变成“华”，我们可以认识到，民族的认同是一个变动的过程，决定民族属性的本质东西是文化，不是血统。不同血统的民族，可以通过文化因素同化融合为一个民族，同一个血统的民族也会因为文化的不同而分化成不同的民族。民族的同化融合，变迁分化受到文化的决定性的影响。民族的根本性和认同主要决定因素是文化。

　　综上所述，“华夷之辩”其实就是“居夏则为夏，居楚则为楚，居越则为越。是非天性，乃积糜使然也。”这个就是“华夷之辩”。

终稿于：2003/3/15

[urofpersia]

TaiE,

as have been pointed out before, please do not post Chinese articles without a translation. If you are unable to do so, as a courtesy to forummers here, please do not post it.

You are now doing the same thing that Somechineseperson is doing which is posting an article verbatim from another site. (Is this how mainland Chinese use forums?)

If you really feel the article is of interest to the discussion at hand, you need merely post a link to it. it would serve its purpose just as well.

[snowybeagle]

Yun, on Feb 2 2006, 10:19 PM, said:

However, because I am a historian and currently working on a thesis about ethnic relations and inter-ethnic cultural interaction during the Age of Fragmentation, I found it interesting to pursue the issue further. It is indeed a very pressing issue in current Chinese historiography, which is still labouring under the outdated sinocentric stereotype that China simply overcame foreign conquerers by 'sinicizing' them with its attractive and superior culture. Sorry if the thread is worrying to you.

I have no issue approaching the subject from this angle.

However, the principal material with which this thread is based on is the article written by zhao which have a rather dubious status in CHF (it was posted here without his permission and got misrepresented).

As I explained, it probably was not meant for CHF as it dealt with personal conflict between the author and some other members in another forum, which he used as a basis for his Big-Han-Ideology.

In that light, I do not see that the article has a place in CHF, not even as a seed of discussion.

Some of the claims made like those you quoted for the purpose of this thread simply do not stand up in the light of historical facts.

Another thing: would the title "Did Han Chinese practice racism" be better for this thread rather than the assertive "The Han Chinese never practiced racism"?

The latter conjured a rather misleading intent of the post.

Yun, on Feb 2 2006, 10:19 PM, said:

Jin Ridi, a Xiongnu minister serving the Han court, was not passed over for the regency. He declined a joint regency with Huo Guang and requested that Huo Guang alone be regent, out of humility. He is actually often cited as an example of Chinese openness to foreigners in government.

I am not denying that 金日磾 was humble, but “臣外国人，且使匈奴轻汉” was recorded in history.
If he had not been a XiongNu, he might well have accepted. I was wrong to say he was passed over, but I think I was right to think his XiongNu background had to do with him not being regent.

To cite him as an example as Chinese openess to foreigners is misleading because he abandoned his XiongNu culture and wholly immersed himself among the central Chinese culture.

[urofpersia]

somechineseperson, on Feb 2 2006, 10:37 PM, said:

"The difference is that rather than advocating genocide, the Han usually tried to either promote the 'civilizing' of 'barbarians' with Confucian values and customs"

Still much better than genocide, no?

While for a Christian genocide and racially discriminating against other peoples is clearly evil, "cultural discrimination" is not necessarily so. Some cultures (I mean cultural values not the people themselves) are better and closer to the Truth than others, sorry if this sounds bad in the current intellectual climate that favors relativism. Jesus said I come as a testimony to the Truth therefore we should accept the Truth elements in all cultures. It's just that some have more Truth in them than others do. IMHO Confucianism and certain other Chinese schools of thought have a lot of truth in them, as well as many of the ancient Greek philosophical schools.

Which is still discrimination and chauvnistic. Consider that the Han ethnicity is by and large define by a shared culture and cultural heritage. You are basically saying Han culture is superior to some others. Thus you should not be surprised if someone labels you a Han Chauvinist.

I find statements such as this disingenious. Consider how many peoples and ethnicities today are defined by their culture. Would you go up to a Mongol and tell them," I have nothing against the Mongol people of course, however your culture is inferior to Han culture"?

May I ask how is this thinking different from some Japanese who believe their culture is superior to Han culture? Nothing against the people of course, you understand.

This is just like racism except replace skin-colour with culture.