Poll: Are Mongols Chinese?

***??!!

This is SUCH a rhetorical question... haha. I don't think there's a right or wrong answer to this question at all.

Are Chinese Americans?

By nationality today, I believe only inner mongolian are chinese..

Technically speaking nowadays being Chinese means to politically part of what is now considered China. But people associate with being ethnically Han Chinese.

Is this a rhetorical question?

This is an intelligence question.

Well in that case, Inner Mongolians are but Outer Mongolians are not.

It all depends on your definition of Chinese are you talking defining it from a political point of view, ethnic point of view, cultural, etc....

There is really only one right answer to this: Mongols (those who are citizens in the PRC) are as Chinese as Hans, Tibetans, and the other 53 ethnic groups. While some might disagree, but that does not change the underlying fact and the realty under the PRC.

I think this whole question needs to be more defined as to where and when.

Pax Americana wrote:



Within the context of the present boundary lines of China he is correct.

But we have a sticky question beneath the surface. Do they really think of themselves as Chinese?

Do the Tibetans?
The Taiwanese think of themselves as Chinese, but are not part of mainland China, are they Chinese?

Since these are subjects that we are not supposed to discuss here on the forum, I am not inviting or suggesting that we do so.
But am using these as examples of how without a bit more explanation pinpointing the context of the question and poll, we can not really give a proper answer.

JiG wrote:


Historically, how is this question to be answered?

Are you referring to all the many clans /tribes/ ethnic groups of nomadic peoples?

Are there not whole Chinese Dynasties that were ruled by a Mongolian clan?

Did they concider themselves Chinese then? Do they now?

Do the Outer Mongolian peoples think of themselves historically as Chinese?

Historically or not it makes no difference. What people consider as being Chinese depends on from what facet they are defining the definition, regardless of time period.

Yes there were Chinese dynasties ruled by Mongolians that considered themselves Chinese. But of course they were defining this from a political and/or cultural aspect not an ethnic.

However defining being Chinese by aspects such culture is a little more subjective than aspects such as ethnicity.

Yes Jig, I understand all of that.
All you did is rephrase my questions ,perhaps better then I did, but that still does not answer my question about the poll.

In what context are we supposed to come from to answer it.
If everyone is coming from their own stand point , the poll does not show anything.

Are we answering this from:
1] an ethnic point of view
2] a historic point of view
3] a current point of view
4] or some other combination of the above.

I think that the answer depends upon a person's self-identification.

I am Irish. I am American. But, I live in the United States and have never been to Ireland.

No Mongols are not Chinese I believe. They are Mongolians. I think I learned somewhere that Manchurians last dynasty of China, were half Chinese in a certain sort of way.

very debatable question yah?!

Exactly thats what I've been trying to get at.

Yes while some might disagree (and they have the right to), but that does not change the underlying fact and the realty under the PRC that the official definition of Chinese citizens includes a number of ethnic groups. In every ethnic group, there’ll always be some who seeks a different identity (not only in China), but at this point it really doesn’t matter in terms of the official and recognized definition of Chinese. For example, when Mengke Bateer played in the NBA, he is ethnic Mongol but his citizenship is Chinese. While one can argue about self determination, but that is premature considering there is not even democracy in the mainland. As for historically, one can argue that it is meaningless since the specific term "Chinese" didn’t exists prior to the late Qing dynasty.

This one is THE POINT here is. Outer and Inner Mongolians didn't argue on being part of Daicing gurun (Qing dynasty), from where the term Chinese was developed. But they didn't allow on the China state, with supra ethnic group Hanzuren, since they always played minority role when Mongols, Manchus, and Han were together. Inner Mongolians would like to be identified as Southern Mongolians or Mongolians rather than Chinese.

Add the edic and emic point of view in there and you'll get tons of different answers. Again, there isn't technically ONE right answer imo. An Inner Mongolian may hold PRC passport but identify more with his ethnicity than his nationality altogether. Or not.Haha that's another issue. Ovor Mongol = South Mongol, not Inner Mongol. Ovor does not mean Inner.

Amar taivan uu, Suren!
I am preparing a so-called Atlas Mongolica East, which is a map showing province and prefecture-level units of Mongolia, Inner Mongolia, and Buryatia. I am preparing it in Latin Mongolian so I'd be delighted if you help me on the original Mongolian names and county-level classification of Inner Mongolian units.

As far as I remember, Sun Yat-Sen said a interesting (also funny) thing: "Mongols just forget that they are chinese".
(Can't find a link to a quotation about that, sorry)

Like I said, this really depends on the person. Ethnic Mongolians from Outer Mongolia obviously have no reason to call themselves Chinese due to the fact that they're an independent nation. Inner Mongolians are technically Chinese citizens whether they like it or not. Culturally? It all depends on the individual and how assimilated they are.

Here's an interesting POV from a western scholar regarding the Mongols particularly Kublai:

http://books.google.com/books?id=bJVCAAAAC...p;ie=ISO-8859-1

The author is John Man and the book is titled Kublai Khan: From Xanadu to Superpower. According to his preface:

"The authoritative biography of the great Mongol ruler, by the author of Genghis Khan and Attila. "In Xanadu did Kubla KhanA stately pleasure dome decree" Kublai Khan lives on in the popular imagination thanks to these two lines of poetry by Coleridge. But the true story behind this legend is even more fantastic than the poem would have us believe. Kublai Khan inherited the second largest land empire in history from his grandfather, Genghis Khan, and which he extended further, creating the biggest empire the world has ever seen; from China to Iraq, from Siberia to Afghanistan. His personal domain covered sixty-percent of all Asia, and one-fifth of the world’ s land area. The West first learnt of this great Khan through the reports of Marco Polo. Kublai had not been born to rule, but had clawed his way to leadership, achieving power only in his 40s. He inherited Genghis Khan’ s great dream of world domination but unlike his grandfather he saw China and not Mongolia as the key to controlling power, and turned Genghis’ s unwieldy empire into a federation. Using China’ s great wealth, coupled with his shrewd and subtle governance, he created an empire that was the greatest since the fall of Rome, and shaped the modern world as we know it today. He gave China its modern-day borders and his legacy is that country’ s resurgence, and the superpower China of tomorrow. "

That last line is definitely an interesting and controversial viewpoint.

Maybe the author is right here. Maybe Mongols themselves created this "Chinese" identity by uniting China as today's and merging earlier Jurchens and Khitans to as Hyatad (Han or Chinese). But during Ming, both Outer and Inner Mongolians were separate from the Han. "Chin(a)" must have developed under Qing, while the base was constructed under Yuan.

Anthropologically, the Mongols are suppossed to be part of the Chinese line, but Mongols have refused to be Chinese and that was more evident during the Yuan dynasty when China was under the Mongols. Under the Yuan, Chinese scholars and officials were excluded from holding any public office all civil service were staffed with none Chinese.

Ironically most of those non-chinese administrators were Muslims and assimilated to become the Hui today.

Certainly. Remind me! I will look for some maps and names for you

Suren,

The map is now in progress and you can look at it from the link below. Register to the forum and contribute on it! Thank you very much!

http://bulgem.com/community/forums/p/111/190.aspx#190

Here is a good article:


http://www.republicanchina.org/Mongols.html

Another way to look at it is that what we called China or Chinese today, was basically a geography consisted of various ethnic groups with imperial empire ruled by dynasties and sometimes multiple dynasties or kingdoms existed simultaneously. It’s not uncommon for people to identify themselves more on a regional basis. Whether what their respective preference is more of a debate than the actual recognized definition. The realty at the moment is that regardless of Mongols, Hans, Manchus, etc, as long as they are citizens of the PRC they’re officially considered Chinese.

I really wonder why some are voting the first choice "Both are Chinese".

Absolutely correct but at the same time it is too obvious and says very little.
A more proper and meaningful question would be

1. Whether Mongols think they are part of the Chinese culture thus inherently "Chinese" from the outset irrespective of historical accidents that made them one way or another

2. How the world sees 1.


The way it appears to me...
1a Mongolians of Mongolia certainly do not think they are part of China
1b Mongolians of China(Inner Mongolians) usually do not think they are nor should be part of China. But unlike case 1 there are some who think they are Chinese inherently.
2 Most people in the world with a possible exception of super- China-friendly North Korea do not think Mongols have anything to do with China or Chinese.

Unless claims are backed by statistics, I doubt all anecdotal evidences.

LOL I work in the field of genetics and that article is a joke.

And the worst problem is that it takes data from papers totally discredited by geneticists.
For instance the paper by Fudan guys... It was published by Journal of Human Genetics based in Tokyo.
I have no idea how it even got published as it is very clear that either those guys were absolute novices in Y-chromosome research or their lab was not well supervised. Probably both.

I think you are confusing "chinese" with "mongoloid" or East Asians. Non-Chinese east asians would take great offense at your statement.

LOL. It depends on what "gave" means. He certainly had no intention of doing it as it is clear from his policy that he did not regard Chinese "his people", but just things to exploit.

Thank you for your insight but you'll have to excuse me if I'd rather read the book and trust real scholarly opinions rather than take a random netizen's opinion for it. And regardless of what his true intentions were, the modern Chinese state was able to reap the benefits from it.



That's kind of the problem right here.

The problem is you only read those whose conclusions suit your agenda.



Whether true or not then it has no relevance as to how the Mongols viewed themselves which is the topic here.
You benefited from western science greatly but it has nothing to do with with how Westerners viewed Chinese.



It is not like your opinion matters much one way or another.

You yourself should deal with tens of thousands of publications each year unequivocally condemning the Chinese neo-imperialism.

Well the answer according to the post "Are Mongols Chinese?" is really that simple and straight forward. Generally, ethnic Mongols in the country Mongolia are Mongolian citizens, while ethnic Mongols in China are Chinese citizens. There are the facts and whether one agrees or disagree with those facts are separate issues. What you suggested is debatable, which is fine, but does absolutely nothing to change the reality of Mongols who are Chinese citizens. I've a business associate in our Beijing office who is ethnic Mongol but sees herself as Chinese as any. At the same time, I'm sure there're those who don't. Now, if this post is about the various perspectives of ethnic Mongols in China than the points you made becomes debatable and I'm sure it can go either way. In addition, in terms of how the rest of the world sees it, it's absolutely irrelevant. If anything it’s the contrary. Most countries around the world recognize ethnic Mongols in China are Chinese. For example, when Mengke Bateer (ethnic Mongol) played in the NBA, his status here in the US is as Chinese as Yao Ming. Again, underlying facts and what "should or should not" (by its nature debatable) are two different issues. The bottom line is, like it or not, the CCP governs China and they'll define it anyway they want. They can even include Martians as part of Chinese (no offense to Chinese) if they wish.

If you just mean the outer Mongolians and inner Mongolians, the answers are: Yes, they were. Yes, they are.
If you include other Mongolian tribes like Buryats, Kalmyks, even Tuvans, the answers are: Maybe.

i agree with you, but they are not Han Chinese though. Even vietnamese and korean Nationals were once Chinese.

Han ,Korea ,Mongol are Mongoloid people .Chinese is a term refer to people who live in China ,it depend of Each country and people view,different people have different view, Russia who born and live in China are refer as Chinese ,in Malaysia a Chinese who become Muslim are mosty refer as Malay by the Chinese .

Some Hong Kong people are refer themself as Hong Konger ,not Chinese ,mainland Chinese are still discriminated by the Hong Kong people .

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/149194.html

I agree with what Pax Americana has posted. I have a good friend who is an ethnic Mongolian and was born in inner Mongolia. Her family has lived in Shanghai area for a few generations. She and all of her family members view themselves as Chinese first and Mongolian second.

As long as they hold Chinese Passport, of course they are chinese (in meaning of Zhongguoren, not Hànrén).
Inside PRC, ethnic Mongolians are still identified as Měnggǔrén- Mongolian (ethnically)

Here are some people, I can not say who is who, Han Chinese or Mongolian Chinese. Certainly some of them are Mongolian of China, so they expressing it through their song.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Lf5o3a8nCJw

I think it's up to Mongols to decide whether they are chinese. Afterall, it's just a "label" isn't it?

You mean Chinese as in Khyatad, or Chinese as in Dumdad Ulus?

You got the point. I mean
- China as Zhongguo - 中国 - Dumdad Ulus.
- Chinese as Zhonggouren -中国人- Dumdad UIus un irgen.

I mean Inner Mongolians are Zhongguoren which is "Dumdad Ulus un irgen" in mongolian. In english it is "citizen/man of Middle State (kingdom)". This is how official statement of PRC says. You can see it even in mongolian script on RMB.
Inside the PRC, CCP says "Zhongguoren" is as same as "Soviet man". Logically from here, PRC- "中华人民共和国" is supposed to be like USSR. This communist ideology worked very well, local communists did good job of persuading Mongols, Tibetans, Uigur to join peacefully to this brotherhood Union which of course betrayed later. young Dalai Lama, communist mongol Ulanhu and many others were promised to have "higher- degree of self-governance". That is why there was not much armed resistance against Mao. Mao of course did not keep his agreement.
I wonder, if Dalai Lama and others really had real knowledge of being "Autonomous regions regions " at that time.

As for Outer Mongolians, they already became familiar with the meaning of "Autonomous" in 1913-1919. Knowing the humilation of being "Autonomous", despite its own weakness of dependance on Russia and China, Outer Mongolians were still asserting the for full independence, even in 1920-ies, when Outer Mongolia was pressured by Soviets to give up it's Independence Claim and accept Sovereignty of China .

These Soviets- G. V. Checherin-Foreign Commissar of the Soviet Russia. A. A.Joffe- Soviet ambassador to China (1922— 1924). L M. Karakhan-Soveit ambassador to China (1924—1926) - were trying to persuade other Soviet leaders to "refuse from Mongolia".
They actively advokated for selling Independence of Mongolia to China in order to achieve World Communism in China. They have achieved their goal actually.
And they did sell Mongolia to China in May31, 1924.
Like Czarist Russia acknowlegded Sovereignty of China over Outer Mongolia in 1915, Soviet Union also acknowlegded Sovereignty of China over over Outer Mongolia in May31, 1924. But at that time China was not ready to adapt communism yet.

Did Mongolians agree with this 1924 agreement between China and Soviet Union?
No, they did not. This agreement did not have any effect on pursuit of Mongolians for full independence.
just in 1 month after this agreement, in July 1924, Outer Mongolia proclaimed its independence again 3rd time (since 1911). This time, Mongolians made sure that independent existence and political orientation of Mongolia to be more politically correct according to tendency of neighbouring Russia and China. Mongolia was proclaimed as People’s Republic of Mongolia

On May 20, 1924 Bogd Javzundamba Khutagt died. Theocratical monarchy of Mongolia was ended with his death. In connection with this, the People’s Government issued a resolution to form Mongolia as a People’s Republic, with supreme power to be vested in the State Ikh Khural (State Great Meeting). The first State Ikh Khural meeting was held on November 8, 1924 . During this meeting, the first Constitution of the People’s Republic of Mongolia was approved. The first Constitution stated that Mongolia should be renamed the People’s Republic, where all power belonged to the people. The people exercised their power through the State Ikh Khural and through the Government, it elected.
Independence and Sovereignty of Mongolia once more asserted with additional political orientation as People's State

Full wording is - Тусгаар тогтносон (Independent) , Бүрэн эрхт (Sovereign) Бүгд Найрамдах (Republic) Монгол (Mongolia) Ард (People's= Communist) Улс (State)

But this depends on whether you are speaking from the Outer Mongolian or Inner Mongolian perspective, right? For Outer Mongolians, Inner Mongolians would be Khyatadiin irgen, wouldn't they?


I always thought that this third (or fourth? one in 1911, one under Baron Ungern, one under Sükhbaatar in 1921) declaration of independence was on Nov. 26th, but maybe I was getting that wrong. In any case, I also felt that this step did not really fit with the Soviet-Chinese agreement of the year.

I think it was Joffe who asked whether 1 million stubborn people were really worth losing the chance to bring 400 million chinese under communism. One can't really accuse them of having no clue of realpoitik, can one?

I think being Chinese is more than just a label. For example, there are many Chinese-Americans who don't like Chinese culture and don't know anything about their background, but they're still Chinese by ancestry. To me, being Chinese is a personal identity, and not something as trivial as a "label." The word label just makes it seem that national or ethnic identity is unimportant, that's all.