I haven't come to this forum for a long time. It was years ago I enter here, to debate, I believe, Han and Rome. And Warhead and forget his name but his picture is the Monkey King, are all very good and knowledge people.

So as I read through many posts with many different opinions, a question came to me.

People keep on using the word Han Chinese etc etc, to justify many of their arguments. Which, really didn't make sense.

I believe I said in many posts, I dislike the term China, since it really is a stupid term. And now I think I see why there are so much discrepancy on national view. correct me if I am wrong, and knowing me, I am likely to be wrong.
So, allow me to express my view, and since I am not historian, it might be messy.

In the American Heritage Dictionary, one definition of NATION is- A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality; thus the term nationhood generally describe a group of people with common origin customs etc etc who wishes to become an independent country. Such only began during Napoleon's Conquest.
That is, before Napoleon's Conquest, people are ruled by their lords, in which the sovereign may or may not be the same as his/her subjects.The Habsberg ruled Austria and Spain, [titular HREmperor, then later AH Emperor] Nationhood often brought up memories such as, the Greeks under Ottoman rule, or the many minority demands independence from the Austrian Empire. In a sense, Napoleon began the fire called nationalism, and nationhood is an ethical and philosophical doctrine and is the starting point for the ideology of nationalism. - wiki nationhood
So it occurs to me, that when people see China as a nation, that is, they expect a people of similar origin custom history etc etc, yet they see a vast Han population, and many other minority, in which they view as strange. Thus when people wanted independence for minority group, the West would sometimes say, oh, they are under the oppression of Han Chinese.

However, the strange and odd thing is, China is a name given to 'China' by the west. I do not care to explain further where it come from or such, but surly, 'Chinese' themselves [until 1911] never call any of their kingdom China or such. But rather, it uses terms such as the Tang Dynasty, Song, etc etc, which essentially, are Empires.

Empire, under dictionary.com, one definition is a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom; another definition is a powerful and important enterprise or holding of large scope that is controlled by a single person, family, or group of associates: . China is such existance. Till 1911, China was a dynastic Empire. Unlike Byzantine, or Roman, or etc etc, Chinese dynasty, till change hand, are dynastic.

Thus, bring me back to the question of what is China. Disregarding PRC's style of government etc etc, PRC is the successor state to ROC, while ROC is the successor state to Qing, etc etc, as Qin is successor to Zhou [which really isn't a successor.] That is, unlike the western concept of nationhood, that is, self-determination for sovereignty and such, Chinese nationhood though began as getting rid of Manchu [which, oddly enough, still were called Yi even though they clearly study the classics and such] it never declare nationhood for Han. Rather, it was for Han, Man, Meng, Hui, Cang. That is, Han Chinese, Manchurian, Mongolian, Muslim [I am at a lost to how to translate. Someone can help. Certainly I do not mean all Muslim, but Chinese Muslim, some people call them Turks, I am uncertain], and Tibetans. This isn't some slogan by PRC, but rather ROC. So it really makes no sense to say, ah, these lands belong to such-and-such, and these lands, well, Han took it from such-and-such, and we should all give it back to them. Since even today, PRC is more of an Imperial Republic, that is, it is not controlled by a single family or a group of families, yet it also isn't the embodiment of a single cultural group.

I don't think I am making sense, but I hope I express my question clearly, which I fear I did not. So if anyone can help out.... really, please help.


I cannot put a space before the paragraphs, for some reason. So it looks all ugly. How come?

We could put it this way:

'China' as we know it today is not a nation-state; it is a post-imperial state. The European and Ottoman empires, which were multi-ethnic, disintegrated into smaller nation-states in the 19th and 20th centuries, with each nation-state dominated by a majority ethnic group that saw itself as the 'nation'. This did not happen to the Qing Empire. Although Sun Yat-sen's original aim was to establish a purely 'Han' nation-state, after 1911 he realized that a Republic of China that allowed the Tibetans, Mongols, Manchus, and Muslims (including Uyghurs) to all become independent would be much weaker than it already was. Thus the ROC government instead came up with the concept of the Republic of Five Nations - although it was the hope of Sun and other KMT theorists that the four other 'nations' would gradually be assimilated by the Han nation and lose their separate identity.

Fast forward to the PRC, and we have the creation (on a largely Soviet model) of the unwieldy concept of a unified multi-ethnic nation (minzu) made up of 56 component 'nationalities' (also called minzu). This concept has never found complete acceptance in Europe and America, hence the habitual tendency of scholars in these regions to refer exclusively to the Han as the 'Chinese', or to say 'Han Chinese' but not use equivalents like 'Manchu Chinese' or 'Tibetan Chinese'. Yet such a concept should not be all that unfamiliar to citizens of the USA or France, few of whom would reserve the label 'American' or 'French' only to 'white' citizens simply because the whites have been politically and socially dominant and constitute a majority of the population.

On the question of oppression of ethnic minorities, I would say that since the end of the Cultural Revolution there has been relatively little of it in China. In most provinces the worst that it can get is just that some 'Han' individuals assume an air of cultural superiority over the minorities, or choose to interpret or write history (usually on the internet) in a way that presents China as a Han nation-state and the minorities as barbarians, or invaders, or both.

There is, however, a worry on the part of the government that the multi-ethnic nation (or even multi-national nation) concept will ultimately fail in Tibet and Xinjiang because of the relatively late incorporation of these regions into a 'Chinese' empire and because of the persistence of separatist sentiments among sections of the population. Hence there is some suppression of cultural aspects that they see as potential bases for ethnic separatism - especially in terms of religion and language - and an effort to increase ethnic diversity in these regions through encouraging Han immigration. These measures are of course resented locally, and condemned as 'cultural genocide' by rather politically naive observers in other countries. What these observers do not usually recognize is that Tibetan and Uyghur culture are simultaneously being emphasized in the Chinese official media as integral components of Chinese culture, rather than slated for extinction. I have never seen Chinese culture being similarly emphasized in the US media, despite the large number of Chinese-American citizens in the USA.

Th so-called national awakening is a quite recent thing, mainly developed after the great wars. Most of the time, the nationalism is rather a political progaganda than a logic sense. The concept of "nation" is an ever evolving idea, there is no fixed definition. I am sure this Indo-European word mean far different from its original meaning in any Indo-European language today. Surprisingly, there is no proper translation in Chinese for this word, and a transliteration would be definitely misleading. Chinese use Minzu as an equivalent term. However, Minzu is combined with two words: min (people) and zu (tribes). Obviously, the ideology behind it is very different; min is the common as people, zu is the different as tribes. When Chinese use the word minzu (nation), it has already contain both the commonality and differentiality. Chinese philosophy is to pursue the common keep the different.


I like the term China, and it's neither a stupid term. It is a common sense that many nations are named by foreigns, like Wales, Germany, India, etc, some may have their own names, some may not.


I am sure if Bonaparte lived today, he will notice his nationhood definition is pathetic in France today. Vavavoom even works better than that.


China's own name Zhongguo like China had never be used by any Chinese dynasties. This conceived idea reflects the Chinese view of the world - a sinocentrism. It is better to keep this as an ideology rather than put a label on the face.


In a "democratic" sense, the best way is to let every one have its say, and then count the heads.

Hum. When I am talking about nation, I am not addressing to how eastern Asians view themselves. In fact, I believe I stated where I was coming from, that nationhood that western Civilizations used to describe the effect of Napoleon Wars. So, certainly many people have many definition, but I was only addressing one.
Then again, minzu really is something strange. Perhaps its something like XX部 in ancient time, though many minzu have many bu, so, minzu I dare say is pretty new. Though I am certain definitely doesn't imply nation. It is an ethnicity, so when China is said to have 56 ethnicity, in Chinese, we say 56 minzu; we are not saying 56 nations
And how is minzu anything about commonality? By def, one minzu is a singularity, which you can say common, how does many minzu implies common?



Certainly you have the right to opinion, and I won't disagree with you.

However, many nations are named by foreigners does not imply it is a good name, or a fitting name.

Byzantines would hate to be called anything but Roman; though if you call them Greek, they might not object too much.
And like the Roman Empire, we are not some tribes explorer stumbles into. We have a system which, works for us, and have name for ourselves, and like the Romans, we dislike been NAMED again. Especially not after something that is not even our most prized trade goods. I mean, Empire of Silk sounds better then China. Of course, if we were to be named Silka or something, I would object and say I prefer China better then Silka.



I agree with you. I never said Bonaparte's idea of nationhood, I simply use the common notion that, with Napoleon Wars, nationalism rise in Europe, and thus the idea of nationhood.




I don't see your point. What is wrong with Zhong Guo? Unlike nationalism and other strange ideas, the concept of 中国/天朝, thus our civilization, is not based on bloodline, but whether you are civilized or not. If a Hua enters barbarian land, and lost civilized way, then he cease to b a Hua; if a Man-Yi enters China, but follows civilized way, he is treated as Hua. Certainly I do not say that, Man-Yi would ever be place equal [I DO NOT advocate this system. But it is more tangible then the minzu stuff.] to Hua, however, in the Battle of 泌, Chun-Qiu recognize and praise the effort of Chu, which was then seen as Man-Yi, and criticize the HuaXia's Jin. It doesn't defend blood, nor does it blindly belittle. It is simply a show of self-recognition. We look at ourselves, and look at the rest of the world around us; I mean, did you really think Hua would consider any nomads who took their brothers' wives after their death as a equal in culture?

It meant our 'nationhood' isn't based on silly bloodline of minzu, or whatever European define 'nationhood', but rather, a recognition of Civilization. If you are uncivilized, it doesn't matter you can trace your lineage back to the Yellow Emperor, or the Sage Kings, or even Confucius himself, you are a barbarian. In fact, you are worse then a barbarian; as barbarian were never presented with culture, yet you decide to turn away from culture.

If I were to pick to choose between two things. First being proud of myself because I know what is right and wrong and am willing to do the right thing even on the pain of death. Second being because of I am proud of the uncontrolled choice called birth, that place me into this race and that I gain glory somehow through an ancestor who is so distant that, unless he is famous he isn't worth mentioning. Why, sir, I would pick the sinocentric view of the world. I have cultivate and thus am different is far better than I am a heir to the dragon [which I read in some post are in fact really new terms!] thus I am proud because of my ancestors.



That is the democratic way, no need for quotes.

Your 'culturalist' point of view is derived from the Gongyang 公羊 school of Chunqiu interpretation, which was dominant in the Western Han, was revived in the Qing, and is also popular in the PRC today. However, there is an opposing 'bloodline-based' or 'racialist' interpretation that derives from certain lines in the Zuozhuan, especially 非我族類，其心必異 ('if they are not of our kind, their hearts/minds must be different from ours') - never mind that 族類 in the original Zuozhuan context was about kinship between ruling clans, rather than ethnic differences.

A common view that developed out of 非我族類，其心必異 by Wei-Jin times was that the barbarians were human beings with the hearts of beasts (人面獸心), and therefore incapable of human virtues like loyalty and benevolence (at most they could only pretend to have such virtues). The 非我族類 interpretation was popular in most periods of post-Han history, especially with those who disputed the right of 'barbarians' to be rulers of Zhongguo no matter how 'civilized' they became.

So, while it may be very gratifying to think that the ancient Hua open-mindedly accepted as Hua any barbarian who adopted civilized ways, the reality was often different. The late-Tang anti-Buddhist writer Han Yu 韓愈 and his 《原道》are often quoted today as a classical expression of the 'culturalist' ideal, but as the racialist early-Republican scholar Zhang Taiyan 章太炎 pointed out, this is based on a misreading of what Han Yu meant and intended. Han's words were:
孔子之作《春秋》也，諸侯用夷禮則夷之，進于中國則中國之。

In other words, 諸侯用中國禮則中國之, 不用中國禮則夷之, but there is no suggestion that 夷狄用中國禮則中國之 or 夷狄進于中國則中國之. To Han Yu, the Hua could become uncivilized or barbaric (and to him, this could result from practicing the barbarian religion of Buddhism), but there was no equivalent process by which barbarians became civilized or even became Hua. In fact he would have opposed such an idea, since it might imply that Buddhism, a barbarian religion, could also become civilized by adopting aspects of the Confucian rites.

More interesting, but much less known even in China, are two essays from the 850-900 (also late Tang) period, by Chen An and Cheng Yan. Marc Abramson's recent book Ethnic Identity in Tang China analyzes them in the final chapter. Chen's essay was entitled 《華心》, while Cheng's was 《内夷檄》. Both men argued that there could be Hua people with Yi hearts, and also Yi people with Hua hearts, depending on their level of conformity to Confucian virtues. However, we know too little about Chen An and Cheng Yan to tell if their essays reflected the mainstream of ethnic discourse in the late Tang (in which case Han Yu's essay would not), or were merely minority views. In any case, the dynamic of ethnic identity changed again during and after the Five Dynasties, when a powerful 'barbarian' state ruled by the Khitan came onto the scene with a claim to equality with Zhongguo. Song literati were much less willing to accept the possibility of Yi people with Hua hearts.

You are correct, and I also stated in my words, 'by no means does that implies Man-Yi would ever be place equal [I DO NOT advocate this system. But it is more tangible then the minzu stuff.] to Hua, however, in the Battle of 泌, Chun-Qiu recognize and praise the effort of Chu, which was then seen as Man-Yi, and criticize the HuaXia's Jin.'

I must say first, that I am not in PRC, I am in America. My education of Chinese History are mostly from University Classes and reading classics. Thus, I am bond to make mistakes that many who receive a Chinese education will not make.

However, I also believe [and I am uncertain whether this is a main-stream view, from your words, it is not] that Chu was treated as Man-Yi prior to the battle of 泌, but after which it became one of the core of Hua. I agree with you in that 夷狄用中國禮則中國之was never stated anywhere, at the same time, Chu's transformed from being barbarian to civilized man lead me to believe, that were barbarian to abandon their custom, with enough recognition, they could be treated as Hua.
I realize many of us disagree with Wiki, however I still like to use a line.

楚国由周成王封熊绎于楚地开始，居楚地丹阳（今湖北秭归，有争议），从一个“蛮夷”附庸小国逐渐变成春秋战国时代的一个强国，不仅有地千里，也发展出可与中原比拟的高度文化。
Chu began when King Cheng of Zhou gave Xiong ? the land of Chu, in Dang yang, and it transform from a small Man-Yi to a strong country of the the Spring and Autumn time. Not only did it retain land thousands of li, it also have culture equal to those of Zhong Yuan.

So there is a civilized option for barbarians, is there not? [for example, would anyone ever call Queen DuGu a barbarian? Yet DuGu is one of XianPei clan. Now, of course there will exist people who think she is barbarian (I just want to cover my a**) but xenophobic isn't any nation's specialty. Everyone got some in them. So, it is unfair to say that while some disagree that barbarian can become civilized implies that most Confucian thinks such. --- But I can imagine how wrong I am.... - - - -]

I do not see how your other philosophers would matter to my opinion, since before this day, I never heard of them, and their philosophy should play no role in what I believed.

Again, this is my concept of what an IDEAL Hua is. That does not mean that Gong Yang were not racists, though I really don't see how much more racist they were compare to other Confucian school. I simply think it is a lot more aggressive then the rest of the schools. At the same time, my point is I like the concept that I am Hua through cultivation, thus my own effort, rather then the concept that I am Chinese, through my bloodline I claim heritage to such and such.

That is all I meant.

That is indeed quite close to the traditional view, although not everyone thinks the Battle of 泌 was as important in changing Zhou perceptions of Chu as the Gongyang school of Western Han times thought it was (when we read the Gongyang commentary we must remember that we are reading Western Han views, not Eastern Zhou views). More scholars assume it was a gradual process in which the Chu aristocracy became more like the Zhou aristocracy in terms of language, culture, and values.

However, an Israeli historian named Yuri Pines (and I have been very impressed with his work so far) has more recently argued that the change in perceptions of Chu happened the other way round. In other words, Chu was seen as being part of the Zhou cultural world in the early Eastern Zhou period, but was later on condemned as barbaric by other Zhou states for ideological reasons. Indeed, Chu culture became more different from Zhou culture with time, and not more similar. Pines also argues that the same happened to Qin.

Either way, whether it is the Gong Yang, or better, the Yuri Pines' view, there are possible conversion between Yi and Hua; thus, a point which I want to make.

Although I never thought of it in form of Chu was striped of its Hua, then restored. Interesting.

I have another question.

When Song communicated with the Roman Empire, or perhaps its the Sultan of Rum, [don't care, either way is fine] and with enough understanding, will SCHOLARS treat these civilizations that have as much marvel as ours, as Civilized? Or, are Confucian ideals implies that only through Confucian ideals can one become civilized. [Which then, send one to question, if it is so, does that mean Confucius look down on Taoist scholars, and think of them as uncivilized?]

The Han dynasty who communicated, to an extent, with the Roman empire spoke very highly of it.

You may get some additional info on this thread: http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=21475

Anthrophobia is correct. The Eastern (or second) Han Empire had a rather idealized impression of the Roman Empire (Daqin 大秦) as a state in which the ruler would voluntarily step down during a crisis (assuming he failed in resolving it) and let the nobles select a more worthy candidate for the throne - i.e., a state free of dynastic politics and preserving the 'rule of the most virtuous' principle associated with the era of the sage-kings in Confucian thought.

It was also thought that the Romans believed themselves to have originally migrated from Zhongguo (north China), and had tried sending diplomatic missions to the Han Empire but were prevented by the Parthians.