From what I understand, the 'chinese people' can be defined according to the following:

1. Legal perspective (Nationality of PRC or ROC)

2. Zhonghua Minzu (Supra-Chinese National Ethnic Groups) - including various ethnicities in China (mainland chinese) and overseas chinese

3. Ancestry from China or Genealogy roots from China (blood)

4. Ancient People/Ethnicities who have lived in China or influenced chinese history (stems from historical perspective such as Qiang, Xiongnu, Xianbei, Khitan, Jurchen who have ruled China with a dynasty period)

I've gathered it from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_people

I think, if anyone is classifed as any of the above, he/she can be considered a chinese. This probably can help avoid certain controversy.

But I think certain historians in the west might not agree with no.4 (ancient people/ethnicities in China) largely because certain ethnicities such as Xiongnu might not be associated with the han-culture, despite the fact that Xiongnu had founded certain kingdom in China during Age of Fragmentation period. Again, I feel this is felling prey to the han-centric notion of defining chinese history. There is no doubt that chinese history was defined according to the continuation of huaxia civilization, and han culture and people formed the core of chinese civilization with roots from huaxia people. But today, chinese ethnology and people had become so complex that I think it requires the above 4 categorization to help define it.

If you have any comments, please feel free to input it here.

What do you think of the above?

So anyone can call themselves Chinese? I think for all practical purposes, we need a definition of what it means to be Chinese (more than simply holding a PRC/ROC passport).

Don't you think that we need to take into account the fact that the Han ethnicity forms the majority and backbone of the population and representation of China? I don't think we can ignore this. At the same time, I don't want to say that only Han are Chinese... for example if we were to ask Koksengya (Koxinga) if the Manchu were Chinese, he would say no, but if you were to ask Zhang Xun, I think he would say yes.

If we reduce being Chinese to anything, than we can no longer talk about Chinese culture, history, language, because the term "Chinese" wouldn't mean very much at all.

Your comments concerns very much of a 'chinese identity'. Don't misunderstand me. Any culture associated with China are considered chinese culture. Very often, in the west, han-chinese are quickly associated with the chinese, but not many people will realize that there are about 100 million ethnic minorities nationalities in China whose culture are also part of the chinese culture. Some people may not even consider them as 'chinese', which can be a problem here. I guess, the long term association of chinese culture with han-culture or han people ONLY has formed a stereotype here. I have thus advocated a more broad-based definition of chinese people.

I think the definition of chinese people at Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_people makes much sense:



Thus, chinese can be defined according to:

1. Legal perspective (Nationality of PRC or ROC)

2. Zhonghua Minzu (Supra-China National Ethnic Groups) - including mainland chinese and overseas chinese

3. Ancestry from China or Genealogy roots from China (blood)

4. Ancient People that have lived in China or influenced chinese history (stems from historical perspective such as Xiongnu, Xianbei, Khitan, Jurchen, Qiang who have ruled China with a dynasty)

Earlier posts say that being chinese idoesn't have anything to do with blood, but I have always considered myself part Chinese on the basis of my blood ancestry. That is the only problem I have with some of the definitions being thrown around on this topic.

Then your categorization of defining chinese is according to no. 3 (ancestry or genealogy roots from China), which I've listed above.

What would you categorize yourself as?

No. 1 (Legal Perspective) and No. 3 (Ancestry/Genealogy root/Blood from China)

No.1 because I still hold Taiwan ROC citizenship, therefore I can consider myself having a "Chinese nationality", although I would still tell others that I'm a Taiwanese in order to avoid the notion of being mistaken from PRC.

No.3 because my ancestry roots originated from Fujian and Taiwan (both are considered part of China). My ancestors were originally from Huian county in Fujian before migrating to Taiwan. There were 5 generations in Taiwan.

Culturally, I consider myself made up of Taiwanese, Chinese, local Singaporean, Western (European) Culture. I often tell alot of people that I'm half Taiwanese and half Singaporean.

The notion of defining chinese national according to 'genealogy (blood) origin' was abandoned by PRC in 1979 (if I recall correctly). Previously, overseas chinese with ancestry/blood origin from China were able to obtain Chinese nationality besides the nationality of the local country where they are living in. But in 1979, this grant of citizenship was abandoned, because many countries in South East Asia had already become independent from their European colonial master. If chinese citizenship continued to be granted, it would raise the question of whether China has imperialistic intent on South East Asia. To avoid this trouble, China abandoned calling the overseas chinese 'subjects of China' and dropped the idea of basing nationality on 'blood origin'.

However, the definition of 'ancestry/genealogy' (blood) helps to create a sense of chinese identity esp. among overseas chinese who were eager to find their lineage and connection with China.

It seems we could group (3) and (4) as subgroups under (2)?

I am reading my way through pre-Modern world literature including of course Chinese and in parallel reading my way through world art history, currently and somewhat coincidentally focused on China, Buddhist art, Korea, Southeast Asia. I am fortunate to live in New York City, home to many museums. Two of the finest collections of Chinese, etc art to be found outside China are at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum of Art. What struck me about Chinese art and literature was the interplay between Han and non-Han peoples, because of this I feel Chinese culture is much larger than a definition based on Han allows. Regarding "blood" we are all descended from common ancestors in Africa and while there are racial differences the history of human migrations, trade, wars, etc makes any genetically pure match to an ideal stereotype (how would one even be picked) very unlikely. As an outsider then I think the cultural definition is the broadest one.

What about people like Carma Hinton, my white lady professor at George Mason who was born and raised in China, spoke Mandarin as her first language (along with English), came to the United States as a foreigner, and retains her mainland Chinese mannerisms?

Btw, she's coming to speak in my class I have for Mr. Chang tomorrow about the 80s democracy movement. I can't wait!

Eric (En Rui)

In a national sense she's Chinese, but not in any ethnic or racial sense.

I agree.

Here is what I have posted in the other thread regarding my view about who should be considered as Chinese: http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...14436&st=60



polar_zen, you don't need to think my type of definition would make the meaning of "being a Chinese" devalued because only when China and Chinese culture become great, there will be a lot of people who are NOT Chinese descend wanting to become Chinese. I want China and Chinese culture to be like when we were in Tang and Han and Song dynasty (NOT militarily, but culturally) that many people will come from other nations and ethnic groups and declare that they are Chinese by choice (and NOT by military conquest)! U.S. had been like that, but it is getting worse and worse now.

I guess, if she holds a chinese nationality (legal perspective), she can call herself a chinese (well, in fact a 'white-chinese' in the same way as how americans are defined).
But she certainly is not a han-chinese.

If she doesn't hold a chinese nationality, then it's up to herself to think whether she's a chinese, considering the fact that she was originally an "american" (or white) but have grown up in China and thus have been quite "sinificized" or chinasified (assimilated), in the same way as what alot of Asians in America who were americanized (or westernized). I guess, it's a matter of personal identity. She can even say she's a "chinese of american origin" or 'chinese of european origin' (even further).

Ultimately, it's up to her to decide her own personal identity and how she see herself.

So, according to this definition, are Tuvans Chinese, since they belonged to the Qing Empire?

If the Tuvans that you were refering to are the same as 图瓦人 who live in the Altai regions of ET then yes. The ones who live in ET are Chinese national and therefore China Ren of Tuvan descent. The Tuvans who live in Tuva Republic will have to be Russian of Tuvan descent.

I met some Tuvans while travelling in Altai. Because their official numbers were very small in the areas of ET, I think less than 5000 they have not had any official classification into a separate ethnic group in China. There is confusion that they have been grouped into a branch of the Mongol ethnic group but their language has been calssified by linguists as Turkic.

I thought they were part of the Mongol Empire, and also served the Ming Dynasty?

Mongol Empire is not Chinese. Why'd you people try to make everything Chinese? Are you KMT?

IMO only the Yuan Dynasty can be considered Chinese, not the whole Mongol Empire.

Good points made.

Even during Yuan Dynasty, the realm that it had jurisdiction over did not really include much of ET or the areas that are today the Tuvan Republic in Russia. I think these areas were under the Chagatai Khanate. I may be wrong in that but Yuan only had limited control up to around the Lop Nur arid region of ET.

During the Ming, I can't see any interaction between the imperial dynasty in China with the Tuvans.

During Qing, some areas of the today's Tuvan Republic did come into the picture through proxy alignments with the Mongolian tribes. When the Qing collapsed, most of these areas broke away and ended up either in the Republic of Mongolia or Russia. Some Tuvans had settled in ET which is just across the border for hundreds of years.

I made a mistake about there are 5000 Tuvans in ET, It should have been 500.

A different approach here.

That once an specific area was a part of a Chinese dynasty doesn't mean that the area and the people are thought to be Chinese. If it is like this Iran, Russia, India, China and respectively Persians, Russians, Hindus, Han people and many others would be claimed Mongolian, since these were once subject to the Mongol Empire.

Being Chinese here means being Zhongguoren. Thus, Chinese today are those Russian, Tuvan and many others who reside in the PRC. All the nationalities in the PRC share the Zhongguoren identity and all are brothers, and others are separate nations and nationalities. We must understand that many may think being Chinese means ethnic group closely related or tied to the Hanzuren.

Well said. Completely agree with your view.

Well, I would say that of the 55 ethnic minorities in China, the majority of them do in fact have close historical and cultural ties to the Han majority.