The english word "Chinese" is indeed ambiguous. On one hand, it can mean the nationality of people in China. On the other hand, it can mean the overseas chinese who are of "Chinese ethnicity".

The question is even more complicated by the fact that in the west, "Chinese" almost exclusively refer to "han chinese", and thus, non-han people are 'not counted' as chinese, which creates further problem.

For that, I think it might be better to make a distinction between 'civic chinese' and ethnic chinese' and not jumble them up.

"Civi Chinese" (also known as Chinese Nationals) generally refers to citizens of China (either PRC or ROC) who hold the nationality of China. This can refer to any ethnicities in China. For instance, a korean ethnic in China who is a citizen of China might not necessarily be called "Chinese" in terms of ethnicity, but "korean" in terms of ethnicity, but he is certainly a Chinese National. The chinese term "Zhong Guo Ren 中国人" (Chinese nationals) belongs to this. The chinese term "Hua Qiao 华侨" generally refers to "Overseas Chinese Nationals" (i.e. overseas citizens of China, but who are residing outside China), who is also part of 'Overseas Chinese'.

"Ethnic Chinese" is generally catered more for overseas chinese who are of chinese descent (and whose ancestry can be traced back to China). They might no longer hold the nationality of China (and are thus not chinese nationals), but are called "chinese" simply because of their ethnicity. "Ethnic chinese" should not be used exclusively to refer to han-chinese only. "Ethnic Chinese" can include any other non-han ethnicities such as Manchu, Hui, Mongol etc whose ancestry can be traced back to China. The chinese term 'Hua Ren 华人" belongs to this.

Any comments are appreciated.

Do you think nationality should be separated from ethnicity?

Of course ethnicity and nationality can be separated. Australia, the United States, and Canada are classic examples of how that has worked for over a century in the West. Singapore is a good model of how it could work in Asia as well.

Of course, building a nation on values rather than ethnicity is a daunting task for mediocre leaders. That is why history will judge Mahathir Mohamad poorly - rather than building a strong cohesive country based on common values, he built it on institutionalised racial discrimination.

b ) However, the use of "Hua" 华 undoubtedly suggests relation to Han 汉, so I think Zhong guo ren can also be used overseas and is more neutral to say anybody coming from or with ancestor from China.

In reality, the usage is quite mixed up. A Chinese national living overseas, e.g. in France, may refer to himself as Zhong guo ren or Hua Qiao. However, an ethnic Chinese of non-Chinese nationality may call himself Hua Yi but also sometimes refer to himself as Hua Qiao, and he is called Hua Yi most of the times by his China National friends. When this ethnic Chinese of non Chinese nationality goes back to China, he also refer to himself as Hua Qiao, never refer of himself as Hua Yi. And Chinese people in China sometimes call him as Hua Qiao, but most of the time call him as "Wai guo ren" haha...

Racism? Maybe, but many would call it self protectionism. If Chinese attended Malay schools, rather separate Chinese schools I think integration would have been a lot easier. Chinese do have a habit of keeping themselves separate.

I think Mahathir will definitely be viewed favourably as he already is. You can't have social cohesion if 70% of the population wants to burn down the houses of the other 30% because they are jealous of their wealth. I think Tunku Abdul Rahman's decision to separate Singapore from Malaysia was probably a wise move and removed the threat of conflict. In a speech in 1965 he said, we can either "sever all ties with a State Government (Singapore) that showed no measure of loyalty to its Central Government (Malaysia)" as opposed to the undesirable method of repressing the PAP for its actions." Racist perhaps, but it stopped blood being shed.

Kind of off topic I know, but I was keen to make my first post on the forum!!

In China I have seen written 'Zhonghua' (sorry, no Chinese in this computer). Is this interchangeable with Zhongguoren?

Hua Yi 华裔 generally refers to overseas chinese who is NOT born in China, but is born outside China. This is referring more to ethnicity or a person of chinese descent. "Yi 裔" means descent.

Hua Qiao 华侨 refers to an overseas chinese who still hold the nationality of China (ROC or PRC), but does not live in China. This is referring more to nationality. For instance, I still hold ROC passport. I can be counted as a Hua Qiao, although many chinese people in China or Taiwan thinks I'm like a foreigner (Wai Guo Ren). A Hua Qiao need not necessarily be born in China. There are many chinese in Koreans who still hold ROC passport/nationality, but were born in Korea. They were called Hua Qiao 华侨. Alot of Hua Qiao remain as permanent resident in other countries outside China

Hua Ren 华人 is quite similar to Hua Yi 华裔, but the difference is that a Hua Ren could be born in China and possibly could be either holding chinese nationality previously, whereas Hua Yi must exclusively be referring to overseas chinese who is born outside China and does not hold chinese nationality. For instance, a Zhongguo Ren (Chinese nationals) who migrated overseas , give up his chinese nationality and become an american citizen is simply called Hua Ren 华人.
Hua Ren 华人 can include Hua Yi, Hua Qiao and any overseas chinese and refers more to ethnicity. Hua Ren is a more generic term to refer to overseas chinese.

You're right that Hua Ren has been linked to Han-chinese only. That's the han-chauvanistic problem as chinese ethnicity history stemed from its root of defining the 'civilized hua 华' and 'barbarian yi 夷' in the past. However, I think it should include non-han overseas chinese living outside China such as Manchu, Hui etc. We can only understand that "Hua Ren" is only a multi-ethnic composition.

Btw, in Singapore, another term called "Hua Zu 华族" was invented to define chinese as one single race, although "chinese as a race" is highly controversial and questionable.



Yes, Zhonghua 中华 and Zhongguo 中国 can be used interchangeably and both refers to "China" (or simply chinese). Zhonghua 中华 has a stronger emphasize on 'chinese civilization/cultural root' for instance chinese civilization Zhonghua Wenmin 中华文明，chinese culture Zhonghua Wenhua 中华文化

On the other hand, 'Zhongguo 中国" refers to the nation of China. People of China are called "Zhongguo Ren 中国人 ". Very rarely is "Zhonghua" used to refer to the people. Instead "Zhong 中" was removed to leave a "Hua" to refer to the people.

I have seriously thought about this segregation of names for the word "Chinese" before.I think it would be ideal for people to understand and differentiate Chinese from differents part of the world and also to identify citizens of China.

Once when I was in London holding a tourist map a few years ago looking lost and asking for directions, a kind hearted caucasian elderly woman came over and pointed to where I was and helped me in finding my hotel.

Then she quipped," I was very lost too when I was in Hongkong."
I replied "I am not from Hongkong."
Then she said "Then you must be from the mainland...Beijing?Shanghai?"
I shooked my head...
She continued "Sorry...Japan? Korea?"
I said, "Singapore"
She nodded and smile....and I can tell that she is wondering if Singapore is somewhere in China.....
Just wanted to end the awkwardness quickly and not to explain where Singapore is...I just said"I am Chinese too and thanks."

I could not blame her..her perception of Chinese is from China...it is easy to identify with...and my country Singapore is not as well known as the Chinese Race....This also has led to most ethnic minorites in China only recognising themselves as their race and not as "Chinese Citizens"

Maybe the China now should rename "China" to just " United Province of the Middle Land"....It will solve all these kinds of wrong perceptions....

In my part ethnic Chinese. Protests almost boils down to passport possession. You hardly find non-PRC's citizens among pro-PRC demonstrators.

So that would be "civic", no?

Francois

I think, "ethnic" applies, as I understand the dichotomy. The demonstrators I saw were practically all Chinese students from the PRC (liuxuesheng), that is ethnic Chinese.

For these I like to coin the phrase "passport demonstrators", that is people who shape their political outlooks by taking a look into their passport at the category "nationality".

The counter-type would be "argument demonstrators", people who assume their political stance by critically examining the given situation or event.

No, I think the idea was that "civic chinese" in this thread referred to being chinese as in "holding a PRC or ROC passport", whereas ethnic chinese would be being chinese as in "having ancestors who came from china" (which in most cases means "being Han") no matter which passport you hold.

The main difference between these categories are the overseas chinese, citizens of other countries, who are ethnically chinese (generally Han... even though some migrants from minorities would probably count : eg Hui...)

Francois

Now I see. Yes, I mean "civic Chinese" then.

Actually, when I looked at the issue again, I also thought it condescending at the very least to assume that my attitudes to issues would be determined by my Chinese ethnicity rather than by my capacity for objective consideration of the issues.

If others share my viewpoint on this, then it somewhat confounds the idea of any taxonomy of Chinese ethnicity.

I am not sure whether I understand you correctly, but does that mean that the practical absence of non-Chinese demonstrators in pro-Chinese demonstrations in Western cities points at a lack of "capacity for objective consideration" among Westerners? Because, if these pro-Chinese demonstrators are all mobilized by objective considerations, then one must truly wonder why these considerations are not accessible to the indigenous populace.

I think when you watch 2950 out of 3000 pro-Chinese demonstrators being PRC citizens, as I did, then we can speak of a passport demonstration.

It would be interesting to know how this Han/Zhongguo distinction works in the minority languages. I know the situation in Mongolian is somewhat paradox: Inner Mongolians use Dundad Uls (=Country in the middle) as the official name for China, while Outer Mongolians, and even the Chinese embassy in Ulaanbaatar, use Hyatad Uls, which is much closer to a meaning of Han Chinese state. I don't really know what Inner Mongolians use on more colloquial occasions when among themselves, though.

Anyone know how this works in Korean/Kazakh/Tibetan etc.?

The Mongols or any other northern nomads have historically referred to China as a "han-state" or the chinese as "han ren 汉人" (people of Han). That was actually stemmed from the historical view that the han had always formed the core majority of chinese population.