The Chinese didn't have a Western concept of race and ethnicity until the 1800's, before then there wasn't any Han Ethnicity that 92% of Chinese today claim. Ancient Chinese classified people by geography and political allegiance, not by ethnicity.

Does anyone know who pioneered the concept of a unified Han Ethnicity? What were the other proposals or alternatives? How was this notion propagated, and why was it so successful? And how were the diverse nature (linguistic, cultural, economic differences) of the Chinese peoples reconciled with a single broad and over-sweeping ethnicity? Was it a wise move in retrospect?

actually ethnicity is well known before 1800s, but the time that ethnicity come to its form is mainly in the age of fragmentation, becoming stronger during Song and reached its strongest form in Ming and Qing. The term Han come to be its present day meaning during the Qing.

There was a sense of kinship and an identification with a shared history, but before 1800's, China had neither a concept of race nor ethnicity. A unified Han Ethnicity was propagated and exploited by revolutionaries to overthrow the Qing Empire.

Western Europeans identify with a common history and civilization as well, migration also abounded throughout Europe's history, this does not make Western Europeans one ethnicity.

The han-chinese (people) already existed since han dynasty ..at least that's what the people residing in China came to be called. During the Qing dynasty, there was even talks about han-people rebelling against the Manchu to 'kick the manchu' out of China and restoring the Ming dynasty. This happened during the early Qing dynasty... the most famous rebels tended to be "Hong Hua Hui 红花会" (Red flower Association)

But I guess you're right.. the concept of Han-ethnicity only existed after 1800s..and the concept of 'chinese ethnicities' only appeared after ROC (republic of China) was founded. PRC further developed the chinese people into 56 ethnic nationals..

When the Mongols conquered China, they classified the former subjects of the Jin dynasty (including Jurchen, Khitan and northern Han Chinese) as Han people (Hanren 汉人), while classifying the former subjects of the Southern Song as Southerners (Nanren 南人). In terms of status, the "Southerners" were ranked below the "Han people". Does this suggest that even at this time, the people of south China were not considered as being fully Han? And that in contrast, even the sinicised Jurchen were considered to be Han because they lived in north China?

I believe they were differentiated in such a way because Song was conquered last by Mongols and were preceived as "different" than Northern Chinese and Jurchen, Khitan because they were of a different "nation" and "region". Obviously Jurchen and Khitan spoke a different language that is different from Chinese although they were HEAVILY influenced by Chinese.

Also, keep in mind that Southern Chinese being "looked down upon" isn't something new, especially by the time of Yuan dynasty.

These arguments could really go on.......... but I find that the concept of nation and race really did exist far before 1800. (of course..... some claim the opposite but many of the advocates tend to have a pretty distinct political affliation that lead you to question......)

Just as the most basic example, as late as the Shang dynasty the concept of Hua Tsia and Yi Di already existed ... is this not a racial concept?Distinction of Nomadic invaders have always been by race... if you do not have a counter distinction that you are also a race urself how do you identify foreign races????

if nation concepts really didn't exist why would there be so much interest in reuniting China during all it's fragmentation periods? the phrase 天下分久必合合久必分 The world (China)will split after long unities and reunite after long fragmentations did not come after 1800 did it? if this is not a national concept and REALLY referred to THE WHOLE world than I'd think China would be far more agressive in it's expansion.

From all i have learned... I really have to disagree with the concept that China had no racial nor national concept before 1800

"There was a sense of kinship and an identification with a shared history, but before 1800's, China had neither a concept of race nor ethnicity. A unified Han Ethnicity was propagated and exploited by revolutionaries to overthrow the Qing Empire."

No, ethnicity well existed before 1800s, the term Han was used widely by the Qing emperors such as Yong Zheng, as I said it got its present form during the Qing dynasty. As for nationality it exists too but not in the modern sense, its nationalism(loyalty by the common people) that didn't exist.

That is a political tactic made by the Mongolians, as various spheres of influence. The closer you were located geographically to the Mongolians, the higher your "rank." It didn't really have a lot to do with race nor ethnicity. The Southerners were the lowest rank because they could not be conquered for the longest time, thus it made sense to raise the ego of the conquered (or would be conquered) north to help defeat the "backward south." It would be foolish to rank Northern and Southern China together, as that would lead to unification against the Mongolians. In fact, by having Jurchens and Khitans included along with the Northern Han, Japanese, and Koreans, it clearly shows that there wasn't a concept of ethnicity back then. It certainly wasn't based on language or even culture for that matter.

Hey Rolling Wave,

you wrote, "These arguments could really go on.......... but I find that the concept of nation and race really did exist far before 1800."

Define this concept. The modern concept of nation and race existed from Enlightenment Europe.

you wrote, "(of course..... some claim the opposite but many of the advocates tend to have a pretty distinct political affliation that lead you to question......)"

I wonder what that affiliation might be.

you wrote, "Just as the most basic example, as late as the Shang dynasty the concept of Hua Tsia and Yi Di already existed ... is this not a racial concept?"

No it's not. Tribal ties are familial. Racial ties are based social convention about physical features. Extremely varied ancestries are sometimes grouped together racially, while extremely similar ancestry is sometimes separated to different races. Tribal ties are actual and concrete, race is abstract and constructed.

Modern people have a habit of taking a similar thing of the past, which might be a precursor to something modern, to be exactly the same as that thing. This is called hindsight, and you've shown it.

Peace,

Michael

8-23-2004

This shouldn't be completely surprising as the people of South China generally spoke different languages than the people referred to as Hanren (漢人) in the north. Also, the people of northern China had been under the rule of steppe peoples (the Khitan, Jurchen, and then Mongols) for far longer than the peoples of southern China. It shouldn't be surprising that the steppe peoples (in this case the Mongols) saw differentiation amongst them.

No. The "Han" as an ethnicity only existed since the Republican era, NEVER before. There was an identification of being "people of the fallen Han empire," but it was neither based on ethnicity nor politics. Chinese before the Republican era never considered there to be a common Chinese culture either. People in the north (Jin,Liao) had their own cultures; people in the east (near the Yangtze river) had theirs; and so on. The entire "Han ethnicity" has been a remarkable fabrication achieved only in the past 150 or so years.

你也应该知道"汉族"作为一个"现代单一民族"是中华民国建立以后的事, 与孙文的种族理论有很大关系. "汉族主义"的理论基础是单薄的, 不能随便奉为真理. 也不是我不想当汉人了, 个人选择和学术最好分清楚点. 我祖先是珠矶巷移民, 几百年来都是三角洲和广府的主流群体, 这是不可任意篡改的. 但要不要"炎黄神话"作为"最大部落"的依据, 要不要把隋唐视为"华夏", 把辽金视为"夷狄", 要不要把一种工具通用语硬说成是"民族共同语", 要不要把同一套"汉服"从商汤时代穿到崇祯时代, 这是更加严肃的话题.

我认为, 汉族主义是封闭排外的, 严重地扼杀了近代国人的创造力和对汉文化和历史多元性的认识, 同时带有盲目西方民族主义和现代化的因素, 违反了东方文化心理的和谐. 特别提到的是最近的"汉服运动". 虽然我支持民主声音对北京"辫子文化"的批评, 也支持采薇作坊等对传统美学的努力, 但对该运动本身的片面性和排外性感到很遗憾. 不要以为"春秋的", "汉代的" 就代表最纯粹的汉认同. 这种纯粹主义会遮盖历史上汉文化多元的,时代独特的表达. 另外就是对阿尔泰民族太狠了, 忽视了他们对汉文化的贡献, 助长了中国人自大,固步自封的阿Q劣根性, 与汉唐的宽容和开放恰恰相反.
中国政治,文化,社会,经济对地方和族群的下放是很重要的. 没有COMPARTMENTS的轮船沉得特别快. 文化单一化,文化帝国主义的社会, 如纳粹德国, 苏联, "内陆美国", 特别容易产生群体疯狂和极端排外运动.

Sun Wen, and the nationalistic intellectuals during the fall of the Qing Dynasty. The ROC, PRC helped promote the notion. The ROC (and late Qing intellectuals) made up the notion that the Han was one of 5 ethnicities; the PRC later expanded that 5 to 56 ethnicities. In any case, the notion of one Han ethnicity was completely contrived during the last 150 years. Consider it the power of modern nationalism and state propaganda.


An alternative at the time was dividing ethnicities linguistically (by mutual intelligibility). Mandarin speakers were one ethnicity, Manchu speakers another, Wu (Shanghainese) speakers another, Yue (Cantonese) speakers another, so on. Others included dividing by cultural identity (for example Jiangnan people share a common identity and would be one ethnicity).

they're were innumerable groups under Han dynasty juristiction that were not considered Han. The use of the term "Han ren" cannot be attributed to simple geographic boundaries. the aboriginals of the south were considered nan man barbarians despitre being within Han China's boundaries

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in regards to the Northern Conquest dynasties, Northern culture is not a hybrid of Han/Nomad. Nomadic elements came in but the same could be said about certain things about the south. every source i've read on the subject from Chinese to western scholars pretty much come to the conclusion that Northern culture is not a hybrid culture (i'm a northerner and i can pretty much speak for all my people that we don't drink wine made out of goat's milk )

the meaning of "Chinese" constantly changes and especially during SOuthern Song, this meaning changed to the bussiness oriented small, frail, rice eating southerners who make up the main image of "Chinese" and as a result, Northern culture is assumed to be "hybrid"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

anyway, back on topic. the Shang Chinese had terms like Li mian to describe southern aboriginal phenotypical features so its clear they had an idea of what race was.

also, the decapitated skulls from sacrifice victims found in Shang tombs: anthropolgists have have classified the skulls into various categories including Eskimoid, negroid,etc. sacrifice victims were brought in from areas outside of Shang China. The implications are limitless

If Northern Han people aren't hybrid, then what happened to ethnicities such as Xian Bei?

theres a concept called admixture, 500,000 Tuoba(the only Xianbei group that Sinicized well) versus 50 million hans in the north doens't equal hybrid. the southern xiong nu, NuZhen and Tuoba were the most successfully assimilated, however their populations wree small compared to the native Han populations

plus, i was referring to culture. its assumed that southern behavior represents the "Han" norm due to the shift of China's center to the YangZi, however it simply isn't true. Northerners do not practice any specific nomadic cultural elements. however, southern behavior contains many new cultural elements such as rice eating and bussiness oriented behavior(merchants were quite discriminated against in pre-Song society)

Actually I'm not debating here. I'm just asking, what happened to the Xianbei. Does it mean that Xianbei had mixed into what we call the Hans? (There is a reason I ask this, but it's kinda embarrasing to say.)

Did you know XianBei is a translation for Siberia? Or is itthat Siberia is a translation of XianBei? XD

Just some facts to throw on the table.

passing by...

That's one theory about the origin of the name 'Siberia' - not conclusive yet, though. The Xibe ethnicity of northeastern China is also believed to be descended from Xianbei.

As for the Xianbei who assimilated into the Central Plains Han population after the northern dynasties, it wasn't only the Tuoba. The Murong were there in Hebei before the Tuoba invaded them, and were much more assimilated already. The Yuwen, Dugu, Daxi, Pilou, Kudi, Yuchi, and many other such Xianbei clans all formed part of the Tuoba Wei state, and were still around during the Tang. All have now adopted Han surnames and are indistinguishable from the Han.

The Khitan and Kumoxi (Xi) were also of the same Donghu roots as the Xianbei, and moved into the lands formerly held by the Murong after the latter entered the Central Plains. Similarly, the Rouran moved into the lands formerly held by the Tuoba. The Khitan themselves entered the Central Plains during the Five Dynasties. So the Xianbei and their relatives did not die out altogether - one group after another would enter Han-populated areas and become assimilated through inter-marriage, but there were always other groups staying behind. The peoples of eastern Siberia could be one example of the latter.

invasion or even settlement doesn't equal assimilation especially in the Qidan case. they resisted it vehemently and saw marriage with Hans as degrading. These nomads were fiercely independent and could care less about the superiority of Han culture. It was only through contact for long periods facing a HUGE Native Han population (never dropped below 50 million) that Sinicization could occur. assimilation in the south was not that much easier.

anyway, as you've said, they're are portions of various nomad populations who survived into modern day as slightly different ethnicity
it is purely political(extreme liberalism) to oversimplify the Sinicization factor

You might be interested to read our old thread on what happened to the Khitan - for a long time it was assumed that they had been totally wiped out or assimilated after the fall of the Liao (except for those who fled west and founded the Karakhitai state). But DNA testing now suggests that the Daur people of Inner Mongolia are descendants of the Khitan.

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=509

Not quite sure. The concept was not a modern western one but a concept of "Han-ness" did exist in ancient times. The distinction between "Han" and "Hu" was neither tribal nor completely cultural (though it was significantly cultural) but come closest to the modern concept of ethnicity. The similar distinction between "Hua Xia" and "Rong Di Man Yi" goes back even earlier and is not totally tribal either. And it's also more than just a political affiliation. The Zhou people called themselves Hua Xia (See Shang Shu) but not Yin Shang, even though both are previous dynasties. It shows that the term "Hua Xia" is certainly by Zhou times very much beyond a simple dynastic title. "Hua Xia" also was neither purely a tribal label nor a cultural label. Compared with purely tribal labels it is too cultural and compared with purely cultural labels it is too tribal. It's actual meaning is somewhere in between. While it isn't strictly the same as the modern concept of ethnicity, IMHO it is very close to it.

What I am curious about though is that how come some people use the concept of "nation" (i.e. ethnicity) quite freely to describe other ancient peoples, such as the Ancient Egyptians and the Hebrews, even though these people had no modern notion of ethnicity either, certainly no more than China did. But when it comes to Chinese people, suddenly everyone refuses to use the concept of "nation" and "ethnicity".

"No. The "Han" as an ethnicity only existed since the Republican era, NEVER before.There was an identification of being "people of the fallen Han empire," but it was neither based on ethnicity nor politics. Chinese before the Republican era never considered there to be a common Chinese culture either. People in the north (Jin,Liao) had their own cultures; people in the east (near the Yangtze river) had theirs; and so on. The entire "Han ethnicity" has been a remarkable fabrication achieved only in the past 150 or so years."


No, slight cultural difference is irrelevant considering even today, Han culture are vastly different in different areas, the fact is that the term Han did exist, and used. And it isn't just political but includes racial and cultural. Or else why would the Manchu bother separation of Han and Manchu in marriage when Han isn't considered a race.

This has been pretty interesting so far but there’s a crucial element that’s been missing through most of the discussion. Even the persuasive theory that locates the origin of what we today call ‘ethnicity’ in the way individuals have been classified according to loyalty to a particular state is based, inevitably, given the general nature of the vast majority of the records from this area, on the stories of the kings and bureaucrats running these states. The common people, though, are for the most part left out of the histories, as we have only become a political force in very, very recent times. (Obviously this is a worldwide phenomenon and it’s not only ancient “Chinese” history that has failed to emphasize any role played by “the masses.”) As half-serious examples, Han Wudi never had occasion, nor, presumably, would have felt the need, to go on TV and warn the Zhang Sans and Li Sis of the state “Either you’re with us, or you’re with the barbarians.” The option to go online and discuss personal perceptions of history with people from all over the world was similarly unavailable to the common people, or anybody else at the time. Things change, everywhere and constantly, and this leads us to new understandings of the world and our place in it. It’s been argued on this thread that something comparable to a ‘national identity’ existed prior to the 1800’s, but what that concept entails, and how it applies to the broad social spectrum, is subject to change given a variety of historical developments.

Feel free to explain these changes as the results of technological advances, the inevitable development of economic factors, cultural imperialism and the invasion of ‘foreign ideas,’ what have you, but many scholars argue that part of the shift that has led towards an emphasis on the role of the people has included a re-evaluation of the way a state is defined. The argument, simplified, is that ancient empires tended to be ‘center-based,’ that is, defined and understood at the time AS the Emperor and the court, while today we tend to believe a state should be understood as what’s inside its borders. (As a tangible example, on another post wuTao and Liang Jieming are raising points implying that the Great Wall may never have been viewed as the ‘border’ that we tend to assume it was today- it sure isn’t much of a border now) Since today these borders include lots of people who have more time on their hands, more access to information than ever before, and whose opinions suddenly matter, we’ve picked up the twin notions of nationalism and racism, beliefs in kinds of genealogical bonds of common heritage, and have imagined ourselves into a number of creatively-delineated communities in order to maintain the coherence of our modern states, and of course, the legitimacy of our governments.

It can possibly be argued that the PRC is currently somewhere in the middle of this transition, which is part of the reason why the government feels it can make claims and additions to ‘its history’ that seem absolutely ridiculous to ‘the rest of the world.’ While it’s standard practice to point the blame for the fact that citizens of the PRC currently have very little ‘freedom’ to examine their roles as part of the nation on the more ‘modern ideology’ of the fascist police state (the ability of the people to have the kind of discussions we have here is, put politely, still in its infancy), there may be something far more specific to the current ‘stage’ of the ‘Chinese’ historical experience at work here.

Here’s what I mean: as opposed to the (obviously indefensible) myths of ‘ethnic purity’ officially backed by a number of states historically influenced by ‘China’ --myths created under the pressure of modern nationalisms in an effort to define themselves as ‘not Chinese’ and based on erroneous perceptions of ‘relative homogeneity’-- there is zero case to be made for an unbroken ‘ethnic’ continuity, ‘Han’ or otherwise, in the history of ‘China.’ It is also impossible to argue that a unified political entity has been maintained throughout the entirety of the up to 5,000 years of “Chinese history.” What has existed, though, is a concept of correct governance, of states legitimatized by adherence to ideals that, applied in the right manner, draw the support of the ‘Mandate of Heaven,’ and (this is key) the various civilizations that have developed when states attempted to put these guidelines and historical precedents into practice. Most importantly, these ideas and others have been canonized into a huge number of texts, leading to the extraordinarily lofty position of what is possibly the single most unifying and relatively stable current in “Chinese history”- the written word. When the last few centuries moved in with their enormous social and technological transformations, as well as the total rewrite of ‘Chinese civilization’s’ place in this world, the ‘Han’ as an ethnicity was created as a reaction to the political environment to refer to the people in the more stable parts of the empire and to unify them as the carriers of the various permutations of ‘Chinese civilization.’ As mentioned in many other posts, the term has been used throughout history in a similar -but much more ‘immediately political-’ way, and one of the main differences in the modern usage is that this civilization and these social institutions are now supposedly carried on the chromosomal level.

Since today ‘ethnicity,’ ‘identity,’ ‘cultural heritage,’ ‘race,’ ‘the nation,’ etc, are such crucial concepts for our understanding of the world and ourselves, it is often very difficult for us to conceive of how newly invented these ideas are. A good place to start might be with the realization that ‘Sinification’ was probably a process in which the leaders of independent political entities chose to act within the well-established and influential frameworks we now associate with ‘Chinese civilization,’ which would first and foremost require the adoption of Chinese writing; as opposed to the very different idea of ‘acting like the Han people,’ which was most likely unconceivable at the time.

Otherwise, and the fact that this question is rarely asked and may even come off as completely unthinkable just goes to illustrate the relative uniqueness of the concept of historical ‘China’ among the other modern states, as well as its necessarily ‘multidimensional’ character- but what exactly is the justification for the common understanding that the PRC (which is slightly older than my mother) is entitled to the territory administered by the Tang Empire (618-907)? Or more relevant to the discussion given today’s terms, what connects the PRC to the Qing? Anywhere else on earth, the ‘Jurchen conquest’ of the Ming would most likely be viewed as a signal of the end of one state and the birth of another, but most dominant earlier readings of the ‘Chinese’ historical experience, having absolutely no ‘ethnic’ character, had very little difficulty fitting this ‘Manchu interregnum’ into the narrative.

An interesting effect of the ‘Han = China’ theory is that it takes the above, considerably smoother narrative of ‘Chinese History’ understood as interpretations of an idealized civilization, and smashes it up into total chaos, and by denying ‘real Chineseness’ to the ‘non-Han,’ the ‘Han’ themselves apparently get the short end of huge chunks of ‘their’ history. ‘Chinese Civilization’ is an enormously important part of the human experience that continues to have great ramifications and influence all across the world to this day. Like all nationalist projects, handing this history off to the ‘Han ethnicity’ for safekeeping is a new and temporary thing. Now we get to see how much longer this will last.

Tianzhuwoye..your english is very deep..you write like a scholar. I find it hard to understand your argument.. but it's enlightening to have you contribute

very true, by the time of the Zhou, the term "Hua Xia" did not refer to the dragon totem worshipping central inland people of prehitory but rather anyone who was considered "Chinese" at the time which included the overwhelming majority of Dong Yi (proto-Chinese coastal tribes)

That's a good post... you make some compelling arguments.

Considering that Han ethnic group are so diverse in culture, language, and even physical appearance ( yes northern chinese are different then southern chinese generally ) ...... is han even an ethnic group ?

Saying the han (including mandarin, cantonese, fujianese etc) is one ethnic group is like saying english, german, dutch can all be called Germanic ppl and should be under 1 ethnic group called "germanic"

I know this is poltically controversal because if we all chinese believe in unity we should never consider han people SEPARATE..... but when you look realistically, genetically, linguistically, culturally you can start to come to a conclusion....

is Chinese linguistically and ethnically different? Does Han and Chinese langauge even exist? Or is the han and chinese just a broad term and in fact Han does not exist and we are all actually should be grouped ethnically as Cantonese, Hakka, Mandarin, Fukienese....etc so should languages?



I would like to hear some opinions on this....!

There's a discussion on a similar topic here:
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=609&hl=

The angle is when the Han were invented. Personally I'd say that yes, the Han is an ethnicity by virtue of the fact that at the very least some 1.3 billion people buy into the concept, and there really is no other way to define ethnicity or race outside of social agreement. While the historical, social or 'scientific' grounds that this is based on may be shaky at best, the Han are no more or less of a fabrication than any other ethnic group we could name.

[Yun: This thread has now been merged into the older thread.]

Like others have mentioned, labels such as "ethnic" are artificial.


I'd say the Han ethnic group qualifies for ALL of those characteristics though some may argue about Chinese linguistic... but in any case, the definition clearly states "or" rather than "and".

In any case, I don't believe there is a standard detailed definition of what constitutes an ethnic group. Just from the definition above though, there would be many conflicts among ethnic groups in East Asia alone. For example, most, if not all East Asians are of the same race. Many East Asians are also of the same religion, but at the same time, not everyone in East Asian countries are of a single religion. Language gets even more complicated. Finally, many aspects of East Asian cultures are quite similar. Also, the culture aspect of this will get even more complicated as the world become more and more globalized.

I'd say the social agreement IS the only scientific reason. Think Durkheimian: Durkheimian suggests that our mental categorization of the world is based on our collective consciousness. Social agreement is itself shaky, but it's the only "real" evidence. All the other ones are almost excuses. They are justifications for a socially accepted phenonmenon.

EXCELLENT WRITINGS FROM ZANHE.COM ABOUT "HAN NATIONALITY"

http://bbs.zanhe.com/showthread.php?t=180
也谈谈"滚雪球"的汉族

http://bbs.zanhe.com/showthread.php?t=235
A Just China is a Federal China

http://bbs.zanhe.com/showthread.php?t=147
不太赞成"汉族"这个现代概念.

http://bbs.zanhe.com/showthread.php?t=145
一国一族何来民族？——冷眼看世界

if the term "han" only existed after republican area, how do you explain the poem

汉皇重色思倾国？

If Han ethnicity does not exist, so do many other ethnicities. Think about Mongol, Manchu, English, French, who are they? Are they just nationalities, or ethnicities? Did Manchu even have a nation of Manchus? Where did Mongol come from?

At least Han is older than most modern ethnicities regardless of how Han population got so big. To deny the existence of Han ethncity is to deny the concept of ethncity.

Huh?

English is an ethnicity; Scottish, Irish, Welsh other ethnicities.

How is the Han ethnicity "older than most modern ethnicities", when the entire Communist concept of Han ethnicity didn't even exist until the last century? You are clearly thinking anachronistically and imposing your current concept of Han and Manchu ethnicities (formally defined in modern times) on a timeframe and world without such concepts.

I do not contest it being an "ethnicity", or minzu in an unofficial, traditional, cultural sense. Of course Han can be a minzu in this sense. The Huaxia nucleus imposed its "Han civilization" and language quite hegemonically on several indigenous populations, and then obsorbed nomads like Xianbei then voila! Poeple grouped under the Han civilization who do not mark their lineage in a particularly distinctive way like Manchus or practice Islam, can pretty much be said to be "Han minzu". These include dubious lineages like the Jurchen Wanyan village now in Gansu, Khitay Yelu village in Shaanxi, various southern groups like Hakka who have rather strong tribal identities to set them apart form other Han minzu members. Please note that subgroups within Han minzu are very diverse.

But I do contest the modern, official classification of "Han minzu" as an unfair solution to the association between land and regional populations with regard to administration. However I do not radically challenge it. I do consider it to be a product of its time but wish different official "nationalities" and subgroups of "Han minzu" can slowly phase themselves out of the system by cultivating positive identities based on studying thier own traditions and histories.

I believe a more regionalized version of associating different Han minzu subgroups and ethnicities currently now identified as Han minzu, can be a healthy substitution for the current system in which a humungous, supposedly homogeneous "majority" is pitted against supposedly "bantustanized", supposedly unassociated "minority" groups. In fact this sytem, closely modeled after Joseph Stalin's nationalities categorization system, has been halted, or frozen in time by the Chinese Communist government as early as 1958. It found no substitution for it, nor did it wish to continue categorizing new-found ethnic groups.

So far they've discovered at least one "semiofficial" ethnic group called the "Kucong" and could not recognize it as an official nationality or group under any other. You need not go far to find groups like "Mosuo", "Ke", which were previously thought to be part of an official nationality. Meanwhile semiofficial efforts have been carried out regionally, not nation-wide, to recognize the ethnic identities of Hakka and other Han subgroups like Chuanqing, Danjia etc. But they are little known to us because of the unofficial nature.

Taiwanese independence movement has introduced to us the term "zuqun" (subgroup of Han). But Mainlanders already used a similar term "minxi" before. However, "zuqun" implies "distinction through interaction" while "minxi" implies "distinction through systematic classification".

You branded anything you disagree with as "communist" imposing .... when in fact Han Ren existed even in Yuan Dynasty though the people under Southern Song were called Southerners. In a way, this concept is used to differentiate us from them for self-interest, just like other groupings. PRC's identification of ethnic groups is certainly the most stupid thing I can ever think of with regard to cultures and national security.

Again,
Think about what English means? Who are those people? Who are their ancestors?

What does ethncity actually mean? heck, I believe Mingzu or ethnicity is a modern concept imported from the west.

It's getting really confusing to me. To me, Han people probably regard themselves as being sinicized enough to be distinct from the exotic "barbarians." Think about it, most ethnitic minorities live in the remote areas, mountains, deserts...

Any way, ethnicity sounds very arbitrary to me. How disctinct a people should be before they can be considerred an ethnic group? If you Shanghai people think you are very different from the rest of Chinese, go ahead and call yourself Shanghainese. When Americans call you Chinese, tell them you are not Chinese, but Shanghainese. I know one Hong Kong friend who alway insisted on distancing herself from Chinese. Talk about human psychology!

The ‘Han Ren’ that the Yuan were referring to tended to be Khitan and Jurchens who adopted sedentary modes of life after establishing the Liao and Jin Empires. Today though, the Khitan and Jurchens are not Han (even if their states were ‘China’), and the Yuan term would now be called ‘Sinicized.’ ‘Han’ is a lifestyle. Today’s definition, like the definitions of all modern ethnicities, is a new one, designed to fit new purposes because things change. Ethnicity is always arbitrary and it’s too bad we don’t stop and think more often about whether or not it’s really worth getting as worked up about it as we sometimes do.

@nishishei

who are the English really? They are the descendants of Vikings, Normans, Britons, Brits, Celtics, Romans.......and of course Anglos and Saxons, if you think English is an ethnicity, then Han definitely is...i agree with the previous poster that to deny the existence of Han Ethnicity is to deny the existence of ethnicity itself.


yuefei also called himself a Han, and again how do you explain the poem? the Tang Ming huang was referred to as "The Emperor of the Hans".

1. Han Chinese is obviously an ethnicity today. I have said nothing opposing this. What I am against, is your taking our current notion of Han ethnicity and applying it on history, and using it to judge and interpret history. That is unacceptable.

2. Compared to European ethnicities, the notion of a Han Chinese ethnicity is indeed relatively NEW, developed nearly from scratch during the last century, and refined and reinforced by the Communists in the last half century. Prior to that, you'd be hard-pressed to find abundant historical sources of identification to this Han ethnicity. Ethnicities are constantly changed and molded, but the English ethnicity in its modern or near-modern conception is far older than the Han Chinese.

3. To claim as you have done that Han Chinese is the "oldest ethnicity" is, indeed like I have said before, ANACHRONISTIC. You have provided no further evidence for your claim, but instead went on to attack me as a Shanghainese. You want to "talk about human psychology"? then what is your problem?

tianzhuwoye's reply below is very good, I would have written a similar reply, but he beat me to it.

Just want to add to tianzhuwoye's post that the Yuan hierarchy system was based on geographic proximity and ally-enemy relationships. Those closer to the Mongols were ranked higher than those further away; those unconquered or were last to be conquered were ranked lower.

The idea of ethnicity, though superficially similar in some perspectives, did not exist then and that, Goujian, is my point. I'm not Communist-bashing, nor calling you a 乡下人 (Shaanwonin); there was no reason in bringing either allegations up in your rambling of a post.

We need to be careful not to exclude history and historical context when we talk about ethnicity.

Why would Yuan call the people living in the North under Jin Han? What traits should such group have? BTW, I beleive majority of people living under Jin were not Khitan and Jurchens. As I said, Han is probably a term meaning people sinicized by the first civilized group and expanded outwards gradually. When the term "Han" existed is sort of irrelevant because people certainly understood the difference between sinicized and non-sinicized. That is enough to differentiate us from them, them from us. That, to my understanding, is the whole purpose of ethnicity.

What do you mean by today's Khitan and Jurchens are not Hans? Are you talking about Khitan and Jurchens in hisotry or their descendetns living in the central plain?

Nishishei, I think Shanghainese could be an ethnic group if people in Shanghai group together and distance themselves from others. Shanghainese certainly have something in common that is different from others. That can develop into the concept of ethnicity.

On the other hand, country pumpkin (Shawotonin) cannot be an ethnicity thougth we Zhejiang people certainly could be an ethnicity in the future and call ourselves Yue or Wu Yue to differentiate from Ouyue and Nanyue.

My whole point is ethnicity is very arbitrary and should be arbitrary because it is human invention for our own interests. I have no problem with you and don't take offense.

Could someone elaborate on the conflict between Guangfu people in Guandong and Hakka. I watched TV this weekend, and the experts mentioned that both people called each other minorities and barbarians. Ke in Hakka originially had a dog radical. Then the Hakka people took the term without the dog radical.

On the contrary, I've always felt that if "ethnicity" were to develop, it must be from the countryside, where there is greater sense of belonging to the land, in this case Wu-Yue; an "origin" so to speak for the city dwellers as well. Most Shanghainese today think they have a lot in common with Northern Zhejiang (basically all of Zhejiang excluding Wenzhou/Oujiang region) and Southern Jiangsu; there have always been calls of uniting these regions together along with Shanghai into a new, more culturally homogenous and economically cooperative province. Zhejiang and Jiangsu are both really small relative to other provinces. Currently there is often redundant economic competition between Zhejiang, Jiangsu and Shanghai; the capital gained is not being efficiently utilized. Much wealth produced by southern Jiangsu is currently being squandered by the larger Subei region; and the division of the three regions is a political vulnerability when dealing and negotiating with the rest of China (as evidenced in the 3 highest tax rates in all of China: 1. Shanghai, 2. Jiangsu and 3. Zhejiang since the 1950's with little to no return from the central government).

BTW, Ningbo is hardly rural; it has millions of people.


Great, because that's my point too.

Personally, I think ethnic Han was form after the (Raids of 5 northen nomads?) 五胡乱华 era. If you see from Chinese history, during that time, the people in China has just been trough 3 kingdoms area (三国). After Jin (西晋) was formally formed in 280A.D., everyone thought that the peaceful era will begin, but only a few decades later, Jin Dynasty was in civil chaos, which lead to 五胡乱华 era.

Then, the sima (司马) royales fled to JianYe(建业--南京) to continue Jin Dynasty (东晋). But since then, the people in China live in an uncertain time. At the time, land in Northen China is ruled by other ethnic, which are consider outsider races at the times. Then, people start to remember the Han Dynasty. So they start to refer themselves as Han people.

But ethnic Han varies from time to time. For example, during the Sui-Tang (隋唐) era (587-907), people may different themselves as Han and Hu (胡), or maybe even XianBei (鲜卑). During North Song, Han is always refer to Song people, while Liau/QiDan (辽/契丹) is treated as other races. Then it comes NvZhen (女真) that defeat Liau and built Jin Kingdom (金国). At that time, South Song (南宋) and Da Li (大理) is refer as ethnic Han.

When Mongol-Yuan Dynasty (元朝) falls, Ming Dyansty was found by ethnic Han. But this ethnic Han may consists of QiDan, Southern Chinese, Yunnan people, SiChuan, XiXia people, and other ethnic that exists before Mongols conquers most of the Asia.

Then, most of us know that Ching Dynasty (清朝) was found by ethnic NvZhen/Man (女真/满). Although ethnic NvZhen/Man still exists in China, but their language is proclaimed extinct.

As we can see, people in China, descendants from the Warlord era (战国), has regard themselves as Han race (汉族) or Tang people (唐人). This is because of the 2 great Dynasty: Han and Tang.

I'm not sure about Chinese people having any of the so-called "Western concept of race and ethnicity until the 1800's". But my opinion is that they have the non-verbal or the other means of ethnic and race concept.

Is Han even an Ethnic Group?, Or was the Han ethnicity invented?

Technically speaking the statements "Is Han an Ethnic Group" and "Was the han ethnicity invented" are not mutually exclusive. Everything in the Universe is an invention to some extent, including one's own self-identity.

Perhaps we should in some ways go back to the system of the Three Dynasties, i.e. have a looser and more diverse (but still unified) concept of Chinese ethnicity as "Hua Xia", centred on the same set of cultural elements, rather than the politically monolithic concept of modern "Han" nation. IMHO before the Qin China was a feudal confederation of numerous Hua Xia states rather than a centralised empire. Maybe a modern version of this, e.g. a "Federation of Chinese States", would be better in the long run?

It is said that a federal system is ideal for it has both the strength and power of a large nation and the happiness and freedom of small nations.

The Han ethnic group is VERY diverse in it's bloodlines.

Han is an ethnic group defined by its culture. If someone feel that he belongs to Han culture, he is Han, regardless of his bloodline. Note that in the past various tribes were assimilated of assimilated themselves to form the ethnic group we know today.
Blood should never be an issue. Your feeling is more important

In Ming Dynasty, there is definately a clear distinction of the Han, Miao, Mongols, Tibetians, etc. Because during Ming dynasty, there are anti minority policies that led to many rebellion in the south.

I'm curious why the country's name China comes from the Chin(Qin) dynasty while the name of the people comes from the Han dynasty? It is odd.