Is it right to say that the Han people of today aren't all descendants from the Han people of the Han dynasty? What I mean is were there many ethnic groups and/or parts of ethnic groups that became assimilated to the Han ethnicity and became Han by conventional understanding? Is the Xianbei such a group?

Essentially, any ethnic group in Chinese history that no longer exists in any distinct form (under the same name or not) is considered to have been assimilated into the Han. The Xianbei belong partially under this group, because most of them entered the Central Plains during the Age of Fragmentation and stayed on, intermarrying with the Han. But the Xibe ethnicity in the northeast is believed to be descended from those Xianbei who stayed behind.

We usually hear that the Sibe/Xibe/Xibo are what's left of a Qianlong era dispatch to the Xinjiang region. They live mostly in the northwest and speak a modern version of Manchu, rapidly filling up with borrowed words from Mandarin. Although their numbers are small and the language is dying out, they tend to be very adamant today about asserting themselves as a different people from the Manchus.

That's the Western Xibe, who number about 40,000. There are still about 200,000 Xibe living in their original homeland of Liaoning.

Do you think the Yue had been assimilated since it was mentioned in Chinese history?

Except for the Vietnamese (Lac Viet), the other Yue have been assimilated. We can see their traces in the facial features of the south Chinese.

Even during the Warring States and formation of Han Dynasty period, there was mixing between north and south. Both Liu Bang and Xiang Yu are from Chu state in the south. Many of their core Chu armies fought battles all over northern and central China at that time. It is obvious there was already mixing going on back then.

I am sure if you asked Liu Bang or Xiang Yu today whether they considered themselves northern or southern Chinese, they probaby laugh at this question.

It's said that major tribe of Shang was non-Chinese at all. (seems closer to Viets).
Definitely the tribe was assimilated into Zhou.
Anyone knows the name of it? Or was 'Shang' the name of the tribe itself?

And some Questions:
•Was the predecessor of 'Northern Han' even considered '中国人' in 晋 Jin and 宋 Song era?
•How does Vietnamese look compared to Siberian and North Chinese? (Ignore minor skin difference). Do you think you can distinguish Korean, North Chinese and Siberian?
•Yun, is what you mean the facial 'features' in South Chinese 'real' features (marks on face) or just similarity with Viets?

What do you mean by 'Northern Han'? And which Song are you referring to: the Liu-Song of the Southern Dynasties, or the later Zhao-ruled Song?



What does 'marks on face' mean?

Anyway, we've been through all this before. Read all 11 pages of http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2296

nguoiVietchanhtong, I strongly suspect that you're trolling.

An important number of Xiongnu and Shatuo Tujue were also assimilated into the Han.

Both the Xiongnu and Shatuo Turks no longer exists today. Due to their founding of dynasty in China, in particular the Xiongnu during Age of fragmentation, and Shatuo Turks during the 5 dynasties period, they were largely assimilated into the Han.

Even the Khitan and Tanguts, who no longer exists today, were assimilated into the Han.

Technically speaking, the Han were a mixed race.

eh? i'm from singapore, dad's cantonese and mom's hokkien and i get prc nationals telling me from time to time they're the "pure han" because they're from the north

That's not true.. and a 'misconception'. They may think they are the "pure han", but if you trace the northern han's blood lineage, somewhere along the blood streams, they are mixed with bloods from the northern nomadic tribes. They were either han mixed with northern tribes such as Xianbei, Khitan, Manchu or were northern tribes assimilated to become han. The Northern chinese language such Mandarin, which only had a history of 800 years were under influence from the languages of Jurchen, Khitan and Manchus.

Do you know northern han and southern han differ in looks? The Northern han looks more 'bulky' and like "mongolians". The southern han looks more 'boney', have shorter built and are more 'demure'. This highlighted that the Han is never a 'pure race'.

In a similar way, the southern han such as Hokkien, Cantonese were also a "mixed han". During the age of fragmentation, the Xiongnu conquered Western Jin, forcing large number of northern han to escape to Fujian province and Guangdong province. The han then intermingled with the local Yue people to become today's Hokkien and Cantonese. Part of the Hokkien/Cantonese could be original Northern han (mixed with Yue) or were formerly Yue people assimilated to become Han.

Technically speaking, any ethnicity (Han is not really a "race" in the biological sense) is mixed compared to what they were in ancient times, assuming said ethnicity even existed as a distinct entity in those times. Especially when you've got an ethnicity of a billion people, you can bet they didn't come from a single recent origin. Whether it's the French, Koreans, Indians or Austrians, there is no "pure" ethnicity; it is a product of the times, and a constantly evolving category.

Think about it this way. We can't even be sure how genetically homogeneous the population of north China was in the Western Han period, let alone later periods like the Age of Fragmentation, Tang, Song, Yuan, and Ming. Remember that in the Zhou period (especially Eastern Zhou), the people of the Zhou states co-existed with various 'foreign' or 'barbarian' tribes and states known generically as Rong, Di, or Yi, and eventually conquered them. These peoples were all under Qin and Han rule later on, and must have intermarried and gradually adopted the common identity of Zhongguo people or Han people. So from the start, the 'Han people' (in the sense of being subjects of the Han Empire) were a mixed population arising from different ethnic groups. Their descendants just got even more mixed in the Age of Fragmentation, as more new ethnic groups moved into north China and intermarried with the people who were already there. But the Tang Empire chose (probably following a practice started by the Xianbei/Xianbi in the Northern Dynasties) to label all the people settled permanently in north China as 'Han' people rather than 'Tang' people, and this choice was crucial in the eventual formation of Han ethnic identity, because the Khitan, Jurchen, Mongols and finally Manchus chose to use the same label for the 'native' north Chinese people under their rule.

Then we had the process of northern migration to the south from the Qin Empire onwards, which over a period of a thousand years or so (up to late Tang) gradually caused various 'Chu', 'Yue', or 'Man' groups in south China (except for Guizhou, Guangxi, and Yunnan) to also lose their original ethnic identities and identify with the northerners, often under the label 'Tang people'. The genes of descendants of intermarriage between northern immigrants and native southerners may be quite different from those of northerners who never came south (thus producing the differences in phenotype between north and south), but there is no point talking about 'racial purity' because there is no such thing as a genetically pure 'race' that has never intermarried with outside groups throughout its history. I suspect that if we were to compare the DNA of a modern Hebei person or Henan person with DNA taken from a skeleton in a Shang or Zhou tomb, we would see certain differences resulting from later admixtures. There could even be significant differences between DNA from a Han tomb and DNA from a Zhou tomb.

Being 'Han' in modern China is about an ethnic identity transmitted by one's society and community. It has nothing to do with DNA.

What does it take for an ethnicity to identify itself as Han? Was there a general criterion? How do modern historians label ethnicities of ancient times as "han" or "non-han"?

He is a han if he speaks the han-language and adopts han customs/name.

My take :

Han is any body in China or outside China who identify themselves with the mainstream history, culture, tradition of Chinese civilization or whose parents are identified as Han. This could include both Chinese citizen and non-citizen, except those Chinese citizen who identify themselves as member of other ethnic minorities.

GZ, "He is a han if he speaks the han-language and adopts han customs/name" seems more like definition of Chinese citizen because there are Chinese ethinc minorities who speaks Han languages, adopt Han name/customs, but not self identified as Han ethnicity.

I disagree, and so do many non-Chinese historians who use anthropological concepts more carefully. For a person from another ethnic group to adopt the language, customs, and naming conventions associated with 'Han' people, even if it involves him giving up his own ethnic groups' language, customs, and naming conventions, only counts as acculturation if he still retains his original ethnic identity. In other words, a Xianbi or Jurchen or Manchu who speaks the language and practices the customs of the ethnic group he calls 'Han', and even adopts a 'Han-style' name, is still Xianbi or Jurchen or Manchu until he no longer identifies himself as Xianbi or Jurchen or Manchu, and instead calls himself (and is called by others) a 'Han'. Only then can we say that assimilation has taken place.

Nor can we say that acculturation leads to assimilation in all cases. Otherwise, wouldn't the young people in China start thinking of themselves as Americans after years of learning and speaking English, eating at McDonalds, drinking coffee at Starbucks, celebrating Christmas, and using English names?

We can be quite sure that in north China there were many Xiongnu, Xianbi, Khitan, Jurchen and people from other ethnic groups who were assimilated into a Han ethnic identity, leading to the gradual disappearance of the ethnic identities 'Xiongnu', 'Xianbi', 'Khitan', and so on. But this process probably took generations, and the generation that was assimilated probably did not perceive itself as 'Han' as much as it was perceived as 'Han' by some other more dominant ethnic group, and came to accept that categorization. For example, the Jurchen upon conquering north China would label as 'Han' many people who actually had Xianbi or Xiongnu ancestry, simply because to the Jurchen all native north Chinese were 'Han'. Then the Manchus came along 500 years later, and even labelled as 'Han' many north Chinese people who actually had Jurchen or Khitan or Mongol ancestry. The process by which the Han ethnic group became so huge is as much as process of non-Han people being conquered and relabelled as 'Han' by other non-Han people, as it is one of non-Han people being assimilated due to generations of acculturation by the Han.

I would prefer to define a Han person in the modern context as one who has at any point been classified/identified by the ROC or PRC state (including ROC on Taiwan) as Han, and accepted that classification as his or her own ethnic identity, OR is not a citizen of the PRC or ROC but identifies himself or herself ethnically as Han.

The ROC and PRC states had, of course, certain criteria for classification, such as language, customs, and family history, but these were not fool-proof. There were thousands of PRC citizens in the late 20th century who changed their classification from Han to some minority group. In many cases, these are people whose grandparents changed their identity to Han in the ROC period because of perceived social advantages from being part of the ethnic majority (as well as Han discrimination against minorities!), but the grandchildren then realize in the PRC that being from a minority group actually comes with benefits under a more multi-ethnic political ideology (i.e. qualifying for the privileges and exemptions enjoyed by minorities). So they apply to the government to revert back to their pre-ROC ethnic identity. In other cases (e.g. the Tujia), many people who were identified as Han in the ROC period were reclassified as an ethnic minority by the PRC government because of linguistic differences, even though they themselves were not willing to change their ethnic identity.

Identification with the history and cultural traditions of 'Han civilization' is now usually the result of being classified from birth as Han (based on the ethnic classification of one's father), rather than vice versa - certainly I have never seen a case where the PRC or ROC state classified a new-born infant as 'Han' because his non-Han parents identified themselves with 'Han civilization'. In that sense, ethnic identities in modern China are much more rigid than they were in the imperial and pre-imperial periods. It is very hard for people of ethnic minorities to get themselves reclassified as Han (even if they wanted to), and comparatively easier for a Han to get reclassified as a member of an ethnic minority (provided he produces enough evidence of family history).

As for people outside China whose ancestors, grandparents, or parents migrated from China (such as myself), I think it would depend entirely on their own ethnic self-identification. Like most other Singaporeans of Chinese descent, I identify myself ethnically as a Huaren, not as a Hanren. So I would reject any attempt by a PRC citizen to classify me, a Singapore citizen, as Han. But I don't discount the possibility that there may be some citizen of a country other than ROC or PRC (including Singapore) who chooses to identify himself as a Hanren, especially if his parents are Han people who migrated from the ROC or PRC before he was born. In such a case, his self-idenfication as Han makes him ethnically Han, even if culturally speaking he does not identify with 'Han culture' at all.

An interesting question here would be whether there were any Han people in Hong Kong before 1997 or Macau before 1999, if no one there identified themselves as Han or were classified by the British and Portuguese governments as Han.

what ever happened to the Tangut people? what modern ethnicities did they get absorbed into? Gansu Han? Hui? Dongxiang?

But don't you think it's more than just simple "identity". That there is at least some biological component to it? I mean what if a white person identified as Han...would that make him Han?

Theoretically it would, but I have not yet seen a case of this happening. At the most, a white person who gives up his original citizenship for PRC citizenship has regarded himself as 'Chinese', but the PRC government has not seen the need to classify him or his children into one of the 56 official ethnic groups.



That is a big topic that is still being studied now. There is evidence that some Tanguts who survived the Mongol conquest of Western Xia sought refuge with the Jurchen Jin regime, and were resettled in Henan. Others migrated to Hebei, Shanxi, and Sichuan. Yet others joined the Mongol army, and their descendants served as ministers or soldiers up to the end of the Yuan Empire. But the majority probably remained in the region of Gansu and Ningxia. See http://www.ww.gansu.gov.cn/difangzhi/ReadN...asp?NewsID=2363 for a summary of the findings.

The Yuan government did not classify the Tangut as Han; instead, they were put in the Semu category. So any adoption of a Han or other (e.g. Hui or Sarta/Dongxiang) ethnic identity must have taken place in Ming or Qing; unfortunately we have little or no information about how and when this assimilation happened. But I think it's most likely that the descendants of the Tangut are now spread across a few ethnic groups, namely Han, Hui, and Dongxiang. Those who are Muslims and speak the Sarta/Dongxiang language (which is Mongolic) are classified as Dongxiang, those who are Muslims but speak only the Han language are classified as Hui, while those who are not Muslims and speak only the Han language are classified as Han.

The Tangut language and Tangut writing system are now extinct, but there is evidence that both were still in use up to the mid-Ming period: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangut_language and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangut_script

Is Han-ren (Han Chinese) part of a larger Hua-ren (Chinese)

How about Zhong Hua Ren Min Gong He Guo? Hua here seems to mean "Chinese" and not exclusively Han.

So if you say you are Hua-ren you are stating you are Chinese, but not conclusive enough as you could be any of the 56 "recognised" ethnicities?

"Hua-ren" when used to refer to overseas Chinese (migrated or born outside China) usually has no reference to specific ethnicity as classified by the PRC but a more general Chinese culture group? So if you say you are a Hua-ren, is it still quite vague, as overseas Chinese are not exclusively of "Han" ethnicity?

That is exactly the case. Hua used to be an ethnonym, but it has been repeatedly de-ethnicized while the term Han (originally a state name) has been ethnicized. The reasons for this are complex and I have already explained them before elsewhere.



The PRC is built on a platform of multi-ethnic unity; so is Singapore. But in Singapore, the official major ethnic groups are Chinese, Indian, and Malay, never mind that each of these groups is actually made up numerous sub-groups each with its own identity and, in many cases, own language. The Chinese ethnic group in Singapore is known in its own official language ('Huayu', the same language known as Putonghua in the PRC) as Hua, therefore I am ethnically a Hua person. If you wish to be more specific, my paternal ancestors are from Jiangsu and my maternal ancestors are from Fujian.

While we say we are Hua-ren (I will refer myself as Hua-ren, although my ancestors would say "Tang-ren" or "Tang-shan" to refer to China) I also find PRC born Chinese here in Australia using "Hua-ren" and "Hua-yu" (sometimes putonghua) but seldom refering to themselves as "Han-ren" when talking to me.

I suppose being Han loses relevance when they no longer have to interact with people who are Chinese but not Han.



I take it your ancestors were from Guangdong?

The hua category actually includes Manchus, Hui, and many culturally assimilated ethnic groups in China.

Would the Uyghurs, Uzbeks and Kazakhs in western China be considered "Hua" ? They retain most of their own native customs and don't seem to take on many Han customs.

In strict anthropological terms, there is no such thing as cultural assimilation. The word 'assimilation' is widely misused to convey the concept of 'acculturation', which denotes adoption of another ethnic group's culture without adoption of its ethnic identity. I believe you mean to say the Manchus and Hui are highly acculturated.

In the modern PRC context, the concept of being a Huaren is deliberately left vague. It actually has nothing to do with culture and simply serves as a synonym for Zhongguoren. So technically any citizen of the PRC can call himself a Huaren when outside China, although some minority ethnic groups that speak more Putonghua and travel out of China more are obviously more likely to use the term than other groups. A former PRC citizen who has migrated and changed citizenship may still use Huaren as a self-identification, but it has now changed into a sort of 'transnational' ethnic identity that denotes that he is from China but is no longer a Zhongguoren in terms of nationality; he cannot use Hanren for the same purpose because it has no relevance outside the administrative and social context of the PRC.


This is, in fact, nothing new. Hua was been used by 'Overseas Chinese' as a self-identification since the early 20th century, because they needed a term that conveyed ethnic identity without nationality. So in Singapore we have a concept of Huazu, the Hua or Chinese ethnic group, which would make no sense in the PRC where being Hua or Chinese is a supra-ethnic concept based on nationality. One society's ethnic dynamic is different from another's, and that accounts at least in part for the difference.

Actually, what I am trying to say is that overseas none-Han people such as the Hui and Manchu were known as Huaren as well.

Aren't the Hui just Han muslims?

Also, can anyone answer my previous question about the Kazakhs, Uzbeks and Uyghurs?

Is that because they called themselves Huaren, or because other people found them indistinguishable from the 'Han Huaren'?



'Hui' in the PRC is a kind of default category for Chinese Muslims who don't have their own language and speak only the Han language.



I already did so, but indirectly. Kazakhs, Uzbeks, and Uyghurs who are PRC citizens qualify to call themselves either Huaren or Zhongguoren on account of their nationality (PRC=Zhongguo=Zhonghua). But I think relatively few would choose to use the term Huaren, because it is not used much in the PRC and they don't identify with it. I think the government would be happy enough if they just called themselves Zhongguoren.

I'm sure that its no different from how the Han people picked up the term hua ren overseas. Even the Han people in the PRC rarely use hua ren to describe themselves.

Yes, Guangdong Dapu, on the paternal side.

which race in the world is 100% pure ? nope

so if you want to use mixed term in han , you must to look other race.

you must to know that no race in the world is 100% pure.

i dont think they are so different, they live in the different area with the different weather and had part so long time so i think their different was normally.

huaren and zhongguoren is two different term.

the one is refer to ethnic and another is refer to nationality.

and i think zhongguo is not same with zhonghua.

the term of zhongguo take from zhong = middle and guo= kingdom

and zhonghua is take from zhong=middle and hua=huaxia.

i dont agree with the reference in wikipedia that said zhongguo=zhonghua, the hua in here is refer huaxia and Huaxia refers to a group of ancient people living along the Yellow River. so the hua term in here very clear to say is ethnic hua(xia) not the country/nationality.

they can call them zhongguoren, but they cannot be call themself hua ren.

huaren is the same like hanren.

i think the hanren term will be replace by huaren in the future.

because the huaren term is not so popular in China and the huaren term is a new term and become popular in overseas.

why this term of huaren to use in overseas ? the purpose is solely to diffentiate the chinese in China/ Taiwan with overseas Chinese.

i think the hanren term is not so good to use in overseas for chinese. so the huaren term is the right choice to refer han chinese in overseas

No. Hua is a culture. Since Hua doesn't depend on a specific religion, you can be Hua and Muslim at the same time.

No, the earliest record of the use of the term Huaren is from AD 299. It isn't new at all. Compare this to the earliest record of the use of the term Hanren as an ethnic identity (i.e. not meaning 'subject of the Han Empire'), which is from the early 500s.

The term Huaren was popular in China long before it spread overseas. But it has lost popularity in the PRC for various reasons.



You may be surprised to hear this, but there is no actual evidence that Huaxia was the ethnic name used by the Xia, Shang, and Zhou peoples. There is evidence for Xia as an ethnic name, and Hua (but not Huaren) as an ethnic name, but the only example of the composite 'Huaxia' from Zhou-period sources is a single passage in Zuozhuan where it is used to label a geographical region, not a people.



If you look at the sources, you would find that Zhongguo, Zhonghua, and Huaxia became synonyms from at least the Tang period onwards. They were all used to refer to the core region of north China at first, but their meaning gradually expanded to also include much of south China, i.e. they came to encompass the core regions of the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing empires following the shift of cultural and economic centers to the south.



Actually, what the Overseas Chinese call Hua culture would be called Han culture in the PRC. 'Hua culture' would make little sense to a PRC Chinese, because to the PRC, Hua=China and there is no single homogeneous 'Chinese culture' - instead, there are 56 unique ethnic cultures, but the Han culture is dominant.

Yun explains it so well. Imagine myself as a Chinese learning about these terms, their origins and usages through history and how it evolved.

Imagine also to have to explain to foreigners these terms! I mean the term "Chinese" could well make a foreigner totally confused, let alone trying to explain "hua" and "han" to them!

But you could be a Han and not part of Hua.

Neither Han nor Hua contains each other, they merely intersect each other.

I know what 'Hua but not Han' would look like in the modern context, but am finding it harder to picture what 'Han but not Hua' would look like. Could you explain further?

One thing I would point out is that looking at the historical sources, you might find that Hua identity and Han identity reflected two different ways of looking at the world. Hua identity is dualistic and hierarchical, and divides the world between the superior civilized center (Hua) and the inferior barbarian periphery (Yi); it has deep roots in the Confucian classics' disdain for non-Zhou peoples who did not practice the Zhou rites. Han identity is pluralistic and geographical, and divides the world between the native north Chinese (Han) and the foreigners with whom they were in contact (Fan), with neither being inherently superior to the other; this worldview gained prevalence during the height of the heavily multi-ethnic and multi-cultural Tang Empire.

Of course, in the modern Overseas Chinese, Hua identity is no longer based on a dichotomous relationship with the barbarian Yi, nor does it necessarily come with a feeling of cultural superiority. But one can probably understand why the ROC and PRC, states built on a multi-ethnic ideological base, preferred to not equate Hua identity with Han identity, for fear that this would convey Han chauvinism. Instead, they created the new concept of a multi-ethnic Zhonghua nation (Zhonghua minzu) in which all citizens were Zhongguoren and Huaren regardless of ethnicity. For more reading on this reconceptualization, you may want to look at a recent book by James Leibold: http://www.amazon.com/Reconfiguring-Chines...s/dp/1403974799

A child of Han decent who lost both parents in WWII and was taken in by some American preacher who then took him to America and he grow up in America during the 50s and 60s where Chinese culture is very hard to come by and he by and large is white wash.
One example was a roommate of mine who was of Korean decent but was adopted by Italian parents and he is white in every aspect except for his skin. In a similar case were he to be Han, then he would be Han but not Hua.


Hum. I am not sure I agree with you about the Tang Empire. The Fan generals who were widely respected because they show signs similar to Confucian values such as loyalty and some are even learned in Confucian text. I would say that it is b/c they embrace Hua culture that they were given similar posts; certainly the lose atmosphere of Tang made it possible to shut anyone who is xenophobic up but I can hardly imagine any Fan general who does not follow the basic rituals of Confucian ideal gain any praise or earn any high post.
But, I am uncertain whether or not this is a view of future generation imposed upon Tang; perhaps it could be as you said, that to Tang not only there were no barrier b/w Han and Fan but also few barrier b/w Hua and non-Hua as the royal lineage does not necessary follow through with Confucian concept.


Hum..........personally I do think there is a feeling of cultural superiority that many Chinese felt that ought to be credit to Hua but instead were credit falsely to Han; I think both government of PRC and ROC have extensively mixed Hua with ethnicity, in the sense that Han = Hua, Hua = Xia, and that thought that foreign barbarians were assimilated into a greater Han China. At least that is what I got out of my nationalistic education during my time.

But if being Han is a matter of identity and not genes, then he isn't Han either.



We need only look at An Lushan, by far the most successful of the 'Fan generals' in terms of career advancement.

Hum.

Which is one reason why I dislike the modern concept of Han; since its a claim on genetic truth but instead is a psychological concept of identification. But if we look at the concept of what people call Chinese, they divide them into Han-Chinese and whatnot, so the kid in my example would be identify with Chinese [... in America, most people would assume you are Chinese] by others who would say he is Chinese, thus whether he identify himself with Han or not, he is associated with Han.

In my mind at least.

ok, if the term huaren was ever be used before the term of hanren.

so where is term "huaren" come from ?




no actual evidence can't be say that they didn't exist.

I think if we talk about history, that are very difficult to say it's 100% correct. so in my opinion the huaxia was have exist.
and huaxia is not to label only a geographical region, but huaxia is come from two character: hua is point to people of hua and xia is point to xia dynasty.

so as a whole the term of huaxia can mean the people of hua in xia dynasty. so we can say hua is a term for ethnic, not a region.




I think zhonghua and huaxia more synonyms than zhongguo.

because zhonghua and huaxia is not one syllable. i think you know chinese word often to make the word simplify. zhonghua and huaxia like word of "aoyun", ao = take from ao yun pi ke and yun = take from yun dong.

that the same like zhonghua and huaxia.

so we can say zhonghua is come from 2 character : zhong is take from zhong[quo] that refer the middle kingdom, because the term of zhongguo is already exist before the built of ROC and PRC. furthermore the hua character is take from hua[xia] that refer to hua people in xia dynasty, although that huaxia didnt ve actual evidence. but i am very confident this hua character is take from huaxia.

and huaxia people is our real ancestor.



i think you must to know, before the built of ROC and PRC the term of zhonghua minzu is not include minorities ethnic in china.

you already post this article in zhonghua minzu thread, read some part of your article :

This development in Chinese thinking was mirrored in the expansion of the meaning of the term Zhonghua minzu. Originally coined by the late Qing philologist Liang Qichao, Zhonghua minzu initially referred only to the Han Chinese. It was then expanded to include the Five Races Under One Union, based on the ethnic categories of the Qing. Sun Yatsen further expanded this concept when he wrote,

so the originally, zhonghua minzu only refer to han ethnic. and further the concept was expanded.

'Hua' comes from Zuozhuan (you can check any of the other authentic pre-Qin sources, you won't find it there), but historians still don't know what its precise etymology is, other than that one of its original meanings was 'flower'. The well-known etymology suggested by Kong Yingda in Zuozhuan Zhengyi (服章之美，谓之华) shouldn't be assumed to be correct, because he was writing in the early 7th century and had no evidence for what 'Hua' meant in Eastern Zhou times.

The term 'Hua' was never popular in Qin and Han times, because the Zuozhuan was not widely studied. It became popular around the 3rd century because of the increasing attention being paid to Zuozhuan; that is probably when the term was modified with the addition of 'ren' to make 'Huaren', and also the addition of 'zhong' to make 'Zhonghua'.





Your opinion has to be based on historical evidence, otherwise it's just an opinion. I could claim that the term 'Zhonghua' already existed in pre-Qin times, but if I have no evidence, no one needs to believe me. In fact, I would like you to check if there is any case of 'Zhonghua' being used before the 3rd century, or of 'Huaxia' being used in Qin-Han times.



Only in the opinion of Liang Qichao and a few others like Zhang Taiyan. Yang Du, a leading member of the constitutional party, argued in 1907 that the Manchus and Miao were part of the Zhonghua Minzu because they were heavily acculturated by the Han:

1907年，继梁启超之后，晚清著名立宪派代表杨度也成为了"中华民族"一词的早期使用者。是年5月20日，他在其所创办的《中国新报》连载的《金铁主义说》一文中，在与梁启超基本相同的意义上，多次使用了"中华民族"一词，并且还较为清楚地说明了"中华"作为民族名称的由来、特点，以及他自己对于民族识别和认同的理解。其文写道：
"中国向来虽无民族二字之名词，实有何等民族之称号。今人必目中国最旧之民族曰汉民族，其实汉为刘家天子时代之朝号，而非其民族之名也。中国自古有一文化较高、人数较多之民族在其国中，自命其国曰中国，自命其民族曰中华。即此义以求之，则一国家与一国家之别，别于地域，中国云者，以中外别地域远近也。一民族与一民族之别，别于文化，中华云者，以华夷别文化之高下也。即此以言，则中华之名词，不仅非一地域之国名，亦且非一血统之种名，乃为一文化之族名。故《春秋》之义，无论同姓之鲁、卫，异姓之齐、宋，非种之楚、越，中国可以退为夷狄，夷狄可以进为中国，专以礼教为标准，而无亲疏之别。其后经数千年混杂数千百人种，而称中华如故。以此推之，华之所以为华，以文化言，不以血统言，可决知也。故欲知中华民族为何等民族，则于其民族命名之顷，而已含定义于其中。与西人学说拟之，实采合于文化说，而背于血统说。"(11)
根据这一标准，杨度认为蒙、回、藏三族，虽有部分人已与汉人关系密切，文化接近，但整体说来却因文化落后，语言有异，尚未完全融入"中华民族"之中。而满族则可以说早已同化于中华民族之中了。其他如梁启超所为苗族 、濮族等，在他似更不在话下。因此，他主张实行"满汉平等、同化蒙、回、藏"的所谓"国民统一之策"。认为这样以平等为目的、以暂时不平等为手段，进行融化之后，就会看到将来"不仅国中久已无满、汉对待之名，亦已无蒙、回、藏之名词，但见数千年混合万种之中华民族，至彼时而更加伟大，益加发达而已矣"的必然结局。（12）
在同一篇文章中，杨度还反复强调，"中国之在今日世界，汉、满、蒙、回、藏之土地，不可失其一部，汉、满、蒙、回、藏之人民，不可失其一种，------人民既不可变，则国民之汉、满、蒙、回、藏五族，但可合五为一，而不可分一为五。分一为五之不可，既详论之矣。至于合五为一，则此后中国，亦为至要之政"。（13）在他看来，由于蒙、回、藏与满汉处于不同的社会发展阶段，进化程度有别，所以只有先实行君主立宪制，暂借君主的权威，才能为各族共举国会议员、通用汉语以共担国责创造必要的条件，"其始也，姑以去其（指蒙、回、藏等族人--引者）种族即国家之观念；其继也，乃能去其君主即国家之观念，而后能为完全之国民，庶乎中国全体之人混化为一，尽成为中华民族，而无有痕迹、界限之可言。"但他同时也认为，"此其事虽非甚难，然亦不可期于目前"。（14）
显然，在梁启超观点的基础上，杨度对"中华民族"的一体化融合趋势和发展方向，又作了更加透彻的发挥和阐述。其所谓"中华民族"所包涵的"民族"范围，似乎也比梁启超此前更广一些。在他那里，融化五族的"中华民族"作为一个整体，是与作为现代民族国家即立宪后的"新中国"相对应的。但它同时也是中国民族发展史的自然延续。应当说，杨度此处所使用的"中华民族"一词，已经具有了现代"中华民族"观念含义的雏形。只不过其尚不完全具备各民族平等融合的理念而已。
杨度此文发表后，革命派的重要代表之一章太炎随即作《中华民国解》一文，对之进行驳论。他在文中也使用了"中华民族"一词，仍指汉族。但他批评杨度对"华"字本意的理解有误（以"华"初本地域名、国名，非族名），反对仅以文化同一认同民族的观点，而强调血统的重要性。同时，他也期望汉族对满、蒙、回、藏的最终"醇化"，并承认满人在语言文化方面已有同化于中华的事实，不过他强调在这当中，还存在一个必先恢复汉民族政权的先决条件问题（15）显然，较之以往革命派更为狭隘的民族复仇主义，章氏此文的观点已经有所进步。从章太炎对民族血统问题的单向强调中，我们固然可以看到他思想的偏狭，但同时也能看到在杨度等人的民族认同意识中，只是关注文化认同一点的不足。事实上，中国各民族之间客观存在、长期延续的内在联系和一体性是极为广泛和深刻的，除文化之外，还包括血统联系的密切性等丰富内容。这一点，当然还无法苛求当时的人们。
以"华族"、"支那民族"、"中国民族"、"中华民族"等来称谓汉族，在此后的立宪派和革命派那里，都不是个别现象。如1907年5月12日，革命派马君武曾发表《华族祖国歌》，歌颂黄帝、夏禹在"华族"发展史上的功绩，号召民族成员奋起挽救民族和祖国危亡，（16）诗中所谓"华族"，指的就是汉族。不过也应指出，即使是用来指称"汉族"的"中华民族"一词，在清末也还并不算常见词，甚至比"中国民族"一词的使用还要少得多。这可能与日本的用法有关。当时，日本一般称汉族为"支那民族"。中国留日学生或照搬使用，或直接译为"中国民族"（17）。
http://www.66wen.com/01zx/zhexue/zhexue/06629/17474_3.html

So from the very beginning, there was no consensus on who was included in Zhonghua Minzu, until the ROC decided that it should include the 'five races'. Note also the debate between Yang Du and Zhang Taiyan about what 'Hua' conveys. Yang Du's position is the inclusive culturalist one taken by the Qing-period Gongyang scholars like Liu Fenglu and Kang Youwei; Zhang Taiyan's position is the exclusionary proto-racist one taken by Qing Zuozhuan scholarship. Both positions were politically motivated, based on one's attitude towards Manchu rule.

Sometimes I wonder why the PRC even bother to divide the ethnicities within its nation, if it didn't, assimilation would have been so much smoother. This separation of ethnic groups will be a seed for future separatist movements even if these minorities were acculturated. But I guess the reason is to provide social benefits to minorities to deter immediate discontent. Yet they could do it in other ways such as using "mother language" to divide between the groups.