This is a passage from Zhao Fengnian's essay "How I turned from a Chinese nationalist to a Han nationalist":

我们对待那些曾经屠杀几千万同胞的罪犯的后代，从来没有迫害过，而是以诚相待。被**疯狂咒骂的朱元璋，在推翻屠杀了几千万中国人民的凶手蒙元政权后，立刻就宣布蒙古人色目人虽然不是华夏，但只要遵守华夏礼法，就可以当作华夏同胞对待。世界上还有比这更宽容善良的民族吗?在我们汉族文化中，从来没有种族歧视，对各民族一视同仁。只有蒙元和满清政权，才有赤裸裸的种族歧视，把自己民族利益，凌驾于中国的利益之上。蒙古勾结阿拉伯人来欺压中国人民。满清更是公开宣扬“宁予友邦，不予家奴”。他们根本不认为自己是中国人。中国人民的利益根本就不在他们考虑范围之内。

Translation: We have never persecuted those descendants of criminals who murdered tens of millions of our kin. In fact we treat them with sincerity. After Zhu Yuanzhang (who has been savagely cursed and damned) overthrew the murderers of tens of millions of our kin, the Mongol-Yuan dynasty, he immediately announced that although Mongols are not Huaxia, as long as they follow Huaxia customs and law, they can receive the same treatment as their Huaxia kin. Is there any more magnanimous and kind-hearted people in the world? In our Han culture we have never discriminated by ethnicity, treating all ethnicities the same. Only under the rule of the Mongol-Yuan and the Manchu-Qing, do we see discrimination based on ethnicity, putting the interests of their own ethnicity above that of the interests of all China. The Mongols colluded with the Arabs to oppress the people of China. The Manchu Qing openly declared that they would "rather hand power to a friendly state, than pass it to these family slaves (i.e. the Han)". They simply didn't see themselves as Chinese (zhongguoren). The interest of the Chinese people just wasn't within their area of consideration.

- Do you agree or disagree, especially with the sentences in bold? Please explain your reasons and provide historical evidence where possible.

Of course there were racists among Han people in ancient times. But the general cultural trend of the Han nation is against racism. For example, the saying 夏入夷则夷，夷入夏则夏. As long as "barbarians" accept Han civilisation they should be treated as the same as Han people. So in principle there should not be racism but we all know things never go completely according to principles in our world.

Well?

I would say that culturally, Han are still people, and still liable to the weakness of discriminating against another people, simply for different practices or appearance.

Which is why other ethnicities were often given a -nu suffix (slave), such as Xiongnu and Wonu, or -man (savage), like the coverall term nanman. All human races tend to some extent or another think they're superior, more refined, or always in the right. Huaxia culture is no different in this aspect.

Full blown racism would probably be more likely though when China faces enemies of other ethnicities stronger or as strong as it is. It's always a good way to make the people more inclined to fight when you either paint a picture of how righteous your race is, or demonize entire races. We're not above doing that. When other peoples are less of a threat, then you likely won't see Ran Min leading an army on genocide. That almost seemed as if his viewpoint was that of a threatened creature, a viewpoint of a threatened Hua race that led his soldiers to mercilessly exterminate those who were different. Germans felt threatened by Jews before WWII, having been indoctrinated that Jews are 'bloodsuckers' among other things due to the jobs that they tended to take, which made it all the easier for Hitler to convince the people that they were worthy of being exterminated...because he portrayed them as threats, and put the people in a threatened animal mentality.

And when China is even more powerful than the 'barbarians' around it, it is also good to paint them as savages, and your own race as being righteous to give people the belief that it is right to fight, and that killing and taking their lands are justified. Such as what America did in the Indian Wars. They let the people believe how savage the Natives were, and how it was their duty to expand America to the pacific, and made the people believe that expansion was their destiny, and taking the lands justified. I don't see how we're any more immune, or prone, to racism than other people.

But to say Hans never practiced racism is just a preposterous idea. Of course, the same goes for any other race, but trying to say we're superior in that aspect is plain bullcrap, IMO.

*sigh* Yun, I had hoped we would not even be discussing zhao's article since I am wishing for them to be removed from CHF.


Uhm, if we were to look at history, how many did the "Chinese" murdered or enslaved in the process of expanding from a small valley kingdom to an empire?


Let me try to recall ... off the top of my head, there was a Jin Ri Bi who was passed over as regent because of his ethnic background, no?

Even if there was no official policy (none that I could think of at the moment), there was institutional discrimination through the official census by legislating certain families as superior to others, granting them privileges and leniency from the court of law.

It is not racism as we understand it, but this type of discrimination is no less malignant.
Tao Kan of the Western/Eastern Jin experienced taunts because of his ethnic background.

Let's not forget the 良民 and 贱民.

"非我族类, 其心必异" was taken from 《左传》.
In the original context, it was referring to the rivalry between the State of 晋 and the State of 楚 (楚虽大，非吾族也。)

Futhermore, it is incorrect to say that all ethnicities are treated the same through the different dynasties.
What is unstated is that the people had to adopt ethnic Han culture, education etc.
Zhu YuanZhang insisted that if the Mongols adopted the HuaXia customs, which mean they had to give up the Mongol customs which conflicted with the HuaXia customs.

Can we delete the original articles now and let zhaofengnian speak for himself from scratch?
Then there would be no possibility of making him shoulder miscommunications by somechineseperson.

Since when has the imperial Qing code treat ethnicity differently? There was no barring of marriage when carefully examining the first imperial edicts.



Yeah, is that why they created the most number derogatory terms to describe the various barbarians?

But seriously, why is there so much discussion on this article of third rate historical facts.

Only need one counterexample?
We have a thread called "Ran Min, the Hitler of East Asia". It could be said to be "nore really racism" (is Xianbei etc. really different in "race" from him?)
And actually what I say is not contradictiory to "夏入夷则夷，夷入夏则夏". (夏 vs 夷 may not be "racial" problem)

Oh I see, so this means when the Fujianese or Cantonese discriminated against the Hakka, we can't really consider it racism right? After all they are all Han.

In a website that tells the history of the Hakka by a Hakka writer, it says in China history, the central government once discriminated against the Hakka, killing people with high nose and the appearance of the Hakka at that time. He said that the Hakka was originally in the high north of China.

I do not know whether the story told in this website was true, but it is a reference we may want to look at.

I don't know whether the author is trying to equate Hakka with people of high noses.
Killing people of high nose should be in early Ming dynasty, since Zhu Yuanzhang had some hatred toward foreigners. ("Semu people", the foreigners, were treated higher than Han in the Yuan dynasty)
Hakka were just a term whose literal meaning is roughly "guests", as opposed to "Punti" ("native").

Do you still remember the website? Or is it the same website that assume Chinese were primarily Caucasoid because of the Chinese character 皇 ? By Lee M Lock?

However, because I am a historian and currently working on a thesis about ethnic relations and inter-ethnic cultural interaction during the Age of Fragmentation, I found it interesting to pursue the issue further. It is indeed a very pressing issue in current Chinese historiography, which is still labouring under the outdated sinocentric stereotype that China simply overcame foreign conquerers by 'sinicizing' them with its attractive and superior culture. Sorry if the thread is worrying to you.



Jin Ridi, a Xiongnu minister serving the Han court, was not passed over for the regency. He declined a joint regency with Huo Guang and requested that Huo Guang alone be regent, out of humility. He is actually often cited as an example of Chinese openness to foreigners in government.



Let me guess - is this Lee Siu-Leung? His website mentions a theory that the Hakka were originally Xiongnu. Probably he is talking about the Ran Min massacre against Jie and Xiongnu.

.....

My take on this question is that cases of ethnic discrimination by the Han people against other ethnicities are far too many in historical records for the "never" to be credible. The difference is that rather than advocating genocide, the Han usually tried to either promote the 'civilizing' of 'barbarians' with Confucian values and customs, or keep the 'barbarians' at a safe distance and rule them indirectly with a 'loose-rein' (jimi) system.

There is a reason why Tang Taizong famously said such lines as: "The people of the Central States (Zhongguo) have been universally favoured at the expense of the 'Barbarians' since ancient times. I love them all without discrimination." He is much respected for being a far more open-minded ruler on ethnic relations than most of his predecessors.

"The difference is that rather than advocating genocide, the Han usually tried to either promote the 'civilizing' of 'barbarians' with Confucian values and customs"

While for a Christian genocide and racially discriminating against other peoples is clearly evil, "cultural discrimination" is not necessarily so. Some cultures (I mean cultural values not the people themselves) are closer to the Truth than others, sorry if this sounds bad in the current intellectual climate that favors relativism. Jesus said I come as a testimony to the Truth therefore we should accept the Truth elements in all cultures. It's just that some have more Truth in them than others do. IMHO Confucianism and certain other Chinese schools of thought have a lot of truth in them, as well as many of the ancient Greek philosophical schools.

I must point out, SCP, you another time mislead people by your own interpretation here.

As you said: "As long as "barbarians" accept Han civilisation they should be treated as the same as Han people."

It should be:' When "barbarians" enter the middle kingdom and accept the civilization, they are chinese.


The true origin of this word is far before the han ethnic come to form.





This time, i 'd like to post an historical article about what is the "华裔之辨“ for reference，but it is in chinese, real hard work for me to translate.

http://www.zisi.net/htm/ztlw2/zggds/2005-05-10-20738.shtml

先秦华夷之辩杂论



作者：王易遁



　　一、华夷之辩的“华”的意思


　　华夷之辩又可以称为夏夷之辩，主旨就是华夏族和夷族的区别。
　　“华”和“夏”指的是华夏族。“华”和“夏”有“华夏族”之意，这是后起的意思，那“华”和“夏”的本义是什么呢？历来的学者认为“夏”的本义有二：一是地名，一是华美之义。
　　禹受封为夏伯，根据孔颖达所注的〈尚书〉“颛顼以来，地为国号”，因此在禹子启建立夏朝时，便沿用此|“夏”号，金景芳说：“夏也叫做大夏，原为地名，自启凭借父禹的基业夺取政权在这里建立了以华夏族为基础的奴隶制度的国家后，才变成历史上的一个朝代的名称”。这样以居住地为姓氏或是部落名称的例子在上古时期很多，如颛顼因初居高阳，而称为高阳氏，帝喾曾因初居于高辛而称为高辛氏，尧因初居于陶后又居于唐，而称为陶唐氏或称为唐尧，舜因初居于虞而称为有虞氏，夏的情况亦是如此，夏朝的这种朝代的命名方式表明了夏时血缘关系的没落和地缘关系的建立，夏朝的建立不再以血缘也就是不再以血统为基础，而是以地理位置和文化的差异来编制和划分国民。
　　《尔雅，释诂》曰：“夏，大也。”《尚书》云：“冕服采章曰华，大国曰夏。”《尚书》正义曰：“冕服采章对被发左衽，则为又光华也，释诂云：‘夏，大也，故大国曰夏，华夏，谓中国也’”，从上面的可以看出，“夏”的意思是“大”或者“大国”的意思。这些都是因为夏朝的建立后，夏国无论是在管理的人口和管辖的区域和文化方面都非其他的方国可比，“夏”的含义也就由原来的“夏地”变为“大”或者“大国”。
　　《禹贡》云：“羽畎夏翟。”这里的“翟”是雉名，“夏翟”即五彩之旌旗；《周礼。天官》：“秋染夏。”贾公彦疏：“秋染夏者，夏谓五色，”这些“夏”的意思均为“华美”的意思。
　　关于“华”的本来的意思，有如下的记载：
　　《诗.周南.逃夭》：“灼灼其华。”《淮南子.时则训》：“桃李始华。”这些“华”都是“花”或者“开花”的意思。
　　在古代，“华”同“花”，“化”同“花”，“华”又同“化”。
　　“化”为何意？《华严经.音义上》：“教成于上而易于下，谓之化”，许慎释“化”为“教行也”。因此，“化”就是“教化”之意，“华”同“化”，也就是说“华”有教化的含义，教化则必然要和“文”联系到一起来，“华”其实就是要以“文”而“化”之。
　　“华”同“夏”，“华”和“夏”的意思可以通用， 所以，“华”，“夏”，“华夏”，“中华”的意思都有“教化”的意思。《唐律名例疏义释义》有言：“中华者，中国也，亲被正教，自属中国，衣冠威仪，习俗孝悌，居身礼义，故谓之中华。”这里对中华的解释很精辟，把是否自属中国诸华夏族，是否属于中华的标准定义为是否“亲被正教”也就是是否奉行中华文化传统，一言以辟之，无论是何族，只要继承中华文化，也就可以成为中华成员，亦即成为华夏族。


　　二、华夷之辩的“夷”的意思


　　早在殷朝的甲骨文中就有了“夷”的记载。甲骨文“尸”“儿”就是“夷”，郭沐若说：“甲骨文1183片，‘贞尸方不出’，尸方者，夷方也；甲骨文1130片中的‘伐儿方’，儿方当即夷方。”许慎的《说文解字》对“夷”的解释是：“夷，平也，从大，从弓，东夷人也”。
　　“夷”原是华夏族族对非华夏族民族的统称，这个“夷”意是广义上的“夷”，从《禹贡》，《诗经》，〈淮南子〉等文献中可以看出只要是不同于华夏族的民族，不管是在什么方位都统统以“夷”来称呼，如《尚书.大禹谟》：“无殆无荒，四夷来王。”《淮南子.愿道训》：“禹施之以德，海外宾伏，四夷钠服。”《毛诗正义》：“幽王时，四夷交侵，中国皆叛。”这些“夷”均带有“四”字，则“夷”者是四方非华夏族的统称。从西周开始，“夷”又多指东方之民，即是“东夷”，这个是“夷”的具体化。
　　史料上具体的非东方的夷有：
　　北方的畎夷，《竹书纪年》：“帝癸（夏桀）即位，畎夷入歧。”
　　西方的昆夷，《诗.大雅.采薇》序云：“文王之时，西有昆夷之患。”
　　南方的夷，《春秋公羊传注疏》：“南夷与北狄交，中国不绝若线。”
　　这些都可以看出，“夷”是四方的民族的统称，非仅指东方之民族，周朝有“东夷，北狄，南蛮，西戎”之说，这个时候的“夷”又演变为有专指东方的非华夏民族之意，这个是狭义上的“夷”，但是广义上的“夷”仍继续沿用，直到现代。


　　三、“华”和“夷”的区别

　　关于“华夏族”和“夷族“的民族特征和区别，史料为我们提供了很详细的记载。
　　《礼记.王制》：“中国夷狄五方之民，皆有性也，不可推移。东方曰夷，被发文身，有不火食者矣；南方曰蛮，雕题交趾，有不火食者矣；西方曰戎，被发衣皮，有不粒食者矣；北方曰狄，衣羽毛穴居，有不粒食者矣。中国夷蛮戎狄，皆有安居，和味，宜服，利用，备器，五方之民，语言不通，嗜欲不同。”从名称（夷狄戎蛮中国），方位（五方），饮食，服饰，居住等方面指出中国夷狄戎蛮的特征和区别。文中的“雕题”是指刻其肌肤以丹青涅之，和“文身”差不多，“交趾”就是足相向，是南方人不穿鞋子跣足的反映。
　　《左传》襄公十四年，诸侯会于向，戎子驹支曰：“我诸戎饮食衣服，不与华同，挚币不通，语言不达。”
　　《淮南子 .坠行训》：“东方，其人兑行小头，隆鼻大嘴鸢肩企行，长大早知而不寿；南方，其人修行兑上，大口决龇，早壮而夭；西方，其人面未偻，修颈印行，勇敢不仁；北方，其人翕形短颈，大肩下尻其人愚蠢禽兽而寿，中央四达，其人大面短颈，美须恶肥，惠圣而好治。”
　　从上述的史料可以看出，地域上华族大体上居于中华的中部，夷狄戎蛮基本上居于诸夏的四方，“华”和“夷”无论是在文化，语言，风俗，饮食，服饰，甚至是在人形方面都有着非常明显的特征和区别。


　　四、华夷之辩的内容

　　史料中关于华夷之辩的内容主要有如下几个方面：
　　首先是诸夏一体的意识。
　　《春秋》：“内诸夏而外夷狄。”“不以中国从夷狄，不与夷狄之执中国也。”
　　《春秋左传正义》齐管仲云：“戎狄豺狼，不可厌也，诸夏亲昵，不可弃也。”
这些其实都是要明确诸夏诸国乃一体，诸夏国家之间应该不分彼此，应该相互帮助相互扶持，相亲相爱。西周以来特别是春秋时期正是夷狄戎蛮势力壮大，影响到诸夏发展生存的时期，华夏族面临历史上从未有过的严重的非华夏族的入侵。周王室的东迁，就是在狄戎灭亡西周的形势下的不得以之举。这个时期，北方的山戎活跃于我国的北部地区，并且深入于今天的山西，河北中部以及黄河以南，和中原诸夏频繁战争。周桓王六年（公元前714年）北狄伐郑，十四年（公元前706年），北狄伐齐，惠王十三年（公元前664年），山戎病燕，十五年（公元前662年），狄伐邢，十七年（公元前661年），狄伐卫，襄王二年（公元前650年），狄灭温。南方自称“蛮夷”的楚国也北上中原与诸夏争夺霸权，相距灭掉淮河流域和南方许多诸夏国家，春秋时期诸夏在这种受到四方民族，特别是来自北方和南方的异民族的压力下，许多诸夏之国和诸夏之民和诸夏之地亡于夷狄戎蛮，诸夏民族意识，民族认同在和夷狄的交战中得到强化，“华夷之辩”就是在这种民族危机的形势下不断丰富深化。
　　其次是贵“华”贱“夷”，以“华”为贵，以“夷”为贱，贬低蔑视非华夏族的民族。
　　《论语注疏》有云：“夷狄之有君，不如诸夏之亡也。”
　　《礼记正义》云：“东夷，北狄，西戎，南蛮，虽大曰子。”
　　周大夫富辰云：“狄，豺狼之德也。”
　　“华”贵，“夷”践，是“华夷之辩”中的主要内容，“华”贵“夷”践，其实就是以华夏的文化，礼仪制度为贵，贬“夷俗”，确立“夷”必须从“华”的观念。
　　再次是“要服”“荒服”之制。
　　周穆王时祭公谋父云：“先王之制，邦内甸服，邦外侯服，侯卫宾服，蛮夷要服，戎狄荒服。甸服者祭，侯服者祀，宾服者亨，要服者贡，荒服者王，日祭，月祀，时亨，岁贡，终王。”“要服者贡”就是向周天子贡献物品，“荒服者王”就是要承认天子的统治地位，所谓的“终王”即每代戎狄之君继位，要朝见周天子，周天子新王继位也要觐见，以表示对周天子的臣服关系。如夷狄之君未按照周天子指定的“要服”“荒服”规定做，周天子就“修名”“修德”，即以尊卑职贡之分和感之以德，使其来贡来朝；“修名”“修德”仍不来者，就要“修刑”，就是要以武力战争来“刑诛”，甚至要灭其国，亡其民。


　　五、儒家的华夷之辩

　　让我们来看看先圣是如何看待华夷之辩的：
　　孔子作《春秋》曰：“夷狄入中国，则中国之，中国入夷狄，则夷狄之”，也就是说， 夷狄到了中原地区，习用了华夏文化习俗，他们就成了华夏族，而中原华夏族如果进入了边远地区，习用了夷狄的文化习俗，他们就成为了夷狄，是夷狄还是华夏不在于血统，而在于所习用的文化，就是说华夷之辩不是血统上的区别而是文化上的差异。
　　孟子继承了孔子的这样的民族区别的观念，进一步提出“中国圣王无种说”，认为中国的任何一个民族只要他有志气有才能，都可以统治中华成为圣王正统，他说：“舜生于诸冯，迁于负夏，卒于鸣条，东夷人也，文王生于歧周，卒于郢，西夷人也。”更强调要“以华变夷”，反对“以夷变华”这里的“变”是“改变”的意思，就是要用华夏的文化礼仪制度来改变四夷的文化礼仪制度，把四方之民纳于华夏文化之下，化“夷”为“华”，也就是主张民族同化融合。


　　六、华夷之别非血统之别乃文化之别

　　华夷之辩也就是华夷之别，华夏族和四夷之间的区别不是血统上的区别乃是文化上的不同。原本是夷狄戎蛮民族，在和华夏族接触的过程中习用了华夏的文化礼仪制度，从而认同华夏族，就会转变成为华夏族，这个就是由“夷”变成“华“；原本是华夏族的因为僻处四方，和中原诸夏不相往来，习用诸夷狄的文化礼仪制度，就会给排除出诸夏之列，不在以华夏族来对待，这个就是由“华”变成“夷”。因此无论血统本来是“华”还是“夷”，只要习用华夏族礼仪，就可以成为诸夏；只要屏弃了华夏族之礼仪，就可以归之为“夷”。
　　观之前面的“华”“夏”“夷”的意思与华夏族和夷狄戎蛮的民族特征和区别，可以看出华夏族和其他非华夏族的区别其实是以文化为基础，不是以血统来区别，“华”者，化四方民族也！
　　民族的定义是“具有相同的地域，共同的语言，共同的经济生活和表现在共同的文化上的共同的心理素质的人们共同体。”观察民族形成的历史，形成民族的首要条件就是以血缘（血统）关系为纽带的氏族的瓦解，因此民族的根本性是文化，“华夷之辩”实质就是不同民族之间的文化高低之辩，非血统之辩。
　　先秦和随后的史料中关于“华”变成“夷”的记载颇多。举其要者由“华”变成“夷”：
　　《史记.五帝本纪》有云：“流共工于幽陵以变北狄，放驩兜于嵩山以变南蛮，迁三苗于三危以变西戎，殛鲧于羽山以变东夷。”驩兜，三苗的族属历来多有争议，但是共工和鲧的族属，则多认为是华夏族，共工和鲧原为华夏族，后来因为共工和鲧及其部分后人因为战争失败的缘故（流，殛）僻处于于四方，不和中原诸夏相往来，弃华夏礼仪不用，习用诸夷之文化，由“华”变成“夷”。
　　《史记.匈奴传》云：“匈奴其先祖夏后氏之苗裔也，曰淳维，桀崩，其子淳维妻其众妾，遁于被野，随畜转徙，号荤育，逮周日盛，曰 猃狁 。”
　　《魏书.序纪》云：“后魏之先，出自黄帝，黄帝之子曰昌意，昌意少子，受封北国，其后世为君长，统幽都以北，广漠之野，黄帝以土德王，北俗谓为拓，谓后谓跋，故以为氏（拓拔氏）。”

　　七、从楚国民族认同来看“华夷之辩”

　　按照中国的史书记载，楚人原为华夏族，但是在春秋时期，根据当时的记载，楚国人多认为自己是蛮夷，不是华夏族，到了战国时期，楚国人才又再次认为自己属于华夏族，从史料的记载来看，则楚国经历了由“华”变成“夷”，再由“夷”变成“华”的过程，这也为我们提供了华夷之辩乃文化之辩，非血统之辩的依据，即是，华夷的区别是文化，不是血统。
　　1，楚国的来源是华夏族。关于楚人的来源，中国的史料都一致认为楚人乃黄帝之后，尤其以《史记》的记载最为详细。
　　《史记》云：“楚之先，出自帝颛顼高阳氏。黄帝生昌意，昌意生颛顼，颛顼生称，称生卷章，卷章生重黎，因其能光融于天下，故命之为祝融，重黎死，其弟吴回继为祝融，吴回生陆终，陆终生季连；季连，芈姓，楚乃其后也，周文王时，季连苗裔鬻熊事文王，成王时，封鬻熊之后熊铎于荆蛮之地。”
　　从以上的记载来看，则楚国从血缘关系上而言是属于华夏族。
　　2，西周春秋时，楚国在民族认同上已由“华”变成“夷”，民族属性已是南蛮，这个时期，楚国又多称为蛮荆，荆或者蛮。关于楚国自己认为是蛮夷和中原诸夏认为楚国是蛮夷的记载，春秋和战国初期的史料颇多。如《诗.采岂》曰：“愚而蛮荆，大国为谁谁，显允方叔，征伐猃狁，蛮荆来服。”
　　周夷王时，楚君熊渠兴兵伐庸和扬粤，至于鄂，自以为乃“蛮夷”，“不与中国之号溢”。
　　楚武王三十五年（公元前706年，周恒王是四年），楚伐随。随曰：“我无罪也。”楚曰：“我蛮夷也，今诸侯皆叛，或相侵，或相杀，我有敝甲，欲以观中国之政，请王室，尊我号。”
　　楚文王六年（公元684年），秋九月，《春秋》云：“荆败蔡师于莘，以蔡侯献舞归。”荆，楚国也；献舞，蔡侯名；以献舞归，即是蔡侯为楚国俘获而去。孔子云：“何不言获，不与夷狄之获中国也。”孔子认为楚国乃夷狄之国。
　　《史记.楚世家》：“楚成王六年（公元前671年），楚使人献周惠王，惠王曰：“镇尔南方夷越之乱，无侵中国。”周王室亦认为楚国乃夷也。
　　楚成王十六年（公元656年），楚与齐盟于召陵，《春秋公羊传》云：“楚有王则后服，无王则先叛，夷狄也，而亟病中国。”
　　楚成王十六年（公元前639年）秋，《春秋公羊传注疏》云：“宋公，楚子，陈侯，蔡侯，郑伯，许男，曹伯会于霍。宋公与楚子期以乘车之会，宋公子目夷谏曰：‘楚，夷国也，强而无义，请君以兵车会往。”
　　《国语》云：“楚大夫王孙圉聘于晋有言‘楚虽蛮夷，不能宝也。’”
　　从这些史料记载可以看出在春秋时期，不仅诸夏国家把楚国当成蛮夷，不属于华夏族之列，楚国的君主和大臣也都把自己当成是蛮夷。之所以出现这样的民族认同，主要是因为楚国的国土在蛮夷之地，楚国即使原来在血统上是华夏族血统，但是因为封国于荆蛮之地，僻居于南方，与当地的“南蛮”“荆蛮”民族有教多的接触，其国四周均是蛮夷之人，其统治的国民也多是蛮夷之人，在这种的地理大环境下，语言，文化，礼仪制度，习俗等各个方面深受当地的蛮夷之俗所影响，慢慢地同化于当地的蛮夷。
　　3，春秋末期开始，楚国的民族认同开始发生变化，掀开了由“夷”变成“华”的过程，这个时期，关于楚国的族属记载的史料有楚庄王时，楚大夫曰：“若民烦，可教训，蛮夷戎狄其不宾也久，中国所不能用也。”楚国开始把自己和蛮夷戎狄区别开来。
　　《韩诗外传》云：“越王勾践使廉稽献民于荆（楚），荆使者曰：‘越夷狄之国也，臣请欺其使’。”
　　从上面的记载可以看出，这个时候的楚国已把自己当成中国之人，认为自己是华夏族，开始把自己和蛮夷区别开来。到了战国时期，记载楚国自己认为是中国之民，属于华夏族的记载就更多了，在此不一一列举。之所以有有这样的一种民族认同上的改变，原因主要是因为这个时候各国之间的战争不断，国与国之间的交流和了解也在不断地深化，楚国通过战争的方式兼并了淮水流域的众多的诸夏国家，和诸夏的文化的交流也就随之扩大，特别是从楚庄王北上和中原诸夏国家争夺霸权，华夏的各种文化礼仪开始大量地影响楚国原有的蛮夷文化，楚国的民族认同也就开始了由“夷”转变为“华”的过程了。直到最终认为完全华夏化。

　　从楚国的由“华”变成“夷”，再由“夷”变成“华”，我们可以认识到，民族的认同是一个变动的过程，决定民族属性的本质东西是文化，不是血统。不同血统的民族，可以通过文化因素同化融合为一个民族，同一个血统的民族也会因为文化的不同而分化成不同的民族。民族的同化融合，变迁分化受到文化的决定性的影响。民族的根本性和认同主要决定因素是文化。

　　综上所述，“华夷之辩”其实就是“居夏则为夏，居楚则为楚，居越则为越。是非天性，乃积糜使然也。”这个就是“华夷之辩”。

终稿于：2003/3/15

TaiE,

as have been pointed out before, please do not post Chinese articles without a translation. If you are unable to do so, as a courtesy to forummers here, please do not post it.

You are now doing the same thing that Somechineseperson is doing which is posting an article verbatim from another site. (Is this how mainland Chinese use forums?)

If you really feel the article is of interest to the discussion at hand, you need merely post a link to it. it would serve its purpose just as well.

I have no issue approaching the subject from this angle.

However, the principal material with which this thread is based on is the article written by zhao which have a rather dubious status in CHF (it was posted here without his permission and got misrepresented).

As I explained, it probably was not meant for CHF as it dealt with personal conflict between the author and some other members in another forum, which he used as a basis for his Big-Han-Ideology.

In that light, I do not see that the article has a place in CHF, not even as a seed of discussion.

Some of the claims made like those you quoted for the purpose of this thread simply do not stand up in the light of historical facts.

Another thing: would the title "Did Han Chinese practice racism" be better for this thread rather than the assertive "The Han Chinese never practiced racism"?

The latter conjured a rather misleading intent of the post.


I am not denying that 金日磾 was humble, but “臣外国人，且使匈奴轻汉” was recorded in history.
If he had not been a XiongNu, he might well have accepted. I was wrong to say he was passed over, but I think I was right to think his XiongNu background had to do with him not being regent.

To cite him as an example as Chinese openess to foreigners is misleading because he abandoned his XiongNu culture and wholly immersed himself among the central Chinese culture.

Which is still discrimination and chauvnistic. Consider that the Han ethnicity is by and large define by a shared culture and cultural heritage. You are basically saying Han culture is superior to some others. Thus you should not be surprised if someone labels you a Han Chauvinist.

I find statements such as this disingenious. Consider how many peoples and ethnicities today are defined by their culture. Would you go up to a Mongol and tell them," I have nothing against the Mongol people of course, however your culture is inferior to Han culture"?

May I ask how is this thinking different from some Japanese who believe their culture is superior to Han culture? Nothing against the people of course, you understand.

This is just like racism except replace skin-colour with culture.

The problem here is, how believable are these explanations of Di, Dongyi, Man, Rong, Xiongnu and Tuoba Xianbei origins as real history? Most scholars now see them as invented by ancient Han historians for propaganda reasons, or invented by non-Han rulers (e.g. Tuoba-Wei) for legitimizing reasons. I find that this article tends to take the ancient histories too much at face value. The origin of the Xianbei and Xiongnu has to be studied through archaeology, rather than taking the histories at face value when they say that these people were originally Huaxia.

OK, done. Good point.

Snowybeagle, I would like to point out the original translated line is:


I have stated in this forum I feel the Han ethnicity is one defined more by a shared culture and cultural heritage. I translated the paragraph with this definition in mind, which (unless someone wishes to correct me) is an accurate translation.

Thus I think it is important to establish that when Yun uses Racism, it should be seen as to also encompass discrimination base on culture.

Although I was always be in clashes with SCP, but those just focused on views not the method posting articles itself.
In China, people like using this because it is convinient for forumers, for most people won't waste time just click and click, and also are there always many internet traps.

Anyway, 入乡随俗, I would take the point.

thanks.

CHINA HAS REMAINED UNITED DUE TO THE POLICY OF NOT ACCEPTING 'RACISM' AS THE WEST DOES. BUT WORSHIPPING FAIR SKIN IS DANGEROUS TO CHINESE UNITY

In fact, China would disintegrate if suddenly they began to adopt evil Western habits like racism (which is the worse in India and has been there for over 4000 years and is called the Caste System see http://dalitstan.org/books/sudroid )

China has too many different ethnic and sub-racial groups to tolerate a policy of racism. If that becomes the case, China would fragment into a number of states who are determined to preserve their 'racial' identities.

The fact is, the turkic-Mongol Uigers, the Northern prehistoric Caucasian-Mongol North Eastern Mongols, the Central and Southern Negroid-Mongol 'yellowish-brown' Chinese and the Classic Mongol North Central Chinese all have different origins.

A racial policy would cause immediate fragmentation because each of these groups (like Russians and East Indians) have their own cultures, languages and physical differences.

However, since China has maintained a policy of uniting its people for centuries, the people have been able to remain cohesive. As soon as the WESTERN TRICK OF 'DIVIDE AND CONQUER' racism seeps into China, that is when people will begin to notice their 'differences.'

Right now the way most Chinese see other Chinese may be innocent. It may be the way Adam and Eve saw each other before they bit the apple. As soon as that 'innocence' is removed, people from various regions will see themselves as 'different' even though thier features are similar.

The fact is, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN SUDAN, WHERE CUSHHITES IN THE WEST ARE SEEN AS DIFFERENT FROM THOSE IN THE NORTH....and that 'difference' is exploited by outsiders.

So, China should say NO TO RACISM.

http://www.sudanforum.com

http://www.raceandhistory.com

nubianem@webtv.net

I notice that in Taiwan, there was a degree of prejudice of han-chinese against Taiwanese aborigines. The Taiwanese aborigines were in the past looked upon as a "huan na" (uncivilized people) and many found discrimination in Taiwan society. Many Taiwanese aborigines adopted han surnames/names in order to make themselves 'more acceptable' in the Taiwan society, who gradually lose their original culture.

In the 1990s, due to democratization and taiwanization program, there was a greater liberation to restore the culture of Taiwanese aborigines. Recently, more Taiwanese aborigines are returning to their aborigines name. Many Taiwanese aborigines had become more increasingly influential in Taiwan.

Institutionalized racism, I don't know. But nowadays in China, Chinese don't like dark-skinned Africans. I can't remember the exact date, but a couple years ago, there was some racist incidents/attack on African students in Nanjing. I truly detest that .

Being someone of Chinese descendent abroad, I know that many first generation Chinese possess some kind of bias against colored people.

http://app1.chinadaily.com.cn/star/2003/0417/cu18-1.html


Racism in China

Shanghai Star. 2003-04-17



URING my stay in China all I ever experienced were racial taunts, blatant discrimination and general loathing from the majority" says mixed-race Canadian teacher David Szykulski,

"Han Chinese people are the most openly xenophobic people I have ever met."

Many will tell you racism doesn't exist in China, and evidence is certainly hard to find within a native population of more than 1 billion, but could prejudice against foreigners - especially non-whites - be simmering beneath the surface?

If looking for evidence of racial discrimination one may struggle to find it and examples of actual hatred are even rarer. In fact, as many will state, the Chinese are well known for their politeness and respect towards foreigners.

Many rarely encounter those from abroad - especially those with dark skins - so quizzical curiosity (or reticence) is common, and often misinterpreted. It is certainly true that to clumsily extrapolate race issues in the West onto China misunderstands the people and their beliefs.

But is there an underlying discrimination towards non-whites; maybe rarely exhibited because of infrequent contact, but present nonetheless?

Status discrimination

The word racism evokes images of hate, violence and antagonism, but its definition extends to a belief that some races have an innate superiority to others. Or, as a comment from a student at Chengdu University succinctly demonstrates: "There is no racism in China because there are no black people."

Sociology Professor Yu Hai, who has studied at Fudan University for 17 years, believes a long-standing Chinese tradition of discrimination according to "status" has created an atmosphere conducive to racial prejudice.

"According to your status in society you receive different benefits and power. Rural people and city people; ordinary people and officials. In such a social structure, we can predict that the Chinese will have very strong feelings of racial discrimination."

Yu believes dark-skinned foreigners are likely to face more obstacles than whites, as many Chinese see them as inferior.

Many have ingrained impressions of African wars, famine and disease from the mass media, says the sociology professor. Plus a perception of a dichotomous West with exclusively well-educated and prosperous whites, and poverty-stricken ethnic minorities.

One city resident told the Shanghai Star that "crime is so low in Shanghai because there are no black people."

Other possible root causes could be the perceived "uncouth" behaviour of a minority of African expats during the eighties, which created a negative stereotype. Unfavourable portrayals of dark-skinned characters in movies is also widely cited as unhelpful.

Indians and Filipinos may face prejudice because of a perceived history of subservience to whites, says Yu Hai. And the Japanese are often reviled because of a long history of conflict with China.

There are cultural reasons too. A popular saying "one white covers up a thousand defects" describes a Chinese preference for lighter skin, and its association with beauty and prosperity. Many consider paler skinned women to be more attractive.

David Szykulski believes his skin colour stopped him getting a teaching job, despite his suitable qualifications. On the Hard News Cafe website Indian American Leon D'Souza describes a similar experience.

"I asked if my race would pose a problem. There was dead silence on the other end of the line. With a faint stutter, the principal of the school replied, 'Frankly speaking, we would like our teachers to look professional. I mean, please don't get me wrong, but we would like a white teacher'."

Teaching recruiter Tony Lee confirms that it can be difficult for non-whites, however he says Western English speakers usually encounter fewer problems. More common in teaching circles is discrimination against Africans, Indians and Asians - especially in sophisticated cities like Shanghai. This is based on a perceived view that Western English is "proper" English.

Professor Yu Hai says most will be respectful or even humble when encountering Westerners - even non-whites - but will look down on foreigners from poorer parts of the world. Prosperity and wealth can have a weighty influence. So could country of origin be more important than race to the Chinese? The words zhongzu ("race") and minzu ("nation-race") are distinguished in the Chinese language. However, presumed racial genetic features can transcend "nation-race" according to Chinese History Professor Frank Dikotter at the University of London.

Yu Hai suggests the clearest example of this is a belief that intimate relationships with non-whites are unnatural, irrespective of country of origin.

"If a Chinese woman dates a white man it is social climbing. If she is with a black man, it is 'stepping down'. In this situation, the Chinese will express very strong feelings about ethnicity."

Potential trouble

Today's Chinese students, like Fudan University's Diana Cheung, seem far from outraged however, saying that because cross-cultural relationships are rare in China, the resultant attention and staring they attract is curiosity, not disdain.

She and her fellow students socialise with foreigners of all races, and while agreeing that racial prejudice exists in those with "older ideas", they say that it is seldom seen amongst their contemparies.

As for the future, opinion differs about the impact of an escalating number of foreigners entering China. Interaction could break down false conceptions about non-whites; conversely the influx may evolve in many people's minds into a so-called "threat". Worryingly Yu Hai agrees with the latter prediction.

"Racial issues could become a serious problem as China develops and more foreigners come here seeking a job. Then we would have some conflict."

Whether racial prejudice will become more prominent or prove neglible as many believe it already is, China is continuing to tempt foreigners of all races to its shores, so increasing contact will certainly force the issue further into the open. Richard Fisher

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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1461208,00.html

The Middle Kingdom mentality

At last China's culture of racism is being contested by Chinese

Martin Jacques
Saturday April 16, 2005
The Guardian


Condoleezza Rice's recent visit to east Asia concluded in Beijing, where she made clear her opposition to the new anti-secession law and her view that Japan should be a permanent member of the UN security council. With Sino-Japanese relations deteriorating and unification of Taiwan with China regarded as non-negotiable by the Chinese, it is hardly surprising that these remarks did not go down well. But what has not been reported in the western media is the reception Rice was given.

One way of taking the temperature in China is the internet, a very important indicator of public opinion in a country where more traditional media are tightly controlled. The importance of - and recent upsurge in - nationalism, for example, has found powerful expression on Chinese websites. The internet response to Rice's visit has been revealing. The racist character of much of it has moved liberals to protest, most significantly Liu Xiaobo, a veteran critic of mass movements in China since Tiananmen, who has written a response on the New Century Net website.
He says that of 800 messages he has read about her visit, no less than 70 involved racist comments about her colour: of these, only two were relatively moderate; the rest were vicious, describing Rice as a "black ghost", "black dog", "black woman" and "black *****". One stated, "You are not even like a black ghost, a really low form of life," and another, "Her brain is even more black than her skin." One writer said: "I don't support racism, but this black ghost really makes people angry, the appearance of a little black who has made good."

In fact, the reaction is not that surprising. Although it is rarely written about or commented upon, Chinese culture remains deeply racist. For the most part, the Chinese are in denial of their own racism, while white commentators, in their great majority, are either oblivious of it, or simply regard it as unimportant. Intended or unintended, this is an integral part of the white mentality, a product of the fact that whites never experience systemic racism and historically have meted out more than anyone else. Even liberals tend to look the other way.

There are, of course, exceptions: the best book on Chinese racism, The Discourse of Race in Modern China, is by Frank Dikotter, a British academic. But in the recent - and welcome - avalanche of Chinese coverage, especially the BBC's China week, for example, you would have been hard-pressed to find any reference to racism, except in the context of Tibet or Xinjiang province. Hong Kong was a British colony for almost 150 years and yet the racist attitude of the Chinese there towards people of darker skin was virtually never remarked upon. Needless to say, the British made no attempt to introduce anti-racist legislation.

Chinese people commonly believe they are superior to those of darker skin. The attitude towards whites, as Liu points out in his article, is much more complex. They tend to acknowledge the historical achievements of the west, but at the same time resent western hegemony and despise aspects of western culture, many believing that at some point in the future the innate virtue of Chinese civilisation will again assert itself. The Chinese thus tend to display a combination of respect and envy, superiority and inferiority, towards western culture. It is difficult to think of another major culture - with the possible exception of the Japanese - that regards the west with such a sense of inner self-confidence. The fact that Rice is black in a country the Chinese view as essentially white must be profoundly confusing to a people - the Han Chinese - whose perception of their own nation is overwhelmingly monoracial.

In a country with such a profoundly racist mentality - a product partly of long isolation and partly of a Han Chinese ideology that dates back thousands of years - it is encouraging to see writers contesting these prejudices. Nor is this discussion confined to China itself: recently there was a vigorous argument about Chinese racism among Malaysian Chinese on Malaysiakini, an important Malaysian website.

The official position of the Chinese Communist party, of course, has always been anti-racist, but there is a world of difference between official attitudes and the deeply held prejudices of a people. The danger of not openly recognising such deeply held prejudices is that they are never seriously contested.

Britain remains deeply racist, but there is also a culture of anti-racism, which has led, over the decades, to the creation of a body of anti-racist legislation and which has helped to shift attitudes and move the boundaries as to what is acceptable and unacceptable. In contrast, the problem in Hong Kong, for example, is that there is a culture of racism without any countervailing culture of anti-racism. When challenged, they deny that they are racist; the denial is not malevolent, it is a true reflection of their own culture's complete lack of self-reflection about the subject.

In an interview for the Guardian last week, a leading Chinese nationalist, Wang Xiaodong, described the attitudes of those who looked to the west and belittled China as "reverse racism": "In my opinion, this is not very different from Hitler's racism. The only difference between them and Hitler is that they direct this theory against their own race." Self-denigration and the extermination of another race are entirely different matters, yet Wang conflates the two and thereby displays a disturbing ignorance concerning what racism actually is.

China's isolation, at least until recently, has meant that Chinese racism has been little felt elsewhere, apart from east Asia. But as China's power and consequent influence grow exponentially, this is bound to change. Chinese attitudes will become increasingly familiar to the world, not least their racism. Of course, it remains true that white racism has had a far greater effect on the world over the past 400 years than any other. Even now, the racist nature of the west's historical impact is greatly underestimated, reflected in the revival of a view of liberal imperialism as some kind of benevolent civilising mission.

But nor should Chinese racism - and its concomitant nationalism - be underplayed. For a variety of reasons, it is unlikely to acquire or display the same ambitions of global aggrandisement and conquest that have typified western history, but its effects, uncontrolled and uncontested, could be extremely harmful. Racisms are not all the same; they vary according to the cultures they come from. Chinese racism, a product of the Middle Kingdom mentality, is distinctive and repugnant. It needs to be challenged by the Chinese themselves - and by the rest of the world.

· Martin Jacques is a visiting fellow at the LSE Asia Research Centre

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

http://www.andresgentry.com/thoughts/2003/...m_in_china.html

Racism in China
racism in china: i was walking home tonight through the center of xi'an and was greated with one "**** your mother" (in chinese) and by a man in a taxi who spit out the window at me. these incidents remind me why i'm not a big fan of walking around in china: as a foreigner you are an automatic target for the many racists who live here.

i lived in jinzhou, a small town outside of dalian, for almost a year. while i enjoyed my work, the racist asides, remarks, and taunts in town became so bad that i simply didn't walk outside during the day. at night it was much easier to pull a hat over my head and a jacket over my shoulders and thus make it more difficult for others to realize i was a foreigner. it wears on a person to be the brunt of such consistent animus
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Global Hierarchy Of Race


By Martin Jacques

Guardian/UK
20 September, 2003

I always found race difficult to understand. It was never intuitive. And the reason was simple. Like every other white person, I had never experienced it myself: the meaning of color was something I had to learn. The turning point was falling in love with my wife, an Indian-Malaysian, and her coming to live in England. Then, over time, I came to see my own country in a completely different way, through her eyes, her background. Color is something white people never have to think about because for them it is never a handicap, never a source of prejudice or discrimination, but rather the opposite, a source of privilege. However liberal and enlightened I tried to be, I still had a white outlook on the world. My wife was the beginning of my education.

But it was not until we went to live in Hong Kong that my view of the world, and the place that race occupies within it, was to be utterly transformed. Rather than seeing race through the prism of my own society, I learned to see it globally. When we left these shores, it felt as if we were moving closer to my wife's world: this was east Asia and she was Malaysian. And she, unlike me, had the benefit of speaking Cantonese. So my expectation was that she would feel more comfortable in this environment than I would. I was wrong. As a white, I found myself treated with respect and deference; my wife, notwithstanding her knowledge of the language and her intimacy with Chinese culture, was the object of an in-your-face racism.

In our 14 months in Hong Kong, I learned some brutal lessons about racism. First, it is not the preserve of whites. Every race displays racial prejudice, is capable of racism, carries assumptions about its own virtue and superiority. Each racism, furthermore, is subtly different, reflecting the specificity of its own culture and history.

Second, there is a global racial hierarchy that helps to shape the power and the prejudices of each race. At the top of this hierarchy are whites. The reasons are deep-rooted and profound. White societies have been the global top dogs for half a millennium, ever since Chinese civilization went into decline. With global hegemony, first with Europe and then the US, whites have long commanded respect, as well as arousing fear and resentment, among other races. Being white confers a privilege, a special kind of deference, throughout the world, be it Kingston, Hong Kong, Delhi, Lagos - or even, despite the way it is portrayed in Britain, Harare. Whites are the only race that never suffers any kind of systemic racism anywhere in the world. And the impact of white racism has been far more profound and baneful than any other: it remains the only racism with global reach.

Being top of the pile means that whites are peculiarly and uniquely insensitive to race and racism, and the power relations this involves. We are invariably the beneficiaries, never the victims. Even when well-meaning, we remain strangely ignorant. The clout enjoyed by whites does not reside simply in an abstraction - western societies - but in the skin of each and every one of us. Whether we like it or not, in every corner of the planet we enjoy an extraordinary personal power bestowed by our color It is something we are largely oblivious of, and consequently take for granted, irrespective of whether we are liberal or reactionary, backpackers, tourists or expatriate businessmen.

The existence of a de facto global racial hierarchy helps to shape the nature of racial prejudice exhibited by other races. Whites are universally respected, even when that respect is combined with strong resentment. A race generally defers to those above it in the hierarchy and is contemptuous of those below it. The Chinese - like the Japanese - widely consider themselves to be number two in the pecking order and look down upon all other races as inferior. Their respect for whites is also grudging - many Chinese believe that western hegemony is, in effect, held on no more than prolonged leasehold. Those below the Chinese and the Japanese in the hierarchy are invariably people of color (both Chinese and Japanese often like to see themselves as white, or nearly white). At the bottom of the pile, virtually everywhere it would seem, are those of African descent, the only exception in certain cases being the indigenous peoples.

This highlights the centrality of color to the global hierarchy. Other factors serve to define and reinforce a race's position in the hierarchy - levels of development, civilizational values, history, religion, physical characteristics and dress - but the most insistent and widespread is color The reason is that color is instantly recognizable, it defines difference at the glance of an eye. It also happens to have another effect. It makes the global hierarchy seem like the natural order of things: you are born with your color, it is something nobody can do anything about, it is neither cultural nor social but physical in origin. In the era of globalization, with mass migration and globalized cultural industries, color has become the universal calling card of difference. In interwar Europe, the dominant forms of racism were anti-semitism and racialized nationalisms, today it is color: at a football match, it is blacks not Jews that get jeered, even in eastern Europe.

Liberals like to think that racism is a product of ignorance, of a lack of contact, and that as human mobility increases, so racism will decline. This might be described as the Benetton view of the world. And it does contain a modicum of truth. Intermixing can foster greater understanding, but not necessarily, as Burnley, Sri Lanka and Israel, in their very different ways, all testify.

Hong Kong, compared with China, is an open society, and has long been so, yet it has had little or no effect in mollifying Chinese prejudice towards people of darker skin. It is not that racism is immovable and intractable, but that its roots are deep, its prejudices as old as humanity itself. The origins of Chinese racism lie in the Middle Kingdom: the belief that the Chinese are superior to other races - with the exception of whites - is centuries, if not thousands of years, old. The disparaging attitude among American whites towards blacks has its roots in slavery. Wishing it wasn't true, denying it is true, will never change the reality. We can only understand - and tackle racism - if we are honest about it. And when it comes to race - more than any other issue - honesty is in desperately short supply.

Race remains the great taboo. Take the case of Hong Kong. A conspiracy of silence surrounded race. As the British departed in 1997, amid much self-congratulation, they breathed not a word about racism. Yet the latter was integral to colonial rule, its leitmotif: colonialism, after all, is institutionalized racism at its crudest and most base. The majority of Chinese, the object of it, meanwhile, harbored an equally racist mentality towards people of darker skin. Masters of their own home, they too are in denial of their own racism. But that, in varying degrees, is true of racism not only in Hong Kong but in every country in the world. You may remember that, after the riots in Burnley in the summer of 2001, Tony Blair declared that they were not a true reflection of the state of race relations in Britain: of course, they were, even if the picture is less discouraging in other aspects.

Racism everywhere remains largely invisible and hugely under-estimated, the issue that barely speaks its name. How can the Economist produce a 15,000-word survey on migration, as it did last year, and hardly mention the word racism? Why does virtually no one talk about the racism suffered by the Williams sisters on the tennis circuit even though the evidence is legion? Why are the deeply racist western attitudes towards Arabs barely mentioned in the context of the occupation of Iraq, carefully hidden behind talk of religion and civilizational values?

The dominant race in a society, whether white or otherwise, rarely admits to its own racism. Denial is near universal. The reasons are manifold. It has a huge vested interest in its own privilege. It will often be oblivious to its own prejudices. It will regard its racist attitudes as nothing more than common sense, having the force and justification of nature. Only when challenged by those on the receiving end is racism outed, and attitudes begin to change. The reason why British society is less nakedly racist than it used to be is that whites have been forced by people of color to question age-old racist assumptions. Nations are never honest about themselves: they are all in varying degrees of denial.

This is clearly fundamental to understanding the way in which racism is underplayed as a national and global issue. But there is another reason, which is a specifically white problem. Because whites remain the overwhelmingly dominant global race, perched in splendid isolation on top of the pile even though they only represent 17% of the world's population, they are overwhelmingly responsible for setting the global agenda, for determining what is discussed and what is not. And the fact that whites have no experience of racism, except as perpetrators, means that racism is constantly underplayed by western institutions - by governments, by the media, by corporations. Moreover, because whites have reigned globally supreme for half a millennium, they, more than any other race, have left their mark on the rest of humanity: they have a vested interest in denying the extent and baneful effects of racism.

It was only two years ago, you may remember, that the first-ever United Nations conference on racism was held - against the fierce resistance of the US (and that in the Clinton era). Nothing more eloquently testifies to the unwillingness of western governments to engage in a global dialogue about the problem of racism.

If racism is now more widely recognized than it used to be, the situation is likely to be transformed over the next few decades. As migration increases, as the regime of denial is challenged, as subordinate races find the will and confidence to challenge the dominant race, as understanding of racism develops, as we become more aware of other racisms like that of the Han Chinese, then the global prominence of racism is surely set to increase dramatically.

It is rare to hear a political leader speaking the discourse of color Robert Mugabe is one, but he is tainted and discredited. The Malaysian prime minister, Mahathir Mohamed, is articulate on the subject of white privilege and the global hierarchy. The most striking example by a huge margin, though, is Nelson Mandela. When it comes to color, his sacrifice is beyond compare and his authority unimpeachable. And his message is always universal - not confined to the interests of one race. It is he who has suggested that western support for Israel has something to do with race. It is he who has hinted that it is no accident that the authority of the UN is under threat at a time when its secretary general is black. And yet his voice is almost alone in a world where race oozes from every pore of humanity. In a world where racism is becoming increasingly important, we will need more such leaders. And invariably they will be people of color: on this subject whites lack moral authority. I could only understand the racism suffered by my wife through her words and experience. I never felt it myself. The difference is utterly fundamental.

Martin Jacques is a visiting fellow at the London School of Economics. The death of his wife, Harinder Veriah, in 2000 in a Hong Kong hospital triggered an outcry which culminated in this summer's announcement by the Hong Kong government that it would introduce anti-racist legislation for the first time


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

http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/hrfeatures/HRF20.htm

The same can be said of the early Chinese in Singapore where they felt the other 'races' such as Malay, Indian, to be inferiro to the Chinese. Please note this is a generalisation, it would not be difficult to find stories of true friendship among the early peoples but they are the exceptions. I would like to say such racist attitudes have completely disappeared from Singapore society but alas. Chinese in Singapore to a certain extent believe in a class society. They consciously or unconsciously divide people into of the same class, higher or lower class than themselves based on level of wealth, education, mannerisms and ethnicity. most of the time they try to move themselves up the class ladder. The Chinese drive toward success in life in as much driven by the desire for material luxuries as by 'face'.

I fear however we may have gone off-topic somewhat. Yun's original motive in starting this topic is to find out historically, has the Chinese ever practiced racism, and he probably meant further back in time, rather than the Chinese of today or the very recent past.

I figured that Chinese, historically, discriminated more on culture than skin color, though the two often go hand in hand.

Like differentiating the world between the civilized (themselves) and barbarians.

By the way, dark skin in art, is it used in China as a sign of masculinity? Like in old Greek stuff, women have white skin, men are done in black. I know of art from China where men with black skin are shown (which are usuall fodder for the 'blacks founded China' theory), and am wondering if that's the trend.

I've changed the title to replace "racism" with 'discrimination', as I think, 'racism' is too strong a word and can be misleading to all.

Racism has the connotation of prejudice based on skin color.

The discrimination of han-chinese against other ethnicities are probably prejudice based more on a sense of 'cultural superiority" rather than skin color and therefore it should not be counted as 'racism'. This is what caused the han-chinese to think sino-centrically as in han-chinese are civilized while the rest of other people outside China are 'less civilized'.

Me as Chinese Thai ( and also part Veit too called "yuan" ) have always been taught by my Family that we "Toung Nang" ,in Tae chew for Chinese, are way more superior than any "Wan Nang" Barbarian Thai. Wan Nang are lazy stupid etc. We don't like to do business with Thai. they are "cheater and untrustworthy". My family will not be very happy to let our family members get married with Thai. We always consider high nose bridge light skin Chinese to be more pretty and handsome than low nose bridge dark skin Thai (Laos, Khmer) and Many Thai Native TODAY, do think the same too, (Difinitly a case of strange success of Chinese cultural imperialism) Thai-Chinese inter racial merried is not as Common as many people outside Thailand thought.

You know I don't belive in these ******** right. Ironically, The longer I live in "white" society the more I develop the sexual attraction for dark skin folks. Am I becoming a different kind of Racist too ? Sexual Colonization.

Similar to in Indonesia. Though I'm not sure if "barbarian" is a good translation.
(Tng Nang ~ 唐人. What is "Wan"?)

Depends on personal style , whether you like more "uniqueness and differencess" or "happy with usual condition".

I think Chinese-Han are very arrogant. They always think that they are the most civilise people while uncivilise people like Xiong Nu, Mongols and Japanese are Barbarian.
Is that discrimination ?

through out Chinese history discrimination were always practiced. Social racism was also practiced in China. Such as taxation disadvantages for those who are not Han, lack of legal justice for the non-Han. Therefore it is the root cause for sinolization.