What does it mean to be Chinese?
Filed under:Letters | Tags:featured, identity, nationalism, overseas chinese
Add comments
Here is one answer, translated from a post written by an American-raised Chinese on MITBBS (原贴):
I was eating lunch with a good friend (both a colleague and a classmate) a few days ago. He’s a true Englishman, having lived in England from birth through university. Although he’s now attending school with me in the United States, he naturally does so with the identity of an Englishman. Whereas I, as an ethnic Chinese person raised in the United States, have in his eyes been categorized as an “American”. And I will often correct him by saying “I’m Chinese”. This time, when the topic popped up again, he laughed and asked: “From your point of view, what is a Chinese person?”
I believe “Chinese” has three different meanings.
1) From a superficial point of view, it would mean the legal definition. If you are a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, if you use a Chinese passport outside of China’s borders, then this person from a legal point of view is Chinese. Based on China’s constitution, if a Chinese citizen acquires foreign citizenship and a foreign passport, they automatically relinquish their Chinese citizenship. So, with this definition, you can only choose one between the identities “Chinese” and “foreigner”. So, if you acquire American citizenship, you’re no longer Chinese. But I don’t believe the definition of “Chinese” is limited to this.
2) “Chinese” can also be defined on the basis of race and blood. If we talk a little loosely, all of the descendants of Yan and Yellow Emperors, all of the heirs of the dragon are Chinese. Just like the song goes, “always an heir of the dragon“.
If we talk a little more tightly, if your bloodlines are 100% Chinese, then using this definition, you are Chinese, and this will never change. It doesn’t matter what passport you hold, it doesn’t matter what citizenship you hold, even if you grow up or are born in a different country and can’t speak Chinese, you’re still Chinese. But I believe that even this definition isn’t the most important.
3) I believe the most important definition is understanding of China’s language, history, and culture. Understanding of China’s way of life. These people, even if they don’t have Chinese citizenship, even if they don’t have Chinese blood-lines, they can also be called Chinese. For example, let’s talk about Dashan (ed: aka Mark Henry Rowswell). He’s completely fluent in all things “China”; even if he doesn’t have a drop of Chinese blood, when compared to those with Chinese blood but can’t speak Hanyu, he’s more Chinese. And from that point of view, someone can both be Chinese and a foreigner. And I believe that because I grew up in the United States and understand American culture, I am Chinese, and also American.
On some discussion boards, some people argue endlessly over whether someone who’s changed passports should still be considered Chinese. But I believe this is too rigidly claiming the first definition of Chinese to be the most important, or even the only definition of the term. Although I can’t accuse them of being wrong, but I have my opinion on this point. Some people raised in China choose to give up their citizenship after going overseas for various reasons; some of these reasons I can understand, some of these reasons I can’t approve of. But this doesn’t represent that they’ve relinquished their Chinese blood, relinquished the Chinese culture that represents a part of themselves. If some people insist they can forget or discard everything that they learned from the age of 20, and can forget the Chinese language, Chinese culture, and all of the traces left on them by their lives in China… then they either have saintly powers, or are only in self-denial. Our China doesn’t give us saints very often, so I don’t think we need to discuss these people too much further.
In many of those threads discussing the changing of passports, someone will mention patriotism. Now, what kind of definition is appropriate? If you have a Chinese passport, that’s proof you’re a Chinese patriot? Maybe, but that’s not a necessary condition. Many people say “I’m proud of being Chinese!” I often say this myself. But what layer of Chinese am I talking about? I believe the meaning of the first and second layers don’t really apply. No one can choose their blood-lines and where they were born. Anyone that believes they and their descendants are superior to others on the basis of their blood-lines or their place of birth… to be honest, that’s both superficial and pathetic. But to a certain degree, we can select our own culture. And I believe that, when I say I’m proud of being Chinese, I’m not expressing pride over my passport (after all, isn’t it just a red-covered little book?), and I’m not expressing pride over my Chinese blood. Instead, it’s because I was raised and live overseas, but have still maintained my Chinese language skills while trying hard to absorb the broad and deep expanses of Chinese culture that I’m proud… it’s because that I still monitor China’s development, and hope to one day contribute to China’s development that I’m proud.
What does everyone think?
Well, I will duplicate his question. What does everyone think? (On MITBBS, the most popular response has been admiration for his excellent writing in Chinese.)
UPDATE: And I can’t forget to include this version of “Heir to the Dragon“, by US born and raised Wang Lihong.
There are currently no comments highlighted.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:16 pm
I had a discussion similar to this on other blogs/forums and we all had different but slightly the same opinions. Basically, I agree to all three reasons, the legal definition, the heritage definition as well as the “knowledge and relationship to culture” definition. The first one is quite straight-forward.
The second one may raise a lot of critical questions, but I personally see nothing wrong with identifying your roots as part of who you are. I read quite a bit about the Chinese people, and whether it’s in China or the diaspora, the people are a very diverse group. In some cases, people with one Chinese parent or just one ancestor will claim some sense of admiration and pride (though not always in the extreme fashion as ethnic chauvinists do) in this factor.
The third reason seems to reflect on what matters most to the Chinese mentality. Knowledge and close familiar interactions, which is basically relationships. Some ancient cultures have something similar where a foreigner will be adopted as a full member of their clan/tribe/civilization based on their knowledge or willingness to interact and be part of their community, with or without close bloodlines.
In comparison, I myself as an American of Chinese descent as well, I use somewhat similar definitions. The legal definition of citizenship, as this is the place of my birth, my environment I grew up in makes me American. However, with the US as still one of the “youngest” nations in terms of cultural and historical weight, I see being American in more terms of ideas and values rather than ethnicity or lineage. It would be too hard considering how diverse and almost constant change the American society goes through, or admit.
In a sense, I understand the writer’s position.
However, I’m afraid that there are quite a number of people who will not. I’ve used similar statements regarding how someone identifies being Chinese to many people, Americans, Canadians, some Europeans even other Asians (East Asians if you want to be more precise), but it’s like hard for them to comprehend. The most common response I got was how could someone identify with a group that hasn’t step foot in it’s ancestorial soil for more than a generation?…
In a lot of cases, I couldn’t think of a good reply and just said it’s that way. After a while, I just gave a brief but somewhat silly response to that question…We identified ourselves being Chinese, even if it’s generations ago, because it’s worth remembering.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:56 pm
I have to mention this because my previous comment may upset some of my friends.
Having a strong sense of identity with your heritage is not unique among the Chinese. I said before that there were people who do not understand this, and it is true, but there are that do comprehend. It may be a North American concept, but there are people here who feel the same way as the Chinese, expressing their heritage with such strong sentiments, such as the Italians, Jewish peoples and Persian groups.
I re-read the article by the MITBBS writer and it’s worth thinking over the last portion where the writer mentions about the free will to choose to maintain those links with being Chinese as an important factor. In a sense, the individual has to choose whether or not to maintain their relationship with being Chinese, and the same be said for everyone else, excluding the legal definition. Then, it raises the question of free-will, destiny, and other semi-philosophical/religious questions of who we are and how we came to be, and that’s lilke a whole another topic so I’ll leave it at that.
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Interesting topic. I don’t think the term “Chinese” has a fixed or a single meaning; it is a fluid concept that may change depending on the context. I disagree with some people that not having a Chinese passport makes one less Chinese (well, I guess yes if you are referring to the legal/political definition of Chinese, but no if you are referring to ethnic/cultural definition). Biologically, people do not become less Chinese simply because they acquire non-Chinese citizenship.
As for meaning #2, I don’t believe in the pure Chinese blood idea. Although there is a Han Chinese ethnicity, it seems it too is a fluid and not a fixed notion. Chinese are genetically very diverse. There is the northern/southern genetic split not to mention some culturally/legally Chinese people are not ethnically Chinese at all. For example, northeasterners are Manchurians who are genetically probably closer to Mongolians and Koreans than they are to Han Chinese. They became “Hanized” and lost their Manchurian culture because their ancestors invaded China. Like many other ethnic minorities, it seems many northeasterners do not even know whether their ancestors were Han Chinese or were Manchurians and simply believe they are (or choose to identify as) Han Chinese. Also, with the recent mass migrations, we are seeing much more intermarriages among people from different provinces, I doubt anyone really knows whether they are pure blooded Han Chinese anymore.
I tend to prefer a cultural definition of Chinese. I know an elderly Chinese lady who is ethnically Japanese. She was abandoned by her parents in Manchuria following Japan’s defeat during WWII. But she considers herself 100% Chinese and doesn’t see herself Japanese at all. So, although ethnically she is Japanese (something she can’t change), she became culturally and legally Chinese and she is no less Chinese than any other Chinese (be it legal, cultural or ethnic) anywhere in the world.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Thanks for this Buxi.
At the risk of being accused of being obsessed with the ethnic minorities, I think it’s interesting and worthwhile to think about where they fit into all this.
Clearly they are Chinese in the first sense.
As far as the second understanding of Chinese-ness goes, a lot of paper, ink and hard-drive space has been used trying to show that they Tibetans etc. are also descendants of the Yellow Emperor. But as Jane points out, this is notion of Chinese-ness is mostly based on myth rather than genetic science. (Which isn’t to say people are wrong to believe it, only that we can’t use this sense of Chinese-ness to categorically say that someone is or isn’t Chinese.)
In the third sense? Yes and no, I would say. Yes, if Chinese culture is understood to be more than just Han culture (although, irritatingly both Chinese and foreign descriptions of “Chinese culture” often are limited to just Han-Chinese culture). On the other hand, the culture of some of the minorities is also identified with another non-Chinese nation-state: i.e. Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Korea, Tajikistan etc. So identifying with Kazakh culture does not on its own make a person Chinese.
It’s a question that has plagued intellectuals and politicians as they have tried to construct a modern Chinese nation state. For what it’s worth, my view is that a passport is the only objective marker of identity, everything else comes down to subjective opinion.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Interesting blog Buxi. I have read your blogs for sometime but this is the first time I have written anything. I am particularly interested in this topic but hesitant to express fully what I believe.
I live in Guizhou and for fear of offending any of the people here in this backward, uncivilized place, I refer to myself as “ban zhonguoren”. Chinese Nationalists may not accept my thinking but you have come so close to parroting my thoughts that I thought I might scribe a few lines from a little different perspective.
I have lived in Guizhou for over 8 years by my own personal choice. While I am not ethnic Asian, I believe I have become Chinese. I have no political, economic or social interests outside of China and I love this country and it’s people (as I do my birth country). I live here to escape the pressure of too many drugs, too many guns and too much aggression. I can tolerate all the “hushuo”, as a result, including the massive and sometimes overwhelming corruption and aversion of both reality and the truth.
If you are interested in what I have to say I would enjoy participating.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:33 am
It’s interesting that the MITBBS poster appears to contradict himself regarding his own identity: “Whereas I, as an ethnic Chinese person raised in the United States, have in his eyes been categorized as an ‘American’. And I will often correct him by saying ‘I’m Chinese’”. But then, later: “And I believe that because I grew up in the United States and understand American culture, I am Chinese, and also American.”
July 4th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Hi Buxi.
I believe there’s basically Chinese ethnicity and Chinese citizenship. What is to be considered Chinese ethnicity is the tricky part.
But my view is it really shouldn’t matter. If a person views himself as Chinese, then he’s Chinese. If he doesn’t consider himself Chinese, no one should argue with that. I basically agree with JL that it’s subjective opinion.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:53 am
This is such a loaded question because Chineseness can be defined in so many contexts.
In the cultural context, I like to view Chineseness as incorporating a family of different cultures and languages in China. But how big is this family?
If one looks to history, one can try to define the extent of the Chinese family based on the historical territorial scope of Chinese Imperial Empires.
Of course, this is problematic because China used to be territorially larger than today, and such a definition would be too broad for today’s geopolitical landscape.
And as other have already said, inks have been spilled to define what is Chinese in the modern context.
Here is what I think: the question of what it means to be “Chinese” is really a political question. As a political question, it is more a forward looking than a backward looking exercise.
What Chineseness means has less to do with what China was (although that is important) and more with what China wants to become…
July 4th, 2008 at 12:54 am
I have to say, at the time I gave up my Chinese citizenship, I had not given it much thought, because, while, I didn’t thought having or not having that little red-covered book would made me any less of a Chinese than I had. The Chinese passport, to me, is political, and I did not rely on it to define my Chinese identity.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:03 am
opersai: you are indeed fortunate . If you wish to regain your Chinese passport you will be given VIP treatment, grants for education, allowances for housing and a good job provided you return to the mainland. However, renounce your citizenship in almost any other country and there is no going back.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:16 am
I’m with Dkwan. The fourth and most important category will be how you define yourself. I have a friend who meets all three of the first criteria; has a passport that says ‘Chinese’, is ethnically ‘han’, speaks Mandarin as her (almost) first language, and makes a mean sweet and sour pork. But she will tell you emphatically that she’s not Chinese, has never even set foot in China, and has no plans to do so. She says she’s pure Taiwanian through and through.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:49 am
I also agree that Chinese identity is a subjective opinion. The English word “Chinese” can be interpreted into zhong-guo-ren, Han-ren, Hua-ren, Tang-ren, or Zhong-hua-min-zu, all come with different meaning in Chinese language. Given the example as Lime mentioned, his/her friend may be comfortable with being citizen of Republic of China, but refuse to be a Chinese which means citizen of People’s Republic of China by her understanding.
@ZT
You are wrong at post #10. To regain a PRC passport is almost impossible for those who gave it up like opersai under current PRC citizenship policy.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:54 am
This is really an interesting topic.
Politically, a Chinese merely implies that this individual was born in P.R.C. and he/she is a citizen of this country, which is ruled by the communist dictatorship. Otherwise, people of Chinese racial and cultural background would be distinguished as Taiwanese, Singaporean, overseas Chinese or people from Hongkong and Macau.
However, the reason why this topic is interesting, is weather a Chinese have a sense of belonging to P.R.C. and weather this individual is patriotic.
Factor 1: China has the largest gap between the rich and the poor. A person can enjoy a happy life or not, mostly deponds on which social class he/she was born to. Moreover, due to the fact that China is a poor country, Chinese passport is not effective at all.
Factor 2: The Chinese are supposed to be courteous and confucian, but the fact is that, since the communist party has destructed the traditional Chinese value system, the very majorty of people in China become so materialistic; they really lose their spiritual belief.
Factor 3: There is almost no social welfare system in China; as a result, so many people are economically and psychologically depressed.
So, what does it mean of being Chinese?
July 4th, 2008 at 2:55 am
Lime, no offense, but it seems some Taiwanese have serious identity issues. I suspect it’s more out of embarrassment to associate with the “barbarian” Mainlanders (plus 50 + years of propaganda by KMT & DDP authorities) than anything else. Funnily, some of the most vehemely “I am not Chinese” Taiwanese are at the same time most eager to pretend to be more Japanese-like (which is deemed more refined, I suppose).
It’s fine if people want to be Taiwanese, but some Taiwanese’ denial of their heritage is to the point of absurdity. Many overseas ethnic Chinese are not Chinese nationals (Singaporeans, Chinese-Americans, etc.), but they don’t have any problem acknowledging the simple fact that they are ethnically Chinese. Even the elderly Chinese lady I met (who is ethnically Japanese and left by her parents in Manchuria at the end of WWII) and who thinks she is Chinese through and through acknowledges that she is ethnically Japanese. It’s a simple fact. What’s so difficult about it? Again, I think some Taiwanese have a (somewhat unhealthy) mental block. Hopefully with more interaction with Chinese worldwide, they will again have a more balanced outlook on their heritage.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:47 am
Jane,
I’m not sure what’s so difficult about it, but it is a two way street. You can imagine that if the British government made big speeches about how Americans are all really just rogue Britons, discussing their ethnicity would become a more prickly subject for most Anglo-Americans. I suppose it may be in part because, as you implied, there are some very strong anti-mainland (which for them means anti-Chinese) feelings.
It’s interesting to see that many Chinese Americans and Canadians (or American and Canadian Born Chinese if they prefer), like the author of the bit that Buxi translated here, seem to still want to be ‘Chinese’ and want to have a connection with China, meaning usually the PRC, where as many Taiwanians really don’t. The difference might be in the fact that a Chinese American as an immigrant or part of the first generation born in America may not feel that they are really a part of America, and, as they try develop their own identity, looks to their family’s cultural roots to find something to be a part of. In contrast, the ethnically Chinese Taiwanian (at least if they are from an old pre-ROC family) is in the same culture their family has been in for generations, is in no danger of losing touch with their linguistic background, and is surrounded and governed by culturally almost identical people. Perhaps the Taiwanian doesn’t need China nearly as much as the Chinese American does?
I’ve noticed that Japanese thing too, although a lot of Japanese art, music, TV, literature, etc. seems to be just really well liked in Taiwan, above and beyond the political aspect some people may give it. Maybe they just relate?
July 4th, 2008 at 3:51 am
Hi Jane,
I don’t think it’s absurd for people on Taiwan to say they’re not Chinese, ethnically or otherwise. Imagine growing up under Japanese rule and learning Japanese in school, and then living under martial law by a Chinese government. And now today, the world refers to the mainland as China, and the island as Taiwan. From that point of view I think it’s very reasonable for them to say they’re not Chinese.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:32 am
@DKwan
It’s politics. It is absurd. I grew up under the KMT and was taught to hate the commies - was even slapped a couple of times at school for speaking “Taiwanese.” But I still consider myself wholly Chinese.
That’s doesn’t mean I want to unconditionally unify with the mainland. But I don’t think we should forget our roots.
It’s one thing for Taiwanese to argue that it’s best for us not to become politically re-unified with the mainland - but it’s quite another (and not ok) for Taiwanese to deny their Chinese heritage - or worse, somehow deluded into believing they are Japanese! Political expediency does not justify denying your roots!
July 4th, 2008 at 4:36 am
@phoenox,
“So, what does it mean of being Chinese? ”
From all the 3 factors you listed and I agree they are close to accurate.
Then I draw a conclusion/answer from your comments:
Chinese are people with no effective passport, no spiritual belief, economically and psychologically depressed . Dam ,I am part of these people.
wow, I can see we have someone here with a effective passport, has great spiritual belief, is economically and psychologically advanced.
am I the only one who smells a superior race belief?
July 4th, 2008 at 4:42 am
Years ago, I attended a Chinese church. Pre-1997 so a lot of students and immigrants from Hong Kong. There were also a lot Canadian born Chinese (CBC) or Canadian grown Chinese (CGC). My closest friends were from the Hong Kong student group. While, I didn’t have any barriers to the English side, many of my HK friends felt a barrier. And definitely the English side found itself outside the Chinese side.
A few times I found myself in a situation where I was accepted as a “Chinese” but a CBC next to me wasn’t. I think the difference in acceptance was a combination of effort and expectation. The Chinese didn’t expect much from me so my bad Cantonese was a recognized and appreciated effort. But, from the CBC, the expectation was high so the expected effort was also high. “You are Chinese so why don’t you speak Chinese.”
I watched a few CBCs struggle with issues of identity. Most were fine being Chinese Canadians and took the language barrier in stride. Of course the kids strongly identified with being Chinese when the red pockets were about.
I think, if you were born outside of China, that it may be easier to be accepted as “Chinese” if you don’t look “Chinese”. Obviously this is very generalized as so much depends on the individuals.
As for me - I’m just me.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:07 am
I was in Taiwan in 1986. One of my friends told me that there were three prices. A price for Taiwanese, 3x for Americans but 5x for Japanese (punctuated by a rude face). Japanese is what the old people spoke who lived through the occupation. No love for the Japanese. 20 years later, it is completely different. Learning Japanese is very popular. Japanese have invested a lot in Taiwan. And I watch a TV show where a popular Japanese star surprised the crowd by speaking Mandarin - wow - so different than before.
I do think that a lot of people in the ROC see themselves as Taiwanese, even before “Chinese”. But I also think that a lot of people in the ROC recognize that they are not exactly an island unto themselves. Like it or not, they are connected to the Mainland. Continued prosperity means working something out with the Mainland. If attitudes towards Japanese can change so much…
July 4th, 2008 at 5:20 am
BMY:
I feel sorry that you seem to be offended. Anyway, please analyze my comment rather than judge me as a racist.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:31 am
Lime,
I beg to differ. Ethnicity (like gender) is usually what it is, a fact. Nationality on the other hand, can be changed. I agree though, in some instances, ethnicity may be a little uncertain, such as the Japanese Ainu people or many Caucasian Americans who are a melting pot of European ethnicities. But in Taiwan’s case, it’s pretty clear cut. The majority of today’s Taiwanese are not indigenous Taiwanese, they are recent immigrants from Fujian province and the Fujianese are Han Chinese. (In fact, ethnically, they are much more “Chinese” than many Mainland Chinese such as the Manchurians, Tibetans, Mongolians, Uighurs, Nashis or other Mainland minorities.)
Chinese Americans do not consider themselves “Chinese” because they have a need to look back to the PRC to find their identity. Again, it’s simply a fact to be filled out on census forms, college applications, etc. It’s nothing complicated that would require cultural psycho analysis.
What I find bothersome about Taiwanese nationalism is its condescending and provincial attitude, as if any association with the poor “Chinese” would taint their Taiwanese-ness and drag them down the Asian ethnic “heirarchy”, hence the eagerness to associate with the Japanese.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:32 am
@DKwan,
your #16,
I think these days many Taiwanese refuse be called Chinese is not that much to do with Japanese rule which finished in 1945. It’s more to do with “去中国化“ movement has been practiced in the past 2 decades since Li Denghui then DDP. Also internationally, people refer China as the mainland and Chinese are mainlanders. Many Taiwanese don’t want themselves to be mixed up with “backwards” mainlanders with the same name of “Chinese”.
It’s individual’s will and freedom to be called whatever they like. no big deal.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:33 am
to be a real Chinese, one not only need speak and write in Chinese, but have to understand the Chinese history, traditional value, culture…and think/act accordingly.
too bad, there are not many real “Chinese” around.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:49 am
Jane:
Taiwanese nationalists have conscending attitude, you say?
I disagree that ethnicity is simple fact. We treat it as fact, but the reality is quite different. I was born in England, but grew up in a different country. I don’t think I’m English and neither does anybody I know. So I don’t see why you think it’s “unhealthy” for Taiwanese people not to consider themselves Chinese.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:07 am
@phoenox ,
not a worry.
what I am trying to say is to define a ethnic/race/nationality by wealth,effectiveness of passport,religion etc might not be very wise as a person well educated in the democratic west.
there would be only progress for people to be able to live side by side happily together(don’t you want that) when there are no(or very little) prejudice against each other and respect each other.
I know you might say the government you hate dose not respect the government you love. again, two wrongs dose not make a right we always say
just my 2 cents
July 4th, 2008 at 6:26 am
I have read and heard quite a lot from people regarding the materialistic worship among the Chinese on the Mainland. I don’t know what to believe because for one thing, I’ve never been there, yet from a lot of Mainland Chinese who have immigrated to my country (the US, but I’m a little aquainted with the ones in Canada and France) that I met in person, I don’t really see them as spiritually empty or that shallow.
I mean, I’ve met and quite aware of the really “high maintainence” people that obviously exist in every society, (as well as some very sad stories that go along with that) but I can’t judge the people as a whole when face with so many examples and exceptions. Religious pursuits are quite personal and according to many, life is a journey. So who is to say whether one is not fulfilled in their life’s mission or not. Almost like reading a book, maybe what you are seeing is chapter 3 in a person’s life, how do you know what has happened in chapters 1 and 2 or what will happen in chapters 4 and 5?
A lot of people mentioned the ethnic diversity among the Chinese (including or not the official status of minorities in the PRC) but there’s quite a lot of cultural diversity as well. So many different foods, customs, family traditions, etc. One example I witness was this church I attended before where a fairly educated Mainland couple (from Hebei possibly) did not realized one of their members was also Chinese despite being there and openly interacting with everyone else for years (she is a Tusan…Peruvian-Chinese). It’s confusing looking at it from the outside of how to define the “Chinese identity” but how does one understand if the people themselves have different notions of their own?
The couple didn’t have much trouble seeing other church members as Chinese despite not stepping foot on Mainland soil for generations.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:31 am
Glad to see this article attracted interest. Welcome especially to new visitors. A few people with unique backgrounds…
- Phoenox is Tibetan (are you in the PRC with Chinese citizenship?),
- and ZT the non-Asian Chinese from Guizhou (I’m sure we’d all like to hear more about your experiences).
That’s not to suggest the ABCs are boring… everyone brings a different take on things.
There was a bit of confusion at the top. Just to clarify, this article is not written by me. Some of its opinions are identical to mine, and some are not. I’m still trying to make up my mind on some of these issues. I tend to agree with those who argue being Chinese should be a subjective, personal choice.
On the one hand, I know many Chinese holding Chinese passports who’re hoping to emigrate and discard their citizenship as soon as possible. I’ve also seen many Chinese trying to isolate their children out of the “Chinese community”, making sure they’re raised in a purely English environment… it’s hard for me to call these people Chinese, regardless of their ethnic roots (or even legal status).
On the other hand, I know many Chinese overseas who work very hard to make sure their children understand they are Chinese and will always be Chinese. I know 4th, 5th, even greater generation Chinese throughout southeast Asia and North America who still have Chinese names, who still work on learning Chinese language and culture. It’s hard for me to call these people anything but Chinese, regardless of their citizenship.
For those of us who are raised in a Chinese household… it’s hard to entirely discard the cultural DNA that has left its imprint on all of us. Most of us are raised from our first breath to miss home, to think of home, to think of family, to think of our heritage. If you have a Chinese grandparent that you’re close to (and most Chinese have just such a grandparent), then it’s really unlikely you haven’t been imprinted in some way with this cultural tradition. And even if you don’t have someone in your household passing on this to you… No matter whether we’re reading Tang dynasty poetry or watching a New Yorker with Taiwanese parents rapping in English (see: Wang Lihong), we’re almost always reminded of that linkage to home and to our heritage.
With that in mind, it’s hard for me to be completely emotion-free when I see someone walk away and discard that cultural tradition. It’s hard for me to be completely emotion-free when I meet someone who has no idea that cultural tradition even exists. Even though some of my closest friends fall into these categories, I have to admit that in my heart of hearts, I do judge them.
On the issue of Taiwan… because of the politics and history of what the island has gone through, this has been perverted. In reality, the same cultural DNA towards respecting our heritage is just as strong, if not stronger, in Taiwan. I don’t know if the story was ever proven true or false, but it’s been said that Chen Shui-bian carries with him a slip of paper reminding him of his family’s ancestral village in Fujian province.
For some in Taiwan, they’ve tried to redefine their “links” in order to tie themselves to the island of Taiwan itself… and they’ve redirected the passion that Chinese around the world have felt for “China” into passion for “Taiwan”. I’m not going to say that’s absurd… in fact, I think it’s encouraging that they care, it tells me the cultural DNA is still going strong. Taiwanese politicians now have to publically pledge they were raised “drinking Taiwan’s water and breathing Taiwan’s air”, because that actually matters amongst the Taiwanese electorate. I don’t know how many American or European politicians find it necessary to do the same… I know not many Californians care that Arnold Schwarzeneger was raised on Austrian water and Austrian air.
In the long term, I’m optimistic. Chinese civilization is too long, Chinese culture is too deep to be dampened by a political dispute. I don’t think “desinification” will actually take root in Taiwan. When China flourishes (as I believe that she will), the children and grandchildren of today’s Taiwanese independence activists may very well rediscover that link. And of course, there are MANY Taiwanese families today who are doing everything they can to make sure “desinification” never happens in Taiwan.
Just to wrap up this comment for now… I want to propose a question that I don’t really know the answer to. What can we learn from the experience of the Chinese diaspora in southeast Asia? We’ve had several posters on this blog (maybe not on this thread) who are ethnic Chinese of the nth generation, and proudly proclaim themselves as such. Will the Chinese diaspora in the West hold on with the same pride and determination…? The Jewish community has done precisely that in the West for thousands of years; will the Chinese do the same?
July 4th, 2008 at 6:33 am
Regarding introducing oneself as taiwanese rather than chinese, something to consider is how its perceived. I’m not talking about how rich/poor/advanced/backward your native country is considered by the people you’re talking to. More like a canadian or mexican or brazilian, etc could introduce themselves as americans but then the first thing most people would think of is probably that they’re from the united states. I think it’s the same with “chinese”. The first question after saying “I’m chinese” is most likely “how do you like living in china?”
July 4th, 2008 at 6:38 am
@phoenox,
Part of the reason for this blog is to help everyone understand the real situation in China (instead of relying on anti-China or pro-China propaganda). So, yes, the problems you bring up are real, and we should discuss them.
But I don’t agree that being a “proud Chinese” is the same thing as being patriotic to the PRC, or being proud of the PRC’s current situation. There have been proud Chinese for hundreds of years, even when China was in worse shape than it is today; Sun Zhongshan was an American citizen when he risked his live to overthrow the Qing empire. In my own opinion, all of the problems in the PRC today is more reason for Chinese around the world to care about China… not less.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:54 am
You are Chinese if any of the following situation occurs:
1. You carry a passport that says China somewhere.
2. Your ancestors came from China (you might NOT think you are Chinese, but other people will).
3. You live in China because you truly love the county and its people and are proud to be considered as a Chinese person with all its values, obligations, and practices.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:02 am
@JL
re: your #25
to compare your case , I think there is a culture different between English culture and some other cultures.
It’s hardly to see a second generation British in New Zealand or Australia still be called or want to be called British rather than Kiwi or Aussie. But a second(even a fourth ) generation Chinese, Italian,Lebanese more than often are still be called or still want to be called Chinese, Italian or Lebanese, at same time they might be also called a Kiwi or Aussie.
for the Taiwanese case, there are many people don’t think Taiwan is a different country(another endless argument) then which is not similar to your case.
I don’t think it’s “unhealthy” for some Taiwanese people not to consider themselves Chinese. But I think they overdo it sometimes like Buxi points out.
Personally I think, people have the rights to be called whoever they want to be called.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:10 am
@Buxi,
Regarding the question you posted on your comment about the Diaspora…well, in S.E.A. it’s complex and differs from place to place. Because the waves of immigration were different than the West (or elsewhere) a lot of the desire to followed closely with their Chinese heritage correlates with how close they are with their family. These are just generalizations but for example in Thailand, due to high rates or intermarriage, many citizens have and are aware of their Chinese roots and there is a growing number wanting to learn more for various reasons….in Malaysia, the community is strong and despite discrimination they are a basic part of the country’s identity, admittenly or not. In the Phillipines, the Chinese part is just one out of many influences and heritages that flourishes there. In Singapore, the majority and from what I’ve seen, it’s just who they are and how they wish to identify…Vietnam (my family’s situation) the Chinese there were technically a nation within a nation.
Although it really depends on the individual, two big factors of what kept the people there to strongly remember their roots was how they were raised by their families and how much knowledge they were able to access (since the Southeast Asian diaspora were still in close proximity to China and other strong Chinese communities, knowledge could still be obtain in an almost stable manner).
With the world being more “globalized” everyone is connecting, knowledge being accessible and with East Asia being a strong area of focus, I have a strong feeling that throughout the Non-Asian Continent Chinese Diaspora will be just as aware of their roots yet diverse in how to relate it to their personal lives. For example, I know of 4th generation elderly ethnic Chinese in the States who are quite indistinguishable from other Americans who live in that time. Like other than their physical features, the way they talk, behave and think is practically the same as most Americans who lived in their region and time period. Very little or no knowledge of the traditions and language. However, their descendents are re-learning their culture and language (at least the most common ones like Mandarin) for several obvious reasons.
So who knows, we will see how the future will turn out. Anything is possible.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:29 am
I should add in a somewhat controversial factor in what helps people strongly remember their ancestory. One major yet uncomfortable reason why many in Southeast Asia Diaspora and elsewhere are like that was prejudice. It works both ways.
Being discriminated against and persecuted could in many ways help people become more determine in their ways. Like the situation in Indonesia where many ethnic Chinese were forced to change their names in the past still kept going. A lot of families just wanted to live and for their children to survive so many basically just let go of this heritage, but many would not forget and are re-learning. They are still proud members of their native countries but willing to see being Chinese as an unforgettable part of their lives. Again, this might have to do with how they were raised and taught by their families and how much knowledge could be access.
The other prejudice that makes people uncomfortable is that there is a somewhat chauvinist mentality that makes people stand out or seperate themselves from others. It really isn’t that bad because every group of people does this where they think they are the center of the world. It’s the actions that affects others that needs to be study. In comparison with other Diaspora groups, the overseas Chinese are quite sophisticated. In some areas they will be exclusive, keep to themelves, in other areas, inclusive like willing to learn, live and uplift where ever they go. Either way, these are also ways to help remember why they are different and it’s up to themselves to decide what to do about it.
Hope this helps.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:30 am
I’d like to add something about the three original criteria. The first, your passport, is arbitrary. I agree with the comment that if you grow up in China then change passports in your 30’s or whenever, there’s no affective change to ‘you’. Just a book you carry around. A few years down the line your ’self’ will have continued to change and grow but the fact of changing nationality has little meaning at the time.
What I wanted to get into - and what has been brought up already is the complex nature of the second and third categories. Most so-called continuous cultures, or races, are just created in retrospect by academics who draw lines through history.
In the UK, where I’m from, there’s a basic idea of being ‘English’ and some people identify themselves with ‘anglo-saxon’. But to say that your ‘blood’ or ‘race’ is unchanged from before 1066 is impossible. There’s no such thing and it can’t be proved. Also, the culture and beliefs of people thought of as Anglo-saxon have radically changed down the ages.
It’s still a widely accepted idea that modern ‘anglo-american’ culture is part of a western civilisation going back to ancient greece. It’s also wishful thinking by nationalists. Ancient Greece was distinctly non caucasian and influenced by Egypt and Persia. Most of the region was made up of small military-facist states too. This particular connection was drawn up by victorian era academics to lend weight to their superiority.
To say that there’s a single Chinese race going back to a Yellow Emporer (suggesting pre-shang dynasty) is pure myth making.
Wether it is in China or in Europe or wherever, a small amount of research will reveal the realities of such wild assumptions. But the thing to remember is that when people talk about ‘Britishness’ or ‘Chineseness’ it’s almost meaningless.
Which leads me to wonder what the current debates actually do ‘mean’.
When I hear someone take personal offence at criticism of their country (by political membership or passport) I just assume they’re bigoted or whatever. I feel no pride for the past achievements of ‘my country’, I wasn’t around and it’s nothing to do with me.
I’m caucasian and was born in the UK - what do I think Britishness means? I think it means this: A set of values or ideas designed to make people loyal to power.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:56 am
@chorasmian post #12
Sorry but I have to disagree to your comment about my post #10. In Jan 2007 the Chinese gov’t developed a sort of “amnesty” and it was widely published in Feb and March of 2007 in China Daily and Xinhua. An English teacher I know who received her MBA in the USA and decided to stay, renounced her Chinese citizenship and was later laid off from a good teaching job at a n USA college.She traveled the world on a USA passport but, after she lost her job, she wanted to return home and she was allowed to return under that program. She applied for and received a Chinese Huzao after she turned in her US passport. The process took more than a year but she got it done. She is now the head of the English dept at the mingzhu daxue here. I don’t know if the program is periodic or perpetual but it makes sense to repatriate people with foreign training. Frankly, I would like everyone to come back. I am starved for intelligent conversation.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:02 am
@buxi
The diaspora are alive and well in France, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Indonesia’s 14,000 Islands and Africa. I travel to all those places frequently and even though they speak a multitude of other languages, they are definitely Chinese. I have jokingly tried to convince them they were not and they got very upset. Most of my Chinese friends subscribe throughout the world to “Once Chinese always Chinese.” It’s really pretty cool.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:03 am
I think that also there is something of a problem with the vagueness of terms in English. My reasoning is like this:
In Chinese, there are very specific and commonly-used terms for things like:
‘Ethnically Chinese’
‘Ethnically pan-Chinese’
‘Ethnic Han’
‘overseas Chinese’
‘overseas Chinese not born in the PRC’
and so on.
In Chinese, because we are familiar with the terms, there is a lot more subtle deliniation. On the other hand, if you use such terms in English to someone who is not familiar with the overall Chinese diaspora, then you are likely to get a blank stare unless you start explaining exactly what you mean.
The lazy man’s approach to this is just to cover all of the subtleties under the basket term ‘Chinese’, which is quite possibly a reason that people start getting all of these unclarities about what exactly it means ‘to be Chinese.’
July 4th, 2008 at 10:23 am
@phoenox re: your #13 posting.
I beg to differ with you that the current ruling government is a dictatorship. In the time of Mao that was true but today and most closely allied with Socialism but you are not alone. People I live with here still think that the latest “dictator” is Hu Jintao. Distant from reality but you cannot prevent peoples thoughts. You might be able to get a job with CNN with your belief but you might end up with the same fate as they.
Since Qin Shi Huang it has been the endeavor of every emperor, president, premiere, leader (whatever title) of China to “unite the tribes”. It is called simply; “Nationalism”. The unfortunate conclusion is that we are still, after thousands of years, “a nation divided”. We have 56 minorities and geographically separated “possessions” who are still out there, basically on their own. The good news is that the plan for unification hasn’t changed since Qin Shi Huang and although the country has gone through a few “re-starts” we still follow the same ideology.
Sun Zhongshan (Sun Yatsen) said there are three steps to democracy. The first is dictatorship, the second is military rule and the third is Democracy. He said the problem has always been that a race of people must be ready for democracy and fron Sun to Zhang Jieshi to Mao Zedung we have traveled he road of the first step. From 1965 to now we have been in the “military” phase protected and, at the same time, controlled by one of the most effective police departments the world will ever see and after Jiang Jemin we now enter the third stage.
My point in this entry is that those intelligent Chinese who work hard enough to really comprehend Chinese history must realize that the basic plan for Nationalization has never changed. We are right on target. However, a non-united people can never become an effective democracy. “United we stand…divided, we fall”
The Olympics were expected to unite the tribes once and for all as we all enter the third stage of Mr. Sun’s three step plan. You cannot argue about the effectiveness of the Torch Relays and the excitement we all feel about the Olympics. However, have you reflected on the fact that the Wenchuan earthquake has just “upstaged ” the Olympics and probably done more to unify China than any other event in 2500 years?
We are ready for the third stage madam (or sir) phoenox. Grouse if you will, but the people in this blog seem to be both proud and confident to be a part of China. We have every reason to be optimistic. Don’t be left behind.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:44 am
As China has the oldest and continuous civilizations, China’s cultural sphere has been very influential in East Asia, including Chinese religion, governance,writing system and customs. Not only that, the Chinese have been proven to be one of the intellegent and diligent peoples in the world.
Frankly speaking, the current situation in P.R.C. has negatively impacted the Chinese people. Since 1 out of 5 peoples in the world are Chinese live in P.R.C.,our world really needs a healthy, developed and democratic China. I mean that China deserve it.
I am a China born Tibetan Canadian(flatfish), so I am also one of your compatriots.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:04 am
ZT, I am afraid that I can not buy your comment(#39). It seems to me that you are a Pollyanna, rather than being optimistic.What I believe is that only the objective attitude is proper, especially if you really want to address the problems. Therefore, I don’t agree with your definition on the current situation in P.R.C., as well as “the 3 stage theory”.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
@ZT
Thanks for your response at post #36, which give me some update informations. What I know about this issue is based on the policy started from 2004.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Ethnicity, contrary to Lime’s assertion, undoubtedly changes in time and space. People move around, state borders change and ideologies shift to create vastly different identities, at least in emphasis if not in content. History is replete with examples. Sorry to refer to the UK for a minute but there are some general points that come out of it. Now we have more ethnic flavours than the average Ben and Jerry’s store, including many hyphenated categories. The point is that identities are incredibly dynamic. One can be Scottish and British, can be Asian and Indian, can be Scottish-Asian and Scottish-Indian, can be and British-Asian and British-Indian… all at the same time! That covers the culture and the descent, what I would say are the two key factors in ‘ethnicity’, but there is also a racial component (here I mean phenotype) which can be of saliency to certain people at certain times. The problem with nationality - simply, ‘British’ - is that it doesn’t really capture these intricacies.
It’s also worth noting that different ethnicities may be combined into what are generally called nation-states with or against their will. Assuming the Tibetans are a national minority (by which I mean a distinct ethno-cultural entity associated with a specific territory), they are not as Daniel suggested a “nation within a nation”, but more accurately a “nation without a state” (Guiberneau, 1996). The Scots, the Bretons, the Catalans, and indigenous peoples all around the world suffer the same fate. This is why I would suggest that to have a passport of a particular state does (or should) not necessarily classify you as from that nation. Lets face it, some Tibetans, Uighurs, Manchus, Zhuang, Scots, Welsh, AmerIndians, Aboriginies etc cannot get a passport that does do justice to their national identity.
That is not to say that the passport is necessarily aribitrary, as Andy suggests. For the majority for whom a state-issued passport does accurately represent their ethno-national identity, the recognition offers an ability to form dialogue with others anywhere in the world on an equal footing. It can be a source of both belonging and pride. For all the talk of globalisation reducing difference, a glimpse at any major sporting event would suggest that state-orientated nationalism is alive and well.
With reference to China, I think we’ve had a pretty solid discussion on the combination of ethnic, national and racial minorities when we talked about the 民考汉. I would say that the PRC’s categorisation system is archaic and static, and fails to accurately reflect the ‘actually-exsting’ cultural identities of its citizens. When scaled up to the idea of the nation, diversity within China’s state borders is ignored, meaning that ‘Chinese’ becomes synonymous with Han culture and history in popular discourse. Chinese nationalism as we now know it is surely at least in part a response to European imperialism, to Manchurian control during the Qing and to Japanese aggression. If we look at the recent outpourings of nationalist fervour, they have been directed at CNN and Carrefour due perceived/real bias in the Western media and funding subversives, and against Japanese businesses due to Koizumi’s visits to the war shrine. The state has generally encouraged this, but neither really requires any cultural homogeneity amongst the masses, rather it is a political sense of injustice that galvanizes the nation.
With respect to the Chinese diaspora, I had a good friend in Beijing whose grandparents were Chinese but who was born in Indonesia and schooled in Singapore. He used to say that when he was in Indonesia he was considered Chinese or Singaporean, when in Singapore he was considered Chinese or Indo, and that when in China he was considered Singaporean or Indo. Thus, it’s not necessarily as CalNYC suggested that you will be thought of by others as Chinese. For my friend, racially Han but psychologically perhaps not particularly so, the only way he could ‘fit in’ was to learn Chinese to fluency. It was both about satisfying a personal mission and gaining that all important external approval. The Indonesian passport stood for little.
(Sorry that’s turned out so long. Buxi and commentators - great work, keep it up!)
July 4th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
@phoenox,
I am very glad to see you here. I read through all your comments on DavidPeng’s blog and you are very thoughtful and knowledgeable about everything of Tibet culture.
I am a long time reader in this blog but I haven’t seen a Tibetan expert like yourself ,who also has deep knowledge of Han culture and firsthand experience of living in Tibet and inland China,joined discussion before.
I deeply beleive many others would also like to see you stay and share your thoughts when you have time.
Please forgive me if I misinterpreted your first comment.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
I never remember meeting Taiwanese who thought they were Japanese, and I did live there for four years.
I found most are happy being simultaneously Taiwanese (nationality) and Chinese (ethnicity). Nothing odd about that. That’s what the majority are.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Is “Chinese” an ethnicity, or should it be used in the same context as “European”,
because China is as big and diverse as Europe?
Chinese “dialects” are possibly the remnants of former languages that decayed over centuries of imperial rule. The first emperor, after unifying the different tribes and kingdoms, burnt the books of the former languages and imposed a common written language that was adopted by subsequent dynasties.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I am happy to see that this discussion has been able to progress without to much reference to the “sons of the dragon” and other blood-line theories. I think that at the end of the day, the idea of Chineseness is more a racial idea than anything else, and no matter how well you speak Chinese and how Chinese you behave, you will be treated as non-Chinese if you don’t look like a Chinese. If you want to break the mold and make people accept you as a Chinese, you basically have to reinvent the wheel with every person you meet, going through the formulaic question-and-answer sessions people of foreign descent have to grapple with. It’s OK if you are 23 years old and full of energy, quite another if you are approaching 40. I speak from personal experience. Having said that, I appreciate the attempts made here to expand the concept of Chineseness to something larger.
I just have one question, which is prompted by Buxi’s reference to Taiwan and its links to Chinese. If Chineseness is something larger than the current government of China, shouldn’t it be possible to accept the idea of a two state solution and a demilitarization of the Taiwan straits? Just look at the rest of the world. Today, we have four major countries and two statelets in Europe that use German as the official language and the German-speaking peoples of Europe have long given up the idea of having one state for all Germans. Nevertheless, the can all travel freely between each other’s countries and with the exception for Switzerland, they all use the same currency anyway. When those of us who are not Chinese read Xinhua editorials that talk about how blood is thicker than water and that all Chinese demands reunification, we cannot help to think of those who clamored for the Anschluss of Austria to Germany no matter what. Yes, Nazi Germany is not identical to Communist China, but the rhetoric is disturbingly similar. And rhetoric can get a life of its own and push governments into war.
Most Taiwanese have origins in mainland China and they speak Chinese dialects, but that fact does not in itself mean that Taiwan must become a province of China again. It is time to think of a solution of cross straits relations that allows for different expressions of Chinesess and can guarantee peace in the region.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Hi Hemulen,
In regards to your first paragraph, on the other hand, if you look like a Chinese and had any Chinese ancestry, you will be treated not necessarily as Chinese, but someone who SHOULD be Chinese, even if you’ve never set foot in China or used chopsticks. Same goes for anyone who doesn’t want to be considered Chinese but lives within PRC China’s borders.
And regarding Taiwan, I feel that the rhetoric is encouraging people to ignore reality and see idealism as reality instead. Just because the phrase “One China” gets repeated over and over doesn’t make it true, but it’s what the PRC wants. And many people in China are so religious (I feel it goes beyond nationalism) about the “Zhonghua Minzu” concept that they’ll forgo reality and believe any PRC dogma.
Honestly I’m not for or against reunification – either way is fine by me – but the stupidity of it all makes me not want to be called Chinese. But in the eyes of many, I don’t have a choice, and in the end that is what I really hate most about being Chinese – this idea that if you’re even a teensy bit Chinese, you are a “Hua ren” and ought to be loyal to the “motherland”. I understand that not all Chinese on the mainland are this way, but I’ve come across so many who are.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
@DKWan
I know exactly what you are talking about, from my own pespective. I don’t how many times I have been on the streets of Beijing or elsewhere in China with people who look Asian (ABCs, Japanese, whatever) and people have assumed that they speak Chinese and not me. Even when I initiate the conversation (to order a dish in a restaurant), they would look at the “Asian faces” when responding, even if my Chinese was better than theirs.
I don’t think this behavior is only about ignorance or even Chinese culture, but is an acquired behavior that is promoted by the government almost like religion, just like you said. The few times I have been to Taiwan and HK, I have seen xenophobia and nationalism, but never this kind of overbearing assertiveness of Chineseness. And I don’t think that many mainland Chinese really understand how much hostility against China this form of nationalism generates. I don’t know how many people Chinese descent I have met who leave China with disgust. And many foreigners who have learned Chinese to perfection regret their effort when they realize how much BS they have learned to understand. All too often, ignorance is bliss in China.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Another interesting thread (despite a slightly hackneyed subject).
Hemulen’s comment is very much up my road, so I’ll just add some fragments on related matters:
- rather loose use of the terms “nation” in several comments: Somewhere in Joseph Levenson’s work there is a remark to the effect that Modern China’s history can be understood as a transformation of 天下into 国家. The latter is a standard translation for “nation”, the former isn’t and it doesn’t really make much sense to speak of a Chinese nation (or nationalism) during the pre-modern period (neither is there for example a Roman nationalism or an Italian or German nation - as a fact, not as an idea - until the 18th-19th centuries).
- some of the talk on “blood-lines” in connection with political issues sounds pretty horrible to European ears (if I’m allowed to wildly generalize for once…), even if it isn’t necessarily “racist”. Anybody interested in an up-to-date take on genetic differences and their evolution in the human species (and their connections to linguistic change), could do worse than checking out the writings of population geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. A lot of preconceptions about “race” will immediately vanish…
- Da Shan: Chinese?! Please, haven’t the Chinese people suffered enough indignities already?
July 4th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Not sure I’d agree on Buxi’s 3rd “definition.”
Da Shan is considered Chinese not just because of his flawless command of Chinese language, but because of his genuine (it seems to me) love of China/Chinese.
One can be the best 中国通 who knows everything Chinese better than any individual Chinese in the world. But being an expert on China doesn’t necessarily qualify one as a Chinese, if his/her inner most carries fundamental prejudice, resentment and hatred of Chinese.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
The question posted here (i.e., what is Chinese?) is very relevant today if you are of Chinese descent. I was born and raised in China and came to the U.S. at the ripe age of 23. I went to the graduate school in America, graduated, got a job and settled down here in the U.S. I married a fellow Chinese (not born in China), have kids and am raising them here in America. I totally understand that in some people’s eyes, I am always a Chinese. Oftentimes my kids are Chinese and not Americans, even though they are everything American except for their bloodline. When the Olympic torch relay went through our city, many overseas Chinese (mainly Mainland Chinese) were so excited and sent e-mails to get us all to show our support. I emphatically declined my support because I understood the real reason behind their support. In that instance, I regarded myself as 100% American as in “You are a great American” as one radio talk show host here would say. My point is this: Being Chinese for a political reason is dumb. We are all individuals. Don’t let some government, being it a democratic one or dictatorship, use you to advance their political agenda. Now if some Chinese cultural or language group would need my help to represent them, I would be more than happy to use my Chinese appearance to serve their purpose as long as it’s ethical and good for humanity. I have one other point to all other friendly, kind non-Chinese Americans. You know, I love you guys. You are kind, open-minded and truly have a burden in your heart for other people groups like Chinese. But please, please, please don’t ask me or my kids to dress in these stupid Chinese costumes on these culture awareness days. We are into political correctness crap. Please don’t ask use for these stupid dragon dance music. China is very diversed. I am not from a region of China where we do the dragon dance. We regard them as backwards and stupid. Not to mention all these stupid local operas.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Oops. Grammar and typo corrections. Two sentences in #52 should read:
We are NOT into political correctness crap. Please don’t ask us for these stupid dragon dance music.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
@NZer,
I’ve always heard (never confirmed) that former ROC president Li Denghui thought of himself as Japanese until his college years, and grew up speaking primarily Japanese; I do know for a fact that his brother died fighting in the Imperial Japanese army during WW2. His autobiographies have been published first in Japan, written in Japanese. He would be more or less the prototype that we’re talking about.
@DKwan,
With all due respect, I think you should take a closer look and understand that your own perspective, however reasonable it might seem to you, is just one perspective… and if you can’t step away from it, then you too have the biased/restricted view of the world.
You describe the common Chinese perspective as a “religion”, but that’s really not the right term… it’s more accurate to describe it as a “value set”. I’ll give it a simple definition: people should be loyal to their cultural heritage and their homeland. In that sense, it’s no different than the equally firm “dogma” that you should be filial to your parents and care for them during their old age, for example. What you might see as common sense, that you’re just a human being with certain physical exterior features… (being Chinese is like having green eyes)… well, in the eyes of some, that’s an incomprehensible way of seeing the world.
My suggestion is, well, deal with it. I don’t see either way of seeing the world as being more “stupid” than the other; they’re just different. That’s why I personally try not to judge those who are ethnic Chinese but have no interest in being tied to the “motherland”… just as I try not to judge those who think family ties are cut off at the age of 18. And you, you might want to try not judging those who believe if you’re ethnic Chinese you will always be Chinese, and that China should always be treated as your homeland… after all, there are more than a billion people that feel this way.
One last comment: if you’re *trying* to learn Chinese, that tells me you don’t think this value set is so stupid after all. And if that’s the case… well, welcome to the family (and the church)!
July 4th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
@Hemulen,
Yes, but I have a different perspective on that issue.
Germans (and Europeans) have occasionally “demanded unification” ever since the days of the Roman Empire. Before Nazi Germany, you had Charlemagne, Napolean… but ultimately, they largely failed and Europe eventually ended up warring and competing against each other time and time again. If history is any judge, then your blase attitude about “German unity” has always been typical amongst Europeans. We talked about this before; this could very well be why the European Union is doomed to failure. (Or at least faces a more difficult path.)
On the other hand, in Chinese culture, “everything under the heaven” has been united more often than not… and well, most of us like it that way.
Nimrod had an excellent article about this:
http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2008/06/23/political-unification-and-china%e2%80%99s-grand-union-ideal/
July 4th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
I guess to some minds, they can see comparisons with other Nationalistic movements, but I’ve often assumed that “everything under Heaven” was more of a poetic saying for the world. (or the world in Traditional Chinese Cultural Realm, which itself is full of interesting topics to discussed about).
If possible, putting aside the political talk and ethnic/cultural/historical factors, my personal observations and encounters with Hua Ren (I tried my best to choose a neutral term) …the impressions that I and my friends get is that a lot of Hua Ren care more about their personal well-being and relationships rather than questionable ideals (which of course depends on the individual and occupations but just overall impressions). I mean, this is quite down to Earth and practical.
I could be very wrong but I and some aquaintences of mine tend to form a small list of what many Hua Ren value and appeared to pursue.
1. Relationships. The closer the better and need not any “blood” relations.
2. Education. Whether it’s formal or informal, there’s always something to learn and value in it.
3. Self-empowerment. To always improve yourself and achieve the fullest potential possible. I guess this might go hand in hand with a notorious remark I’ve heard quite a lot in the Hua Ren community that everyone want’s to be Kings or Masters of his/her own lot. This might also be one of the many factors why the Hua Ren appeared to be quite Materalistic. I wouldn’t know whether it could be justified or not since this is a personal matter.
I’m sure there’s more “values” but I personally would rank the 3 above as the highest.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Hmmm, I don’t think we are all talking about the same thing here. There is nothing wrong with not wanting to associate with China or being culturally Chinese, that’s one’s choice. My friend’s mom is 4th or 5th gen Jamaican Chinese. She doesn’t speak Chinese, married a fellow Jamaican and has no particular feelings for China which makes perfect sense, it’s been hundreds of years since her ancestors left China. But she has no problem acknowledging that she is of Chinese ancestry (it seems this is the part some extremist Taiwanese have problem with and this is where I find their I have nothing to do with the “Chinese” argument absurd and it’s not like Taiwan is on the other side of the globe). Acknowledging Chinese ancestry (ie ethnicity) or choosing to be culturally Chinese doesn’t make one a supporter of the PRC regime. It seems many people get hung up on this point.
And yes, I do find some Taiwanese being condescending towards Mainlanders. Most non-Mainland people probably wouldn’t know it since the Taiwanese are usually very friendly people but when it comes to Mainlanders some Taiwanese sort of almost have a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde double personality. You sort of can sense the animosity. Funnily, when I go to Taiwan, I get treated very well if I don’t say anything or speak English (many think I am Japanese or overseas Taiwanese as I am American and do not have the Mainland looks or mannerisms), but if I speak Mandarin, it’s another story (my parents are from the Mainland so my Mandarin has one of the Mainland accents). Kind of sad, because I am the same person. And yes, I have been warned by Taiwanese friends that I may get chewed out by the locals if I go to southern Taiwan and speak Mainland accented Mandarin.
Anyway, yeah, at the end of the day, I think we all just need to chill and come up with a win win solution. And last but not least, to my fellow Americans out there, Happy Fourth of July!
July 4th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
@Marc,
Sounds like you’re talking about Sean Hannity!
As one of those who defended the torch and gave my reasons why, I don’t feel like I was used in any way in order to advance any political agenda but my own.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Does anybody know how Hou Dejian is doing these days and where he lives, etc. His “heir to dragon” was extremely popular on the mainland pre-1989 and during 1989. He was active in Tiananmen in 1989, one of the last people who left the square on 6/4. His songs were essentially banned in China after 1989, and of course, the government of Taiwan did not like him either because he had “defected” to the mainland years earlier.
I believe that he lived in Australia after 1989, and married the famous singer in late 1980’s Cheng Ling (and got divorced years later?) One thing I remember about Hou Dejian was that he stood up and said that he did not see bloodshed on Tiananmen square itself while rumors had it that the square was a bloodbath. It was an act of integrity as compared to people like Cai Ling, etc.
He lived a legendary life, and I am curious about his life after 1989, and how he is doing today.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
@Buxi
Yes, but I have a different perspective on that issue.
Of course you do.
If history is any judge, then your blase attitude about “German unity” has always been typical amongst Europeans.
You clearly need to read up on European history. German unity in 1800 is not the same thing as German unity in 1938. And the question is not whether “unity” is a good thing or not, but whether unity should be brought about at the expense of other values.
We talked about this before; this could very well be why the European Union is doomed to failure.
European unity is a fact for the foreseeable future; what we disagree about is the exact nature of the Union. Most of us are happy with freedom of travel and residency, we might differ about the precise nature of European government in Brussels. Historically speaking, a unified but politically weak Europe is much better for the rest of the world than a fractured Europe. It was the competing nation states of disunited 19th century Europe that conquered the rest of the world and pushed China around for a while.
On the other hand, in Chinese culture, “everything under the heaven” has been united more often than not… and well, most of us like it that way.
Well, if you care to read up on Levenson, as suggested by Zuiweng, you’d realize that the concept of Tianxia two hundred years ago is very different from the idea of a unified China today. And do most of “you” like it that way? I don’t know, neither do you, because the mainland Chinese government does not allow any alternative public opinion to develop. So the jury is out for the moment.
Nimrod had an excellent article about this
I read it and I was so horrified that I didn’t know how to respond. If the message of the post was to show to a non-Chinese speaking audience what some Chinese people feel about “unity”, fair enough. But the post was actually trying to persuade us to believe in this way of reading world history and Chinese history, which is impossible to either refute or to prove, making it a religious view of history more than anything else. I appreciate your idea of trying to create balance in cyberspace when it comes to China, but posting that kind of stuff without any critical comment will just turn readers away.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Eugene Z:
One thing I remember about Hou Dejian was that he stood up and said that he did not see bloodshed on Tiananmen square itself while rumors had it that the square was a bloodbath.
Hou Dejian didn’t deny that there was bloodshed in Beijing on June 4, he only said that he didn’t see any bloodshed in Tiananmen square. He also warned against using lies to fight your lying enemy. Take a look for 05:58 on the following footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igsW5yQ6428&feature=related
The rest of the footage leaves little doubt as to what actually happened.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
@ZT,
By the way, I meant to respond to this earlier… you’re wrong about any sort of “amnesty”. Ethnic Chinese holding foreign citizenship are by and large treated no differently than anyone else holding foreign citizenship, and there are no favorable policies at this time for becoming a naturalized citizen.
There are a couple of scenarios for the friend that you mentioned had studied overseas:
- she never took foreign citizenship (or at least the Chinese government was unaware of it),
- she might have taken advantage of various policies (implemented differently in different cities/provinces) for liuxuesheng (Chinese students originally from the mainland who have studied overseas); these policies allow liuxuesheng to have special residency permits in some cities… but actual citizenship is controlled at the national level, and there are no favorable advantages for liuxuesheng.
The only other policy unique for ethnic Chinese would be that for previous citizens who’ve reached old age, and have no blood relatives outside of China. They’re given a special path for citizenship if they can prove they have relatives within China capable of providing for their care.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
@Jane
As with everything there is a historical explanation. My understanding of the Taiwanese feelings towards Mainlanders is the “shock and awe” they experienced when the KMT soldiers initially went to Taiwan after the end of WWII poisoned the attitudes of many locals.
The initial feeling among the Taiwanese was one of welcome anticipation of reunification with the motherland after 50 years of Japanese colonization.
However, the reality was that many of the KMT soldiers and administrators sent over were brutal in their administration (many having fought a long war against the Japanese and may have seen the local population as having “collaborated” with the hated enemy). Tensions rose.
This reached a climax in the “228 incident” (February 28, 1947) which resulted in thousands of deaths. You can read about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/228_Incident.
“The initial purge was followed by repression under one-party rule, in what was termed “white terror,” which lasted until the end of martial law in 1987.
Thousands of people, including both mainlanders and Taiwanese, were imprisoned or executed for their real or perceived dissent, leaving the Taiwanese victims among them with a deep-seated bitterness towards what they term the mainlander regime, and by extension, all mainlanders.”
Most Americans (including American Chinese) know zilch about this incident and the subsequent repression, and in the cold war mentality of the 50’s to 1979 when Taiwan was officially China for Americans (and media reporting about Taiwan was for the most part positive), this history was either ignored at best or covered up at worst.
Knowing this, I might cut Taiwanese who have negative feelings about Mainlanders some slack.
The words of failed U.S. Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee to an interviewer regarding the “America-hating statements” of Obama’s now former pastor, Rev. Wright, might be instructive here:
“HUCKABEE: And one other thing I think we’ve got to remember: As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say, “That’s a terrible statement,” I grew up in a very segregated South, and I think that you have to cut some slack. And I’m going to be probably the only conservative in America who’s going to say something like this, but I’m just telling you: We’ve got to cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told, “You have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can’t sit out there with everyone else. There’s a separate waiting room in the doctor’s office. Here’s where you sit on the bus.” And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had a more, more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.”
INTERVIEWER: It’s the Atticus Finch line about walking a mile in somebody else’s shoes.”
(http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/huckabee-defend.html)
I think the point of Huckabee’s words (probably the most uplifting words I heard in the entire presidential campaign so far) is that when we hear criticism, even if it sounds unreasonable, we need to think about the reasons behind that criticism before being too quick to strike back.
******
@Buxi
I’m curious whether in the Mainland the history of 228 incident is well known? My guess would have initially been that it would be publicized because of the CCP-KMT antagonism, but then again because it cuts against “One China”, so I think on balance it would be not be news that would be publicized. Would you have a view on this?
Many thanks for a great post and blog, by the way.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
@Daniel,
By the way, meant to thank you earlier for the tour through overseas Chinese communities in southeast Asia. I’ve always been very impressed and touched by how such communities have maintained their heritage for centuries after emigrating to a foreign land where they were the clear minority.
Most Chinese in China are well aware of the existence of these communities, and yes, are equally impressed with those that have hung on to their culture. Everyone’s aware of the key role they played as far back as the Xinhai revolution. Long before I knew much of anything about Thailand, I remember my uncles talking with some pride about the fact that the current king si of Chinese descent.
I’m curious about your feelings on a different issue, which is sort of the intersection between political and cultural definitions of Chinese. Many, many Chinese in the PRC are very unhappy that the PRC government did nothing during the Indonesian race riots targeted at ethnic Chinese. Many Chinese in the PRC have always felt very strongly that the PRC had a moral responsibility to protect ethnic Chinese in foreign countries, even if legally they aren’t PRC citizens.
(The China-Vietnam war in 1979 was in part launched because of persecution of ethnic Chinese in Vietnam.)
So… both for you personally, and also for the community around you… how do you feel about that? Do you believe the “Chinese government” (however you define that) should act to protect ethnic Chinese in southeast Asia?
July 4th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Buxi said:
Sure. . . Actually was 3am where I was when I wrote the above, and end of a long day’s work.
Yeah, there are a (shrinking) group who identify as Japanese because they were brought up as Japanese. Hardly seems surprising.
But these people were elderly and really did grow up under Japanese colonial rule. I don’t see any problem with them feeling Japanese.
Spanish colonization, Dutch colonization, Ming loyalist colonization, Qing colonization, Japanese colonization, KMT colonization. . . It’s been a long history of colonization in Taiwan. Given that the Japanese colonization wasn’t so long ago a few traces remain, and so they should.
But I have yet to meet young to middle-aged Taiwanese who feel more Japanese than Chinese (i.e. would claim to be culturally more Japanese than Han/Chinese). Japanese culture has had an influence in Taiwan, but the mainstream is definitely Chinese.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
@Buxi
The China-Vietnam war in 1979 was in part launched because of persecution of ethnic Chinese in Vietnam.
Perhaps. But the PRC government refuses to grant citizenship to the many ethnic Chinese refugees who came to China as a result of the war. I wager more ethnic Chinese from Vietnam eventually acquired European nationality than a PRC passport. As usual, “China” is banking on more charity and hospitality to its lost sons and daughters than it would ever grant to a foreigner of any nationality. And over-populated Europe gets no credit. This time around, we take care of more Iraqi refugees than the nation that provoked the war in the first place.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
@Hemulen,
First of all, Chinese unity in 2008 isn’t even the same thing it was in 1949. I’m not talking a specific political formula, but a cultural perogative, that cultural DNA.
As far as the goodness of “unity”… we talked about this exact same point in that thread, and I don’t want to get back into it here as well. But very briefly, it’s not that the Chinese want unity while the Europeans are against it; it’s exactly as you said, a matter of priorities. Our priorities are different, period.
Personally, speaking as a Chinese person, I would prefer the competing nation states of a disunited Europe than a united polity with shared economic and political weight. I’m not one of those inclined to exclusively blame Europe for “pushing around China”… I place most of the blame on China’s own isolated state, and its complete failure to modernize and reform.
That’s why we leave the blog open, for critical comment. As far as the blog itself, our goal is not to “create balance”, but to represent the Chinese voice. You assert repeatedly that this Chinese nationalist “religion” exists in China based on your own experience… so, absolutely that perspective will appear in our blog, presented as we see it, without your dismissive editorializing.
You insist that this “religion” is propagated by the PRC government. I don’t know how the PRC government managed to brain-wash Hawaii-raised American citizen Sun Zhongshan into dedicating his life to the Chinese revolution. I don’t know how the PRC government managed to brain-wash New York born/raised, Boston educated Wang Lihong so that he’d sing lyrics like this:
July 4th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Hemulen wrote:
I read it and I was so horrified that I didn’t know how to respond. If the message of the post was to show to a non-Chinese speaking audience what some Chinese people feel about “unity”, fair enough. But the post was actually trying to persuade us to believe in this way of reading world history and Chinese history, which is impossible to either refute or to prove, making it a religious view of history more than anything else. I appreciate your idea of trying to create balance in cyberspace when it comes to China, but posting that kind of stuff without any critical comment will just turn readers away.
+++++
The point of that post was exactly the first thing you said, to tell you how Chinese people feel about unity and how they understand their country’s history. It’s not trying to persuade you of anything, except to suggest that you should consider this perspective or take this into account, for the purpose of understanding today’s China and its people.
As for critical comments, I provided some in the summary of that post and there is always the space for everybody to chime in, so go ahead, don’t just be “horrified”.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
@Hemulen,
Your’e exactly right on this point. China accepted 200,000 refugees from Vietnam (90% are ethnic Chinese). But few of them have been granted citizenship. A new “Refugee Law” is promised to change this, but hasn’t happened yet.
Many Chinese are also unhappy with government policy on that front, just as we’re unhappy with 1996 treatment of ethnic Chinese in Indonesia. The government’s stance is that China is too poor to deal with a huge influx of refugees… well, with increasing wealth, that policy needs to change. Many Chinese believe China’s policy towards ethnic Chinese should mirror that of Israel with Jews.
And that’s a question I’d pose to you, then. What similarities and differences do you see between the nature of the “Jewish diaspora” and the “Chinese diaspora”? I’ll be honest; although I haven’t thought this through deeply, I see many similarities.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
@Buxi
Our priorities are different, period.
As far as you can tell perhaps. But we don’t have enough data to tell what are the priorities of mainland Chinese. I would argue most Chinese want a happy life and rising living standards, most of them probably don’t give a crap about Taiwan or Tibet. You may disagree, but neither of us can prove our points, so let’s allow our arguments to stand on their own feet instead of bringing in people that have not been asked to join the debate.
You insist that this “religion” is propagated by the PRC government.
Yes, today this religion is propagated by the PRC government. Needless to say, there were other contenders for this job, such as the KMT.
I don’t know how the PRC government managed to brain-wash Hawaii-raised American citizen Sun Zhongshan into dedicating his life to the Chinese revolution.
Sun is one of the creators of modern Chinese nationalism, not one of its victims.
I don’t know how the PRC government managed to brain-wash New York born/raised, Boston educated Wang Lihong so that he’d sing lyrics like this
Wang is an artist who sings about the culture of his ancestral homeland, just like Irish-Americans or Italian-Americans do. That’s cool, part of the immigrant experience. But he would probably never give up his US passport in favor of a PRC one. Neither would you, if you were in his shoes.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
vadaga made a good point in comment #38. This discussion in English about what it means to be Chinese seems to suffer from an overloading of the term “Chinese”.
While there are many variations of the term “Chinese” in Chinese with subtle differences, such differentiations are lost in English. vadaga listed a few of them in English. The list below is my attempt to map them in Chinese. Please provide feedback and corrections, and I will update the list.
What is interesting about this list below is that 中国人, the term essentially being discussed here, is also vague in definition and suffers from overloading of meanings.
中国人 a Chinese person (This seems to be the particular term being discussed by most people here)
中国公民 a person with Chinese citizenship
华人 ethnic Chinese people (emphasis on culture)
汉人 ethnic Han people (emphasis on ethnicity)
华侨 a person holding Chinese passport but residing overseas on a permanent basis
华裔 a foreign citizen with Chinese ancestry (It’s generally limited to those born and raised overseas)
外籍华人 a ethnic Chinese with foreign citizenship (a superset of 华裔 and covers 1st gen immigrants)
July 4th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
@Buxi
What similarities and differences do you see between the nature of the “Jewish diaspora” and the “Chinese diaspora”?
There is a huge difference, there has always been a China for better or worse, but for most of Jewish history there has never been a Jewish state. Jews have been living at the sufferance of their host country in a way that has few comparisons.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
@DJ
I think there is a great deal of variety when it comes to defining Chinesness, some of which are more racial and some of which are less racial. But at the end of the day most definitions default to Han Chinese and nothing else. To quote Perry Link:
Or consider the term huaqiao, which is commonly understood to mean “Chinese abroad.” In fact it means “Han abroad.” Han people living in Singapore are considered huaqiao, even if they have lived in Singapore for several generations; but if a Uighur family were to move from Urumqi to Samarkand, it would not occur to speakers of daily-life Chinese to refer to them as huaqiao. Implicitly if nit officially, hua is Han.
http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2008hearings/written_testimonies/08_06_18_wrts/08_06_18_link_statement.php
This is the sad truth and this is the very reason why it is very difficult for the PRC government to convince Uighurs or Tibetans that China is really a multi-ethnic country.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Hi Buxi,
If the average person in China could be like you and accept others’ decisions to not be Chinese, I wouldn’t have a problem with their “value set”. Of course Chinese values aren’t stupid. The stupid part is the belief that anyone in China or perceived to be Chinese MUST do things the “Hua ren” way.
Overseas “Chinese” MUST consider themselves Chinese and MUST consider China their homeland. There is no other choice that’s acceptable.
People in the western provinces who never considered themselves Chinese MUST accept that they’re part of Zhonghua Minzu.
Taiwan MUST be part of PRC, in the name of Zhonghua Minzu unity (religious idealism), even though Taiwan already operates as a separate country (unacceptable reality). But it seems that the value set of Zhonghua Minzu, according to PRC, cannot allow Taiwan to continue to do things their own way.
I blame the PRC gov for this. People are just people, and without the government’s rhetoric, no one would care that Taiwan is separate, or that people in the western provinces don’t want to be Chinese, just as people don’t care that Mongolia is no longer part of China.
I’m not saying the PRC gov is all bad, really. I think they do an admirable job running such a diverse and overpopulated country. It’s this use of Zhonghua Minzu to rally people behind their own agendas, and the fact that people go along with it, that I find unfortunate.
July 5th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Hemulen,
What you said is most likely true but I wouldn’t necessarily infer too much negative implications out of it. When overseas Han Chinese is considered, it is easy and natural to trace their racial and culture heritage back to China, because, where else could you point to? So it is completely logical to automatically call them “overseas Chinese”. An ethnic Uighur living outside of China, however, presents a scenario of overlapping sets. A quick check on Wikipedia shows that 8 countries have significant Uighur population (i.e., China, Pakistan, Kazakhsta