Zhonghua Minzu, Anyone familiar with this term? Options

[Titanium]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhonghua_Minzu

For those of you who don't know what this term means, it's basically the idea that the Chinese nationality transcends ethnic divisions in China historically and presently. There are controversies with this theory of course. It is sponsored by the PRC as the view that Chinese history should include all of China's ethnic groups past and present, not just the history of the Han Chinese. China (including its internal vassals/tributaries) is viewed as a coherent state formed since time immemorial and exists as one legal entity even in periods of political disunity. "Chinese" are viewed as all subjects and participants of that state regardless of ethnicity. There are disputes and controversies of course, the obvious one being that such a theory is highly motivated by political nationalism but at the same time there can be heavy arguments made against it

For example, it has been a Chinese tradition since the Jin Dynasty (3rd century AD) that emperors of one dynasty would sponsor the writing of the official history of the immediately preceding dynasty, which usually involved monumental intellectual labor. The Yuan and Qing Dynasties, which might be thought "foreign" as their impeirial families were not of the Han people, faithfully carried out the tradition, writing the official histories of Han-ruled Song and Ming Dynasties respectively. Had the two "non-Han" imperial families not thought themselves as continuing the "Mandate of Heaven" of the Middle Kingdom -- the cosmological center of their known world -- it would be hard to explain why they retained the costly tradition. Thus, every non-Han dynasty saw itself as the legitimate holder of the "Mandate of Heaven," which legitimized the dynastic cycle regardless of social or ethnic background as it was moral integrity and benevolent leadership that had been validating the "Mandate of Heaven." Therefore, blaming the ethnic inclusiveness theory, if it is blameable at all by today's geo-politico-cultural standards, is scholarly unethical and inconsistent, since peoples of today's north Asia, east Asia, parts of central Asia, and parts of southeast Asia had long thought themselves to be a largely integral world centered in central China (before European powers shattered this cosmological imagination), the accurate depiction of which cannot be fulfilled by modern racial and ethnic terminologies. Of course, various interests parties today often dispute this fact for their political purposes.

This theory is not limited to the PRC alone. The Tongmenghui initially regarded the Manchus as non-Chinese occupiers. They quickly realized that ethnic inclusiveness was needed to maintain territorial integrity of the new republic so "Han independence" was scrapped in favor of the Five Races Under One Union principle. The Republic of China regime on Taiwan continues to claim a much larger territory encompassing Mongolia and Tannu Uriankhai.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_historiography

Likewise some western scholars themselves support this view such as John Langlois Jr.

"Historians in the People's Republic of China now argue that is is incorrect to describe Yuan rule as the rule of aliens who invaded China. Following the lead of Wu Han, who had argued that Mongols, Manchus, and other non-Han peoples were fully a part of Chinese history, these scholars now claim that the primary contradictions in Yuan times was not one of ethnicity, but rather one of socio-economic class. The views serve political expedients in today's China, to be sure, yet they are not without their truthful component. While it is anachronistic to view Yuan history from the perspective of contemporary politics, it is foolish to deny the fact that the Yuan dynasty was a Chinese invention. All the ideas inherent in the name of the dynasty were derived directly from the mainstream Chinese literary and political heritage. It is true that they were brought together in this way at the insistence of the Mongol conqueror Kublai. But that does not alter the fact that they were purely Chinese in origin. A dynasty is much more than a simple structure of symbols, of course. The Yuan was a complex amalgam of Jurchen, Mongol, Khitan, and Chinese institutions. The many sources of Yuan institutions remind us that Chinese civilization was never simply the civilization of the Han ethnic group, despite the frequent identification of the Hsia (China) side of the Sino-Barbarian polity with the Han people. The history of Chinese civilization is one of the constant enrichment of the Hsia traditions by elements from the outside, just as Chinese civilization enriched the surrounding civilizations of Japan, Korea, Inner Asia, and elsewhere. The degree to which Chinese civilization was so enriched by its contacts with outside peoples and by non-Han peoples within varied from one age to another, but the process must have been continual".

-"China Under Mongol Rule", pg.18 John Langlois Jr.

Professor Langlois has a very good point, that being that Chinese history is not limited to simply Han history. Chinese civilization has had way too much interaction with non-Han groups to simply be classified as purely Han for example (Khitan Liao, Jurchen Jin, Northern Wei, Mongol Yuan, Manchu Qing, Tangut Xia etc.) These groups did more than interact, they continued the traditions of Chinese civilization while merging it with their own. Despite being the majority, the Han Chinese were not the only participants and actors in Chinese history so it would completely false to state that Chinese people, culture, civilization and history is limited to just the Han people. It is like saying American history is only limited to White Anglo history because they are the majority of Americans. African Americans, Asian Americans, Latin Americans have no place in American history because they are minorities from afar. It's like saying Colon Powell is not an American due to his African roots despite the fact that he's an American citizen and has been part of the American society and culture for as long as he's been alive. Such a view is not only false but flat out racist. The concept of being Chinese is not based on race or ethnicity (Which is entirely western in origin), but of culture. Han Chinese themselves are not a homogenous group but actually an assimilation of many larger groups united by similar culture just like White Americans are an assimilation of all kinds of Caucasians of European origin. Obviously the analogy between America and China does not completely parallel but the examples still remain. Ironically people who advocate such an idea (that which China is limited only to the Han) are equally driven by politics and nationalism. While the Zhonghua Minzu concept is not without it's flaws, it does have major points as well. So feel free to discuss

This post has been edited by Titanium: Dec 8 2006, 03:09 AM

[ham_let]

yea, in fact i was just reading about it yesterday (IMG:style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) . funny how that works, you read about something one day and then the word comes up the day after...

I just wonder if the concept of ZongHua MinZu will remain the same once more immigrants enter the country from places like America, Europe, and Southeast Asia.

[Vitality]

delete

This post has been edited by Vitality: Dec 8 2006, 09:38 AM

[Titanium]

I'm glad more and more scholars are beginning to recognize the validity of the Zhonghua Minzu concept. It's like Dr. Langlois said, it may have a political purpose but it's truthful components still exist. If more immigrants come to China (Although I doubt they would want to considering how overpopulated and poor it is), it'd be no different than foreigners immigrating to the US. A German couple that lived and died in Germany back in the 1900's for example can never claim to be American since they never lived on American soil nor identified themselves as Americans but their grandkids whom were born second generation in New York can.

This post has been edited by Titanium: Dec 8 2006, 09:49 AM

[piclook]

ethnic inclusiveness appears a useful way for the majority to mitigate the shame of rule by aliens. if the majority is just going to consider alien rule as their own, then they might as well invite other aliens to invade and rule over them since there's no shame in that if the aliens become non-alien by adopting some traditions of the majority, which is bound to happen anyway - influence has historically been observed to go both ways between conqueror and conquered.

no dignity in that.

if john, an ex-convict and next door neighbor, comes over one day and kills your dad, rapes your mom, and eats your food, but he respects your traditions of taking out the trash every thursday, mowing the lawn once every two weeks, watches your favorite TV show every night, while living off your income and setting the rules in your house, would you consider him as part of your family? would you include him in your family's photo album to re-live the memories years from now? Is he a part of the [insert your family's surname here] residence?

This post has been edited by piclook: Dec 8 2006, 09:04 PM

[Titanium]

ethnic inclusiveness appears a useful way for the majority to mitigate the shame of rule by aliens.

There is more to history than simple shame of rule by aliens. History and life is not that simplistic, the world is neither black nor white but very grey. If you really think about it ethnic inclusiveness is a part of everyone's history because there has never been a civilization on earth unaffected by different peoples (good or bad it doesn't matter).

Yes there is no doubt that the Zhonghua Minzu concept is somewhat politically motivated but the facts still remain. I believe the Princeton scholar himself stated that in the passage" The views serve political expedients in today's China, to be sure, yet they are not without their truthful component." Also notice how professor Langlois argues that the Chinese civilization throughout history is "one of the constant enrichment of the Hsia traditions by elements from the outside". Keep in mind just because he mentioned the idea of receiving "Enrichment" from the outside doesn't necessarily mean that it the enrichment was brought above my positive means. Studying human history, we see from all the wars that much of the enrichment from outside was actually made out of war and conquest or at the very least exploitation for the purposes of maintaining power. Look at the Romans, they conquered the entire Med. world but at the same time nobody can deny the cultural enrichment they had. Good or bad, The Romans did what they did. Whether people like it or not (And this includes Han Chinese people especially) Chinese history and civilization is not simply limited to just the Han Chinese. For better or worse, non-Han peoples have made their impact in history and we include them not because we choose to but because have no other choice.

if the majority is just going to consider alien rule as their own, then they might as well invite other aliens to invade and rule over them without resistance since there's no shame in that if the aliens adopt some traditions of the majority, right?

But the issue is not shame, it's history. Like I said ee don't consider the alien rule as our own because we choose to, on the contrary we actually have no choice. It's a part of our history, good or bad or both. I'm sure most African Americans feel shame knowing that their ancestors were brought over here as slaves but happened in the past already happened. All they can do now is move on and whether they like it or not, they are still a part of American society and culture. You need to realize this is not an issue of pride or shame at all. Han Chinese for better of for worse throughout history has interacted with non-Han peoples, good or bad or both, it doesn't matter it's still a part of our history and its still a part of our culture and civilization today. Non-Han invaders conquered and set up dynasties, they were were both oppressive yet willing to acculturate. Examples of both good and bad and likewise Han peoples expanded south and assimilated with many of the Southern non-Han peoples another example of both good and bad.

Also everyone today is a by product of historical conquest and rapage. If we see ourselves as nothing more than what's the point of living? Human beings are evil and do evil things but they're also good.

And alien adoption of traditions is bound to happen anyway - influence has historically been observed to go both ways between conqueror and conquered.

That's true.

no dignity in that.

Since everyone is a by product of historical conquest and rapage, where's the dignity in human existence at all then?

if john, an ex-convict and next door neighbor, comes over one day and kills your dad, rapes your mom, and eats your food, but he respects your traditions of taking out the trash every thursday, mowing the lawn once every two weeks, watches your favorite TV show every night, while living off your income and setting the rules in your house, would you consider him as part of your family? would you include him in your family's photo album to re-live the memories years from now? Is he a part of the [insert your family's surname here] residence?

Your example is way too simplistic because history involves more than just one example of a man committing wrongdoings.

John may have been an @$$hole, but let's say his young and infant innocent son grows up alongside the family. Is the crime committed on his father's part a reflection of his own past? Yes but does that reflect his own guilt and wrongdoing in the present day? No. Now multiply such a scenario times thousands and you get human history.

This post has been edited by Titanium: Dec 8 2006, 05:41 PM

[Titanium]

Also keep in mind the idea of Zhonghua Minzu does not necessarily mean China is attempting to gobble up states around them for political purposes. Claiming Kublai Khan as a part of Chinese history doesn't mean claiming all of Outer Mongolia as Chinese territory. And likewise claiming Zheng He as a Chinese admiral with Muslim background does not mean claiming China founded Islam.

Also I can't stress this enough but one of the main purposes of ethnic inclusiveness is to reveal some of the contributions that non-Han people made in Chinese history. It's extremely chauvinistic and flat out racist to believe that the only people that contributed anything good to Chinese history is the Han. In fact the Han people have their fair share of villains and idiots throughout history and likewise non-Han peoples have their fair share of overachievers. Yuan Shikai was far more an incompetent fool than say the Kangxi emperor for example. It's also a mistake to assume that non-Han peoples were simple alien conquerors and barbarians that invaded, plundered, and raped. While past Chinese political tracts might reveal such an idea, it is unethical from a scholarly viewpoint.

This post has been edited by Titanium: Dec 8 2006, 08:32 PM

[Suren911]

Majority of the people in China are still rather ignorant and unaware of this idea. And this whole anti foreign rule thing has got to go. Every part of it make up the Chinese history.

[BlueAway]

Majority of the people in China are still rather ignorant and unaware of this idea. And this whole anti foreign rule thing has got to go. Every part of it make up the Chinese history.

agreed. its amazing. since china became so big, you'd think the people would be used to absorbing different peoples and cultures but xenophobia still persists.

[Elysee]

I'm glad more and more scholars are beginning to recognize the validity of the Zhonghua Minzu concept. It's like Dr. Langlois said, it may have a political purpose but it's truthful components still exist. If more immigrants come to China (Although I doubt they would want to considering how overpopulated and poor it is), it'd be no different than foreigners immigrating to the US. A German couple that lived and died in Germany back in the 1900's for example can never claim to be American since they never lived on American soil nor identified themselves as Americans but their grandkids whom were born second generation in New York can.

CHINA is not an immigrant country, we won't have many immigrants anyway.

plus the huge Chinese population, every thing, even the martians will be vaporized.

[BlueAway]

CHINA is not an immigrant country, we won't have many immigrants anyway.

plus the huge Chinese population, every thing, even the martians will be vaporized.

yeh i think if there ever is a martian invasion, they'll probably be able to vaporize every single country except china. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/icon_smile.gif)

[piclook]

my chinese friend, who migrated from china to the us and lived here only six years, once told me kubilai was a great chinese hero and that the mongol invasions were really chinese civil wars. he said it without shame which made me think he was out of his mind. it's apparent that his thinking was influenced by ethnic inclusiveness, which allowed him to de-alienize the alien invaders. the period of alien rule is a shameful part of a country's history and if you were to de-alienize the alien (which ethnic inclusiveness allows) then you remove the shame in that part of history because it allows you to look at alien rule as rule by your own people. afterwards, bizarre interpretations of history can ensue, like glorification of the alien rulers (despite that ruler killing many of your own ethnic people) and looking at foreign invasions as civil wars.

so that's how ethnic inclusiveness can mitigate or eliminate shame and turn something that should be shameful into something glorious; it seems like a historical distortion.

.... and the justification for de-alienizing the alien (which is the alien adopting traditions of the natives) is bizarre because, as i said before, influence goes both ways between conqueror and conquered in conquest. so it's inevitable that conqueror(alien) adopts traditions or other cultural aspects of the conquered(native); cultural exchange is a widely occuring phenomenon, yet not all natives in other countries see invaders as their own people (although the natives will include the conquest and the invader as part of their country's history).

i know bringing in "shame" is sidetracking, but i was trying to draw attention to ethnic inclusiveness's drawback in the last post, but it didn't come out right.

anyways, carry on....

This post has been edited by piclook: Dec 9 2006, 12:34 AM

[STFU]

yeh i think if there ever is a martian invasion, they'll probably be able to vaporize every single country except china. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/icon_smile.gif)

And we will make martians Chinese. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif)

[Titanium]

my chinese friend, who migrated from china to the us and lived here only six years, once told me kubilai was a great chinese hero and that the mongol invasions were really chinese civil wars. he said it without shame which made me think he was out of his mind. it's apparent that his thinking was influenced by ethnic inclusiveness, which allowed him to de-alienize the alien invaders. the period of alien rule is a shameful part of a country's history and if you were to de-alienize the alien (which ethnic inclusiveness allows) then you remove the shame in that part of history because it allows you to look at alien rule as rule by your own people. afterwards, bizarre interpretations of history can ensue, like glorification of the alien rulers (despite that ruler killing many of your own ethnic people) and looking at foreign invasions as civil wars.

so that's how ethnic inclusiveness can mitigate or eliminate shame and turn something that should be shameful into something glorious; it seems like a historical distortion.

.... and the justification for de-alienizing the alien (which is the alien adopting traditions of the natives) is bizarre because, as i said before, influence goes both ways between conqueror and conquered in conquest. so it's inevitable that conqueror(alien) adopts traditions or other cultural aspects of the conquered(native); cultural exchange is a widely occuring phenomenon, yet not all natives in other countries see invaders as their own people (although the natives will include the conquest and the invader as part of their country's history).

i know bringing in "shame" is sidetracking, but i was trying to draw attention to ethnic inclusiveness's drawback in the last post, but it didn't come out right.

anyways, carry on....

Your point is somewhat reasonable but the problem is Chinese history is immensely impacted by non-Han alien peoples which brings us to the point that it is unfair and wrong to simply believe that Chinese civilization was limited to just the Han peoples despite being the majority. Han Chinese people themselves were somewhat alien to each other if you go far enough back. There were numerous tribes that lived in China long before a unification process was completed. Also Alien invasions were more than just Alien invasions, it is wrong to dismiss them as nothing more than alien barbarian invaders that contributed nothing. The whole purpose of Ethnic Inclusiveness is not an issue of pride or shame, it is about recognization of history and nothing more. Let me repeat my statement again verbatim

"Also I can't stress this enough but one of the main purposes of ethnic inclusiveness is to reveal some of the contributions that non-Han people made in Chinese history. It's extremely chauvinistic and flat out racist to believe that the only people that contributed anything good to Chinese history is the Han. In fact the Han people have their fair share of villains and idiots throughout history and likewise non-Han peoples have their fair share of overachievers. Yuan Shikai was far more an incompetent fool than say the Kangxi emperor for example. It's also a mistake to assume that non-Han peoples were simple alien conquerors and barbarians that invaded, plundered, and raped. While past Chinese political tracts might reveal such an idea, it is unethical from a scholarly viewpoint."

[Suren911]

I've yet to meet a Han Chinese with healthy and objective views on the foreign rules and ethnicities in modern day China. It's either straight up ho-bag xenophobic b!tching or gross I-want-some-tribal-putang exoticism.

[northwestern_stu...]

i want your putang

[BlueAway]

Your point is somewhat reasonable but the problem is Chinese history is immensely impacted by non-Han alien peoples which brings us to the point that it is unfair and wrong to simply believe that Chinese civilization was limited to just the Han peoples despite being the majority. Han Chinese people themselves were somewhat alien to each other if you go far enough back. There were numerous tribes that lived in China long before a unification process was completed. Also Alien invasions were more than just Alien invasions, it is wrong to dismiss them as nothing more than alien barbarian invaders that contributed nothing. The whole purpose of Ethnic Inclusiveness is not an issue of pride or shame, it is about recognization of history and nothing more. Let me repeat my statement again verbatim

"Also I can't stress this enough but one of the main purposes of ethnic inclusiveness is to reveal some of the contributions that non-Han people made in Chinese history. It's extremely chauvinistic and flat out racist to believe that the only people that contributed anything good to Chinese history is the Han. In fact the Han people have their fair share of villains and idiots throughout history and likewise non-Han peoples have their fair share of overachievers. Yuan Shikai was far more an incompetent fool than say the Kangxi emperor for example. It's also a mistake to assume that non-Han peoples were simple alien conquerors and barbarians that invaded, plundered, and raped. While past Chinese political tracts might reveal such an idea, it is unethical from a scholarly viewpoint."

yeh exactly. and even the Mongolian invasions contributed to chinese civilization. Despite the fact that they initially slaughtered millions of Chinese and china's population actually decresed significantly. Once things settled down, trade between China and the middle east flourished. For the first time, you could travel from end of the silk road to the other without being molested.

[Suren911]

^The good that the Mongols had done aren't comparable to the rather ferocious ways they used in conquering China in many Chinese people's eyes.

Northwestern, unless you're Mongolian, I don't want your heiny.

This post has been edited by Suren911: Dec 9 2006, 05:33 PM

[Titanium]

Again Zhonghua Minzu's main purpose is recognition of Non-Han peoples in Chinese history. Whether their actions were good or bad, it doesn't matter, it's still recognition nonetheless. People need to stop seeing this issue as one of pride or shame.

If people still have a hard time understanding, read over Professor Langlois' comment over and over again because it makes alot of sense.

This post has been edited by Titanium: Dec 9 2006, 05:36 PM

[BlueAway]

^The good that the Mongols had done aren't comparable to the rather ferocious ways they used in conquering China in many Chinese people's eyes.

Northwestern, unless you're Mongolian, I don't want your heiny.

thats strange cause Qin Shi Huang was even worse. Despite using brutal methods to unite China, after he attained power, he continuously oppressed the population using the most anally rigid laws ever. But opinion of him in China is divided but recently, he's being looked upon with a new light since chinese reunification is so important today.