![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This article doesn't seem NPOV. -- Jiang 23:56, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC) --- Did some NPOV work. Removed the characterization of zhonghua minzu as a fiction. 'Zhonghua Minzu' is no more fictitious than most nationalistic concepts (i.e. the American people).
-- Roadrunner 2 Jan 2004
-- Nanshu 01:45, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This article started out completely POV, but had the virtue of being direct and forceful, with a certain rough and primitive insight into the nature of things. With the weasly and mealy-mouthed additions from all and sundry, the point has been weakened and diluted, in places by what can only be described as apologism for the ideology of the Chinese government. And it still doesn't give a decent analysis of the roots of the concept! Bathrobe 00:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Missing sections on overseas Chinese. Also I met an ethnolinguist who argued that the whole modern idea of "Chinese" was invented by overseas Chinese in Singapore (which makes a lot of sense to me). I'll add her ideas if I can find a sourced reference to them.
Roadrunner 23:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Incidently, this member of "zhonghua minzu" happens to live in Texas, and the issues regarding some of the boundaries of "Zhonghua minzu" seem very similar to the issues regarding the boundaries of the United States and Mexico. As far as I can figure the situation with Tejano and Mexico is very similar to the situation with Inner Mongolians and Sino-Koreans.
One of the reasons I happen to like the concept of "zhonghua minzu" is that it unquestionably includes me even though I have an American passport, was born in West Virginia, and I speak better English than Mandarin. I tend to hate the idea of "mainstream" since I'm clearly not "mainstream", but I've grown to discover that no one else is either.
Roadrunner 23:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Zhonghua Minzu → Chinese nation – Rationale: Zhonghua Minzu is not a common English term, and neglects the fact that the term is also used in Taiwan, which spells the same term Jhonghua Minzu. A search on Google will quickly reveal that "Chinese nation" is the unambiguous English translation for Zhonghua Minzu and has been used widely in published sources. - Naus 16:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Zhonghua minzu is a supra-ethnic identity (ultimately an ethnicity), not a "civic identity" as the article states. Ethnic divisions by definition are man-made (not biological/genetic nor linguistic) and have cultural, social and political sources of influence. This article makes the faulty assumption that the term "Chinese" refers specifically to either Han Chinese or PRC citizen. It is, in fact, neither. The English language during the Qing Dynasty referred to ethnic Manchurian troops specifically as "Chinese troops" as opposed to "Qing/Ch'ing troops" (political) or "Manchu troops" (purely ethnic). Zhonghua minzu is an ethnic concept ultimately tied to the subjects of the Qing Dynasty. The article also seems to imply incorrectly that the culture, language and social structures of the Han Chinese are homogenous. The concept of Zhonghua minzu developed at the same time as the concept of Han Chinese, not later. Zhonghua minzu is not any more "invented" than Han, Tibetan or Manchurian ethnicities. By giving only examples of foreign controversy, this article is incredibly biased in favor of minority views of mostly overseas independence movements of Tibetans and Mongolians, etc. It has offered no cited evidence of the beliefs of actual Chinese minorities within China. The article also erroneously implies that the non-Han Chinese ethnicities are all somehow diametrically opposed to the views of the Han Chinese on the matter of zhonghua minzu. This is absolute nonsense. For example, Cui Jian the famous Chinese rock musician is of Korean ethnicity (chaoxianzu), but proudly asserts he is also both zhonghua minzu and Chinese citizen (zhongguoren). 128.135.96.188 05:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Roadrunner 22:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The trouble with "plausible speculation" is that it could be wrong. There's too much speculation in the world, and too little fact. There have been rather large numbers of studies on how ethnic minorities in China view themselves, and the short answer is that there isn't a single rule, and it is complex.
Roadrunner 16:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Roadrunner 22:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Roadrunner 16:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I don't have any objections presenting alternate models of ethnicity. I do have a lot of problems with people trying to impose one model of ethnicity as the only one. The idea of "zhonghua minzu" has internal inconsistencies, flaws, and inaccuracies, but that true for *all* ideas of ethnicities and nationalities.
I don't think there really is (or should be) such as thing as "mainstream Chinese culture" since China is extremely cultural diverse to have anything mainstream, and cultural and ethnic diversity is a very good thing.
Roadrunner 22:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Roadrunner 16:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Zhonghua Minzu only includes those overseas Chinese who have Chinese citizenship. Those who have become citizens of other countries are not considered part of Zhonghua Minzu. Edipedia 18:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Edipedia. The (ethnically Han Chinese) citizens of Singapore are not regarded as Zhonghua Minzu. The rationale for 'Zhonghua Minzu' as an 'ethnic group' (or supra-ethnic group) is to tie together the many ethnicities of China. It doesn't (or shouldn't) claim that all overseas Chinese, even those who are citizens of the countries they live in, are 'Zhonghua Minzu'.
In fact, the status and definition of 'overseas Chinese' is pretty central to the whole debate about 'Zhonghua Minzu'.
You will often come across comments like "'Chinese' doesn't just refer to the Han, it includes all the minority ethnic groups of China". This is the classic statement of the doctrine of Zhonghua Minzu. And yet, when discussion of 'Chineseness' turns to the 'overseas Chinese', people betray the shallowness of this kind of claim by automatically assuming that Chinese = Han!
If Han Chinese who emigrated to southeast Asia in the Qing are to be counted as 'Zhonghua Minzu', then what about all the other ethnic minorities who are represented abroad? The subject can be a pretty touchy one! What about Mongolians? Mongolians in Inner Mongolia are called 'Zhonghua Minzu'. What about the ones in the state of Mongolia? Shouldn't they be regarded as 'Overseas Chinese'? What about the Miao (Hmong) in southeast Asia, many of whom emigrated there in comparatively recent times? What about Koreans (Chaoxian-zu 朝鲜族), Vietnamese (Jing-zu 京族), and Russians (Eluosi-zu 俄罗斯族)? These are all a part of the Zhonghua Minzu who are represented by major concentrations of population outside China. In fact, the Chaoxianzu, Jingzu, and Eluosizu are virtually only 'splinters' of these major ethnic groups who happen to live in China, and that is the only rationale for placing them in the Zhonghua Minzu. No one would seriously claim Koreans, Vietnamese, and Russians as 'Zhonghua Minzu'. But if they can't be claimed as Zhonghua Minzu, why should the ethnically Chinese (Han) citizens of Southeast Asia? On the basis that the Han are somehow different from the minorities, therefore the Han overseas can be regarded as Zhonghua Minzu? Whoah!
I suggest that whoever keeps adding 'overseas Chinese' to the definition of Zhonghua Minzu should think again. They don't belong there.
Bathrobe 03:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Zhonghua minzu = Chinese people with Chinese citizenship! 218.102.206.50 16:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a need of warning to all readers that Zhonghua minzu is not Chinese nation, and of course it is not Han racism. I must express my regret to remove this warning (instead of amend it) just because of non-conformance.
First of all, claim "Minzu" is not nation is not Original research. I can put a footnote of Hunan independence movement, and that is solid evidence that China is not a nation (in the sense of nationalism) even in the eyes of Chinese at 1920s. I am simply describe what truly happened, it is not Original research. If I merely claim "Minzu" is a term manufactured by politicans for the ease of rule and for the legitmacy of revolt, it could be Original research, unless I am quoting another one, because I am not only saying something I believe to be true, but also I am drawing conclusion. For the case Hanan independence, and for case of Sun (孫中山) willing to cede NorthEast territory to Japan for exchange for Japan assistance of revolt, it is merely fact and not original research.
For the MOS, direct removal is most ridicous method. As an disambiguation warning, it should be put on the very first few paragraph and at there should be a very clear sign. For those who insist there is MOS volation, please explicitly indicate it, because I have read that too and for reasonable readers they should see no MOS volation. Csmth 09:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
There have recently been several additions and deletions of the links to Han chauvinism (HC), Sinocentrism (SC), List of tributaries of Imperial China (LT) and List of recipients of tribute from China (LR). Is there any possibility of consensus around the following settlement?
Seektruthfromfacts 20:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
If it was up to me, I would chop away chunks of both HC and SC for being original research and merge what's left into Chinese nationalism. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 20:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Very briefly: "Tributary states" is possibly relevant to Sinocentrism, but not necessarily here. Bathrobe 11:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. Everyone involved has had a chance to see this, so I've edited the links and put them in alphabetical order. Seektruthfromfacts 00:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
This sentence does not seem right: "Faced with the necessity to legitimize their rule, the Manchus sought to portray themselves as patrons of classical learning and sought to create an identity which was based in these traditions which deemphasized the ethnic differences between the Qing court and the various peoples that they ruled".
In fact, the Qing were more sophisticated than that. They appealed to different ethnicities (and in fact they tended to define ethnic groups for greater convenience in carrying this out) in different ways. For the Han Chinese they were virtuous Confucian rulers. For the Mongolians and the Tibetans, they emphasised their role as Buddhist leaders. For the Mongolians they also styled themselves khans. This did not necessarily deemphasise ethnic differences, it established their legitimacy as rulers over the people that they ruled, which is something rather different. I think that the sentence and the passage it occurs in needs to be changed, especially as it sets the tone for the rest of the article.
Also not incidentally, the Manchu definition of ethnicities and their insistence on keeping the Manchu, Mongolian, and Tibetan territories quite distinct from their "Chinese" (Han) territories is quite central to Qing rule over China. In an article about Zhonghua Minzu -- a philosophy which tries to minimise this aspect of Manchu rule and emphasise that all Manchu-controlled territories simply "belong" to China -- it seems important that this should be mentioned. It is definitely important to ethnic groups that disagree with the "Zhonghua Minzu" philosophy and insist that these territories are conceptually distinct from "China proper". User:Bathrobe, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Bathrobe. Different logics for different people. Grand-khan for the Mongols, chakravartin king for Tibetan Buddhists, ideal Confucian ruler for Chinese. In addition, Turkic Muslims in Eastern Turkestan justified the Qing's rule by the "duty of salt" (see Hamada Masami's article: Between the duty of salt and jihād).
I support Okada Hidehiro's theory that the turning point of modern China was not the Opium Wars but the establishment of Xinjiang Province of 1884. Turkic Muslims spoke the Turkic languages, believed in Islam and were backed up by the Islamic civilization. There were no room for the Chinese civilization. The Manchu emperor only loosely controlled local rulers. He left local inhabitants under autonomous rule of begs. It was after Zuo Zongtang's establishment of Xinjiang Province that real Chinese influence began. He enforced an assimilation policy and inevitably sparked a backlash from Turkic Muslims. -- Nanshu 23:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I've again made quite a few changes to the article. I've tried to clarify the original paragraph about fuzziness in boundaries of the Zhonghua minzu. I've also toned down the longish apologetic appeal to the "strong state" model amongst Chinese nationalists. Emphasising this over the obvious desire to keep hold of the huge Qing territories seems unbalanced.
I feel that the changes result in a clearer, more balanced article, one that paints a clearer picture of the ideology of Zhonghua minzu and its obvious issues, but I'm sure there are people who disagree with some of what is written. Contributions and corrections are welcome. The article is controversial because the concept itself is, and I hope that editors will try to refrain from injecting too much POV. Bathrobe ( talk) 03:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort. What really seems needed is citations. Otherwise, if this topic is as controversial as is claimed, people will start an edit war. Also, if the topic is controversial and there are no citations, how do I know whether the information simply reflects your view and/or hearsay, or whether it is accurate?
In my opinion, on a lot of subjects it isn't so bad to lack sources, despite Wiki policies. If a topic has enough first hand witnesses among the general public and they all agree, who needs sources? But on a controversial topic, sources are more important. As someone with some grasph of Chinese, and someone interested in Taiwan and by extension anyone who seeks to subdue Taiwan, I find it interesting that I don't recall ever hearing the term "Zhonghua minzu" until a couple months ago when I started editing on Wikipedia (although I have encountered the attitude). I actually have to wonder if this is a hoax. Sources, please. Readin ( talk) 03:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Readin ( talk) 18:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I was originally going to add a note as to why I reverted most of Got Milk's edits.
First, I would question the assertion that "The ideology and challenges of the Zhonghua minzu concept in developing upon a perceived homogenous society, into a multi-ethnic or multi-racial society is akin to the "Melting Pot" concept of the United States of America."
If you actually read the article on melting pot, you'll find that it says:
I have two questions about this:
It is also difficult to justify the statement that "It can be further deduced that Chinggis Khan himself was an early precursor of in a certain concept of the "Zhonghua Minzu"." I'm not sure how you can equate the policies of a totally different polity (13th century Mongolia) with that of 20th century China. The only common thread is the word 'multi-ethnic'. In every other sense they are different countries! Did the Chinese of the early 20th century model their new nationality on the policies of Genghis Khan? Would be interested to hear some support for this.
The other reason that I reverted many of the edits is that they were in the wrong place. The recategorisation of Chinese heroes (Yue Fei is out, Chinggis Khan is in) was included as an implication of the Zhonghua Minzu theory. It's something that has happened in relatively recent times and Chinese people have noticed it. (I will try and find a reference for this since you've pointed out that the article lacks references). The additional section pointing out that Chinggis Khan was a precursor of multi-ethnic policies just doesn't fit with the "implications" of the concept. It was nothing more than a kneejerk reaction to the earlier section. If you can find somewhere in the article where that particular section fits, please go ahead and put it there.
I reverted the part "Both Chingis Khan and his grandson Kublai Khan is credited in the successful demise of the Jin, Liao/ Western Liao, and Song Dynasties which established a unified China under the sinicized Yuan Dynasty. It should also be noted however, that statistics indicate far more ethnic Mongols living within Chinese boundaries than there are in the whole nation of Mongolia, which certainly contributes to the popularity of Chinggis Khan in annals of Chinese history" because it doesn't add anything to the section on the fuzziness of conceptual boundaries. However, I did reinsert some material that was related to conceptual boundaries (such as the larger number of Inner Mongolians), because it was relevant to the section.
Bathrobe ( talk) 13:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This was interjected into a statement on the beliefs of supporters of self-determination.
(which at international law is available only to a narrowly defined class of "peoples")
We all disagree with things we see that other people say. But when we're providing the beliefs of a group, we can't just interject our objections. Readin ( talk) 16:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The article says "In Taiwan, it is invoked as a non-political unifying concept of Taiwan with mainland China." with reference:See, e.g. Ma Ying-jeou, President of Republic of China inauguration speech, 20 May 2008: "兩岸人民同屬中華民族,本應各盡所能,齊頭並進,共同貢獻國際社會,而非惡性競爭、虛耗資源。我深信,以世界之大、中華民族智慧之高,台灣與大陸一定可以找到和平共榮之道。"
How is a politician's inauguration into political office "non-political"? Also, the term "Taiwan" is used a little too broadly given that the reference has only one guy with known strong political views on the subject (known now, admittedly he tried to hide or de-emphasize them during the campaign). Are there any references in non-political contexts and/or usages by people not seeking merger with China? Readin ( talk) 14:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't kept up with this discussion - but it seems quite clear that the reason Ma and the KMT invoke the Chinese nation as opposed to "one China" or "the motherland" -- in order to reach the broadest audience possible. I very much doubt that any significant portion of the population in Taiwan object to the notion that they are part of the Chinese nation (ethnic) - save for the most extremist factions who object to even an ethnic identification with the mainland. It is perfectly consistent - and in fact seems to be a fairly commonplace position - to object to any political links with the mainland without objecting to the ethnic identifier.
As such, I find the wording discussed above a little misleading. It should only be those who wish to have no ethnic and cultural links with the Chinese ethnicity, and not just political ones with the Chinese state, who would object to the concept.
I think it bears emphasising that the zhonghua minzu is not the "Chinese nation" as the word "nation" is most commonly used in contemporary English - "minzu" here would be more like "race" or "ethnicity" in contemporary English. Further, "Zhonghua" is not "Chinese" in any sense that attaches to a particular state or regime. It is more like the supra-political concept which correlates with the "one China" that the US officially supports.
Thus, while a lot of people would object to being labelled as part of the "Chinese (state) people" (zhongguo renmin), they are likely to react differetly to "Chinese (ethnic) nation (ethnic)" (zhongghua minzu), if my disambiguating brackets make any sort of sense.
It is a pity that English terminology is not sufficiently refined to reflect the subtleties in meaning in all the Chinese terms. A crude analogy to the difference between "zhongguo renmin" and "zhonghua minzu" might be the difference between "English" and "Anglo(-Saxon)". The two terms literally mean the same thing (of or pertaining to the Aengles), but the former attaches firmly to England, the country in the south-east of the island of Britain, while the latter attaches to the "global diaspora" that originated from that country. -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 12:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I think Ma's speech should be retained as much as I think all Chen's important speeches should be. A president's inauguration speech is considered to be an important declaration to the people in Taiwan (as well as all interested parties) and it serves as an indicator on how the new government will define things and where the government is driving the country towards. It was not just a political speech in a highly political context.
Chen's "Four Noes and One Without" is an example. It was given in Chen's inaugural speech to serve as a promise to the United States and the PRC that he would not declare independence. Ma used this term to link the people of the ROC and PRC the closet way possible with the least offence caused. The use of the term was a defining moment in the politics of the ROC and PRC.
PalaceGuard008 is right. As far as I can tell (and I read Taiwan's newspapers from both camps as well as the Xinhua newspaper on a daily basis), Zhonghua minzu is a highly acceptable term in the Taiwanese general public. Really only a fringe of Taiwanese people would object to it. As I said earlier, the only real objection after Ma's speech that I saw in Taipei was a protester's truck. I heard Frank Hsieh saying something about he didn't agree that Taiwanese people belong to the Zhonghua minzu when he was asked to comment on Ma's speech. But this sentiment was not mirrored in the Taiwanese general public.
Zhonghua ("華人", the Hua people) is even much more general than Zhonghua Minzu, as Zhonghua Minzu really only includes the citizens of the PRC and ROC (regardless of their ethnicity). The term "Hua people" is used freely in the Taiwanese media on a daily basis to describe the people of Taiwan when a term to include the people of both the PRC and ROC is needed ("兩岸的華人", meaning the Hua people from both sides of the Strait). Even the media from the Pan Green camp do that. Anyone who is ethnically Chinese is called the "Hua people" or just simply Chinese. The term "Chinese" in common English usage doesn't mean the person has to be from China. It can simply mean the person has a Chinese ethnic background. I understand that people from South East Asia commonly identify themselves as Chinese even though they aren't from China.
Readin said:-
It transcend ethnic divisions because there are many people from the minority groups in China, and this term includes everyone in China (ROC and the PRC) regardless of their ethnic background.
Readin said:-
On a daily basis? The term, as you know, can't be easily translated into English so you are very unlikely to see it appear in an English publication. When it is quickly translated into the "Chinese nation", most English speakers would get confused. You are unlikely to see it in a Pan-green Chinese publication because the term links ROC and PRC together and it is against their political viewpoint to see any connection between the two political entities.
Let me summarise:-
One term is about people's ethnic background. The other one is about their nationality.
That's why I phrased the statement that way in the main text of this article. I really don't see anyone objecting to the use of the term in Taiwan unless they consider themselves to have nothing to do with China. After all, as I mentioned earlier, it was the term Dr Sun Yat-sun used to described the people in his Republic.-- pyl ( talk) 12:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see this term being this much big deal. At least I don't believe it is in the Taiwanese general public. I explained why there is a lack of usage in English publications: the term is hard to translate. I think the pan greens are more concerned with the "special but not state to state relationship" statement than this term.
I propose that we just simply mention this term is used in Taiwan and we should cite the inaugural speech to show how it was used. We don't need to go into the intention behind the Ma's usage or the acceptability of the term, then there is no problem with "no original research". If you, Readin, think the term is unacceptable to a significant section of the Taiwanese society, I think it would be appropriate if you then say it with a reason as well as a citation to your research.-- pyl ( talk) 05:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the wording to just facts without going into the acceptability of the term. I also gave a translation to Ma's speech so that English speakers can see how it was used and hopefully understand the purpose of the use. I removed the citation tags as well as I believe no original research was involved in the wording.
I am happy to discuss this matter further, should there be any further issues.-- pyl ( talk) 05:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
"Chinese nationalists discarded this concept and extended the scope of China to cover the entire territory of the Qing state."???????
In international treaties, Qing=China!!! A few examples: Treaty of Nanking Treaty_of_Shimonoseki Treaty_of_Wanghia Boxer_Protocol Traité_de_Whampoa A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. 93.136.209.91 ( talk) 20:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Moving the following comments made by IP editor 202.134.228.106 at 09:18, 10 August 2010 from the main article: -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 11:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Moving the following comments made by IP editor 202.134.228.106 at 09:53, 10 August 2010 from the main article: -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 11:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
This is the first time I comment on your site, but I've been keeping up with your work for about a moth. I admire the passion with which you write the articles and hope someday I can do the same. Love — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.210.73 ( talk) 14:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I move the unreferenced texts from the introduction here
Zhonghua minzu citation needed refers to the modern notion of a Chinese nationality transcending ethnic divisions, with a central identity for China as a whole. It includes people of all ethnic groups in China who have historically interacted, contributed and assimilated to various extents with Chinese civilization.
Professor Suisheng Zhao, University of Denver, using extensive reading of primary sources noted that because "Chinese" or Zhonghua minzu as a conscious national identity (自觉的民族实体 zijue de minzu shiti) only arose in the 19th century, since nationalism in the modern sense only appeared with the emergence of the nation-state system ( Westphalian system) in Europe. Although the Chinese empire stretched back two millennia, it was largely a universalistic empire and not a nation-state before the 19th century. citation needed
The boundaries of Zhonghua minzu are fuzzy and controversial, but most citation needed Chinese clarification needed today use the term to include all peoples within the territorial boundaries of China integrated as one national, political, and cultural group. It is sometimes also extended to overseas Chinese. citation needed
Zhonghua refers to the concept of "China" and is the term used in the formal names for both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. (See: Names of China) Minzu can be translated as "nationality", "people", or "ethnic groups".
Confusion can arise because the term "Chinese" in Western languages is often used to refer both to Zhonghua minzu and to the Han ethnicity, two concepts which are usually kept distinct among modern Chinese speakers citation needed.
--( comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng) 17:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The Qing identified their state as "China" (Zhongguo), and referred to it as "Dulimbai Gurun" in Manchu. The Qing equated the lands of the Qing state (including present day Manchuria, Dzungaria in Xinjiang, Mongolia, and other areas as "China" in both the Chinese and Manchu languages, defining China as a multi ethnic state.
https://webspace.utexas.edu/hl4958/perspectives/Zhao%20-%20reinventing%20china.pdf
When the Qing conquered Dzungaria in the Ten_Great_Campaigns#The_Zunghars_and_pacification_of_Xinjiang_.281755.E2.80.931759.29, they proclaimed that their land was absorbed into "China" in Manchu written documents.
In many other Manchu records they refer to their state as China and as Manchus as inhabitants of China, and when they refer to the Qing in conparison with other lands, they use "China"
In light of these sources, it is quite difficult to justify the excessive POV pushing by User:Bathrobe in the above sections. Methinks Bathrobe doth protest too much, no? When the Manchus themselves clearly state that their territories- even specifically named territories like Dzungaria in Xinjiang- were part of China (Dulimbai Gurun)- and made clear the they regarded themselves as inhabitants of China, and used "Dulimbai Gurun" to refer to the Qing Empire in Manchu versions of international treaties like the Treaty of Nerchinsk (the Latin version of the treaty also said "China", not "Manchu Empire")- and people like Bathrobe continue to push an agenda and falsely claim that this is all modern "Chinese nationalism"....
Rajmaan ( talk) 19:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Dulimbai Gurun is the Manchu name for China (中國, Zhongguo; "Middle Kingdom"). [1] [2] [3] The Qing identified their state as "China" (Zhongguo), and referred to it as "Dulimbai Gurun" in Manchu. The Qing equated the lands of the Qing state (including present day Manchuria, Xinjiang, Mongolia, Tibet and other areas as "China" in both the Chinese and Manchu languages, defining China as a multi ethnic state, rejecting the idea that China only meant Han areas, proclaiming that both Han and non-Han peoples were part of "China", using "China" to refer to the Qing in official documents, international treaties, and foreign affairs, and the "Chinese language" (Dulimbai gurun i bithe) referred to Chinese, Manchu, and Mongol languages, and the term "Chinese people" (中國人 Zhongguo ren ; Manchu: Dulimbai gurun i niyalma) referred to all Han, Manchus, and Mongol subjects of the Qing. [4]
When the Qing conquered Dzungaria in 1759, they proclaimed that the new land was absorbed into "China" (Dulimbai Gurun) in a Manchu language memorial. [5] [6] [7] The Qing expounded on their ideology that they were bringing together the "outer" non-Han Chinese like the Inner Mongols, Eastern Mongols, Oirat Mongols, and Tibetans together with the "inner" Han Chinese, into "one family" united in the Qing state, showing that the diverse subjects of the Qing were all part of one family, the Qing used the phrase "Zhongwai yijia" 中外一家 or "neiwei yijia" 內外一家 ("interior and exterior as one family"), to convey this idea of "unification" of the different peoples. [8]
A Manchu language version of a treaty with the Russian Empire concerning criminal jurisdiction over bandits called people from the Qing as "people of the Central Kingdom (Dulimbai Gurun)". [9] [10] [11] [12]
In Tulisen's Manchu language account of his meeting with the Torghut Mongol leader Ayuki Khan, it was mentioned that while the Torghuts were unlike the Russians, the "people of the Central Kingdom" (dulimba-i gurun 中國, Zhongguo) were like the Torghut Mongols, and the "people of the Central Kingdom" referred to the Manchus. [13]
{{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help){{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help){{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help){{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help){{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help){{
cite journal}}
: |archive-url=
requires |archive-date=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)References
A source for the earlier "expel the Manchus" version of Chinese nationalism can be found at [3]. The speech given by the Tongmenghui (Sun Yatsen's organisation) in 1908 at the grave of the Yellow Emperor goes:
Bathrobe ( talk) 06:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. ( non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Zhonghua minzu →
Chinese nation – the Chinese nation is the exact name for this article, not the so-called Zhonghua minzu.
OuiOK (
talk) 19:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC) —Relisting.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
11:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
OuiOK ( talk) 19:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The redirect
Chinese nation has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 26 § Chinese nation until a consensus is reached. -
CHAMPION (
talk) (
contributions) (
logs)
08:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
It is said that minzu has been used since the 6th century, but whether it was used popularly is another matter. minzu was apparently used as a translation of the German word "Volk" during the Japanese Meiji period, and Sun Yat-sen and Liang Qichao were used in a similar vein. Most of all, Volk means "ethnic", "race", "people", "nation", and so on, just like minzu. ProKMT ( talk) 07:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
From Chinese Wikipedia that minzu means "ethnic group" or "race", as well as from articles in English Wikipedia regarding nationalism in other countries. And there's definitely 'Zhonghua minzu' (中华民族) in March of the Volunteers, the official national anthem of the People's Republic of China.
It is not a problem to write down in an article that, depending on the context, 'Zhonghua minzu' may mean "Chinese ethnicity" or "Chinese race." (See zh:中华民族, zh:民族, Korean ethnic nationalism, Yamato people, An Investigation of Global Policy with the Yamato Race as Nucleus)
There is no reason to cancel editing that is not directly related to Volk. ProKMT ( talk) 12:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This article doesn't seem NPOV. -- Jiang 23:56, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC) --- Did some NPOV work. Removed the characterization of zhonghua minzu as a fiction. 'Zhonghua Minzu' is no more fictitious than most nationalistic concepts (i.e. the American people).
-- Roadrunner 2 Jan 2004
-- Nanshu 01:45, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This article started out completely POV, but had the virtue of being direct and forceful, with a certain rough and primitive insight into the nature of things. With the weasly and mealy-mouthed additions from all and sundry, the point has been weakened and diluted, in places by what can only be described as apologism for the ideology of the Chinese government. And it still doesn't give a decent analysis of the roots of the concept! Bathrobe 00:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Missing sections on overseas Chinese. Also I met an ethnolinguist who argued that the whole modern idea of "Chinese" was invented by overseas Chinese in Singapore (which makes a lot of sense to me). I'll add her ideas if I can find a sourced reference to them.
Roadrunner 23:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Incidently, this member of "zhonghua minzu" happens to live in Texas, and the issues regarding some of the boundaries of "Zhonghua minzu" seem very similar to the issues regarding the boundaries of the United States and Mexico. As far as I can figure the situation with Tejano and Mexico is very similar to the situation with Inner Mongolians and Sino-Koreans.
One of the reasons I happen to like the concept of "zhonghua minzu" is that it unquestionably includes me even though I have an American passport, was born in West Virginia, and I speak better English than Mandarin. I tend to hate the idea of "mainstream" since I'm clearly not "mainstream", but I've grown to discover that no one else is either.
Roadrunner 23:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Zhonghua Minzu → Chinese nation – Rationale: Zhonghua Minzu is not a common English term, and neglects the fact that the term is also used in Taiwan, which spells the same term Jhonghua Minzu. A search on Google will quickly reveal that "Chinese nation" is the unambiguous English translation for Zhonghua Minzu and has been used widely in published sources. - Naus 16:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Zhonghua minzu is a supra-ethnic identity (ultimately an ethnicity), not a "civic identity" as the article states. Ethnic divisions by definition are man-made (not biological/genetic nor linguistic) and have cultural, social and political sources of influence. This article makes the faulty assumption that the term "Chinese" refers specifically to either Han Chinese or PRC citizen. It is, in fact, neither. The English language during the Qing Dynasty referred to ethnic Manchurian troops specifically as "Chinese troops" as opposed to "Qing/Ch'ing troops" (political) or "Manchu troops" (purely ethnic). Zhonghua minzu is an ethnic concept ultimately tied to the subjects of the Qing Dynasty. The article also seems to imply incorrectly that the culture, language and social structures of the Han Chinese are homogenous. The concept of Zhonghua minzu developed at the same time as the concept of Han Chinese, not later. Zhonghua minzu is not any more "invented" than Han, Tibetan or Manchurian ethnicities. By giving only examples of foreign controversy, this article is incredibly biased in favor of minority views of mostly overseas independence movements of Tibetans and Mongolians, etc. It has offered no cited evidence of the beliefs of actual Chinese minorities within China. The article also erroneously implies that the non-Han Chinese ethnicities are all somehow diametrically opposed to the views of the Han Chinese on the matter of zhonghua minzu. This is absolute nonsense. For example, Cui Jian the famous Chinese rock musician is of Korean ethnicity (chaoxianzu), but proudly asserts he is also both zhonghua minzu and Chinese citizen (zhongguoren). 128.135.96.188 05:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Roadrunner 22:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The trouble with "plausible speculation" is that it could be wrong. There's too much speculation in the world, and too little fact. There have been rather large numbers of studies on how ethnic minorities in China view themselves, and the short answer is that there isn't a single rule, and it is complex.
Roadrunner 16:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Roadrunner 22:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Roadrunner 16:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I don't have any objections presenting alternate models of ethnicity. I do have a lot of problems with people trying to impose one model of ethnicity as the only one. The idea of "zhonghua minzu" has internal inconsistencies, flaws, and inaccuracies, but that true for *all* ideas of ethnicities and nationalities.
I don't think there really is (or should be) such as thing as "mainstream Chinese culture" since China is extremely cultural diverse to have anything mainstream, and cultural and ethnic diversity is a very good thing.
Roadrunner 22:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Roadrunner 16:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Zhonghua Minzu only includes those overseas Chinese who have Chinese citizenship. Those who have become citizens of other countries are not considered part of Zhonghua Minzu. Edipedia 18:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Edipedia. The (ethnically Han Chinese) citizens of Singapore are not regarded as Zhonghua Minzu. The rationale for 'Zhonghua Minzu' as an 'ethnic group' (or supra-ethnic group) is to tie together the many ethnicities of China. It doesn't (or shouldn't) claim that all overseas Chinese, even those who are citizens of the countries they live in, are 'Zhonghua Minzu'.
In fact, the status and definition of 'overseas Chinese' is pretty central to the whole debate about 'Zhonghua Minzu'.
You will often come across comments like "'Chinese' doesn't just refer to the Han, it includes all the minority ethnic groups of China". This is the classic statement of the doctrine of Zhonghua Minzu. And yet, when discussion of 'Chineseness' turns to the 'overseas Chinese', people betray the shallowness of this kind of claim by automatically assuming that Chinese = Han!
If Han Chinese who emigrated to southeast Asia in the Qing are to be counted as 'Zhonghua Minzu', then what about all the other ethnic minorities who are represented abroad? The subject can be a pretty touchy one! What about Mongolians? Mongolians in Inner Mongolia are called 'Zhonghua Minzu'. What about the ones in the state of Mongolia? Shouldn't they be regarded as 'Overseas Chinese'? What about the Miao (Hmong) in southeast Asia, many of whom emigrated there in comparatively recent times? What about Koreans (Chaoxian-zu 朝鲜族), Vietnamese (Jing-zu 京族), and Russians (Eluosi-zu 俄罗斯族)? These are all a part of the Zhonghua Minzu who are represented by major concentrations of population outside China. In fact, the Chaoxianzu, Jingzu, and Eluosizu are virtually only 'splinters' of these major ethnic groups who happen to live in China, and that is the only rationale for placing them in the Zhonghua Minzu. No one would seriously claim Koreans, Vietnamese, and Russians as 'Zhonghua Minzu'. But if they can't be claimed as Zhonghua Minzu, why should the ethnically Chinese (Han) citizens of Southeast Asia? On the basis that the Han are somehow different from the minorities, therefore the Han overseas can be regarded as Zhonghua Minzu? Whoah!
I suggest that whoever keeps adding 'overseas Chinese' to the definition of Zhonghua Minzu should think again. They don't belong there.
Bathrobe 03:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Zhonghua minzu = Chinese people with Chinese citizenship! 218.102.206.50 16:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a need of warning to all readers that Zhonghua minzu is not Chinese nation, and of course it is not Han racism. I must express my regret to remove this warning (instead of amend it) just because of non-conformance.
First of all, claim "Minzu" is not nation is not Original research. I can put a footnote of Hunan independence movement, and that is solid evidence that China is not a nation (in the sense of nationalism) even in the eyes of Chinese at 1920s. I am simply describe what truly happened, it is not Original research. If I merely claim "Minzu" is a term manufactured by politicans for the ease of rule and for the legitmacy of revolt, it could be Original research, unless I am quoting another one, because I am not only saying something I believe to be true, but also I am drawing conclusion. For the case Hanan independence, and for case of Sun (孫中山) willing to cede NorthEast territory to Japan for exchange for Japan assistance of revolt, it is merely fact and not original research.
For the MOS, direct removal is most ridicous method. As an disambiguation warning, it should be put on the very first few paragraph and at there should be a very clear sign. For those who insist there is MOS volation, please explicitly indicate it, because I have read that too and for reasonable readers they should see no MOS volation. Csmth 09:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
There have recently been several additions and deletions of the links to Han chauvinism (HC), Sinocentrism (SC), List of tributaries of Imperial China (LT) and List of recipients of tribute from China (LR). Is there any possibility of consensus around the following settlement?
Seektruthfromfacts 20:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
If it was up to me, I would chop away chunks of both HC and SC for being original research and merge what's left into Chinese nationalism. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 20:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Very briefly: "Tributary states" is possibly relevant to Sinocentrism, but not necessarily here. Bathrobe 11:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. Everyone involved has had a chance to see this, so I've edited the links and put them in alphabetical order. Seektruthfromfacts 00:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
This sentence does not seem right: "Faced with the necessity to legitimize their rule, the Manchus sought to portray themselves as patrons of classical learning and sought to create an identity which was based in these traditions which deemphasized the ethnic differences between the Qing court and the various peoples that they ruled".
In fact, the Qing were more sophisticated than that. They appealed to different ethnicities (and in fact they tended to define ethnic groups for greater convenience in carrying this out) in different ways. For the Han Chinese they were virtuous Confucian rulers. For the Mongolians and the Tibetans, they emphasised their role as Buddhist leaders. For the Mongolians they also styled themselves khans. This did not necessarily deemphasise ethnic differences, it established their legitimacy as rulers over the people that they ruled, which is something rather different. I think that the sentence and the passage it occurs in needs to be changed, especially as it sets the tone for the rest of the article.
Also not incidentally, the Manchu definition of ethnicities and their insistence on keeping the Manchu, Mongolian, and Tibetan territories quite distinct from their "Chinese" (Han) territories is quite central to Qing rule over China. In an article about Zhonghua Minzu -- a philosophy which tries to minimise this aspect of Manchu rule and emphasise that all Manchu-controlled territories simply "belong" to China -- it seems important that this should be mentioned. It is definitely important to ethnic groups that disagree with the "Zhonghua Minzu" philosophy and insist that these territories are conceptually distinct from "China proper". User:Bathrobe, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Bathrobe. Different logics for different people. Grand-khan for the Mongols, chakravartin king for Tibetan Buddhists, ideal Confucian ruler for Chinese. In addition, Turkic Muslims in Eastern Turkestan justified the Qing's rule by the "duty of salt" (see Hamada Masami's article: Between the duty of salt and jihād).
I support Okada Hidehiro's theory that the turning point of modern China was not the Opium Wars but the establishment of Xinjiang Province of 1884. Turkic Muslims spoke the Turkic languages, believed in Islam and were backed up by the Islamic civilization. There were no room for the Chinese civilization. The Manchu emperor only loosely controlled local rulers. He left local inhabitants under autonomous rule of begs. It was after Zuo Zongtang's establishment of Xinjiang Province that real Chinese influence began. He enforced an assimilation policy and inevitably sparked a backlash from Turkic Muslims. -- Nanshu 23:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I've again made quite a few changes to the article. I've tried to clarify the original paragraph about fuzziness in boundaries of the Zhonghua minzu. I've also toned down the longish apologetic appeal to the "strong state" model amongst Chinese nationalists. Emphasising this over the obvious desire to keep hold of the huge Qing territories seems unbalanced.
I feel that the changes result in a clearer, more balanced article, one that paints a clearer picture of the ideology of Zhonghua minzu and its obvious issues, but I'm sure there are people who disagree with some of what is written. Contributions and corrections are welcome. The article is controversial because the concept itself is, and I hope that editors will try to refrain from injecting too much POV. Bathrobe ( talk) 03:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort. What really seems needed is citations. Otherwise, if this topic is as controversial as is claimed, people will start an edit war. Also, if the topic is controversial and there are no citations, how do I know whether the information simply reflects your view and/or hearsay, or whether it is accurate?
In my opinion, on a lot of subjects it isn't so bad to lack sources, despite Wiki policies. If a topic has enough first hand witnesses among the general public and they all agree, who needs sources? But on a controversial topic, sources are more important. As someone with some grasph of Chinese, and someone interested in Taiwan and by extension anyone who seeks to subdue Taiwan, I find it interesting that I don't recall ever hearing the term "Zhonghua minzu" until a couple months ago when I started editing on Wikipedia (although I have encountered the attitude). I actually have to wonder if this is a hoax. Sources, please. Readin ( talk) 03:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Readin ( talk) 18:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I was originally going to add a note as to why I reverted most of Got Milk's edits.
First, I would question the assertion that "The ideology and challenges of the Zhonghua minzu concept in developing upon a perceived homogenous society, into a multi-ethnic or multi-racial society is akin to the "Melting Pot" concept of the United States of America."
If you actually read the article on melting pot, you'll find that it says:
I have two questions about this:
It is also difficult to justify the statement that "It can be further deduced that Chinggis Khan himself was an early precursor of in a certain concept of the "Zhonghua Minzu"." I'm not sure how you can equate the policies of a totally different polity (13th century Mongolia) with that of 20th century China. The only common thread is the word 'multi-ethnic'. In every other sense they are different countries! Did the Chinese of the early 20th century model their new nationality on the policies of Genghis Khan? Would be interested to hear some support for this.
The other reason that I reverted many of the edits is that they were in the wrong place. The recategorisation of Chinese heroes (Yue Fei is out, Chinggis Khan is in) was included as an implication of the Zhonghua Minzu theory. It's something that has happened in relatively recent times and Chinese people have noticed it. (I will try and find a reference for this since you've pointed out that the article lacks references). The additional section pointing out that Chinggis Khan was a precursor of multi-ethnic policies just doesn't fit with the "implications" of the concept. It was nothing more than a kneejerk reaction to the earlier section. If you can find somewhere in the article where that particular section fits, please go ahead and put it there.
I reverted the part "Both Chingis Khan and his grandson Kublai Khan is credited in the successful demise of the Jin, Liao/ Western Liao, and Song Dynasties which established a unified China under the sinicized Yuan Dynasty. It should also be noted however, that statistics indicate far more ethnic Mongols living within Chinese boundaries than there are in the whole nation of Mongolia, which certainly contributes to the popularity of Chinggis Khan in annals of Chinese history" because it doesn't add anything to the section on the fuzziness of conceptual boundaries. However, I did reinsert some material that was related to conceptual boundaries (such as the larger number of Inner Mongolians), because it was relevant to the section.
Bathrobe ( talk) 13:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This was interjected into a statement on the beliefs of supporters of self-determination.
(which at international law is available only to a narrowly defined class of "peoples")
We all disagree with things we see that other people say. But when we're providing the beliefs of a group, we can't just interject our objections. Readin ( talk) 16:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The article says "In Taiwan, it is invoked as a non-political unifying concept of Taiwan with mainland China." with reference:See, e.g. Ma Ying-jeou, President of Republic of China inauguration speech, 20 May 2008: "兩岸人民同屬中華民族,本應各盡所能,齊頭並進,共同貢獻國際社會,而非惡性競爭、虛耗資源。我深信,以世界之大、中華民族智慧之高,台灣與大陸一定可以找到和平共榮之道。"
How is a politician's inauguration into political office "non-political"? Also, the term "Taiwan" is used a little too broadly given that the reference has only one guy with known strong political views on the subject (known now, admittedly he tried to hide or de-emphasize them during the campaign). Are there any references in non-political contexts and/or usages by people not seeking merger with China? Readin ( talk) 14:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't kept up with this discussion - but it seems quite clear that the reason Ma and the KMT invoke the Chinese nation as opposed to "one China" or "the motherland" -- in order to reach the broadest audience possible. I very much doubt that any significant portion of the population in Taiwan object to the notion that they are part of the Chinese nation (ethnic) - save for the most extremist factions who object to even an ethnic identification with the mainland. It is perfectly consistent - and in fact seems to be a fairly commonplace position - to object to any political links with the mainland without objecting to the ethnic identifier.
As such, I find the wording discussed above a little misleading. It should only be those who wish to have no ethnic and cultural links with the Chinese ethnicity, and not just political ones with the Chinese state, who would object to the concept.
I think it bears emphasising that the zhonghua minzu is not the "Chinese nation" as the word "nation" is most commonly used in contemporary English - "minzu" here would be more like "race" or "ethnicity" in contemporary English. Further, "Zhonghua" is not "Chinese" in any sense that attaches to a particular state or regime. It is more like the supra-political concept which correlates with the "one China" that the US officially supports.
Thus, while a lot of people would object to being labelled as part of the "Chinese (state) people" (zhongguo renmin), they are likely to react differetly to "Chinese (ethnic) nation (ethnic)" (zhongghua minzu), if my disambiguating brackets make any sort of sense.
It is a pity that English terminology is not sufficiently refined to reflect the subtleties in meaning in all the Chinese terms. A crude analogy to the difference between "zhongguo renmin" and "zhonghua minzu" might be the difference between "English" and "Anglo(-Saxon)". The two terms literally mean the same thing (of or pertaining to the Aengles), but the former attaches firmly to England, the country in the south-east of the island of Britain, while the latter attaches to the "global diaspora" that originated from that country. -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 12:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I think Ma's speech should be retained as much as I think all Chen's important speeches should be. A president's inauguration speech is considered to be an important declaration to the people in Taiwan (as well as all interested parties) and it serves as an indicator on how the new government will define things and where the government is driving the country towards. It was not just a political speech in a highly political context.
Chen's "Four Noes and One Without" is an example. It was given in Chen's inaugural speech to serve as a promise to the United States and the PRC that he would not declare independence. Ma used this term to link the people of the ROC and PRC the closet way possible with the least offence caused. The use of the term was a defining moment in the politics of the ROC and PRC.
PalaceGuard008 is right. As far as I can tell (and I read Taiwan's newspapers from both camps as well as the Xinhua newspaper on a daily basis), Zhonghua minzu is a highly acceptable term in the Taiwanese general public. Really only a fringe of Taiwanese people would object to it. As I said earlier, the only real objection after Ma's speech that I saw in Taipei was a protester's truck. I heard Frank Hsieh saying something about he didn't agree that Taiwanese people belong to the Zhonghua minzu when he was asked to comment on Ma's speech. But this sentiment was not mirrored in the Taiwanese general public.
Zhonghua ("華人", the Hua people) is even much more general than Zhonghua Minzu, as Zhonghua Minzu really only includes the citizens of the PRC and ROC (regardless of their ethnicity). The term "Hua people" is used freely in the Taiwanese media on a daily basis to describe the people of Taiwan when a term to include the people of both the PRC and ROC is needed ("兩岸的華人", meaning the Hua people from both sides of the Strait). Even the media from the Pan Green camp do that. Anyone who is ethnically Chinese is called the "Hua people" or just simply Chinese. The term "Chinese" in common English usage doesn't mean the person has to be from China. It can simply mean the person has a Chinese ethnic background. I understand that people from South East Asia commonly identify themselves as Chinese even though they aren't from China.
Readin said:-
It transcend ethnic divisions because there are many people from the minority groups in China, and this term includes everyone in China (ROC and the PRC) regardless of their ethnic background.
Readin said:-
On a daily basis? The term, as you know, can't be easily translated into English so you are very unlikely to see it appear in an English publication. When it is quickly translated into the "Chinese nation", most English speakers would get confused. You are unlikely to see it in a Pan-green Chinese publication because the term links ROC and PRC together and it is against their political viewpoint to see any connection between the two political entities.
Let me summarise:-
One term is about people's ethnic background. The other one is about their nationality.
That's why I phrased the statement that way in the main text of this article. I really don't see anyone objecting to the use of the term in Taiwan unless they consider themselves to have nothing to do with China. After all, as I mentioned earlier, it was the term Dr Sun Yat-sun used to described the people in his Republic.-- pyl ( talk) 12:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see this term being this much big deal. At least I don't believe it is in the Taiwanese general public. I explained why there is a lack of usage in English publications: the term is hard to translate. I think the pan greens are more concerned with the "special but not state to state relationship" statement than this term.
I propose that we just simply mention this term is used in Taiwan and we should cite the inaugural speech to show how it was used. We don't need to go into the intention behind the Ma's usage or the acceptability of the term, then there is no problem with "no original research". If you, Readin, think the term is unacceptable to a significant section of the Taiwanese society, I think it would be appropriate if you then say it with a reason as well as a citation to your research.-- pyl ( talk) 05:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the wording to just facts without going into the acceptability of the term. I also gave a translation to Ma's speech so that English speakers can see how it was used and hopefully understand the purpose of the use. I removed the citation tags as well as I believe no original research was involved in the wording.
I am happy to discuss this matter further, should there be any further issues.-- pyl ( talk) 05:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
"Chinese nationalists discarded this concept and extended the scope of China to cover the entire territory of the Qing state."???????
In international treaties, Qing=China!!! A few examples: Treaty of Nanking Treaty_of_Shimonoseki Treaty_of_Wanghia Boxer_Protocol Traité_de_Whampoa A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. 93.136.209.91 ( talk) 20:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Moving the following comments made by IP editor 202.134.228.106 at 09:18, 10 August 2010 from the main article: -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 11:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Moving the following comments made by IP editor 202.134.228.106 at 09:53, 10 August 2010 from the main article: -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 11:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
This is the first time I comment on your site, but I've been keeping up with your work for about a moth. I admire the passion with which you write the articles and hope someday I can do the same. Love — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.210.73 ( talk) 14:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I move the unreferenced texts from the introduction here
Zhonghua minzu citation needed refers to the modern notion of a Chinese nationality transcending ethnic divisions, with a central identity for China as a whole. It includes people of all ethnic groups in China who have historically interacted, contributed and assimilated to various extents with Chinese civilization.
Professor Suisheng Zhao, University of Denver, using extensive reading of primary sources noted that because "Chinese" or Zhonghua minzu as a conscious national identity (自觉的民族实体 zijue de minzu shiti) only arose in the 19th century, since nationalism in the modern sense only appeared with the emergence of the nation-state system ( Westphalian system) in Europe. Although the Chinese empire stretched back two millennia, it was largely a universalistic empire and not a nation-state before the 19th century. citation needed
The boundaries of Zhonghua minzu are fuzzy and controversial, but most citation needed Chinese clarification needed today use the term to include all peoples within the territorial boundaries of China integrated as one national, political, and cultural group. It is sometimes also extended to overseas Chinese. citation needed
Zhonghua refers to the concept of "China" and is the term used in the formal names for both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. (See: Names of China) Minzu can be translated as "nationality", "people", or "ethnic groups".
Confusion can arise because the term "Chinese" in Western languages is often used to refer both to Zhonghua minzu and to the Han ethnicity, two concepts which are usually kept distinct among modern Chinese speakers citation needed.
--( comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng) 17:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The Qing identified their state as "China" (Zhongguo), and referred to it as "Dulimbai Gurun" in Manchu. The Qing equated the lands of the Qing state (including present day Manchuria, Dzungaria in Xinjiang, Mongolia, and other areas as "China" in both the Chinese and Manchu languages, defining China as a multi ethnic state.
https://webspace.utexas.edu/hl4958/perspectives/Zhao%20-%20reinventing%20china.pdf
When the Qing conquered Dzungaria in the Ten_Great_Campaigns#The_Zunghars_and_pacification_of_Xinjiang_.281755.E2.80.931759.29, they proclaimed that their land was absorbed into "China" in Manchu written documents.
In many other Manchu records they refer to their state as China and as Manchus as inhabitants of China, and when they refer to the Qing in conparison with other lands, they use "China"
In light of these sources, it is quite difficult to justify the excessive POV pushing by User:Bathrobe in the above sections. Methinks Bathrobe doth protest too much, no? When the Manchus themselves clearly state that their territories- even specifically named territories like Dzungaria in Xinjiang- were part of China (Dulimbai Gurun)- and made clear the they regarded themselves as inhabitants of China, and used "Dulimbai Gurun" to refer to the Qing Empire in Manchu versions of international treaties like the Treaty of Nerchinsk (the Latin version of the treaty also said "China", not "Manchu Empire")- and people like Bathrobe continue to push an agenda and falsely claim that this is all modern "Chinese nationalism"....
Rajmaan ( talk) 19:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Dulimbai Gurun is the Manchu name for China (中國, Zhongguo; "Middle Kingdom"). [1] [2] [3] The Qing identified their state as "China" (Zhongguo), and referred to it as "Dulimbai Gurun" in Manchu. The Qing equated the lands of the Qing state (including present day Manchuria, Xinjiang, Mongolia, Tibet and other areas as "China" in both the Chinese and Manchu languages, defining China as a multi ethnic state, rejecting the idea that China only meant Han areas, proclaiming that both Han and non-Han peoples were part of "China", using "China" to refer to the Qing in official documents, international treaties, and foreign affairs, and the "Chinese language" (Dulimbai gurun i bithe) referred to Chinese, Manchu, and Mongol languages, and the term "Chinese people" (中國人 Zhongguo ren ; Manchu: Dulimbai gurun i niyalma) referred to all Han, Manchus, and Mongol subjects of the Qing. [4]
When the Qing conquered Dzungaria in 1759, they proclaimed that the new land was absorbed into "China" (Dulimbai Gurun) in a Manchu language memorial. [5] [6] [7] The Qing expounded on their ideology that they were bringing together the "outer" non-Han Chinese like the Inner Mongols, Eastern Mongols, Oirat Mongols, and Tibetans together with the "inner" Han Chinese, into "one family" united in the Qing state, showing that the diverse subjects of the Qing were all part of one family, the Qing used the phrase "Zhongwai yijia" 中外一家 or "neiwei yijia" 內外一家 ("interior and exterior as one family"), to convey this idea of "unification" of the different peoples. [8]
A Manchu language version of a treaty with the Russian Empire concerning criminal jurisdiction over bandits called people from the Qing as "people of the Central Kingdom (Dulimbai Gurun)". [9] [10] [11] [12]
In Tulisen's Manchu language account of his meeting with the Torghut Mongol leader Ayuki Khan, it was mentioned that while the Torghuts were unlike the Russians, the "people of the Central Kingdom" (dulimba-i gurun 中國, Zhongguo) were like the Torghut Mongols, and the "people of the Central Kingdom" referred to the Manchus. [13]
{{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help){{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help){{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help){{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help){{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help){{
cite journal}}
: |archive-url=
requires |archive-date=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)References
A source for the earlier "expel the Manchus" version of Chinese nationalism can be found at [3]. The speech given by the Tongmenghui (Sun Yatsen's organisation) in 1908 at the grave of the Yellow Emperor goes:
Bathrobe ( talk) 06:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. ( non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Zhonghua minzu →
Chinese nation – the Chinese nation is the exact name for this article, not the so-called Zhonghua minzu.
OuiOK (
talk) 19:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC) —Relisting.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
11:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
OuiOK ( talk) 19:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The redirect
Chinese nation has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 26 § Chinese nation until a consensus is reached. -
CHAMPION (
talk) (
contributions) (
logs)
08:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
It is said that minzu has been used since the 6th century, but whether it was used popularly is another matter. minzu was apparently used as a translation of the German word "Volk" during the Japanese Meiji period, and Sun Yat-sen and Liang Qichao were used in a similar vein. Most of all, Volk means "ethnic", "race", "people", "nation", and so on, just like minzu. ProKMT ( talk) 07:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
From Chinese Wikipedia that minzu means "ethnic group" or "race", as well as from articles in English Wikipedia regarding nationalism in other countries. And there's definitely 'Zhonghua minzu' (中华民族) in March of the Volunteers, the official national anthem of the People's Republic of China.
It is not a problem to write down in an article that, depending on the context, 'Zhonghua minzu' may mean "Chinese ethnicity" or "Chinese race." (See zh:中华民族, zh:民族, Korean ethnic nationalism, Yamato people, An Investigation of Global Policy with the Yamato Race as Nucleus)
There is no reason to cancel editing that is not directly related to Volk. ProKMT ( talk) 12:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)