Talk:Zhonghua minzu/Archive 1

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

NPOV issues

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

Translation of 民族. Because 民族 was coined in Japan, which was as you know extremely homogenous, there seems no word in English that is an exact translation of 民族, but "ethnic group" is closest. In the sense of nationality, should be used. But communists prefer 人民 to 國民. That may be the reason why the PRC uses 民族, but I don't know why the ROC also adopts 民族. Anyway minzu means ethnic group.

It was translated from German during the ROC or late Qing period. (PeopleNationalities)

I'm not so sure that minzu does mean ethnic group. I think a much better translation would be "nationality" which is actually how the People's Daily normally translates it. Also, Japanese meanings for the same set of Chinese characters have completely different connotations. Gaijin vs. wai guo ren for example.

can sb tell me where they ever hear of 國民? is that japanese or sth?--JinFX HuangDi 1698 03:21, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

Fictitiousness of Zhonghua minzu. Nation is more or less fictitious, but Zhonghua minzu is pretty impossible. Say, the Uighurs are mostly caucasian, spoke the Uighur language of the Turkic family, and believe Islam. It's hard to say they belong to the same "ethinic group" with the Han Chinese.

Which is why I don't think that ethnic group is a very accurate way of translating "minzu." A Uighur who is a citizen of Kyghizstan would definitely not be a member of Zhonghua Minzu while someone of English descent living in Hong Kong with a Chinese passport definitely would be. It you translate minzu as nationality, it becomes a lot less odd.

--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)

I have made some changes to the page. The main aim is to clean out some of the waffle and prevarication that had crept in as people tried to "qualify" what others had written. I have also added a reference to the roots of the concept in the Qing dynasty (not "thousands of years of Chinese history") and the competing claims on Genghis Khan. I believe the article is now tighter and clearer, without sacrificing the original point (see the very first version of the article) while retaining the qualifications of later editors. Needless to say, not everyone will agree with the changes, in which case there is a basic Wikipedia principle: Be Bold!

Bathrobe 02:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Missing the whole overseas Chinese

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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

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)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Oppose - "Chinese nation" is certainly a translation for "Zhonghua Minzu", but it is far from unambiguous, and I don't think the Google results indicate that. Both "Chinese" and "nation" have multiple meanings in English, so, in order to be clear, we should keep the page at the original Chinese term.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This is mistaken logic. The term Zhonghua Minzu in the original Chinese is NOT exactly clear either (as obvious in the content article). Zhonghua Minzu is a common term in Chinese, it means precisely "Chinese nation" and less precisely as "Chinese people". Intsokzen 01:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, for the same reasons. LDHan 21:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Support. The reasons from the two oppose above are not based on factual evidence. The following is just a small sample of the usage of "Chinese nation" for Zhonghua Minzu:

A translation of Chinese President Hu Jintao's remarks at Yale (original transcript)
http://www.yale.edu/opa/hu/ Chinese President Hu Jintao’s Historic Visit to Yale (Yale site, with PDF English translation and original Chinese video)
The simple analysis of the identity or Chinese Nation under the background of Globalization (淺析全球化背景下的中華民族認同感)
從「一個中華」談起
兩岸關係困局的癥結 ("但當我們說中國是多民族的國家，實際上指的是中華民族(Chinese Nation)包含多個種族，如蒙藏等。")
National Anthem (official Chinese government website)
About Improving the Party's Governing Capability and the Great Rejuvenation of Chinese Nation
现代英汉综合大辞典 the Chinese nation - 中华民族
“一国两制”构想与中华民族凝聚力
中青網英語角englishcorner
「李六條」的中、英文內容
中國大百科在線全文檢索Baicle.com - 中華民族

What is important to point out is that there exists only two possible English translations for Zhonghua Minzu: "Chinese nation" and "Chinese people" (with the former more popular in Chinese-English dictionaries). The use of the obscure Zhonghua Minzu (in English) is unnecessary. Zhonghua Minzu is a common term in the Chinese language, it is not a mystical term in the original Chinese, and it shouldn't be made mystical in English either. Like User:Naus said in the discussion below, the Zhonghua Minzu in the Chinese anthem translation is typically "Chinese nation," should we not translate it as such and instead use "Zhonghua Minzu"? That's obviously not a good idea, as the term Zhonghua Minzu is obscure in English. Intsokzen 00:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It's true that "Chinese nation" is one way to translate 中华民族, and a relatively euphonious translation at that, which is probably why it turns up commonly. I wouldn't say that "Chinese nation" and "Chinese people" are the only possible translations; one might also say "Chinese ethnicity" or "Chinese nationality". More importantly, even if we grant that 中华民族 should be translated as "Chinese nation", it does not follow that "Chinese nation" should be translated as 中华民族, because "Chinese" and "nation" both have several meanings. I might translate "Chinese nation" as 中国的国家 or 中华国家, and "Chinese people" would probably be "中国人民". It seems to me that this article is mostly about how the phrase "Zhonghua Minzu" is used in Chinese, and so we don't gain anything by translating it into English. An article about how "Chinese nation" is used in English would be a different topic.

Also, the question of how the lyrics to a song or poem are translated is irrelevant to the question of how we would use terms in an encyclopaedia.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Support, per Rationale, discussion and the above user's comments. There is pretty much only one way to translate "Chinese nation" into the Chinese language: Zhonghua minzu (and vice versa). Any other way would be grammatically incorrect. If the English term "Chinese nation" does not seem very precise, it is because Zhonghua minzu itself is not a precise term. --Naus 18:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose per Nat Krause's comments above. An encyclopedia is not merely a translation exercise but is also a explanation of concepts. While 中華民族 as part of an anthem or as a line in a speech would correctly translate as "Chinese nation," this does not serve to explain the ambiguity or complexity of both 「中華」 and 「民族」 in Chinese and "Chinese" and "nation" in English. Titling the article "Chinese Nation" provides a false sense of semantic security. (If no explanation of these issues is wanted or needed however, then there is no need for an article and one can go to Wiktionary for the translation.) - AjaxSmack 07:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Use of Tongyong Pinyin in Taiwan is limited to government publications and street signs. In scholarly publications of the present in English, Hanyu Pinyin is used; of 20+ years ago, Wade-Giles. The use of the term in Taiwan is a non-issue here.--Jiang 16:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Tongyong Pinyin is currently the official romanization scheme for the Republic of China, which originally coined the term in question. Regardless of whether this is an issue or not, Wikipedia policy is to use the common English term where possible. In this case, Zhonghua Minzu is unambiguously translated into English as the "Chinese nation" in academic publications and by the media. In French, Zhonghua Minzu is translated as "La nation chinoise." The majority of published English translations (including the official Chinese government version) of the lyrics of the Chinese anthem (which uses the term Zhonghua Minzu) use the translation "Chinese nation." Are you suggesting that we should instead translate that part of the lyrics as just "Zhonghua Minzu"? --Naus 16:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not making a stand on the location of this article. I'm just trying to make a point here that Tongyong Pinyin is completely irrelevant. The Republic of China did not coin the term; Chinese nationalists did. The Republic of China is a state entity and does not coin terms. --Jiang 17:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if we keep the Chinese name (using Hanyu Pinyin) for this article, it should still be renamed as "Zhonghua minzu". The spelling of "Zhonghua Minzu" (capitalized Minzu) is incorrect. However, I still stick with my original assertion that it is unnecessary to use the Chinese term; there is no new ambiguity in "Chinese nation" that didn't already exist in the original Chinese term. --Naus 18:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, why is it incorrect? Zhonghua Minzu is, I think, a proper noun. Therefore, it just seems natural to capitalise it in English.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Minzu doesn't need to be capitalized any more than "nation" does. It's "Chinese nation", not "Chinese Nation"--Jiang 05:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think I would write "Chinese Nation", personally. But, I see what you mean, so I'll go along with Zhonghua minzu if that's what other editors prefer.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Zhonghua Minzu is indeed an ethnicity, and this article is hopelessly biased against Han Chinese and PRC

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)

I am adding this comment much later than the following discussion. The assertion that Han as a concept developed at the same time as Zhonghua minzu is correct in one sense, but not in another. There is no doubt that the term Han covers up a great deal of complexity in what makes the Han, and may historically represent a considerable innovation (and simplification) in how the Han perceive themselves. For example, I believe the Hakka didn't originally regard themselves as Han. So the assertion that lumping all these people together as the 'Han' ethnic group is tied up with the appearance of the 'Zhonghua minzu' is probably correct.

On the other hand, one cannot therefore simply discount the historical reality of 'Chineseness' and 'Han'. It's rather ridiculous to say that Zhonghua minzu is no more invented than Tibetan or Manchurian ethnicities. The Manchus had their own ethnic policies (about emigration of 'Chinese' to Manchuria and Mongolia, etc.) which clearly distinguished Manchus and Mongolians from Chinese. Whether the 'Han' realised it or not, they were being lumped together as a totality by at least two (and probably more) of the ethnic groups that are now regarded as members of the Zhonghua Minzu. And these ethnic groups were perfectly aware of their own ethnicity, contrary to what is stated above.

Bathrobe 00:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe that minority people in China who are not assimilated to mainstream Chinese culture would describe their ethnicity as Zhonghua? Are you aware that Mongolia is already an independent country? Do the people there know that they are ethnic Chinese? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 05:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Your rhetoric questions are nonsensical and expose your lack of understanding for the ethnic concept of zhonghua minzu and human ethnicities in general. First, an individual may have more than one ethnic identities. An ethnic Portuguese born and raised in Brazil may consider himself both ethnically Portuguese AND Latino. Second, it doesn't matter what ethnic Mongolians in Mongolia think. Ethnic Mongolians in China's Inner Mongolia (Neimonggol) view themselves as zhonghua minzu in addition to being monggolzu and they continue to feel this way even when abroad. The best example is ethnic Koreans from China who go to South Korea. These Korean-Chinese still consider themselves as both zhonghua minzu and chaoxianzu, and are viewed as such by the South Koreans also (the South Koreans call them Joseonjok, distinct from what the South Koreans themselves use). 128.135.96.188 06:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not what I meant. I never said that you can only be one ethnicity. I'm asking whether unassimilated minority people in China would view themselves as Zhonghua? Why would unassimilated Mongols in Inner Mongolia (a place that is now mostly inhabited by Hans, by the way) be different from Mongols in Mongolia?

My point is that "Zhonghua Minzu" 根本 means "mainstream Chinese culture". If your point is that many minority people in China are well-assimilated to the mainstream, then you are right. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 06:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The number of unassimilated minorities in China is very low today, and decreasing year by year. By assimilation, I mean speaking Mandarin fluently and sharing identical popular culture with other Chinese populations. You seem to suggest that assimilation requires becoming more Han Chinese? That's unnecessary. Han Chinese itself was a rather arbitrary definition in the first place. A typical ethnic Mongolian living in Neimonggol (in China) is far more similar to the Han Chinese than to his northern neighbors in Mongolia; his Mandarin is likely better than a southern Han Chinese from Guangdong province. This similarity is not entirely political, the remaining social and cultural elements of this similarity makes the supra-ethnic concept of zhonghua minzu relevant. That's the reality on the ground and why this article fails miserably to convey this point. My point is, regardless of whether the 19th century intellectuals were justified or not (this question should not dominate this article anyway), zhonghua minzu today is a clear ethnic reality. The one possibly arguable exception is the Tibetans in China, but I would wager those ethnic Tibetans who see themselves as not zhonghua minzu are in the minority also, but possibly a larger minority than other ethnic groups in China.

Problem with this article is that it is amplifying a small minority opinion onto entire non-Han Chinese ethnic groups, and deliberately creating an ethnic conflict between Hans and non-Hans where none/little existed before. That is spewing the propaganda of obscure, non-representative foreign-based independence movements (like the Southern Mongolia Movement etc), while completely ignoring the present-day reality and existence of zhonghua minzu on the ground. The reality of zhonghua minzu is what this article should focus primarily on, not its legitimacy. The legitimacy issue can be mentioned briefly in the article, but not from the arse, and certainly should not be the primary focus as it is now. See the Hispanic and Latino articles for additional reference. 67.175.245.110 08:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my initial question, whether unassimilated minority peoples actually see themselves as Zhonghua (the follow-up question, by the way, is whether the government defines them as Zhonghua). However, you've brought up another interesting point, the claim that "The number of unassimilated minorities in China is very low today, and decreasing year by year." I think "speaking Mandarin fluently and sharing identical popular culture with other Chinese populations" is a fine working definition of assimilation. What is your evidence for this claim? I don't really know if it's true one way or the other, but you seem to think you know. I have no trouble believing that essentially all of the Huis and Manchus, and very likely most of the Zhuangs, are thoroughly assimilated by now. Most of the other minority groups are fairly small in number and I don't know much about them. To claim that there aren't significant numbers of unassimilated minority people in Tibet and Xinjiang strains credulity.

There are huge numbers of Han Chinese who can't speak Mandarin fluently. As far as popular culture, I'm not sure what you are refering to here. I don't think your question makes any sense, isn't I don't see an "idealized Chinese" that people are expected to assimilate to. As far as whether, ethnic minorities in China think of themselves as part of Zhonghua minzu, I'd expect that that depends on the minority, ir even the individual you are talking to.

Roadrunner 22:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, for the rcecord, "speaking Mandarin fluently and sharing identical popular culture with other Chinese populations" was the anon's suggested criterion, not mine, and I was a bit hasty in endorsing it. Still, he's on to something when referring to the use of Chinese ... although there's no reason to limit it to Mandarin. Surely, speaking some Chinese dialect is a key element of mainstream Chinese culture, as is the use of written Chinese among the literate part of the population.

You write, "As far as whether, ethnic minorities in China think of themselves as part of Zhonghua minzu, I'd expect that that depends on the minority, ir even the individual you are talking to", but this seems like a non-response. One could say the same of tribes in Nambia: "Whether or not they consider themselves to be Zhonghua minzu depends on the ethnic group and on the individual." We, so far, lack any real information about how minority peoples in China view the concept of Zhonghua minzu, and this is a crucial shortcoming. Even a dose of plausible speculation would serve to illuminate the matter a bit.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 04:56, 15 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)

Whether or not Zhonghua Minzu is real depends on how you define Zhonghua Minzu. The question of whether unassimilated minority people are Zhonghua Minzu might not matter at all today, but it can make a big difference in how you look at history. For instance, there is no sense in which Genghis Khan was actually Chinese, but Chinese people think he was. So, if the definition of Zhonghua Minzu includes Genghis Khan, etc., then, no, Zhonghua Minzu is not real. If the definition of Zhonghua Minzu is just "mainstream Chinese culture", then it definitely is real.

You are implying a very, very restrictive definition of "Chinese." "Genghis Khan" was "Chinese" in the same sense that both the Pilgrims who settled on Plymouth Rock and the Indians that greated them were American.

Roadrunner 22:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The Wampanoag and other indigenous people of Plymouth area were certainly not American in the normal sense of the word. It seems to me a bit insulting, in fact, to imply that they were, just as it would be if someone suggested that the Byzantine Empire was Turkish. When you look at it from that perspective, I suppose Genghis Khan was indeed Chinese to the same extent that the Wampanoag were American: neither was either.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 04:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's even more insulting to argue that the indigenous people of Plymouth were not Americans if you argue that the Pilgrims were. If you make that assertion that causes even more problems in classification. And it's not *certain*. Most US history books list Native Americans as the first Americans. If you don't think so, that's fine, but yours is not a universal opinion among Americans (not to say that there is anything wrong with being a minority).

Bottom line: You are using classifications, concepts, and definitions that most Chinese people don't accept. If you want to write that so-and-so thinks that these classifications or definitions are invalid, that's fine. If the article gets changed to imply that those classifications and definitions *are* invalid, then we have problems since I don't think they are, and my opinion on this isn't any better or worse than yours.

Roadrunner 16:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by, "You seem to suggest that assimilation requires becoming more Han Chinese? That's unnecessary." Didn't we just say that to be assimilated means that one speaks fluent Chinese, which is, after all, Hànyŭ, the Han language? Would you deny that mainstream Chinese culture is essentially a creation of the Hans? As far as I can tell, Zhonghua Minzu (if it means anything) means basically the same thing as Han. Based on the way Chinese people use the term, I get the impression that Han is seen as more of a racial category that you are born into, while Zhonghua (although people don't seem to talk about that much at all apart from singing the national anthem) is perhaps a culture which can be assimilated to.

Anyway I agree that the article as it stands is not NPOV. What exactly do you propose to change, though? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:57, 12 April 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.

It's true that all concepts of ethnicity are nuanced and have boundaries that are hard to define in some cases. I'm not sure I can agree that this means they are all really flawed or inaccurate. One can find some ethnic groups that are generally quite homogenous and have clean boundaries, such as the Japanese, although this is not always so 100% cut-and-dried as is popularly believed. From there stretches a continuum, including cases of, for instance, the English and the Germans, which are potentially controversial and prone to inconsistency. However, if I were to describe an ethnic group to be known as, for example, the Belgio-Bhutanese, which includes both the people of Belgium (Walloons and Flemings) and those of Bhutan, one would have to say that concept is not merely nuanced, or fuzzy, or even inconsistent, but just plain wrong.

It's important in encyclopedias to describe not proscribe. If there are people out there who think of Belgio-Bhutanese as a distinct ethnic group (and it is amazing what sorts of groups are out there), then the role of the encyclopedia is to describe the group. It is fine to say that "X, Y, and Z regard these groups as inconsistent" but it isn't OK to make that statement as a bald fact. Groups appear and disagree over time. Take the group "Asian-American" for example. Roadrunner 16:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

I would have thought, prior to this point, that the existence of a mainstream Chinese culture was a given. I'm not sure that I really know how to discuss China with soemone who doesn't agree that such a thing exists; it seems like it would become like the unacknowledged 800 lb. gorilla in the room. But, let me just ask, if Zhonghua minzu doesn't refer to "mainstream Chinese culture", what on Earth does it actually mean?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 04:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Part of wikipedia is to learn something new. I'd argue that Chinese people are too diverse to have have anything that would be described as mainstream culture, any more than there would be something called mainstream American culture. This is one of the wonderful things about being Chinese (or American). You have a lot of freedom to be who you want to be without being rejected from the group.

Zhonghua minzu is a concept. Just because it is hard to define and has obviously inconsistency in definition doesn't mean that the concept doesn't exist. Chinese people have nothing in common other than the fact that they think that they have something in common.

Roadrunner 16:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Overseas Chinese

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)

Surely the point of the article is to describe the actual usage of the term zhonghua minzu, regardless of whether the way people use it is internally consistent. The real question is whether the use of zhonghua minzu to describe overseas Han is widespead, though I don't have any idea how you'd find an answer. --Xiaopo (Talk) 07:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. But since Zhonghua Minzu is a politically-charged concept, not simply a popular concept, it's pretty important to get it right. I've never heard Zhonghua Minzu applied to overseas Chinese, at least in an official sense. I wonder why someone wants to keep implying that it is.

Bathrobe 09:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

While looking at this issue again, I checked Chinese-language Wikipedia and found the following curious phenomenon: The article on 中华民族 has a list of all the ethnic groups that are regarded as Zhonghua minzu. Among them are 汉族 and 蒙古族. If you follow the links, you find articles saying that Hanzu are also found in Southeast Asia, and that Mengguzu form a majority of the citizens of Mongolia (the country). Of course, this could be the result of contributors not having properly thought through the issues involved. But the implication seems to be that both SE Asian Chinese and Mongolians of the State of Mongolia are 'Zhonghua Minzu'.

In this article it is stated explicitly that Mongolians of Mongolia would not be considered Zhonghua Minzu while SE Asian Chinese (ethnic Hans) are. Somebody really needs to confirm exactly what the position is.

Bathrobe 09:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Zhonghua minzu

Zhonghua minzu = Chinese people with Chinese citizenship! 218.102.206.50 16:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

a) that's not what this other guy says; b) that just pushes the definition back a level. What's "Chinese people"? The article Chinese people is a disambiguation page.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So call WP:Original research and WP:MoS

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)

Yeah I removed it because it's horribly written. For example: "However, there should be a warning for those foreigners who just begin to Chinese." I tried to fix it but gave up and just deleted it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I modified the statement that "Zhonghua minzu is literally translated as 'Chinese nation'". This particular statement was in there because one editor in the past was adamant that this was the correct translation. However, I don't believe 'Chinese nation' is either a universally accepted translation of Zhonghua minzu, nor a particularly good one. I checked the New Age Chinese-English Dictionary (Commercial Press, Beijing), which gave 'people, nation, nationality, ethnic community' as translations of the term 民族. (The same dictionary does, however, give 'Chinese nation' as a translation of 中华民族.) I've therefore toned the statement down to read that "Zhonghua minzu is sometimes translated as 'Chinese nation'". That will leave the term in there as a possible translation (indeed, the only one given in the article), but hopefully not raise so many hackles among people who feel that it is a misleading or inappropriate translation.

Bathrobe 01:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The confusion might arise from the use of "nation" and "nationality" in Russian (and maybe German...?) literature to mean what English-speakers would more likely call an "ethnic group." In the Soviet Union, for example, people had ID cards telling their "nationalities" which might be something like "Jewish," for example. Lenin and Stalin even wrote books about "nationality" policy (Communism was international) which influenced China very deeply.

Anyway, "min" means "a people" and "zu" refers to ancestors, lineage, or descent. "Minzu" is almost always used to mean minority ethnic groups within China. (My wife majored in "minzu xue," which got translated into English as "ethnology.")However, I believe it was originally a loan-word from the Japanese.

The Qing and their subjects

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)

Very interesting points, Bathrobe.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 17:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What I wrote above is actually quite a simplification of a complex subject.

Bathrobe 03:33, 9 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 now rewritten that part of the article, but not terribly well, I'm afraid. Previously the section seemed to be implying that the Manchus somehow created the preconditions for a united China -- while in fact referring only to the Han Chinese, to the exclusion of the most problematic issue, the major non-Han ethnicities. The article also failed to mention that the original model of the nationalists involved expelling the "foreigners" and allowing people like the Mongols to set up their own states.

After rewriting this, I finally figured out why the original version bothered me. The sentence "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" was not an attempt to portray the reality of the Qing multi-ethnic state. It was actually trying to prove that the Manchus basically became Chinese! This seems to be aimed at legitimising modern Chinese claims to the legacy of the Qing state (a common enough preoccupation among Chinese nationalists) rather than proving anything about the multi-ethnic nature of that state.

Bathrobe 09:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I find the previous version to be virtually an apology for Zhonghua Minzu, portraying the "natural" progression from Qing to modern China. There is still a slight problem in the way that the sudden turnaround by the nationalists is justified -- laying claim to vast minority group territories in order to "protect China from aggression".

Despite the problems with the rewritten article, I still feel that it is superior to the apology that passed for a history of the Zhonghua Minzu concept previously.

Bathrobe 17:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added some extra material on the implications of the ideology, namely the way that history must be reinterpreted when the former barbarians (outsiders) are taken inside the fold (Zhonghua minzu). This means that the Manchus never invaded China -- how can you "invade China" when are are already "Chinese"? Also the need to assign new status to past national heroes. Yue Fei and Koxinga can no longer be considered "national heroes" when they are fighting against their own people (i.e. Zhonghua minzu). This also extends to taking Genghis Khan into the fold as a "Chinese" national hero.

Some of this material is based on Pamela Cross's A Translucent Mirror.

Bathrobe 08:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Changes

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)

I can appreciate your anxiety to supply sources. Nevertheless, this is definitely not a hoax. The term is in wide use in Mainland China (4,540,000 hits for "中华民族" on a Google search of Simplified Chinese sites). While not so common in Taiwan, (97,000 hits for "中華民族" on a Google search of Taiwan sites only), it definitely exists, and it is attributed to Sun Yatsen. The five points of the ROC flag refer to the Five Races Under One Union espoused by Sun.

Sources are not going to be easy to supply, either for the original article or for much of the rewriting, although the original article, (in its various incarnations) which often had a strong bias either for or against the concept, is probably harder to provide with sources and harder to support logically than the current article.

I guess the problem is that Zhonghua Minzu is not well documented in English, so an article like this runs the risk of "original research". So it may even be better to scrap it entirely if it's impossible to come up with strong sources. Still, that would be a pity. It gives a fairly well-rounded picture. Compare it with these passages from the Internet:

I have been reading the chinese article on Zhonghua Minzu 中华民族 at http://zhidao.baidu.com/question/288438.html?si=2. It gives a somewhat historical perspective and a new 'nationalistic' point of view , given the fact that there are over 100 million overseas chinese outside China and take a look at the change of this definition over time.

As you may well know, this term surfaced around the corner during late Qing period, in response to the multi-ethnicities in Qing empire. The concept was later expanded to 5 ethnicities during early ROC period by Sun Yat Sen and then to 56 ethnicities in PRC. Today, the concept had include overseas chinese (about 100 million). This is a construction of a large supra ethnic group union transcending nationality and international boundaries (stemming from a nationalistic view), as PRC opened up to have contacts with outside world

The so-called "ZhongHua Minzu" ( short form - "Hua Ren 华人") is simply a large supra chinese ethnic groups union (multi-ethnic community) that transends nationality and international boundaries.

It includes:

1. Han-chinese (majority ethnic nationals/citizens living in China)

2. Ethnic Minorities (chinese citizen) living in China such as Manchu, Tibetan, Mongols, Uighur, Zhuang, Miao etc.

3. Overseas chinese (whose roots can be traced back to China, including ethnic minorities migrated overseas)

4. Ethnic Minorities in chinese history such as Xiongnu, Xianbei, Jie, Tujue, Khitan, Jurchen, Tanguts etc.

The chinese definition of "chinese" had discarded one based on blood origin and switched in favor to one based on culture and then balanced it with a nationalistic point of view. The definition of "chinese" based on blood was discarded simply because it was not able to complement the large multi-ethnic mix nature of people in China from historical perspective. It was also highly racist/discriminatory. The change to one based on chinese culture (including ethnic minorities culture) was more appealing to bind the ethnicities to China. More recently, with the presence of large population of overseas chinese who were trying to find ties with their roots or culture, China decided to expand the notion of this "Hua Ren" (Zhonghua Minzu) to include overseas chinese.

There are some controvesy esp. with Tibetan/Uighur/Taiwanese Independence group overseas.

What do you think of this Supra "Chinese Ethnic Groups Union"?

This is interesting because it notes the recent expansion of the term to include Overseas Chinese.

The following is from websters-dictionary-online (I doubt it has anything to do with Merriam-Webster) and simply plagiarises the earliest Wikipedia article on Zhonghua Minzu:

Zhonghua minzu (中華民族) is the pseudo-ethnic group introduced by Chinese nationalists to justify the integration of various ethnic groups. It includes not only the Han Chinese but the subjects of the former Qing Dynasty such as the Mongols and Tibetans.

The concept has been advocated by Chinese nationalists such as Sun Yat-sen and Liang Qichao since 1895. They planed to overthrow the Manchu Dynasty and establish the Chinese nation state modelled after Japan. At the same time, they had a desire for Outer China, where languages, cultures and administration systems are completely different from the Han Chinese's. The concept of nation state would have dissolved the Empire into several different nations. To resolve the contradiction, the fiction of Zhonghua minzu was introduced.

The original article did not supply sources and most of the changes I've made are uncontroversial. Some of my edits are based on the Chinese Wikipedia article on Zhonghua minzu; some are from Patricia Crossley's book mentioned above.

Again, given the relative scarcity of information in English, rewriting the article to just reflect "verifiable sources" could just as easily result in edit wars as the current version.

Bathrobe (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone has time, here is a possible source of references

[1]

Also, try using Yahoo to do an advanced search and choose to see only *.edu or *.gov sites.

Readin (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits by Got Milked

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:

The melting pot is an analogy for the way in which homogeneous societies develop, in which the ingredients in the pot (people of different cultures, races and religions) are combined so as to develop a multi-ethnic society. The term, which originates from the United States, is often used to describe societies experiencing large scale immigration from many different countries.

I have two questions about this:

Is the concept of Zhonghua minzu designed to develop a "homogeneous society"? If you read the melting pot article, you'll find that the concept has consistently been identified with assimilationism rather than multiculturalism. Are you suggesting that the Chinese melting pot is designed to assimilate all ethnic minorities to the Han ethnic majority?
Is China a society experiencing large-scale immigration? The melting pot society par excellence is the US. Apart from the Native Americans, all of the people in the American melting pot were immigrants. That is totally different from the historical situation of China. The Tibetans, Mongolians, Muslims, etc. did not "immigrate" into their current territories. They were there for a very long time. The Chinese state expanded to encompass them, which is totally different from the American melting pot where wave after wave of immigrants merged into a new society.

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)

Given that Got Milked has reinstated his edit on the similarity of Zhonghua minzu to the American Melting Pot without any justification or response to the questions raised above, I've flagged it with a "citation needed" tag. Needless to say, the tag can be removed if a source is provided.

Bathrobe (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Got Milked's edit comment: actually, ZHMZ concept is one that abstains from Han-centricity, and therefore supports the ZHMZ ideology, thank you, à propos his edit asserting that "The Zhonghua Minzu concept in practice can be observed as an extraordinary model of affirmative action":

This is purely subjective. There is an objective difference in the treatment of Han and the minority nationalities. The fact that this treatment favours the minorities does not make it any less Han-centric. It could be regarded, for instance, as a concession to the ethnic minorities to defuse unrest, or a concession to prevent protest by smaller ethnic groups at having to bear the burden for the population explosion among the Han. I am not claiming that either of these is necessarily true, merely that an affirmative action policy in favour of ethnic minorities does not in itself prove that the Zhonghua minzu concept inherently abstains from Han-centricity. Zhonghua minzu merely claims that all the ethnicities of China belong to a larger ethnicity.

Bathrobe (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

International law

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)

It's a statement on international law - universally agreed international law. Sub-national groups are not "peoples" for the purpose of the right of self-determination. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The information may be valid. The problem was the way it was used in the article. I believe I corrected it.

When providing viewpoint balance, we need to avoid articles that look like this:

"Group A says that aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa because aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Group A also says aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa and aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, and that aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa."

"On the other hand, Group B says bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb, but aaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Group B also says bbbbbbbbbbbbbb (which is bogus because aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa). Finally Group B says bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb even though aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa."

It was that kind of structure I was objecting to. I was just saying we can't have POV A given without interruption or rebuttal in one section, then give POV B in the next section with a rebuttal for each point. We should either give both POVs with inline rebuttals or both POVs without inline rebuttal. Readin (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of undue weight. If there is a contrary viewpoint, it should be given the weight due to it. If such a viewpoint exists in the present case, it should go something like this: "In international law, it is generally accepted that XXX. However, Person A advocates that YYY." --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

non-political in Taiwan

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)

Readin is right. The term is definitely political. It was used by Ma in his inauguration speech with the purpose of avoiding saying "the people of China" or "we the Chinese people" when he wanted to include both the people of mainland China and Taiwan. Using the terms such as the "people of China" or "we the Chinese people" with the intention of including the people of Taiwan is considered to be offensive to the pro-Taiwan independence supporters. The word China invokes the concept of statehood. But this term Zhonghua Minzu is less offensive. This term was used by Dr Sun Yat-sun who founded the Republic of China to describe the people in his Republic (PRC later kept using this term). Taiwan, being part of the Republic of China or to some people, being *the* Republic of China, makes the people in Taiwan part of Zhonghua Minzu.

The term is considered offensive to the people who don't agree with the Republic of China entirely. That is, the people who believe only in a "Republic of Taiwan". Shortly after Ma's speech used Zhonghua Minzu, I saw one protester's truck near Taipei Main Station having signs and posters saying "the Taiwanese people belong to the Taiwan Minzu, not Zhonghua Minzu".

I believe, however, that a great majority of the people in Taiwan would accept the term Zhonghua Minzu when it comes to describe the people of Taiwan, far greater than terms such as "the people of China" or "we the Chinese people".

I changed the article according to Ma's intended meaning in his speech.--pyl (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And you worded it very nicely. Thank you. The controversy in Taiwan that you mention in this talk page should probably be mentioned in the article as well. Readin (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

done.--pyl (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This use is generally accepted by the people in Taiwan, although it is not entirely without objections: some members of pro Taiwanese independence movement who do not wish Taiwan to have any cultural or political links with mainland China would find this term unacceptable.

Hmmmm, is it only people who "do not wish Taiwan to have any cultural or political links with mainland China" who object? What about people who don't mind cultural links but would prefer that it be kept similar to their cultural links with places like Japan, or similar to America's cultural links with other English-speaking countries? Readin (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You raised a good point. Should I keep it as people who would only accept a Republic of Taiwan? Other than these supporters there haven't been any objections in Taiwan in respect of the use (not that I know of). Would you like to come up with a new way of rewording the sentence please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyl (talk • contribs) 13:53, 10 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)

The word must be extremely difficult to translate into English, even with lots of words, because what you're saying here appears in English to contradict the text of the article. The article says Zhonghua minzu "refers to the modern notion of a Chinese nationality transcending ethnic divisions, with a central identity to China as a whole. It includes peoples who have historically interacted, contributed and assimilated to various extents with Chinese civilization."

If Zhonghua minzu simply refers to Chinese ethnicity, then how can it be said to "transcend ethnic divisions"? If it talks about "China as a whole", how can it talk about a "global diaspora" of people who are no longer in the nation of China?

I don't know if people in Taiwan object to "Zhonghua minzu" (though I know some people from Taiwan who strongly object to being called "Zhonghua", but your arguments that only a fringe of Taiwanese people could object don't convince me.

Instead, let's focus on what we can document. We have an example of President Ma using the term "Zhonghua Minzu" in a very political context. What else do we have that we can say about the use of the term in Taiwan? Readin (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a supra-ethnicity, an ethnicity (which is both cultural and genetic in any case) which transcends the underlying ethnicities. I appreciate that the conception is difficult to appreciate against a very different cultural background.

What does the inauguration speech show? It shows that "zhonghua minzu" is a politically acceptable, if not correct, term in Taiwan.

What is uncited is the claim that any significant portion of the population objects to its use. There is no cite for it, and rightly so, because only a very small fringe group in Taiwan would actually object to it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:46, 14 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:-

"If Zhonghua minzu simply refers to Chinese ethnicity, then how can it be said to "transcend ethnic divisions"? If it talks about "China as a whole", how can it talk about a "global diaspora" of people who are no longer in the nation of China?"

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:-

"Instead, let's focus on what we can document. We have an example of President Ma using the term "Zhonghua Minzu" in a very political context. What else do we have that we can say about the use of the term in Taiwan?"

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:-

Zhonghua ("華人", the Hua people) - includes all people who are ethnically Chinese, regardless of their nationality.

Zhonghua Minzu ("中華民族") - includes the citizens of the PRC and ROC, regardless of their ethnic background.

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)

Pyl, you're language is, I believe, too strong when you say that only people who "want nothing to do with China" or who "do not wish Taiwan to have any cultural or political links with mainland China" would find the term unacceptable. So you're saying that every Taiwanese who finds the term unacceptable would absolutely refuse to see a movie made in China, travel to China, or allow Taiwanese movies to be shown in China? A person who objects to "Zhonghua Minzu" would never order Hunanese food at a restaurant or eat dim sum? Every Taiwanese person who objects to "Zonghua Minzu" would flush in anger at the sight of Chinese people enjoying Bubble Tea? I find that hard to believe.

Eating Chinese food, travelling to China etc is not what I would consider as cultural links. People who have absolutely nothing to do with China do that as well and I wouldn't describe that as cultural link with China. That's just eating foreign food and travelling to a foreign country.

I accept that is something to do with China so I was being more careful with my wording in the main text of the article.

So no I am not saying a Taiwanese person who objects to that term would not eat Chinese food or travel to mainland China, and I don't think proper construction of the wording can give rise to that impression.

But if you insist, I am open to discuss if you would like to come up with a different wording.

PalaceGuard, Ma's use of the term in his inauguration followed by his quickly plummeting poll numbers could be seen as evidence the term is politically not accepted by large segments of the population. Or perhaps not. That he used it doesn't really prove anything except that he finds it acceptable. And it suggests that his political base finds it acceptable. Beyond that, it doesn't serve as a Wikipedia reliable source.

I know this comment is directed at PalaceGuard, please allow me to explain the plummeting poll. I apologise PalaceGuard if you consider this rude. I doubt that the poll results have anything to do with the use of the term. The general analysis of the poll attributes the results to the slow economy in general, a lack of satisfaction of the slow progress on investigations of alleged corruption of the previous government, as well as the new cabinet's apparent failure to properly manage the country.

I did a little hunting and found an English language book that discusses the concepts of 'minzu' and "Zhonghua minzu". The author is Suisheng Zhao and the book is called "Across the Taiwan Strait: Mainland China, Taiwan and the 1995-1996 Crisis". I haven't had time to pull out the relevent parts yet or to verify that the author should be considered reliable. But it does have interesting things to say around page 230.

Given the highly political nature of the topic (the book confirms that for many people the term is highly political) and the difficulty of explaining it, both of which lead to the real danger of biased original research, I think we should try to stick to reliable sources more than we do some other articles where knowledge of the topic is widespread and easily understood even if the POVs are divergent. Readin (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Aside from that, I see a lot of theories and original research, but little in the way of reliable sources.

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)

Okay. I am willing to let the wording stand as they are - and I won't really object to Readin's preferred version if that receives support either. It is a matter of semantics, and such questions always involve subtle shades of meaning, and cultural differences don't help in the discussion.

Any of these versions are an improvement on the previous words of "Pan-Green supporters do not support 'zhonghua minzu'", which is far too much of a sweeping generalisation.

An off-topic note to Readin about plummeting poll numbers: I keep up with the major Taiwanese press almost daily, and the issue at the forefront of the minds of the Taiwanese people right now is not identity politics - certainly not the "zhonghua minzu" term. Right now, it's Ma's six-three-three (6% economic growth, $30,000 income per capita, 3% unemployment) policy looking increasingly far from reality - that's the problem. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

International treaties

"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)

I've modified that sentence to remove any misconceptions. The article makes it clear that it was the Chinese nationalists, not the Qing state, that contemplated excluding non-Han from the concept of China. In fact, the issue is more complex than that, because there were many different strands of thinking among Chinese nationalists. See [2].

Nevertheless, the article as it stands is about the nature of the Qing state as background to the concept of Zhonghua minzu. The above comment is from the point of view of Chinese sovereignty. The two concepts are closely related, which is why Zhonghua minzu tends to be a sensitive topic and attracts this kind of comment.

Bathrobe (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Moving comments made on article page

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)

who ever wrote this is an idiot, he is not the first president --Preceding comment by User:202.134.228.106

(mover's note: He is referring to Yuan Shikai) -- 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)

Obviously Professor Suisheng Zhao used primary sources from European academic materials and never heard of what the term 華夏民族. Therefore the professor most likely did not know that Zhonghua minzu has a definition. It simply means, Chinese as a whole.

Which is funny, because i read the Chinese version to this part, 孫中山, was refered instead of Yuan Shikai, who self proclaimed to be the president later whom wants to be the emperor. Who ever wrote this, most likely did not know what he is talking about. As i recall the term Zhonghua minzu, was actually used prior to 1912, if i recall from memory, it goes way back and can be reference from earlier materials.

It was used more commonly overseas, to remind themself that by heritage, they are still Chinese. --Preceding comment by User:202.134.228.106

Interesting site, keep up the good work

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)

introduction

I move the unreferenced texts from the introduction here

text

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]}.

signed

--_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 17:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The Qing fully identified all their territories as "China"

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.

http://books.google.com/books?id=6qFH-53_VnEC&pg=PA77&dq=Dulimbai+gurun+land&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jEHtUunnIIvksASBzIEQ&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun%20land&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=6qFH-53_VnEC&pg=PA83&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iT7tUsrhM4bhyQH_04HYBg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=_qtgoTIAiKUC&pg=PA503&dq=steppes+mountains+rivers+Dzungar+unified+with+china&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5UHtUuvvCcu_sQStu4HYBw&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=steppes%20mountains%20rivers%20Dzungar%20unified%20with%20china&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=_qtgoTIAiKUC&pg=PA503&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_0LtUoGlNMTCywHW0ICAAg&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

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"

http://books.google.com/books?id=qlJpAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA205&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iT7tUsrhM4bhyQH_04HYBg&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=t2JTJW0X6LkC&pg=PA205&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iT7tUsrhM4bhyQH_04HYBg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=J4L-_cjmSqoC&pg=PA218&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=90LtUpuHEaSMyAHAl4DoDA&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=zqVug_wN4hEC&pg=PA102&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=m0PtUtv-OIOTyQHX8YCwAQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Dw9gYo4Pk0MC&pg=PA211&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iT7tUsrhM4bhyQH_04HYBg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=LbmP_1KIQ_8C&pg=PA304&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iT7tUsrhM4bhyQH_04HYBg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=TmhtAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA80&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-0PtUoKZEKWgyAH8oIHgBQ&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCTge#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=NESwGW_5uLoC&pg=PA117&dq=Dulimbai+gurun&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iT7tUsrhM4bhyQH_04HYBg&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Dulimbai%20gurun&f=false

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]

Cassel, Par Kristoffer (2011). Grounds of Judgment: Extraterritoriality and Imperial Power in Nineteenth-Century China and Japan. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199792122. Retrieved 10 March 2014.

Cassel, Par Kristoffer (2012). Grounds of Judgment: Extraterritoriality and Imperial Power in Nineteenth-Century China and Japan (illustrated ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199792054. Retrieved 10 March 2014.

Dvořák, Rudolf (1895). Chinas religionen ... Vol. Volume 12, Volume 15 of Darstellungen aus dem Gebiete der nichtchristlichen Religionsgeschichte (illustrated ed.). Aschendorff (Druck und Verlag der Aschendorffschen Buchhandlung). ISBN 0199792054. Retrieved 10 March 2014. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Dunnell, Ruth W.; Elliott, Mark C.; Foret, Philippe; Millward, James A (2004). New Qing Imperial History: The Making of Inner Asian Empire at Qing Chengde. Routledge. ISBN 1134362226. Retrieved 10 March 2014.

Elliott, Mark C. (2001). The Manchu Way: The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China (illustrated, reprint ed.). Stanford University Press. ISBN 0804746842. Retrieved 10 March 2014.

Hauer, Erich (2007). Corff, Oliver (ed.). Handwörterbuch der Mandschusprache. Vol. Volume 12, Volume 15 of Darstellungen aus dem Gebiete der nichtchristlichen Religionsgeschichte (illustrated ed.). Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. ISBN 978-3447055284. Retrieved 10 March 2014. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Perdue, Peter C (2009). China Marches West: The Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia (reprint ed.). Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674042025. Retrieved 10 March 2014.

Pozzi, Alessandra; Janhunen, Juha Antero; Weiers, Michael, eds. (2006). Tumen Jalafun Jecen Aku: Manchu Studies in Honour of Giovanni Stary. Vol. Volume 20 of Tunguso Sibirica. Contributor Giovanni Stary. Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. ISBN 344705378X. Retrieved 1 April 2013. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

vande Walle, Willy; Golvers, Noël, eds. (2003). The History of the Relations Between the Low Countries and China in the Qing Era (1644-1911). Vol. Volume 14 of Louvain Chinese studies (illustrated ed.). Leuven University Press. ISBN 9058673154. Retrieved 10 March 2014. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wu, Shuhui (1995). Die Eroberung von Qinghai unter Berücksichtigung von Tibet und Khams 1717 - 1727: anhand der Throneingaben des Grossfeldherrn Nian Gengyao. Vol. Volume 2 of Tunguso Sibirica (reprint ed.). Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. ISBN 3447037563. Retrieved 10 March 2014. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Zhao, Gang (January 2006). "Reinventing China Imperial Qing Ideology and the Rise of Modern Chinese National Identity in the Early Twentieth Century" (PDF). 32 (1). Sage Publications (PDF). {{cite journal}}: |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

References

^ Hauer 2007, p. 117.
^ Dvořák 1895, p. 80.
^ Wu 1995, p. 102.
^ Zhao 2006, pp. 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14.
^ Dunnell 2004, p. 77.
^ Dunnell 2004, p. 83.
^ Elliott 2001, p. 503.
^ Dunnell 2004, pp. 76-77.
^ Cassel 2011, p. 205.
^ Cassel 2012, p. 205.
^ Cassel 2011, p. 44.
^ Cassel 2012, p. 44.
^ Perdue 2009, p. 218.

"Expel the Manchus"

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:

Around the year 1644, the country was dismembered like a criminal, the barbarians from Jianzhou (14) took advantage of our internal disorder, the Tartar horsemen from the north swept down on our capital Peking, plundered the emblems of our imperial ranks, sowed disorder in our [traditional] vestments, occupied our land, and enslaved our people. Everywhere in the land of the enlightened (15), everywhere in the regions of Liang (16), there spread a fetid stench, and everywhere men of our culture prepared to submit to oppression. […] The soldiers with the banners have set up their garrisons, and everywhere in the remnants of the realm of the Great Yu (17) are the Manchus. And even the ten day massacres at Yangzhou (18), the three successive massacres at Jiading (19), and the memory of two hundred years of evil fortune still cannot outweigh the humiliation of the eighteen provinces. […] In addition, for several years now, the nations of Europe and America have us in their sights, each one desiring to control a part of our vast and beautiful land. The Manchu government of the Qing gives free rein to its self-indulgence, with no care for the outrages borne by the country. Being good men afflicted with deep sorrow, our hearts are full of righteous indignation. […] All of us present here, filled with sincere resolve, make a solemn oath before Heaven to fight with all our strength for the restoration [of China]. […] Gathered together here for a single purpose, and laying our plans in secret, we swear jointly to rid ourselves of these pillaging Tartar scum and to restore our former customs.” (20)

Bathrobe (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Driving out the Manchus is the idea of Han nationalism, while the royalist of Manchu government invented the idea of Chinese nationalism and Zhonghua minzu. We Chinese will not mistake Han nationalism for Chinese nationalism, whilst some translation can be incorrect because the similar usages of Chinese(中国人) and Han Chinese（汉人）in English. OuiOK (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 29 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

As it is the relative concept to the ethnic Chinese, the idea of Chinese nation is coined to sustain the Qing Empire as a whole by the royalists of the Manchu government, such as Yang Du, Yan Fu, and Liang Qichao. As Liang, the inventor of Zhonghua minzu(中华民族), wrote in 1905:"中华民族自始本非一族，实由多民族混合而成。(Zhonghua minzu (Chinese nation(s)) is never only one nation/ethnic/race, actually integrated by many.", the concept of Zhonghua minzu(中华民族) rarely refers to Han Chinese.

- Please notice, at that time, just as Hobsbawm notes in Nations and Nationalism since 1780(Ch.1) that the usage of nation as the combination of nation, state, or self-determination appeared quite late in history (later than 1908 in English) , so that is why I use refer minzu(民族) in Chinese to the nation/ethnic/race, and today's usage of minzu(民族) in Chinese can still represent nation/ethnic/race.

The second point I have is that "Zhonghua minzu" is a nation. The movement making "Zhonghua minzu" into a nation is the World War II, when the Japanese declared Manchuria and Mongolia is not a part of China and took over the Manchuria. In 1939, historian Gu Jiegang publish Zhonghua minzu (the Chinese nation) is one (中华民族是一个), in which he asserted:"凡是中国人都是中华民族——在中华民族之内我们绝不该析出什么民族——在今以后大家应当留神使用者“民族”二字（all Chinese people belong to Zhonghua minzu(中华民族)-among which there should be no more nation/ethnic/race(minzu,民族) among us- all of us should take care of use the word minzu.）" Moreover, he rejected the usage of the China proper and added:"中国本部是敌人用来分化我们的，五大民族这一名词却非敌人所造，而是中国人作茧自缚。自古以来的中国人只有文化的概念而没有种族的观念。(The concept of China proper is what our enemy (Japan) uses to break us up, but the term of Five Nations(五大民族, including Han, Tibetan, Manchu, Muslim, & Mongol) was invented by our Chinese to break ourselves. Throughout history, our Chinese are only aware of cultures but never nations/ethnics/races(种族, but this term refers to races nowadays.))"

- Here it can be quite wired that Gu insisted that Chinese have no concept of what a nation is. But in Anderson's Imagined Communities, ALL NATIONS are man-made imagined community, and nation is an Europe-originated concept later exporting to all other places of the world. And there is civic nationalism making citizens a nation (for example, Chinese nationalism) or ethnic nationalism making any ethnic group a nation(for example, Han nationalism). I am trying to explain the meaning of a nation as someone said forging a nation represents making all minorities or say it's impossible to make a Zhonghua Minzu, but in theory ROC's Zhonghua Minzu can qualify the idea of civic nationalism.

- As is to answer some more question, for example, China is not an immigrants society like US how it can be a nation, I will quote from Sun Yat-sen, "現在說五族共和，實在這五族的名詞很不切當。我們國內何止五族呢？我的意思，應該把我們中國所有各民族融成一個中華民族（如美國，本是歐洲許多民族合起來的，現在卻只成了美國一個民族，為世界上最有光榮的民族）；並且要把中華民族造成很文明的民族，然後民族主義乃為完了。 "(It is really not appropriate to say that the five ethnic groups are a republic. There are more than five tribes in our country? I mean that we, the peoples of China, should be merged into one Chinese nation(Zhonghua minzu) (for example, the United States, which was the union of many nations in Europe, is now a nation of the United States, the most glorious nation in the world) ; And we will make the Chinese nation a very civilized nation, and then nationalism will be finished. ) Well, this idea is exactly from US and Americans.--explanation of the revision of the Party Constitution by the nine members of the people. " According to the seventh issue of the Central Monthly Journal of Party Affairs, February 1929(〈民九修改黨章之說明〉，據《中央黨務月刊》第七期，1929年2月).

As a matter of fact, today's China is quite singularized in the composition of ethnic groups with over 91% Han Chinese as the largest predominantly monoethnic country and a Communist state... Generally, China succeed ROC's Chinese nNation.(Is there someone say no relationship with ROC? ) For example, modern scholar, Xu Jilin has defined Zhonghua minzu as a state-nation1（国族, the exact translation for nation, not minzu）.

OuiOK (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. There is a lot going on here and the target although now a redirect has significant history. There is plenty of material for two articles. Andrewa (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Chinese nation" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

[1] Hauer 2007, p. 117.

[2] Dvořák 1895, p. 80.

[3] Wu 1995, p. 102.

[4] Zhao 2006, pp. 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14.

[5] Dunnell 2004, p. 77.

[6] Dunnell 2004, p. 83.

[7] Elliott 2001, p. 503.

[8] Dunnell 2004, pp. 76-77.

[9] Cassel 2011, p. 205.

[10] Cassel 2012, p. 205.

[11] Cassel 2011, p. 44.

[12] Cassel 2012, p. 44.

[13] Perdue 2009, p. 218.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

NPOV issues

Missing the whole overseas Chinese

Requested move

Survey

Discussion

Zhonghua Minzu is indeed an ethnicity, and this article is hopelessly biased against Han Chinese and PRC

Overseas Chinese

Zhonghua minzu

So call WP:Original research and WP:MoS

See also consensus?

The Qing and their subjects

Changes

Edits by Got Milked

International law

non-political in Taiwan

International treaties

Moving comments made on article page

Interesting site, keep up the good work

introduction

text

The Qing fully identified all their territories as "China"

"Expel the Manchus"

Requested move 29 October 2019

"Chinese nation" listed at Redirects for discussion