solarz
Brigadier
Like you said, the Miao probably did not consider herself to be "Chinese". Yet you say that these 3 people all share a common bond. Can you point out what that bond is?
China and the development of firearms
- Thread starter solarz
- Start date
Like you said, the Miao probably did not consider herself to be "Chinese". Yet you say that these 3 people all share a common bond. Can you point out what that bond is?
I already told you
Let me ask you this, does the Miao people today consider them to be Chinese? Most of them do. (Notice I said Chinese, NOT Han)
Does Tibetan and Uygur consider themselves to be Chinese? most them probably don't
And lastly, over 93% of Chinese consider themselves to be "Han" People, but I think it is safe to say vast majority of that 93% who's ancestor was not Han people at all, they were people from other groups that got conquered and assimilated into the Han people, if you ask them at the time of the original Chinese conquest, would they consider themselves to be Chinese? Of course they don't, ask their children's children's children's 10 generation later, would they consider themselves to be Chinese? Yes they do.
Understand what I'm trying to say?
solarz
Brigadier
Confucianism is used by more than just the Chinese culture. The Koreans, Japanese, and Vietnamese societies are all based on it. The mandate of heaven is a part of Confucianism.
Not all Chinese believe or follow Confucianism. There are many Uygurs who follow Islam but still consider themselves Chinese. There are ethnic Russians whose culture is the same as national Russians who consider themselves Chinese.
As for "what is Chinese and what is not", that's circular logic. I am *asking* you what it means to be "Chinese".
Right, and how does this make Chinese history and culture homogeneous?
Adjective:
Of the same kind; alike.
Consisting of parts all of the same kind.
Synonyms:
uniform - similar
You are imagining that the "Chinese Culture" is some kind of black hole sucking in smaller cultures and turning them into "Chinese" particles.
Instead, the Chinese culture is like a river, feeding from a myriad of streams and smaller waterways. It might *look* homogeneous on the surface, but if you examine it closely, you will find living organisms and sediments from all over the land.
There is no single characteristic that makes one person Chinese and another person "not Chinese". It is not like the Jews, where you are a Jew if you belong the Judaism faith. Instead, there is a web of beliefs, traditions, language, and yes, physical characteristics, which makes a person identify themselves as Chinese. However, this web or pattern is different from community to community. No two groups of people take the Chinese identity for the exact same reasons.
vesicles
Colonel
Yes, confucianism is only one of the hundreds of Chinese philosophies that survived history. what about Taoism? What about Faism (the teaching of Fa, or the rule of law)? People believing in these philosophies still identify themselves as Chinese.
I agree that nationality has nothing to do with genetics and has everything to do with culture. Children of Chinese immigrants to the US definitely identify themselves as Americans, yet they have the "pure" Chinese blood.
Yeah that's what I mean, Confucianism, Taoism, hundreds of Chinese philosophies or even Buddhism. All of it combined together and the belief system that makes you Chinese. What is Chinese is not in your genes, it is in your minds.
There are many pure "Han" blood of Chinese immigrants born into their society that does not even speak Chinese, or may even hate themselves for what they are, but sad thing is, people still judge them from outside as Chinese. And yes it is possible for them to read up more about their own culture and discover who they are, and if they later hold the identity they are Chinese, then they will became Chinese.
This is also in theory, possible for any other races of people to do the same thing and became Chinese, but there is very few cases of this so far.
Last edited:
This reply is interesting, so you just told me there are ethic Russians, Uygurs, Korean all believe they are Chinese, which support my thesis in the very beginning that being Chinese is not a race, it is what you believe in, and that Chinese is an identity that can encompass many ethnicity, and this identity is very strong throughout history and it is central to the Chinese civilization. So if you agree with this, why are you so hanged up on what exactly is a "Chinese" I don't understand what is your point? I never disputing with you on the definitions of Chinese-ness.
As for Korean, Japanese and Vietnam society which believed in Confucianism, that is because they were influenced by the Chinese civilization in the past, they see it works so they adopted it, I don't see what's wrong here. According to ancient China, they all have their places in the Mandate of Heaven, with China as the center, and they are the tributary kingdoms, and most of those nations actually structured their court and very much base on the Chinese imperial court, but they themselves acknowledge that the ultimate center is still in China's imperial court, and they all accepted this relatively peacefully throughout the history until recently the 19th century, when China itself got weak, and can no longer really protect it is tributary nations. However it does not mean those nations abandon what they learned from China for thousands of years, because those customs and tradition have long been integrated with their own culture and believes. Again, I don't see their existence have any conflict with what I am trying to say.
Alright, if you want to get technical and bring out the dictionary, then yes you are right, Chinese civilization is not like Star Trek Borg, who acts like mindless zombies and swallows every nation that it come into contact with and destroy all.
And yes, I already said that there can be 2 different Chinese person living 5000 km apart who have to deal with very different things from their day to day life, and they may have very little commonality to share or cannot even understand what each other is speaking. But guess what? They still consider themselves to be Chinese no matter the difference they have, and yes they may not share 100% of what being Chinese-ness is. They still have this identity of being Chinese in the end, and this identity is what holding the nation together as one political entity for most of their history.
And this is what make them special from all other civilizations.
Last edited:
solarz
Brigadier
Remember what started this whole debate?
Lezt said:
Lezt did not say that there was no Chinese identity, but that China is not a homogeneous country. Those are two different concepts.
I was having problem with this paragraph.
Which puts China in the same category as Rome, Persian, Greeks, Arabs, Egyptians etc.. That for some magical reason China is able to hold on, while others didn't, but essentially they are no different from those other civilization, except for some reason China got lucky and hold on. Luck have nothing to do with it, the culture and the Chinese identity throughout history is what make it hold together time after time after chaos.
Doesn't really matter of this identity itself is 100% homogeneous or not by the genetic identity of the original founders.
So it all comes down to the definition of homogeneity.
Chinese is a collective culture, prefer to seek commonality/relationship and reserving the differences. Chinese tend to have a holistic view, therefore for Chinese, they see a commonality after all factors are considered. We do not like to go splitting hair in order to find a single metric to measure commonality. If an overwhelming number of Chinese agree that it is so, then that is the truth.
So I think the argument being that Chinese is more homogenous than most others in a holistic way.
I do not think defining homogeneity with genetic works given what we know today. And the example of Jew homogeneity, well, that is by definition. That is like saying all American has American citizenship. Is it really true that all Jew practice Judaism? Is a Jewish boy that do not practice Judaism still Jew?
If someone go and get a research grand to do a study, Chinese have no problem with that. But deep down Chinese would considered that rather stupid and waste of resources. Because by all practicality, the identity exist and proven in real life. If the overwhelming majority of Chinese believe in it, and live by it, that would be the true significance. The proof is in the pudding.
Chinese is a collective culture, prefer to seek commonality/relationship and reserving the differences. Chinese tend to have a holistic view, therefore for Chinese, they see a commonality after all factors are considered. We do not like to go splitting hair in order to find a single metric to measure commonality. If an overwhelming number of Chinese agree that it is so, then that is the truth.
So I think the argument being that Chinese is more homogenous than most others in a holistic way.
I do not think defining homogeneity with genetic works given what we know today. And the example of Jew homogeneity, well, that is by definition. That is like saying all American has American citizenship. Is it really true that all Jew practice Judaism? Is a Jewish boy that do not practice Judaism still Jew?
If someone go and get a research grand to do a study, Chinese have no problem with that. But deep down Chinese would considered that rather stupid and waste of resources. Because by all practicality, the identity exist and proven in real life. If the overwhelming majority of Chinese believe in it, and live by it, that would be the true significance. The proof is in the pudding.
To give you some sources of Sinocentrism and how Japan at a time thought itself as the rightful decedent of China, I am only going to quote wiki:
-
My statement on empires is only regarding landmass, if you think about it, Pan-Slavic culture endured the rise and fall of the russian empire, SU and now the federation. Anglo-Saxon culture, transcended Saxony and Angles; it survived England, Britain, the UK, the British Empire, and it still exist today. Similarly, other cultural identities survived to this day even if the state of empire ceased to exist.
What I am saying is that the endurance of Chinese culture is not out of the ordinary, The only difference is that China and Russia retained most of the land they acquired during their empire.