4 ms·
“China” is a bit of a misnomer for the article. It seems to be mostly “Chinese” politically, but pretty detached from the Han typically thought of when using th
by refactor_master 5y ago
“China” is a bit of a misnomer for the article. It seems to be mostly “Chinese” politically, but pretty detached from the Han typically thought of when using the word “China” in the general sense. Interesting stuff nonetheless.
- accurrent 5y agoSaid people still live in China though, what else would you call these provinces. China != "Han", although majority of China is Han. It's interesting how our language sort of ties, ethnicity and nationality together when the two are very separate things.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- 55555 5y agoMaybe this occurred because rulers wanted people to identify with their nation (and pay tax and die defending it) instead of their tribe. Or maybe it is just because nations used to all be ethnically homogeneous. It certainly doesnt serve us well these days though! Very confusing
- btheshoe 5y agoit's worth pointing out the hong kong/china divide, where both are predominantly han but it seems that national identities have diverged.
- throw3434053 5y agoWeird to have to explain this here, but: China is a country with a border. Chinese is the nationality of this border. There are over a billion people there, the only people who think China is full of Han alone are ignorant Westerners because we get this extremely reductive view of Chinese culture. You should go visit and you'll see for yourself :)
- Salgat 5y agoChina has always been ethnically diverse, and twice has had dynasties not led by ethnic Han. It's okay to call them Chinese.