3 ms·

While your central thesis probably has merit, I just want to point out that the way you present it sounds incredibly ignorant and simplistic to anyone in Asia.

While your central thesis probably has merit, I just want to point out that the way you present it sounds incredibly ignorant and simplistic to anyone in Asia. Maybe Japan and Korea are more ethnostates.. but it's sorta ridiculous to say it's an Asian things Within 5 minutes of arriving in Kuala Lumpur you will see more diversity than in most American cities - with equal parts Indian, Chinese and Bumi (ethnically Indonesian). I mean.. maybe they all just look "asian" to you, but they're distinct to anyone from the region. On top of that you will regularly see people from the middle east and elsewhere. The Chinese, outside of han-nationalist circles, typically do not see themselves as an ethnostate (but by contrast the Taiwanese sort of do) - that was sort of the central theme of the 2008 olympics.. and I've met many minorities in China that would be confused and maybe offended if you suggested they weren't Chinese So by extension Taiwanese also view themselves as Chinese, but typically not part of China geopolitically. ( a lot of the issues here stem from linguistics.. b/c in Chinese there are many separate terms to distinguish things like ethnic Han, culturally Chinese, Chinese citizens of the PRC and other subtleties - I'm not going to pretend to understand all of them) Thailand is also incredibly pluralistic, though minorities are more integrated into one culture. There isn't typically "founding father" hero worship and the same ideological cohesion as in the United States, but it's also simplistic to say that doesn't exist at all. You have for instance Sun Yat-sen who is .. sort of founding-father-like (his ideology doesn't seem as coherant as in the US though) . If you want ideological though, the most obvious is Maoism. Ideological purity is sort of unacceptable in the post-Cultural Revolution period, but it's still a powerful force in their society

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Han runs China with a strong majority. For western provinces where minorities are a majority, the symbolic governor will always be an ethnic minority (eg Tibet will have a Tibetan governor), but the real power will be held by the Han party secretary. Some of the party secretaries that have run Tibet and Xinjiang are famous hardliners that have probably created more problems than they’ve solved.
- contrarian1234 3y ago
  Interesting stuff. I won't pretend to understand the inner workings of the party haha. I have heard they very aggressively rotate party members so that they don't establish deep rooted regional networks - and that you aren't ever assigned from the region you're from. So that seems to be in line with what you illustrate. I also know they have intense quotas for minorities and affirmative action - but with the demographics involved I don't imagine you'd really get anyone other than Han executives most of the time Though in the end it's a bit besides the point. The state and the people concerned for the most part don't perceive themselves as an ethnostate - and it's their selfidentification which is at play here. I could see it changing - but a Han ethnostate would be a bit scary. It'd mean loosing legitimacy over minority areas - but there are huge Han minorities in most Asian countries. So far the Chinese state hasn't pushed the line that it's got an obligation to represent their interests (though it's come up) It's interesting that by contrast in my experience in Taiwan there is much more of a perception that they're a Han ethnostate. There are a few "aboriginal" and other minorities - but it's mostly viewed as a curiosity
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    I think the ethnostate label isn’t really accurate in China. Paternalistic state is more accurate, Confucian values still hold. The goal isn’t create a monoethnic state, rather the Han see themselves as best apt to govern and guide the other ethnic groups. A lot of the ethnic tension simply comes from minorities seeing such paternalism as condescending.
    - hayst4ck 3y ago
      Paternalism is just a different word for oppression. It encodes the power relationship, but with the implication of care. Ask the Uighers, Tibetans, and the Hong Kongers, or even the Taiwanese what they think of china's "Paternalism," or if they feel China is a caring "parent." > A lot of the ethnic tension simply comes from minorities seeing such paternalism as condescending. This is an equivocated way of saying ethnic minorities feel oppressed by the ethnic ruling class. > the Han see themselves as best apt to govern and guide the other ethnic groups This statement seems like barely concealed "Han supremacy". Your words say the architecture of china is an ethnostate while the phrasing is a facade of benevolence.
hayst4ck 3y ago
I agree with your criticism and should have called out Malaysia's multiculturalism instead of going with the (wrong) implication expressed by where I asked that question; that in Malaysia ethnicity = nationality. FWIW, my experience of Malaysia, admittedly as very much an outsider, is that it is multiple ethnicities living together, rather than a society bound by a set of shared values so I would assume the primary lens of politics is still ethnicity. Are various ethnicities vying for dominance, or are people vying for specific ideals? When "Indian, Chinese and Bumi" look at each other do they first experience "us" or do they first experience "them?" America is dealing with these problems and it would be charitable to say that America is a values first country, although I think America is doing better than most. My experience is that Malaysia is probably doing the best in Asia. > There isn't typically "founding father" hero worship and the same ideological cohesion as in the United States That touches on the fundamental idea I am trying to convey (the one I am conveying much much much more poorly than the article I linked). Are people deifying a "founding father" or are they deifying the ideals for which they stood? Do they engage with their history (of having founding fathers and what they did) or their values (influenced by and reasoned about by their founding fathers). > I've met many minorities in China that would be confused and maybe offended if you suggested they weren't Chinese Are they experiencing being Chinese through sharing the Chinese history, or are they being Chinese through sharing Chinese values? Could black people go to China and share those values and experiencing being Chinese or does the fact that black people do not share Chinese history make them ineligible to be Chinese?
- contrarian1234 3y ago
  > Are they experiencing being Chinese through sharing the Chinese history, or are they being Chinese through sharing Chinese values? I don't think that'd be a meaningful distinction for most people. The history is deeply intertwined with the values > Could black people go to China and share those values and experiencing being Chinese or does the fact that black people do not share Chinese history I'm actually not quite sure what "share history" really means in practical terms. Most people don't in a personal capacity connect with historical events.. But the reason you don't see black people "become Chinese" is mostly because the culture is basically too big and deep to integrate with. Maybe a rabid sinophile could learn to live like a local - but that's so exceedingly rare that it'd always be a novelty. Europeans often joke that America doesn't have culture and history , and the reality is that it's pretty bare bones and you can "catch up". Western individualism is easy to swallow and for the rest we're pretty flexible. To give you a more concrete motivating counterexample. I've met American born Chinese in Taiwan - locals always view them as "other" bc they didn't grow up immersed in the culture and history and its always obvious. They ethnically match, but they aren't local

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

Han runs China with a strong majority. For western provinces where minorities are a majority, the symbolic governor will always be an ethnic minority (eg Tibet will have a Tibetan governor), but the real power will be held by the Han party secretary. Some of the party secretaries that have run Tibet and Xinjiang are famous hardliners that have probably created more problems than they’ve solved.

contrarian1234 3y ago
Interesting stuff. I won't pretend to understand the inner workings of the party haha. I have heard they very aggressively rotate party members so that they don't establish deep rooted regional networks - and that you aren't ever assigned from the region you're from. So that seems to be in line with what you illustrate. I also know they have intense quotas for minorities and affirmative action - but with the demographics involved I don't imagine you'd really get anyone other than Han executives most of the time Though in the end it's a bit besides the point. The state and the people concerned for the most part don't perceive themselves as an ethnostate - and it's their selfidentification which is at play here. I could see it changing - but a Han ethnostate would be a bit scary. It'd mean loosing legitimacy over minority areas - but there are huge Han minorities in most Asian countries. So far the Chinese state hasn't pushed the line that it's got an obligation to represent their interests (though it's come up) It's interesting that by contrast in my experience in Taiwan there is much more of a perception that they're a Han ethnostate. There are a few "aboriginal" and other minorities - but it's mostly viewed as a curiosity
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  I think the ethnostate label isn’t really accurate in China. Paternalistic state is more accurate, Confucian values still hold. The goal isn’t create a monoethnic state, rather the Han see themselves as best apt to govern and guide the other ethnic groups. A lot of the ethnic tension simply comes from minorities seeing such paternalism as condescending.
  - hayst4ck 3y ago
    Paternalism is just a different word for oppression. It encodes the power relationship, but with the implication of care. Ask the Uighers, Tibetans, and the Hong Kongers, or even the Taiwanese what they think of china's "Paternalism," or if they feel China is a caring "parent." > A lot of the ethnic tension simply comes from minorities seeing such paternalism as condescending. This is an equivocated way of saying ethnic minorities feel oppressed by the ethnic ruling class. > the Han see themselves as best apt to govern and guide the other ethnic groups This statement seems like barely concealed "Han supremacy". Your words say the architecture of china is an ethnostate while the phrasing is a facade of benevolence.

hayst4ck 3y ago

I agree with your criticism and should have called out Malaysia's multiculturalism instead of going with the (wrong) implication expressed by where I asked that question; that in Malaysia ethnicity = nationality. FWIW, my experience of Malaysia, admittedly as very much an outsider, is that it is multiple ethnicities living together, rather than a society bound by a set of shared values so I would assume the primary lens of politics is still ethnicity. Are various ethnicities vying for dominance, or are people vying for specific ideals? When "Indian, Chinese and Bumi" look at each other do they first experience "us" or do they first experience "them?" America is dealing with these problems and it would be charitable to say that America is a values first country, although I think America is doing better than most. My experience is that Malaysia is probably doing the best in Asia. > There isn't typically "founding father" hero worship and the same ideological cohesion as in the United States That touches on the fundamental idea I am trying to convey (the one I am conveying much much much more poorly than the article I linked). Are people deifying a "founding father" or are they deifying the ideals for which they stood? Do they engage with their history (of having founding fathers and what they did) or their values (influenced by and reasoned about by their founding fathers). > I've met many minorities in China that would be confused and maybe offended if you suggested they weren't Chinese Are they experiencing being Chinese through sharing the Chinese history, or are they being Chinese through sharing Chinese values? Could black people go to China and share those values and experiencing being Chinese or does the fact that black people do not share Chinese history make them ineligible to be Chinese?

contrarian1234 3y ago
> Are they experiencing being Chinese through sharing the Chinese history, or are they being Chinese through sharing Chinese values? I don't think that'd be a meaningful distinction for most people. The history is deeply intertwined with the values > Could black people go to China and share those values and experiencing being Chinese or does the fact that black people do not share Chinese history I'm actually not quite sure what "share history" really means in practical terms. Most people don't in a personal capacity connect with historical events.. But the reason you don't see black people "become Chinese" is mostly because the culture is basically too big and deep to integrate with. Maybe a rabid sinophile could learn to live like a local - but that's so exceedingly rare that it'd always be a novelty. Europeans often joke that America doesn't have culture and history , and the reality is that it's pretty bare bones and you can "catch up". Western individualism is easy to swallow and for the rest we're pretty flexible. To give you a more concrete motivating counterexample. I've met American born Chinese in Taiwan - locals always view them as "other" bc they didn't grow up immersed in the culture and history and its always obvious. They ethnically match, but they aren't local