3 ms·

The impression and definition come from anthropology and history. In this case Chinese means 中华 and there's the Chinese language, race, and culture or 华文, 汉族, 中

The impression and definition come from anthropology and history. In this case Chinese means 中华 and there's the Chinese language, race, and culture or 华文, 汉族, 中华文化. I apologise if I don't grasp some nuance from the words in Chinese I chose but from an objective, historical point of view, these terms are consistent. The lineage and changes (or lack of changes) of these has been established with varying levels of definitiveness. The most definitive is the ancestry Han. DNA tracing has established the genetic continuity of a Han race going back thousands of years, with an extremely homogeneous genetic profile between members of the race. 95% of the population of China and Taiwan belong to this race, with a 5% of minorities. Next most definitive is the language. The modern form of what is called regular script (I am unsure if what it is called in Chinese but it is traditional Chinese today), was the predominant form since about 250 AD. Certain words have become archaic and literary allusions might be lost. And aside from the changes in word order, you could read texts from this period onwards (with some difficulty). The governments of China all used this script, with certain governments also using additional languages like Manchu. The way it was spoken did vary a lot even till today, but there definitely is the Chinese language that both Taiwan and China uses. The fact that people from these countries can converse in their native tongue is basic empirical proof you speak the same language. Culture is the least definitive concept, but it's very plain you have a shared culture. It's not exactly the same (and culture varies within a country too) but historically it is very clear it comes from the same culture. Frankly it's quite a basic fact that the people on Taiwan and China have historically been part of same people. I'd like to emphasize what the CCP says does not change anything about the history and anthropology of it. I'd I'm being blunt, both what might be called the "CCP Han identity" and "Taiwanese identity" are political movements. In the case of the CCP to associate themselves with the history of China (which has swung wildly given their behavior especially during the cultural revolution) and in the case of Taiwanese identity (which has intensified in recent decades because of the geopolitical situation).

komali2 2y ago
Well, specifically regarding 華 and 華人, if you want to watch something interesting, ask a group of Mandarin speakers that aren't PRC citizens whether they're 華人. 9/10 times they will immediately begin arguing with eachother about the answer. That's basically my point: 華人 and similar concepts in English described as "Chinese" have been historically defined by empires, written about by empires, etc, and modern anthropological techniques are finally teasing apart that this concept isn't necessarily natural but more derived from the efforts of any given empire in Chinese history - all building on eachother and legitimizing their given rule using these historical concepts. I certainly don't disagree with you that there's a lineage of these concepts! > DNA tracing has established the genetic continuity of a Han race going back thousands of years, with an extremely homogeneous genetic profile between members of the race. This seems to me to be an oversimplification of even the "well accepted standards," such as for example there's a clear delineation between northern and southern "Han." You can subdivide Han even further purely genetically. Furthermore, at the end of the day, defining race by genetics is always a bit of a rabbit chase since it's a relatively meaningless distinction without considering culture, and culturally, the group most call "Han" is extremely diverse, much moreso than portrayed historically or in the modern era. I won't go into the trouble of listing the distinctive ethnic groups, many of whom aren't even recognized by the CPC, but suffice to say basically every province has one or more distinct ethnic groups normally described simply as "Han," and that's before counting what the CPC (and others) designates as "aboriginal." > Next most definitive is the language. I would say this is the least definitive! The unique nature of a morphosyllabic language is many languages can be written with it. Yes, definitely the various languages of the cultures within the PRC's modern territory are unarguably similar, but that's a feature shared with various languages in other parts of the world. Take a look at India! So, for that reason, just because many different people throughout history could read what was being written by whatever Chinese empire, doesn't mean they were all Han via language. Further to that, the reason that people in Taiwan, the PRC, Singapore, Malaysia, and throughout history Korea and Japan, could speak what we today call Mandarin, is because it was the language of an Empire. Of course one would speak the King's language in the King's land. I mean, in the PRC they call every language "Chinese" when speaking about them in English - Shanghainese, Ninghainese, Ningbonese, everything. So it's just another empire doing empire stuff. > Culture is the least definitive concept, but it's very plain you have a shared culture. It's not exactly the same (and culture varies within a country too) but historically it is very clear it comes from the same culture. Frankly it's quite a basic fact that the people on Taiwan and China have historically been part of same people. With all due respect, just saying this doesn't really refute my argument. > both what might be called the "CCP Han identity" and "Taiwanese identity" are political movements. Yes, this is an overall point I have, that these concepts are difficult to divorce from politics, since politics has such a strong effect on what these are. E.g. if it weren't for the politics of the early United States, many indigenous languages in north america would be much more widely spoken (a recent news item I learned about, it's on mind) - regardless of the initial conquering, it was specifically the political policy of reeducation that ensured the basically permanent demise of these cultures.

komali2 2y ago

Well, specifically regarding 華 and 華人, if you want to watch something interesting, ask a group of Mandarin speakers that aren't PRC citizens whether they're 華人. 9/10 times they will immediately begin arguing with eachother about the answer. That's basically my point: 華人 and similar concepts in English described as "Chinese" have been historically defined by empires, written about by empires, etc, and modern anthropological techniques are finally teasing apart that this concept isn't necessarily natural but more derived from the efforts of any given empire in Chinese history - all building on eachother and legitimizing their given rule using these historical concepts. I certainly don't disagree with you that there's a lineage of these concepts! > DNA tracing has established the genetic continuity of a Han race going back thousands of years, with an extremely homogeneous genetic profile between members of the race. This seems to me to be an oversimplification of even the "well accepted standards," such as for example there's a clear delineation between northern and southern "Han." You can subdivide Han even further purely genetically. Furthermore, at the end of the day, defining race by genetics is always a bit of a rabbit chase since it's a relatively meaningless distinction without considering culture, and culturally, the group most call "Han" is extremely diverse, much moreso than portrayed historically or in the modern era. I won't go into the trouble of listing the distinctive ethnic groups, many of whom aren't even recognized by the CPC, but suffice to say basically every province has one or more distinct ethnic groups normally described simply as "Han," and that's before counting what the CPC (and others) designates as "aboriginal." > Next most definitive is the language. I would say this is the least definitive! The unique nature of a morphosyllabic language is many languages can be written with it. Yes, definitely the various languages of the cultures within the PRC's modern territory are unarguably similar, but that's a feature shared with various languages in other parts of the world. Take a look at India! So, for that reason, just because many different people throughout history could read what was being written by whatever Chinese empire, doesn't mean they were all Han via language. Further to that, the reason that people in Taiwan, the PRC, Singapore, Malaysia, and throughout history Korea and Japan, could speak what we today call Mandarin, is because it was the language of an Empire. Of course one would speak the King's language in the King's land. I mean, in the PRC they call every language "Chinese" when speaking about them in English - Shanghainese, Ninghainese, Ningbonese, everything. So it's just another empire doing empire stuff. > Culture is the least definitive concept, but it's very plain you have a shared culture. It's not exactly the same (and culture varies within a country too) but historically it is very clear it comes from the same culture. Frankly it's quite a basic fact that the people on Taiwan and China have historically been part of same people. With all due respect, just saying this doesn't really refute my argument. > both what might be called the "CCP Han identity" and "Taiwanese identity" are political movements. Yes, this is an overall point I have, that these concepts are difficult to divorce from politics, since politics has such a strong effect on what these are. E.g. if it weren't for the politics of the early United States, many indigenous languages in north america would be much more widely spoken (a recent news item I learned about, it's on mind) - regardless of the initial conquering, it was specifically the political policy of reeducation that ensured the basically permanent demise of these cultures.