[quote=“TonAng”]Scotland v Monrovia?!? Who would win…
(probably the Faroes!)
[/quote]
Now that’s just nasty … true, but nasty. 
[quote=“ac_dropout”]
Chinese people already resolved this issue a few hundred years ago and invented the term Hua Ciao, Overseas Chinese.
Ask someone who is Wen Zhou, Cantonese, Ke Jia, Toishan, HK, or Singaporian Chinese if they are Chinese. And they will answer with no political qualifiers that they are Chinese.[/quote]
I don’t think maowang knows about these people. And if he did, he’d probably say they didn’t understand their heritage correctly.
Let me take this really slow for you. It seems this is a terribly complicated concept. Plato’s allegory of the cave comes to mind…
One of the greatest misunderstandings about identity is the widely accepted view that ethnic and national identities are based on common ancestry and/or common culture and thus the identity is rooted in antiquity. Ancestry and culture are the ideological terms in which ethnic and national identities are claimed, as long as the terms above are used to discuss identity then they would seem reasonable parameters to measure the authenticity of the claimed identity.
However, culture and ancestry are not what unites an ethnic group or nation. Identity is formed on the basis of a common social experience, including economic and political experience.
National and ethnic identities are often portrayed as fixed entities with clear borders. Identity is oft seen as the product od a person’s culture with no room for choice about belonging or departing. To mobilize people for political means, governments and ethnic leaders actively hide the fluidity of identity and group membership, they discuss identity in terms of common descent, culture and language, even though it is the shared social experience that binds the group together.
To conceal the fluidity of identiy, polities construct narratives, origin myths and refined histories to distinguish one group from all others. The narratives draw from selected interperetations of known historical information. Often a narrative changes to adapt to new socio-political contexts.
China uses a Stalinist criteria to define its ethic groups as 56 ethnicities with Han as the dominant ethnicity comprising 91% of ther population with regional Han that really mark ethnic differences. By latching on to the united Han ethnicity, the PRC hopes to demonstrate a connection to prior narratives of Chinese history and thus legitimizing the current political system and it also justifies the dominant Han cultural hegemony.
Tsiwan’s socio-political experience took a different path than China’s and thus Taiwanese identity does not correspond to the PRC mode of classification as either minzu or regional Han. Before 1895, taiwanese did not think of themselves as a unified group, either Chinese or Taiwanese. As a place of immigrant-indigenous mixing there was no “other” to force the Taiwanese society to unite under a singular identity. Over the past 100 years that has changed as Taiwanese have collectively faced outside threats from Japanese, Americans, Nationalist Chinese and the PRC.
Terms like Chinese, Hua Qiao, Hua Ren, Zhong Guo Ren are politically constructed terms to describe a group of people with the goal of uniting diverse groups. The dictionary may say they mean “Chinese”, but what do they actually mean?
Let us suppose we were to hold a three week convention of Hua Ren and each country with a polulation of so-called Hua Ren sent a delegation of twenty people. It would be fair to imagine that the groups assembled would initially mingle, converse, listen to lectures on the greatness of Zhong Hua etc… By the third week you might expect the delegations to close ranks and stick close to the people with whom they share a common experience. That is the natural thing to do…seek out likes to discuss politics, sports, gossip mom’s home cooking or that commercial for toothpaste. A common historical experience of having had ancestors who once may have paid taxes to an emperor in Beijing would likely collapse under the weight of shared social experience. That is why the term “Taiwanese” is the best term for generalizing ALL the people of Taiwan. The term “Chinese” casts too wide a net to accurately convey any meaningful information about the people.
Get it?
And no-one has argued the truth of that, I believe. What people are saying is that it is not the ONLY possible identity for a native of Taiwan, and that it is possible for someone to declare themselves Taiwanese in one breath and Chinese in another and yet be perfectly correct.
Simple enough for you?
Just as New Zealand born (or Permanent Resident) Chinese can simultaneously be Chinese and New Zealanders. They’re not mutually exclusive terms.
Maowang, you’ve had too much beer lately?
My fiancee considers herself Hakkanese racially, Chinese culturally and Taiwanese politically - at least as far as I can piece her fragmented views together! Such labels are arbitrary and generally not that important to many locals…
I think a lot of you are straying from the gyst of this post by confusing group identity with individual identity. When people in Taiwan want to speak in general about the people of Taiwan… “Taiwanese” is the better term. Individuals can have individual identities…hell, I could say I’m a baboon…it doesn’t mean the baboons will accept me, but if that’s how I feel I could identify with whatever I please…that said…
The term “Chinese” is often misused in Taiwan as a general term for ALL the people in Taiwan. As I have tried to demonstrate, aside from an individual’s preference, it is a poor ascription due to the fact that the term “Chinese” is a political term used to unify a diverse people with diverse customs and diverse experience. Chinese is not an ethnic term. Han is the ethnic term to describe the majority culture of China.
The term “Taiwanese” should be used on Taiwan because it accurately distinguishes everyone on Taiwan and takes into account the shared social experience of the people on Taiwan. Experiences in other countries where people of Han or other ethnicities that originated in China, are not going to be the same and thus it is better to focus on the place of the now.
When, foreigners especially, talk about their “Chinese friends” or how they like “Chinese girls” or “in Chinese culture”… they are only talking about the people and cultures they know around them in Taiwan. If they were to spend any time in other places with a Han community that politically calls itself a Chinese community, they would find their prior generalization fitting only to Taiwanese.
The term “Taiwanese” has become the primary self-ascription for most Taiwanese, though some prefer to add 'Chinese" to it for their own reasons, and thus foreigners should follow suit and shake their habit and follow suit.
Some people above have mentioned an “identity crisis” in Taiwan. I can’t imagine anything more confusing while developing a new national identity than having to put up with a bunch of foreigners calling the whole kit and kaboodle “Chinese”.
Idnividuals are individuals…groups are groups…
we’re talking groups.
maowang,
There are two issues with your argument
-
It is in a foriegn language. So there are sometime there is 2 to 1 translations for various terms you are using for ethnic break down in Chinese.
-
It is obvious to me this is a contrived argument most TI supporters use.
Devoid the argument of the need to distance one self from the mainland and it is a moot argument.
It would be like me being a New Yorker need to stress to every American that I bump into that I am a New Yawker, and it would be an mislabel to call me just a general American. In fact to call me an American without the New Yorker qualifier is down right insulting, since most of America is backwater, corrupt, inbreed, and maybe a Republican.
This is just to illustrate my point that even if you are Chinese in Taiwan. You’re still Chinese. Remember China was a huge cultural exporter in the region. And it is not an accident that many people still indentify themselves as Chinese outside of the PRC.
And no-one has argued the truth of that, I believe. What people are saying is that it is not the ONLY possible identity for a native of Taiwan, and that it is possible for someone to declare themselves Taiwanese in one breath and Chinese in another and yet be perfectly correct.
Simple enough for you?[/quote]
That’s the rub. It is too simple (and we’re too simple) for him while he is being all so erudite on us. 
[quote=“ac_dropout”]
You’re still Chinese. Remember China was a huge cultural exporter in the region. And it is not an accident that many people still indentify themselves as Chinese outside of the PRC.[/quote]
Maybe we missed this. He’s a self-hating “Chinese” dude.
This is an argument for neutrality. Although China has been a cultural exporter it was not the only exporter. American pop culture has infiltrated most corners of the world … so would you call the worlds people Americans? This is not an argument for independence, but rather rooted in modern theories of anthropology. I am hoping to give you a framework to re-evaluate your presumtions about national-cultural-ethnic identities. My first point was the socio-political reality of Taiwanese uniquness against the myth framing of political entities.
Foreigners are often too eager to lump groups of people together based on superficial values rather than actual perceptions of one and other. Look at the middle east. Another example was the division of Kenya, Ethiopia and Somalia with little regard to tribal or cultural sameness or difference.
Foreigners are too quick to see the sameness and not the difference. So the politically neuter term would be “Taiwanese” because it accomodates ALL identities on Taiwan…
The second part was to clearify the difference between the term Han and Chinese. These two terms are often misused.
Would you like a reference list?
In addition…
Some of you have cited the “Chinese” communities in Indonesia, Malaysia, America as calling themselves Chinese to suggest a collective Chinese ethnic identity.
You may also want to consider the circumstances that made the group unite. The immigrants to those places were ethnic minorities against an ethnic and cultural majority and thus found it politically advantageous to unify for added strength and support. A Chinese community is more powerful than a community of two Hakka, three Han, six Shi and four Nian.
maowang,
Well American has a small issue of non-racial intergration throughout its history. So minority groups have always felt alienated here. The melting pot theory has given away to the Salad Bowl theory.
China throughout its history has succeeded at racial intergration. In addition, the unified nation concept has been floating around in the culture for 2500 years.
Taiwan is no more unique than another other group of Chinese carving out niches in China. Was the nation of Wu unique? How about Manchurian? How about the group of Toishan? And the politcal state of Canton losers of the Tang dynasty?
You really think that when there is a weaken central government that people wanting their own nation within China is a new thing?
However, the timing of TI is not correct and doomed to failed, if history is any indication.
I’m not an anthrpologist by training. But I assure you there is nothing wrong with the grouping of Chinese and how we use it. Perhaps there is something wrong with the modern theories of anthropologies when it come to Chinese, it is not the first time they have been debunk in acedemia.
Or perhaps it is a language issue. I see a lot of confusions with words like
華僑 - Oversea Chinese
華人- Chinese
華裔 - Chinese not of Chinese citizenship
臺灣 人 - Taiwanese
中國 人 - Chinese
中國 人民 - Chinese people
中華 民 國 - The ROC
中國 大陸 - The mainland
中華 人民共和 國 - The PRC
漢人- Chinese
漢化 - Sinoized. To become Chinese
漢語 - Chinese language
漢字 - Chinese words
國語 - Chinese languge
Or doconcepts of Chinese fail to take into account seperate economic and political cultures?
Too much beer is no good, you know?
maowang,
Here is a case in point about why I believe there are similarities between that the distinction of PRC and ROC ethnic group are moot.
In the USA, I hang out with quite a bit of Overseas Chinese population socially and for business. More and more often as the PRC population grows especially from areas southern China I misidentify people.
Case in point I was once speaking to a person in fluent Minnan in NYC who was 25 years older than me and been in the USA for 20 years or so. So I asked him casually where his hometown was as small talk. I was shocked to find out it was in PRC Fujain somewhere. The guy was born on the mainland as a PRC national, Minnan was his mother tongue.
Then there was another time I had an intern, I was sure she was a PRC national. Then I find out she’s a ROC national but her family was from Da Cheng and that’s why her accent was off and did not speak Minnan hua.
And I’ve made many of the same mistakes oversea in North America to where the Chinese person is actually from in my generation. Because if they are college educated, have the same interest in Chinese entertainment and Mandarin of neutral southern accent. You’ll have no clue where the person was from originally. The social and cultural cues to give someone away as a PRC or ROC native is starting to blur.
doesn’t matter! What happened in Taiwan today wasn’t heard in China. They have their own problems. Check Steve Harrell’s monograph on Yi in China.
I’m done
you figure it out
I’ve also had friends who have Vietnamese names, are culturally Han Chinese, but speak Cantonese at home. Goodness… Same with Philipino and Indonesian Chinese.
The problem with using the label “Chinese” and “Taiwanese” in Taiwan is that it’s a touchy political subject. I have no problem with being called either, but I’ll point out that I’m from Taiwan. In some families (and the DPP government), there is a strong notion that they are only Taiwanese, and have nothing to do with the “Chinese” on the on the opposite shore.
I personally feel that this is pretty ridiculous because the only people who could possibly claim to be full “Taiwanese” are the aboriginals that all the Han Chinese pushed into the mountains…and even they prefer to go by their tribal affiliation.
Call it what you like, but you call my wife ‘Chinese’ and one of you is visiting ER…