Race in China
November 22, 2016 7:38 PM   Subscribe

Who is Chinese? The Upper Han. "China today is extraordinarily homogenous....Unless someone is the child of a Chinese national, no matter how long they live there, how much money they make or tax they pay, it is virtually impossible to become a citizen. Someone who marries a Chinese person can theoretically gain citizenship; in practice few do. As a result, the most populous nation on Earth has only 1,448 naturalised Chinese in total, according to the 2010 census. Even Japan, better known for hostility to immigration, naturalises around 10,000 new citizens each year; in America the figure is some 700,000."
posted by storybored (50 comments total) 29 users marked this as a favorite
 
"China today is extraordinarily homogenous"

This is sort of true, but not true at all. 110 million ethnic minorities is large by any measure, and contemporary China does include a variety of cultures and ethnicities.

I wonder why China is juxtaposed with Japan here? Because they are neighbors? Post-Trump and post-Brexit, I'm trying to think of countries around the world that are currently welcoming to immigrants. I can think of Canada and Germany. Are there any others?
posted by My Dad at 7:45 PM on November 22, 2016 [5 favorites]


New Zealand?
posted by peacheater at 7:51 PM on November 22, 2016


New Zealand?

Hardly.
posted by colin.jaquiery at 8:07 PM on November 22, 2016


110 million ethnic minorities is large by any measure, and contemporary China does include a variety of cultures and ethnicities.

Not by any measure. It is 12% of the Chinese population. That's a small number, having regard to the composition of other countries. And that number comprises multiple ethnic groups - they're not and shouldn't be characterised as a bloc.

And the remaining 78% are a single ethnic group.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 8:09 PM on November 22, 2016 [14 favorites]


That pull quote isn't really representative of the meat of the article, I don't think.

Anyway, my own experience of race in China in the 90s kind of blew my sheltered white liberal American mind.
posted by soren_lorensen at 8:09 PM on November 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


I wonder why China is juxtaposed with Japan here?

This is clearly stated in the article. It's because Japan is one of the most ethnically homogeneous countries.

China is not the most homogeneous country in the world. But it's close to the top of the list, and it is distinguished from the others on the list by its sheer population size.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 8:21 PM on November 22, 2016 [12 favorites]


One aspect of the article I have to comment on, as it is made everywhere without thinking, is that economic growth is predicated on population growth, and that a country without population growth is doomed to poverty and ignominy. This is logically utter nonsense, and should be identified as such wherever it occurs. But it occurs everywhere.
posted by wilful at 8:22 PM on November 22, 2016 [10 favorites]


Post-Trump and post-Brexit, I'm trying to think of countries around the world that are currently welcoming to immigrants.

Most of the developed world, educated professionals will routinely be entering the country, staying there for long periods, and eventually gaining citizenship. We can have lots of discussions about the countries that want to keep out refugees or economic migrants or whatever, but the article seems to be pointing out here that China's indicating in various ways that it's defining citizenship not by "who lives in China", as most countries do, but by "who fits our definition of Chinese, regardless of where they are". Which is an interesting sort of notion of post-borders nationality on the one hand, and on the other hand terrifying. The article discusses some things that seem to be signs of the Chinese government NOT actually thinking that non-Han Chinese are quite as "Chinese" as the ethnic majority, and what this means as far as minority rights within China as well as the safety of citizens of other countries is disturbing.
posted by Sequence at 8:27 PM on November 22, 2016 [20 favorites]


This is clearly stated in the article. It's because Japan is one of the most ethnically homogeneous countries.

I don't think that's entirely it. South Korea is even less diverse than Japan, and closer to China as well. (Australia and Germany also less diverse than China, incidentally, on the Fearon scale, although both much more diverse than Japan or SK of course). "China vs Japan" is just the go-to rhetorical cliche.
posted by No-sword at 9:11 PM on November 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


Part of the issue with immigration to China is per-capita GDP.

US: $55.8K USD (2015)
Canada: $43.2K USD (2015)
Japan: $32.5K USD (2015)

China: $8K USD (2015)

China, being huge, has a lot of everything. Including a lot of poor people. An immigrant doesn't stand a chance competing against a local. In contrast to Canada where there's a perpetual shortage of practically every profession. But in terms of dollars, there's no real incentive for a North American or European to emigrate to China.

The ethnic basis of national identity is a huge factor as well of course. As China works to secure resource deals with various African nations I wonder if there will eventually be a trickle of African immigrants to China seeking to find their fortunes.
posted by GuyZero at 9:58 PM on November 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


The Japan comparison is explained above on this web page: "better known for hostility to immigration". And while that may be an unfair characterization, it is certainly a common one (to whit, the rest of the pull quote debunks Japan's hostility to foreigners vis-a-vis the People's Republic of China's).

While there will obviously be many hundreds of millions of persons who will never want to live in Mainland China, I'm certain that there are more than 1,500 who would like to become citizens of the PRC and who would also be good candidates by any logical standard. The only "sensible" explanation that I can think of is racism/xenophobia/bigotry. I'm certainly open to another explanation.

Not only that, but if I am reading this correctly, this is since ever, which would mean since 1949. But even if that were only 2013, as implied by the bar graph in the article, that would be ridiculous and laughable if it weren't so wildly racist.
posted by koavf at 9:59 PM on November 22, 2016 [5 favorites]


a, I'm certain that there are more than 1,500 who would like to become citizens of the PRC

I wonder, China is pretty awful to its citizens. Being a foreign national is still a defence against the depredations of the ccp, though that sanctity seems to be eroding.
posted by smoke at 10:02 PM on November 22, 2016 [6 favorites]


As an aside, the PRC also borders Bhutan and North Korea which are two of the most ethnically homogenous and closed societies in the world. Comparing them would look favorable to anyone in terms of multi-culturalism and acceptance of foreigners. Although North Korea's almost unfathomable racism and chauvinism are well-known, the plight of Lhotshampa in Bhutan is more obscure and shouldn't be—it's another case of outright bigotry on the part of an otherwise sane, peaceful, and beautiful society.
posted by koavf at 10:03 PM on November 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


A man I knew was sent to China for work for a few months back in the late 1990s. He was in a rather rural area and everywhere he went the crowd would part around him as people drew back and stared, because many of them had never seen a white person before. He was a Canadian of Italian parentage with black hair, brown eyes, and olive skin, and he didn't think his colouring was all that different from theirs, yet to them he was like a bird of paradise. I wouldn't expect to find such homogeneity anywhere on this planet in our times.
posted by orange swan at 10:04 PM on November 22, 2016


@smoke: I'm sure that there are many of us who would never want to immigrate there for many valid reasons but are there seriously no more than 1,500 human beings on Earth who would want to live there and who would also be of value to their society? No engineers or doctors or persons with ethnic ancestry in that region, etc.? Only 1,443? That seems completely implausible.
posted by koavf at 10:06 PM on November 22, 2016 [4 favorites]


Trying to get a coherent idea of who is Chinese from a Chinese person is an exercise in futility. The idea of a westerner becoming Chinese is laughable on the face to most of them, but an ABC is almost always taken as Chinese.
posted by Trifling at 10:08 PM on November 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


I know I'm overposting here but this is an anecdotal example: foreign pilots can easily clear $300,000 a year to work in the Mainland. Are you telling me that no one would be enticed by that and then also fall in love with the people and the land and the language and decide, "Hey, I'll actually become a citizen here and everything!"? I'm an American and that happens literally hundreds of times every day in my homeland. To say that it literally never happens there is preposterous. I'll bow out now.
posted by koavf at 10:09 PM on November 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


Are you telling me that no one would be enticed by that and then also fall in love with the people and the land and the language and decide...

So the PRC has to agree to give them citizenship as well - that's the point, that it's rarely given out, not that it's never desired.

I have no idea how the PRC hands out work permits but if it's possible to live and work there long-term without acquiring citizenship maybe the point is moot. I have a friend who is Iranian by birth and Canadian by citizenship & education who has been living and working in the PRC for decades. A lack of citizenship doesn't seem to be an issue. And unlike being in Canada or the US it's not like he's looking to vote in national elections.
posted by GuyZero at 10:12 PM on November 22, 2016 [1 favorite]


From the article's comments:

I was born in China and lived there for over 20 years. Now let me comment on the seemingly related issues you have listed.
1. Like many other comments have pointed out, "Han" is not a 20th century construct. But you could argue the term "中华民族", which literally means Chinese nationality, is a 20th century construct and largely created by Sun Yat-Sen. But you guys probably also know this very well: nation state was a Western construct. The term "中华民族" was created partly because of cultural influence of the West.
2. The detention of the the five Hong Kong business men has little to do with the so-called "Han-centred worldview", and the term itself is ridiculous and could be considered as Western-centred name calling. But I can see where you are coming from. Traditionally Han people worship their ancestors, and denying where one was from could be considered as betrayal and immoral by others, while honoring one's ancestors and the land where ancestors lived is highly appreciated. The local government and people treated the Burmese refugees of Han ethnicity better is not a surprise, although this is absolutely unprofessional in the modern world.
3. It is true that the dominant culture in China is actually the culture of Han people, and unfortunately the Communist Party is doing nothing to develop a multicultural China. It's also true in Politics, where the most important posts can only be taken by Han politicians. This is very much like the British influence on American culture and political system, and Anglo Saxon influence on British culture and politics. The conflicts of different cultures is inevitable but people need to adopt an open mind and get used to the new reality. The government should cancel the policies that only create stereotypes, misunderstandings and tensions.
4. It is also true that some minorities, especially Tibetans and Uighurs are not fairly treated. Although traditionally they have been living in remote areas thus regional economic development has always lagged behind, the way the government limited their opportunities only made things worse. The government worry that many Uighurs are either separatists or islamic radicals, while Tibetans might admire Dalai Lama. In Xinjiang, where most Uighurs live, the top priority of the provincial government is to maintain peace and stability, rather than developing the economy or pulling people out of poverty. But we should also recognize what the government has done well, for example Tibetans and Uighurs have a bigger chance of getting into the top universities than their Han counterparts, which is part of the Chinese "affirmative actions".
5. I agree that China should catch up with the rest of the world and grant citizenship to more people from other countries. It will bring significant economic and cultural benefits. China should also consider taking in more refugees.
6. There are a lot of racists in China as well. Many Han people look down upon black people, and also people from Southeastern Asia. Discrimination could be a huge problem as China continues to rise as a world power and welcome more foreign people to visit. Things need to change.


(emphasis mine)
posted by lazycomputerkids at 10:23 PM on November 22, 2016 [21 favorites]


Once again I'm struck by how the more I learn about China, the less I think I know about China.
posted by DoctorFedora at 10:39 PM on November 22, 2016 [14 favorites]


New Zealand?

if you have fat stacks then NZ welcomes you with open arms.
posted by Sebmojo at 11:03 PM on November 22, 2016


Koavf I agree the number seems low, but are you aware of just how Chinese citizens can be treated? 300k means nothing if someone with party connections takes a shine to your house, company, savings. It happens all the time.

Ask, what would someone have to gain by giving up their own citizenship for Chinese citizenship?? Chinese citizens have no absolute rights; the ccp does whatever it wants. Becoming a citizen is to cede all power to the state.

Certainly, I'm sure some, especially those from impoverished nations, might view it as an equal or perhaps even better trade. But they aren't putting out a lot of pilots.

look at what happened to Matthew ng. There are dozens of cases like this.
posted by smoke at 11:21 PM on November 22, 2016 [5 favorites]


Are you telling me that no one would be enticed by that and then also fall in love with the people and the land and the language and decide, "Hey, I'll actually become a citizen here and everything!"

Well, what are the benefits? Do you get to vote in local elections? Do you get to live, work and send your children to the school of your choice?

Does being a citizen of China benefit you at all?
posted by pwnguin at 11:42 PM on November 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


It happens all the time.
There are dozens of cases like this.


From the article cited in smoke's post:
In what Mr Ng calls a "postscript" to his ordeal, many of the Communist Party officials in Guangzhou are now in jail themselves.

"The mayor at the time has now gone to jail for corruption. The police chief who signed my arrest warrant, has gone to jail.

"The provincial head of the party Disciplinary and Inspection Committee has also gone to jail."


So...is it accidental articles critical of China emerge from business periodicals? Accidental their quasi-academic framings are without citation and provide tragic anecdote as conclusion?
posted by lazycomputerkids at 11:47 PM on November 22, 2016


There's nothing like the PRC to put things in perspective.
posted by perhapsolutely at 12:06 AM on November 23, 2016


Firstly, the Australian Broadcasting Commission is a national government funded and run organisation, not a "business periodical"

Secondly, if you're implying that rule of law meaningfully exists in China or that Xi's anti-corruption drive is some kind of restorative justice reform rather than ruthless centralisation and consolidation of power that uses anti-corruption as a smokescreen, well, I admire your optimism.

(this is not to discount the fact it has, indeed, arrested some of the people involved in flagrant corruption and has reduced some local and regional corruption in some areas.)

Citizenship in China offers little and risks much for your average global citizen.
posted by smoke at 12:06 AM on November 23, 2016 [8 favorites]


Firstly, the Australian Broadcasting Commission is a national government funded and run organisation, not a "business periodical"

No, I was referring to the FPP and another in the last month of which I was also critical.

Secondly, if you're implying that rule of law meaningfully exists in China or that Xi's anti-corruption drive is some kind of restorative justice reform rather than ruthless centralisation and consolidation of power that uses anti-corruption as a smokescreen, well, I admire your optimism.

No, I'm demonstrating a patent dissonance: Your claim that Matthew Ng's senseless imprisonment is representative of business-as-usual ("dozens of cases", without cite, "all the time", indefinite) while the article you do cite accounts for a larger context of corruption.

And that's pretty damn clear and widening the topic to use the terms "ruthless" and "smokescreen" only substantiates my suspicion of bias.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 12:30 AM on November 23, 2016


Seems the first thing citizenship would get you is loss of your 300K salary. Where I work the foreigners tend to be paid 5 to 10 times more than locals for similar work.
posted by Meatbomb at 1:58 AM on November 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


Of course I can't cite, dude. This is China; no one knows how many people are locked up unjustly. Go to human rights watches country summary for a general picture - but of course you can't access it from China. Funny, that.

For a list of Australians, however, here's a summary from the Australian national university of Australians locked up over there (timeline plus some numbers at bottom) .

The ability of the CCP to obscure their venality and evil never ceases to amaze me. How many other people are lining up to be citizens of totalitarian regimes? Not that many.
posted by smoke at 3:34 AM on November 23, 2016 [7 favorites]


Of course I can't cite, dude. This is China; no one knows how many people are locked up unjustly. Go to human rights watches country summary for a general picture - but of course you can't access it from China. Funny, that.

Widening the topic is not addressing the criticism. Nor is asserting fictions such as what is, and is not, accessible in China. VPNs are disrupted, but not explicitly illegal-- they're too essential to trade. Your cited summary states: More Australians are imprisoned in China than any other foreign country. According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), as of 2015 there were seventy Australians either serving sentences or awaiting trial in Chinese jails.
(emphasis mine)

What I find objectionable to the tone and content of your posts are its cultural chauvinisms. That Chinese culture, political, economic, or otherwise, is inferior to western traditions. That China's regulation of itself and its interests are "evil" and "venal".

Such opinion is neither rational nor constructive and potentially serves agenda.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 3:55 AM on November 23, 2016


The CCP is not China, much as they would conflate themselves with the country, but I can see we're going to have to agree to disagree here. You seem to feel that the country is an appealing destination for migrants, and the CCP would welcome foreign thought and power.
posted by smoke at 4:12 AM on November 23, 2016 [9 favorites]


So one thing to note is that China does not recognize dual citizenship. So you would have to give up citizenship of wherever you're from to acquire Chinese citizenship. Another thing to note is that the Chinese passport is frankly not great (I have an Indian passport which has similar problems) - you need visas to go most places, you need to keep renewing student visas etc. So for most people a simple cost benefit analysis is going to lead them to not consider giving up their other passport in favor of a Chinese one. I'm sure there are countries with worse passports than China, but I would love to see the numbers on how many such people move to China. To tell you the truth, I bet the situation is much like in India, where expats live in India for many years, but don't consider getting Indian citizenship because frankly it would be a downgrade in terms of travel privileges.
posted by peacheater at 4:22 AM on November 23, 2016 [8 favorites]


What I find objectionable to the tone and content of your posts are its cultural chauvinisms. That Chinese culture, political, economic, or otherwise, is inferior to western traditions. That China's regulation of itself and its interests are "evil" and "venal".

Such opinion is neither rational nor constructive and potentially serves agenda.


The CCP was specified, as pointed out in follow-up.

The defense of it you lay out here very definitely serves an agenda as well. Not that I necessarily think you're aware of it – it's that the CCP has been quite savvy in quieting criticism of it, and painting itself as if it were China with a quasi-mythic view of its history to which it is the natural inheritor. When in fact, it does indeed take only a cursory view of the history of the PRC to see that at every turn, the CCP has gone above and beyond not to protect Chinese history, but to destroy and rewrite it. One of the only reasons old temples still exist is not because the CCP are proud of them, but because tourists like them, and tourists bring money. One of the mottos of the CCP was literally "Destroy the old world, establish the new world." As for repression of speech, gain a bit of fluency in Mandarin Chinese, learn the signs of the CCP (black Mercedes for instance, when I was in Beijing in 2003), and see the looks on the face of your taxi driver when he nods and says, much more quietly and restrainedly than his happy recommendations of where to hike the Great Wall or have a good meal, "yes, it's a Party car." It is neither an expression nor a tone of voice that are comfortable or free.

It's certainly one reason I've never wanted to work in China; I have friends there and solid ways in. It's simply not a political framework in which I could ever feel comfortable, though others have different priorities. Just to give a point of view in which money and privilege aren't the only concern (white folk in Beijing get loads of privilege, though citizenship is indeed withheld).
posted by fraula at 4:58 AM on November 23, 2016 [8 favorites]


So for most people a simple cost benefit analysis is going to lead them to not consider giving up their other passport in favor of a Chinese one.

Isn't the Hukou system still in place? By surrendering your current passport and getting a Chinese one you might not be able to move from city to city.
posted by sebastienbailard at 5:16 AM on November 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


You seem to feel that the country is an appealing destination for migrants, and the CCP would welcome foreign thought and power.

No. I don't feel anything on the matter. I've pointed out the claim you made and the evidence you cite are not corroborative. Matthew Ng's case, if a product of corruption, cannot be the norm. Nor were your arguments topical to the FPP-- a premise of a Han-Centered worldview as explanation for the arrests and intimidation of dissidents, which is questionable at best and cursory conclusion presented as descriptively academic at worst.

And how do you rationalize the phrase "average global citizen"? Australia's prisoner exchanges deal largely with enterprise and investment. Nationalizing is hardly unique to China. These are business deals gone sideways and false flags of human rights.

The defense of it you lay out here very definitely serves an agenda as well.

What defense? I've made a criticism of a claim contradicting its evidence.

Not that I necessarily think you're aware of it – it's that the CCP has been quite savvy in quieting criticism of it, and painting itself as if it were China with a quasi-mythic view of its history to which it is the natural inheritor. When in fact, it does indeed take only a cursory view of the history of the PRC to see that at every turn, the CCP has gone above and beyond not to protect Chinese history, but to destroy and rewrite it.

This is, in no way, related to the FPP and patronizing. "Quite savvy" and "in fact"...these are arguments? Personifications, generalizations, and conclusions?

Bah...what's clear to me is that a simple criticism elicits advocate response-- rationalizations requiring frame and explanation versus addressing the legitimacy of supporting evidence.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 5:31 AM on November 23, 2016


Wonderful read for anyone interested in demographics and the present/future state of the world economy. From the outside, it is very easy to calibrate China from a Western perspective, using our economic measurements and measurements of both cultural activity and diversity.

When I was introduced to China by a senior executive at a multinational consultancy, she framed it in this manner:
In America, we prioritise our identities on the following basis:
1) Individual – "What is good for me?"
2) Family/Community – "What is good for the people like me?"
3) Country – "What is good for us as a whole?"

In Europe, we prioritise our identities slightly differently:
1) Family/Community – "What is good for the people like me?"
2) Individual – "What is good for me?"
3) Country – "What is good for us as a whole?"

In China, we prioritise our identities in a completely different way:
1) Family – "What is good for people like me?"
2) Country – "What is good for us as a whole?"
3) Individual – "What is good for me?"

The differences between America and Europe are obvious to anyone who has lived in either – the primacy of the individual versus the primacy of community. However, in China, there is a completely different identity structure – one stated at the end of the article.

The ethnic community identity is both very powerful for China, and very dangerous. Very powerful, as the country often moves in one direction – together. With the identity of the individual minimised, there is a distinct homogenous macro identity that enables the country to constantly function for the greatest benefit of the Han majority. There is a strong identification not with the country of China, but with the concept of a Chinese people. Unlike a national identity, which is extrinsic – something that you choose to adopt, albeit subtly – the Chinese identity is rooted in your person. Literally who you are.

That creates a tremendous powerful identity shared by a billion people. Someone once made the comment about how limiting that uniformity must be. Perhaps, but it is also simultaneously empowering. "Chinese" is an inherent identity, and "China" is the national representation of that identity. Unlike America, which is an extrinsic identity that then creates an "American".

Back to America and Europe, when I moved to England, another immigrant versed me on her experience:
"It doesn't matter how long you are in England, you will never be English. You may take a British passport, and that will make you British. But you will never be English. In your country, an American is someone who subscribes to the American set of values and behaviours. It's less about who you are, and more about what you do. When open-minded, hard-working people from other countries arrive in America, they feel at home. Because they already had adopted "American" values in their home country. Further, Americans accept people who live the values as Americans. You can be an immigrant in America, and quickly be American. That will never happen in Great Britain. You may be British, but you will never be English."
Similarly, in China, not only can one not be Chinese, further, they are reticent to extend the adopted identity of "China" to foreigners. Because the national identity stems from the ethnic identity. In Britain, the two are divorced. In America, the national identity takes absolute authority.

And for as powerful as that singular Chinese identity is, the article is absolutely right in the sense that it also condemns the country to a Sisyphean history of growth and collapse. Without the ability to integrate outsiders into the system, the Chinese system remains largely homogenous and self-confirming.

Great Britain is a powerful country because it attracts brilliant people from around the world – people who come to shape the society and make great contributions to it.

America is an exceptionally powerful country because not only does it attract brilliant people from around the world, but further it confers upon them an unassailable identity. A first-generation immigrant is no more or less American than a fifth-generation immigrant.

In sourcing those minds from around the world, each country also sources outside perspective and answers. As the immigrants take the national identity, so does the national identity evolve from the contributions of the immigrants. That is always a double-edged sword, but based on the handover of power from the English empire to America, it is hard to argue that multicultural societies don't vastly outperform homogenous societies. In fact, given the tribulations of purists countries like Russia, it begins to look like multiculturalism is the precursor to enduring economic stability, rather than a hindrance to it.

"Beijing" (apparently) means Middle – and the Chinese consider Beijing and China to be the centre of the world, with the Chinese people naturally empowered to manage the world's affairs from that centre point. History has been a harsh master to China in the last 300 years, as the once-proud and wealth empire was brought to its knees first by European colonialism, then by Japanese aggression, and finally by its own revolutionary forces. Through all of that, the Han identity has endured as the root of the Chinese identity.

Today, as China again blossoms – and it is blossoming at a historically unprecedented rate – it again faces the conundrum it has faced before. As China grows, its power is exercised one way – from China, outward. It imports goods and services, and exports people. Yet, as it exports people to countries like Britain and America, those people find cultures with open identities. National identities that take over from the Chinese national identity. While Chinese expats remain deeply identified as "Chinese people", over time they no longer identity as "Chinese nationals". The greatest weakness of the Chinese national identity structure.

The Economist sees history repeating, and its hard to argue with that. China has risen to regional dominance several times in the past – and ridden waves of great wealth and great poverty. Yet, it has always failed to make the next step, which is to become a magnet for the world's best and brightest minds. Therefore, it tends to become the greatest Chinese power it can become, without crossing over to a truly enduring global power.

That further manifests in quixotic ways. China rarely – if ever – conducts itself imperially, primarily because imperial expansion requires sharing an identity. In the English case, the solution was to separate the native identity (English) from the national identity (British). Therefore, the empire could confer Great British identity, while maintaining an ethnic English identity. As China's national identity is rooted in its ethnic identity, the national identity cannot be expanded beyond the ethnic identity – which limits the country from ever assimilating worldwide power. The best it seems to be able to do is project Chinese power, yet as Chinese power goes around the world, it remains segregated from local identities. That is, it never truly takes root.

Whereas British power subsumed local identities into the Empire. American power, on the other hand, exists nearly universally – for the American identity is a way of acting and thinking, and completely divorced from any manner of ethnic identity or background. In fact, the American view is that Americans exist in every country around the world, and one of the country's sometimes doctrines is to bring democracy to those American spirits that exist in other places. That is one of the strongest anchors of the American constitution, that it is a document based on inalienable human rights – a universal document.

China is the mirror image of that. That China is a group of people that together form a nation. The nation is secondary to the ethnicity, therefore, only people that belong to the ethnicity can truly be nationals. It's not surprising that mentalist leads to a massively populous country, for there is no other way to grow the nation than through direct reproduction.

To be clear, I am not judging the Chinese system in any manner, nor saying that it is inferior to the British or American systems. I am only investigating the locus of identity, and how different loci appear to play out in a globalised world. This is an investigation that could go on forever really, for we can also evaluate how these identities interplay in commerce, governance, and social lives. Every society generally manifests an "us" versus "them" mentality – mentalities that often dictate the economic fortunes of countries, communities, and individuals. The point there is that the "us" versus "them" distinction in China is perhaps more engrained, rigid, and exclusionary than that which we have seen in a major world power in the present technological age.

This raises some very obvious questions about the homogeneity of Chinese governance, and really how well that singular and exclusionary worldview will fare as the country expands economically (again) beyond its own borders. If history is a guide, perhaps what we see is that the Chinese monoculture is very good at taking advantage of opportunities, however it is very rigid and slow to adapt to changes in the macro environment. If that is the case, we will see another cycle of what we've seen before. That the country grows and flourish, only to collapse and retract when the external environment changes.

Perhaps that belies a worldview of the same. That a singular identity and vision is supremely efficient at growth, but that growth has a finite limit and cannot respond to changes. Responding to change looks like withering back, and then beginning a new growth cycle. The Chinese solution to that problem appears to be developing an internal population large enough to support the country without being dependent on external people, only external resources. If that's the case, we can expect an era of intensive conflict for resources ahead.

However, there is also the chance that Chinese society will find its own version of the Enlightenment – a transition from heredity identities to identities (more greatly) described by extrinsic values and a different version of nationalism.

There are three wonderful books that each goes into a deeper exploration of the Chinese identity and experience in the historical and modern worlds:

Life and Death in Shanghai by Nien Cheng

River Town by Peter Hessler

The Silk Roads by Peter Frankopan
posted by nickrussell at 5:33 AM on November 23, 2016 [49 favorites]


Mod note: Folks, perhaps we can drop the back and forth arguing about adjacent stuff, and stick closer to the topic of the link. (Not in response to your post, nickrussell)
posted by taz (staff) at 5:43 AM on November 23, 2016 [1 favorite]



"Beijing" (apparently) means Middle


Beijing means Northern Capital. But the Chinese words for China are 中國 or 中華 where 中 (zhōng) in both cases means "middle."

posted by soren_lorensen at 6:37 AM on November 23, 2016 [9 favorites]


See also Nánjīng—南京—"Southern Capital".
posted by XMLicious at 6:49 AM on November 23, 2016


History has been a harsh master to China in the last 300 years, as the once-proud and wealth empire was brought to its knees first by European colonialism, then by Japanese aggression, and finally by its own revolutionary forces. Through all of that, the Han identity has endured as the root of the Chinese identity.

I think those 2-300 years of having to forge a national identity while in the fires of colonialism, imperialism, civil war, revolution, and even the Cold War are the reason why China's modern national and ethnic identity are so tied together. Remember, China's long history includes being ruled multiple times by ethnic minorities (the two most prominent are the Manchus and Mongols), and also having two major foreign religions adopted all the way up to the highest levels of government (Islam & Buddhism). I'm probably generalizing here, but I recall reading about historical Chinese perspectives that basically said anyone outside the Great Wall was a barbarian, but that wasn't based on ethnicity or skin color. If the same person lived within the wall and adopted Chinese customs, they were Chinese, full stop. Yeah, that view is problematic in the 21st century as we grapple with diversity and listening to minority voices, but it definitely doesn't sound like ethnic identity was tied to identity of the kingdom/empire back then.
posted by FJT at 9:09 AM on November 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


I like the comments above pointing out that "national identity" and even "ethnic identity" are artificial constructs.

History has been a harsh master to China in the last 300 years, as the once-proud and wealth empire

Important to realize that there was a reason for the Communist revolution, and it wasn't because everyone in China was enjoying the fruits of being part of a "proud and wealthy empire."
posted by My Dad at 9:47 AM on November 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


The Chinese government even risks clashing with foreign governments by claiming some form of jurisdiction over their ethnic-Han citizens. Last year the government of Malaysia (where the Han population is 25%) censured the Chinese ambassador when he declared that China “would not sit idly by” if its “national interests” and the “interests of Chinese citizens” were violated. The threat he saw was a potentially violent pro-Malay rally, planned in an area where almost all traders were Han but few were Chinese nationals. In isolated cases it goes further. The arrest and detention of naturalised American citizens born in China has long been an irritant in relations between the countries.
That reminds me a bit of the protection that various European nations claimed over their religious compatriots in the Ottoman empire. The French protected the Catholics, the Russians protected the Orthodox, and the British protected the Jews.
posted by clawsoon at 9:49 AM on November 23, 2016


I feel like most of the comments have been missing the point. Obviously educated professionals from the West working and living in China are by and large not going to be interested in acquiring Chinese citizenship. But there are plenty of people living in East Asia who would love Chinese citizenship, including this guy from today's South China Morning Post:

"‘I wish I were a Chinese citizen’: one Myanmar refugee’s story of his family’s flight to safety in China"
Sai is a small businessman and farmer selling the agricultural produce he grows to China, including watermelons, corn and rice. His living depends on trade with the mainland and any military conflict that harms Myanmar-China relations and effects cross-border trade is a nightmare for him.

“I hate military conflict,” said Sai, who has experienced fighting throughout his life in Myanmar amid insurgencies that have lasted for decades.

Sai’s grandfather moved from Yunnan province to northern Myanmar almost a century ago. As the third generation of Chinese descendants born and bred in Myanmar, China is still important to him...

“China is good. China is safe. And the Chinese government is good. If I have the opportunity, I wish to come back to China as a Chinese citizen,” he said.
The Chinese government is fairly unusual, I think, is not even allowing people like this guy from being able to become citizens.
posted by crazy with stars at 10:54 AM on November 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


As has been pointed out before, China is less mono-ethnic in percentages, to say the least of raw numbers, than many other countries.

Looking at mass immigration, to say the least of large scale naturalization of those immigrants, is silly -- that doesn't exist as a political concept outside of white-majority countries, and may well be going away as a political concept in white majority countries, too.

What's reasonable to look at is the practical ability of foreigners to establish autonomous economic lives in the country, and here China actually stands out. It's certainly easier for an American to go to work for a Chinese company than for a French company. It's easier for an American to go to China to see what's what than to go to pretty much anywhere in the Middle East other than India. There are certainly constraints on the ownership of property and the ability to litigate contract breaches in open court -- but that's true in Mexico and Russia as well.
posted by MattD at 11:40 AM on November 23, 2016


But there are plenty of people living in East Asia who would love Chinese citizenship, including this guy from today's South China Morning Post:

Yes, the big reason to want to immigrate to China or any other country is going to have to be economics, and personal safety (the two are entwined).

There's the idea that China is going to have a severe labor-shortage over the next fifty years because of the one-child policy. I wonder if that's true, and if it will boost both formal and informal immigration to the country.

Japan is already moving towards de facto increasing immigration, notably of high earners who can pay the taxes needed to support an aging population. Japan is also trying to force women to work more, but it's a hard sell, because woman already are expected to look after kids and aged relatives.
posted by My Dad at 12:03 PM on November 23, 2016


>110 million ethnic minorities is large by any measure, and contemporary China does include a variety of cultures and ethnicities.

Not by any measure. It is 12% of the Chinese population. That's a small number, having regard to the composition of other countries.


I think that to say "not by any measure" is plain wrong. 12% is actually a significant cohort in any population. I'd also like to hear about the "other countries" that have larger minority populations. There are certainly other countries that do have larger minority populations, such the United States. But often those of is in the United States and Canada without that much knowledge of the outside world and so on tend to think that we're the norm, when we are not.
posted by My Dad at 5:06 PM on November 23, 2016


I'd also like to hear about the "other countries" that have larger minority populations.

China is number 138 out of 159 in terms of ethnic diversity, per the Fearon ethnic fractionalistion index .

Ergo, by at least one measure, there are at least 137 countries more ethnically diverse than China. Here's a list, go nuts.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 10:34 PM on November 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


That reminds me a bit of the protection that various European nations claimed over their religious compatriots in the Ottoman empire. The French protected the Catholics, the Russians protected the Orthodox, and the British protected the Jews.

I'm wondering what the reason given for the association between Britain and the Jewish faith was (William Blake's Jerusalem? Anglo-Israelism?)
posted by acb at 4:27 AM on November 24, 2016


This Wiki entry might be as good a place as any to begin to answer your quest for a "reason"... the Balfour Declaration of 1917
posted by Mister Bijou at 5:16 AM on November 24, 2016


Though what about during the time of the Ottoman Empire (which was dismantled at the end of World War 1)? Surely the British claim of protection of the Ottoman's Jewish population lasted more than a few months?
posted by acb at 7:01 AM on November 24, 2016


« Older Revenge of the tabloids   |   Blame is apportioned appropriately Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments