ENG
ESP
FR
DE
IT
Op/Ed Commentary: Chris Devonshire-Ellis
Jul. 16 – At first glance, the cities of Ulaanbataar, the capital of Mongolia, and Hanoi, the capital of Vietnam, may not seem to have very much in common. Some 3,000 miles apart at opposite ends of Asia, the people, culture and history are very different except for one element, having China as a neighbor.
While Mongolia opted for assimilation into the Soviet Union as a communist nation in 1924, gaining independence again in 1992, Communism came to Vietnam in 1946 following the formation of the Vietnamese Communist Party led by Ho Chi Minh in Hong Kong in 1930. The First Indochina War pitted the communist Viet Minh against the French. The French were defeated in 1954 and the country was partitioned at the 17th parallel with the communists taking the North. This was followed by the American involvement to prevent the spread of Communism to the Republic of Vietnam in the South and throughout Asia until 1975 when the country was reunited with the communists, backed by China and the Soviet Union, gaining control of Saigon and forcing an American withdrawal.
That friendship with China turned sour when Vietnam invaded the Beijing-backed Khmer Rouge government of Cambodia, which had been terrorizing Vietnamese citizens along the border. In 1979, China invaded Vietnam, sending 200,000 troops to “teach Vietnam a lesson” over interfering with China’s policy in Southeast Asia. A short, but bloody war followed, leaving thousands dead before China eventually withdrew after a month. From having been allies in forming a communist alliance against the excesses of capitalism, Vietnam and China found themselves estranged, a situation that did not immediately sit well with the third and fourth generation Vietnamese-Chinese who had lived in the country for generations.
Mongolia, sandwiched between the two superpowers of the Soviet Russia and China, opted to side with the Russians after it became apparent in the early 1920s that maintaining independence from either was not going to be a sustainable option. On the basis of the Russian culture and looks being far less related with Mongolia’s, the decision to join the Soviet empire was made in light of the viewpoint that had Mongolia sided with China, they would never have got their country back. Assimilation with China was a greater threat than assimilation by the Soviet Union. This proved correct. When the Russian troops upped and left in 1992, the Mongolians immediately began claiming back their country and reasserting their independence.
These border disputes and historical alliances however have left an indelible mark on both Mongolia and Vietnam. Buddhist monks still wander the streets of Hanoi, and the Dalai Lama is a revered figure in Mongolia. In fact a previous Dalai Lama was born in the country, a situation likely to be repeated in the near future. Both Vietnam and Mongolia then are acutely aware of the Tibet issue, the assimilation of Tibet into China and the fate of any moves for Tibetan independence. China’s superiority in the region has been duly noted in both Hanoi and Ulaanbaatar. In dealing with the repercussions however, both Vietnam and Mongolia have opted for a pragmatic solution – there are very little Chinese characters on display throughout both countries. Ulaanbaatar is almost exclusively devoid of Chinese, while in Vietnam it is restricted to trading houses near the main ports and the occasional restaurant. Even then the characters tend to be the complex traditional ones, rather than Mainland China’s simplified version, a reflection of the fact that in Vietnam, it remains the southern Chinese Cantonese culture that historically has traded with the Vietnamese and not the Communist led era of 1950 onwards.
Characters are to be found, but its the signs of businesses from Japan and South Korea that dominate other Asian regional cultures in both Vietnam and Mongolia, not Chinese. This holding back on advertising a geographically close presence to China is a sign that neither the Mongolians nor the Vietnamese are particularly keen to allow a strong Chinese culture develop in their respective nations. Curiously, as the West, and especially the United States, has gone hell for leather for Chinese trade, and attracting Mainland China tourism is strongly on the agenda in many countries, for Vietnam and Mongolia, it is a culture that represents perhaps too strong an irrepressible urge. Holding China back by denying use of Chinese characters throughout your nation may seem odd when China is such mainstream international news and its currency reserves are feted over by many a government globally, but for these two nations, at opposite ends of the China, containment, and a more subtle arms length approach to doing business with the Chinese is emerging after decades of experience. China has a recent history of assimilating nations, and nowhere is this more apparent than along its remaining independent border neighbors. The lessons for the West to learn here may still yet be played out for decades to come.
Chris Devonshire-Ellis is the principal and founding partner of Dezan Shira & Associates, who maintain 17 regional offices throughout China, Vietnam and India. He also has invested in property in Mongolia, and sits on the regional UNDP Business Advisory Council for Northeast Asia. Dezan Shira & Associates provide foreign direct investment legal, tax, business advisory and due diligence services throughout the region.
Related Reading
China Price Increasing, Southeast Asia Inheriting Export Manufacturing
Mongolia’s Future Wealth Tied to Mining
Establishing Business in Vietnam
I find this an interesting and perceptive article, giving a perspective that is usually missed in the West. Most Westerners have a very broad brush view of East Asia (mostly just ‘Chinese’), are enamoured of traditional Chinese culture and history (without knowing much about either), and don’t want to miss the bus in benefiting from China’s modern economic success. The relationship between China and its neighbours is regarded as a minor detail.
There were a few other aspects of these relationships that could have been mentioned:
1. Vietnam’s culture is to a very large extent based on Chinese culture. Until 100 years ago, Vietnam used Chinese characters. Its festivals, its Buddism, its language are all heavily endebted to China. The exclusion of Chinese characters from public places is thus a much more complex issue than it is in Mongolia. The Vietnamese have traditionally regarded China as a model for everything they do, while at the same time trying to keep China at arms length. The Mongolians don’t have that problem.
2. You don’t mention the example of Inner Mongolia as a warning of what happens when a country gets too close to the Chinese embrace. Inner Mongolia is flooded with Han Chinese, and the Mongols there are having difficulty maintaining their culture and language. But for the Russians, that would have been the fate of (Outer) Mongolia. You also don’t mention the difficulty the Mongolians have in placing Inner Mongolians — at once Mongols but not Mongolians, the hated Chinese but not the hated Han.
3. You don’t mention the historical background of the relationship of the two countries to China. Mongolia formed part of the Qing dynasty empire (the Chinese say Mongolia was part of China; the Mongolians say it was subject to the Qing and never actually part of China — important difference!). Vietnam formed part of China for a thousand years, but has since been independent for a thousand years. It doesn’t seem to matter. Once you’ve been part of China, the Chinese seem to consider that you can always be brought back into the fold. Not surprisingly, this irredentist-type thinking irks both the Mongolians and the Vietnamese.
4. Chinese characters are also banned in Indonesia, but the reasons seem to be rather different (i.e., not related to China’s geographical closeness).
While relevant to what you discuss, I don’t think that these points are absolutely essential to your piece, which is interesting precisely because of the particular perspective that you bring. Again, a very nice piece!
@Greg – I always look forward to additional observations and experience in these matters and thank you for contributing further to the subject. I can also add the following comments in line with yours:
1) Vietnam is also heavily influenced by the Cambodians, especially in their buddhist background, the mistrust of religion the Chinese have is not as deep in the Vietnamese;
2) The recognition of Inner Mongolians by Mongolians as equals is going to take a long time. While Inner Mongolians speak Chinese, the Mongolians regard them as having been tainted and you are correct, there is mistrust of the Inner Mongolians generally by the Mongolians despite them often having the same ancestry; the rejection of the Inner Mongolian singer Urna (see
http://www.chinaexpat.com/article/2008/06/19/hohhot/introduction-urna.html by Mongolians as authentic is an apt illustration of this;
3) I agree with your point, I just felt it fairly obvious for those reasonably familar with the subject under discussion;
4) We’ll see how history pans out with use of Chinese characters elsewhere. Is Cantonese and Complex dying out in Hong Kong for example? Fifteen years ago it was rare to hear Mandarin spoken on the streets of Kowloon; now it is everywhere. Nations such as Singapore and even parts of Malaysia are becoming increasingly Sinofied. What does that mean in the longer term? China invaded Vietnam on the pretext of “mistreatment of ethnic Chinese” back in 1979, even though those same people had been living in Vietnam for generations. Ethnic Chinese have often been (unfairly) treated in the past throughout Asia – Indonesia riots against the wealthy ethnic Chinese traders, again Indonesian citizens, as recently as the 1990′s. Would similar incidents spark a potential mainland Chinese military reaction in future? I already know of one port city in Sri Lanka being built by the Chinese; armed guards stop anyone non-Chinese or non Sri Lankan government from getting within 5km. So much for sovereign territory on a national basis there. Even the local Lankans are barred access.
Chinese territorial claims can spring from strange bedfellows – such as “looking Chinese” (India’s Arunachal Pradesh) or “speaking Chinese” (Mongolia & Vietnam’s decision to hinder use of characters in theri countries). Its a pheonomena worth keeping an eye on. Thanks – Chris
This is a very interesting article. Although many Westerners pay alots of attention to China nowdays, they miss out many complicated issues in China that can be very threatening to the survival of the Chinese Comunist regime. As a Mongolian scholar from Mongolia who has published research papers in prestigious research journals in the US, would like to make a couple of points. The comparison of Mongolia and Vietnam as China’s neighbors make a perfect sense because two nations have had (will have) very long yet complicated relationships with the Chinese. But there are important differences between Mongolians (e.g., Mongols in general) and Vietnamese in terms of how they see and treat the Chinese. While Vietnamese people looked up on the Chinese and borrowed many things including Confucianism, Zen Buddhism and Chinese characters and so on from China, Mongols and Mongolians always looked down on the Chinese as a inferior race of rice-cultivating peasants. Mongols regarded and regard themselves as an Eurasian race of horsemen and hunters and think that they always superior to the Chinese, in particular, in war and battle field. There is a certain truth to it and the proof of that is the Chinese Great Wall. Of course, the Chinese also looked down on Mongols as northern barbarians who know only to kill and savage. The two nations (Chinese and Mongols) even today use extremely offensive words and terms to describe each other. The Chinese call Mongolia as Meng gu, and the original meaning of these two characters is “ancient barbarians”. Therefore, everytime Chinese today say Menggu Guo (Republic of Mongolia), they mean the Republic of “Ancient Barbarians”. The term Mongolians use to describe China and Chinese are even worse than this: In Mongolian, China is Hyatad Uls, and Chinese is Hyatad hun. The original and modern meaning of “Hya” is castrated male slave or eunuch, and tad is plural. Therefore, China is called Republic of “castrated male slaves or eunuchs” in Mongolian. This term is still used to describe China and Chinese. For example, Mongolians often say that Hu jintao is the Chairman of the People’s Republic of China, and the Mongolian meaning’s literal translation is actually “Hu jintao is the Head Eunuch of the People’s Republic of castrated male slaves-eunuchs”, in Mongolian. I’m writing all these to make a point that the relationship between Chinese and Mongols as old as human race, and the conflict is as deep as the sea. Therefore, it is very hard to see how China and Mongolia may have trusted relationships of neighbors.
Another point about Mongolians’ attitudes towards Southern (Inner) Mongolians: The perception of Mongolians about Southern Mongolians is not as bad you described. If anything, the perception is getting much better and Mongolians regard Southern Mongolians as their brothers and sisters who are exploited by China and Chinese. The latest opinion surveys of adults in Mongolia by Sant Maral Foundation (the most professional, independent polling agency in Mongolia) consistently show that 85 percent of Mongolians in Mongolia regard Southern Mongolians as their brothers and sisters who should be liberated from the Chinese colonization and occupation. As you can guess, 95 percent of Mongolians dislike and distrust Chinese, and even 50 percent said that they even hate the Chinese and China. With this problem, it would be very hard for both Mongolia and China to have trusted relationships. As for Chinese characters, Mongolia never ever used it, and even during Qing, there were not allowed to use in Mongolia. My own feeling is that the question of Southern Mongolia is getting more and more attention of Mongolians, Mongolian politicians, writers, and so on. There are very lively debates about Southern Mongolia and Southern Mongols in Mongolia today. This debate in particular is getting very hot after 2008 Tibet riots and 2009 Xinjiang riots. Many Mongolians are asking why the world is paying so much attention to Tibetans and Uighurs but not much attention to Mongols in Southern Mongolia. And many Mongolians think that it is their eternal obligation to publicize the sufferings of Southern Mongolians under the Chinese colonization. The important difference between Tibetans and Uighurs, on the one hand, and Mongols in Southern Mongolia, is that Mongols have an independent state next to them. Therefore, this question of Southern Mongolia will come up. When and how – the God only knows!
Thank you for the detailed response!
Just a couple of points:
I think Chinese territorial claims are pretty much based on the boundaries of the Qing, not ‘looking Chinese’. The major exceptions are:
1) Mongolia, which Mao essentially ceded to the Russians.
2) South China Sea, which is a new claim — I don’t believe it was claimed by the Qing at all.
All the rest — Taiwan, territories south of the McMahon Line, Senkaku Is. — essentially belonged to the Qing.
China has quite clearly recognised Mongolian independence, but the Mongolians don’t believe them — perhaps they know them too well
. The Mongolians are afraid that China will first try to exert economic control, followed by political control, accompanied by attempts to settle Chinese people in Mongolian territory under the guise of building power plants, etc. Once settled, they would form enclaves outside the control of Mongolia, as you descirbe for Sri Lanka.
I was under the impression that Vietnamese Buddhism was largely based on the Chinese, including Zen (Chan) Buddhism. This sets Vietnam apart from the rest of Southeast Asia. Of course, I don’t have expert knowledge on this, so I’m willing to be corrected.
Modern China territory are heritage from the late Qing Dynasty, just like Republic of France territory are heritage from France Kingdom.
Modern China has lost a lot of territory, from Outer Mongolia, Outer Manchuria, Northern Vietnam, Outer Xinjiang, Okinawa and Arunachal Pradesh.
Don’t trying to provoke any conflict by twisting the words. Said that Mao invade this land and take from the Russia. It is Mao who make China still united until today. Remember that all European Powers are imperialists, including Russia far from their homeland. I’m surprise that you support Russia for East Asia matter. Seeing how many land Russia occupied in Far East, you should understand who is wrong in this matter.
You should learn more about China history before you are labeled as CIA agent by your readers. You should know that Russia is trying to ceded Mongolia, Xinjiang and Manchuria from China. British is trying to ceded Tibet and Xinjiang. Japan ceded Okinawa, Taiwan, Manchuria and whole East Asia. France ceded Northern Vietnam. And now you are twisting the history by saying Mao ceded Mongolia from Russia??? And other journalist said Tibet ceded by Mao from British. Crazy!!!
Usually foreigners are very ignorant but talk it loud for what they don’t understand. Or you actually have a purpose behind your ignorant pretending? How much CIA pay you, Greg?
I can say that we are very proud that we still united and big. Just like US people proud with their country, although they occupied a lot of other people land, like Alaska from Eskimo, California from Mexico and some colonies like Hawaii. China is one, just like US is one. This should be not so hard to understand if you understand much of US nationalism.
@Greg
“China has quite clearly recognised Mongolian independence, but the Mongolians don’t believe them — perhaps they know them too well”
Although I am of Chinese descent(not a Chinese national though), I must say I agree with you about the Mongolians’ sentiment. And the Mongolians are right, I have to shamefully admit. I wish that China can stop thinking of territorial expansion and that we East Asians – Mongolia, Korea, Japan, Vietnam and China can co-exist as independent nations as we should be.
I think that Taiwan should be part of China, though. Tibet and Uyghur should be independent nations. It’s too late for Inner Mongolia to ‘rejoin’ Mongolia because it is too deep into Sinification. Perhaps Inner Mongolians should decide on either retaining their Mongolian ethnicity and go to Mongolia to improve independent Mongolia’s demographics or those that are ‘too Chinese’ are to become Sinified as many Northern Chinese are actually Sinified Turanians.
My thoughts.
Thanks Greg; Not sure about parts of Northern India or Tibet ‘belonging’ to the Qing. Thats a hugely contentious issue we don’t need to go into detail here, other than to say we covered it previously on our 2point6billion site. I may also add that the institution of the Dalai Lama was a Mongolian initiative and not Chinese.
Arunachal Pradesh: http://www.2point6billion.com/news/2009/04/14/china-india-border-disputes-arunachal-pradesh-india-or-south-tibet-1284.html
Ladakh: http://www.2point6billion.com/news/2009/04/15/china-india-border-disputes-ladakh-india%e2%80%99s-little-tibet-1286.html
Aksai Chin: http://www.2point6billion.com/news/2009/04/16/china-india-border-disputes-aksai-chin-china%e2%80%99s-kashmir-1291.html
Thanks – Chris
So Han wrote a nice post calling me a CIA agent because he can’t understand what “Mao ceded Mongolia to the Russians” means
I think Han’s post is a good illustration of the virulent nationalism and territorial assertiveness that is a very common sentiment amongst Han Chinese today. It is this kind of thinking that sparks fear and dislike of China amongst its neighbours, and shows EXACTLY why the Mongolians and Vietnamese are doing everything they can to keep the Chinese out of their patch. Thank you Han!
Re Arunachal Pradesh: Without going into detail, what is important is that China regards these territories as belonging to them because (1) these areas were subject to Tibet (2) Tibet was subject to the Qing. It’s a logical and consistent view as far as the Chinese are concerned, although, as you say, the whole issue is contentious.
The PRC raised the topic of Mongolia with the Russians several times but gained no satisfaction. Officially Mongolia is now regarded as independent, although there are lots of people like our friend Han who think Mongolia should be taken back. As you know, the ROC (on Taiwan) does not officially recognise the independence of Mongolia.
@sinotibetan
I think that Taiwan should be part of China, though.
Yes, I agree with you. Taiwan should be a part of China like Hongkong or Macao because Taiwanese people are ethnic Han – most.
Tibet and Uyghur should be independent nations.
Again, I agree with you! Tibet and Xinjiang could be independent. But is this realistic? The problem is that will these states succeed as independent states given that Tibetans and Uighurs have no experience of independent statehood of whatsoever? Look at countries like Nepal (next too Tibet), or Kyrgyzstan, or Tajistan, or Afganistan, or Uzbekstan. They are ALL so-called failed states, or at the margin of failure. Therefore, there are big question marks here??????….
It’s too late for Inner Mongolia to ‘rejoin’ Mongolia because it is too deep into Sinification.
I strongly disagree! Yes, Southern Mongolians are more sinicised than Tibetans or Uighurs, and many speak fluent both Mongolian and Chinese. And they are more economically integrated with China and Han. This however does not mean that it is too late for them to join Mongolia for the following reasons: (1) Because they have strong Mongolian identity and fluent in Mongolian (both written and speaking), it is very easy for them to join Mongolia. For example, Southern Mongolians who come to Mongolia feel as though they are fish in their own pond. There is no major difference between them and Mongolians in Mongolia. (2) There are plenty of economic and business opportunities for them in United Mongolia because Mongolis is super rich in resources but it needs more people and manpower. This fits in the Mongolia’s future economic and political development. There is even very lively debate in Mongolia of how Mongolia could attract Mongols living in Southern Mongolia.
However, if for some reasons, Southern Mongolia joins Mongolia, how they could do practically and how they should handle 20 million Han migrants living in Souther Mongolia. The possible solution of this as follows: Southern Mongolia will be made as Special Administrative Zone (SAR) of Mongolia like Hong Kong or Macao in China, and it will have its own borders, and so on. Mongolia will control defense, immigration, and foreign policy and so on. And Mongolia will implement a special policy scheme of sending back 20 million Han to China proper. This can be done perfectly legally without violence because there is a United Nations Resolution about how former colonized peoples and nations can reclaim their countries and lands and send back the colonial immigrants. Most important thing is to delcare Han in Southern Mongolia as illegal immigrants, and therefore, Mongolia can send them back to China by all means. There are successful examples of this: For example, Baltic States in the former Soviet Union, were 60-80 percent Russian, but after the independence, the share of the Russians become 5-15 percent accordingly. The same applies to countries like Kazakstan, Kyrgystan, or Tajikstan. The Russians were send back to Russia in millions so that these countries have their majorities.
many Northern Chinese are actually Sinified Turanians.
Strongly disagree! Every single genetic research shows that both Northern and Southern Chinese have nothing to do with Northern Altaic and Turanian peoples like Mongolians or Turks. There are some difference between Nothern and Southern Chinese. But they are very different from Nothern peoples like Mongolians. There is this imaginative self-association of Northern Chinese with Mongolians and Turks because being Altaic and Turanian is very prestigious among Chinese. But this just remains in the heands of those northern Chinese who want to be Turanina. Nothing more and nothing less!
@bagii
Another theory about the etymology of Хятад (khyatad) is that it comes from ‘Kitan’, the name of the ethnic group who established the Liao dynasty in the 10th century.
@greg
Yes, this is the official theory that justifies to use the word. But if you read the explanations of prominent Mongolian philologists of ancient and modern Mongolian like Ts. Damdinsuren, Sh. Luvsanvanda, and even Injinash in 17 centuries is that Hyatad comes from Hya-eunuch and tad (ted – mondern) plural. The Russian “Kitai” comes from Kidan. Kidans were Mongolic people and therefore, there was no need to use this word for them. By the way, in Southern Mongolia, they do not use the word “hyatad” to describe China and the Chinese, but use the word “dundad” which means middle. For example, Dundad ulsyn Uvur Mongolyn uurtuu zasah oron – Southern (notice not – Inner) Mongolian Autonomous Country of Middle Republic. The Chinese knwo the meaning of ‘hya” and they do not like it.
Guys thanks for your comments and observations – it seems we’ve touched a chord here as concerns Mongolia especially and similarities with Vietnam. I particuarly enjoyed the Mongolian description of the Chinese and the official translation of Hu Jintao as being “Head Eunuch of the People’s Republic of Castrated Male Slave-Eunuchs”. As for the CIA comment, it goes to show about how much China has done to perpetrate many of its own myths about border territories. Scary if it wasn’t so amusing. None of this of course changes anything, and China will remain dominant in the areas it currently possesses, but it is useful to note it still continues to give India a hard time and that Mongolia and Vietnam both obviously feel the need to remain viligant. It was a huge step for India especially to suddenly come face to face with an aggresive communist nation right along its borders when for hundreds of years it had been largely a peaceful relationship (the odd skirmish and local warlording excepted) with a Kingdom of Buddhists. Vietnam and Mongolia of course retain the same buddhist roots, albeit slightly different versions. Looking at Tibet, they’re right to remain observant. It also brings up how much China has potentially lost in the region through the Tibet issue, rather than gaining as is often surmised. I appreciate your feedback – Chris
@Chris
Let me translate the official title of Mr Hu Jintao:
In English: Hu JIntao, Chairman of the People’s Republic of China
The official modern Mongolian translation from English and Chinese:
Hu Jintao, Bugd Nairamdah Hyatad Ard Ulsyn Darga
English translation of this: Hu jintao, Leader or Lead-person (Darga of the group whether it is school class, or military unit of soldiers, or group of thieves) of the People’s (Ard) Republic (Budg Nairamdah) of China (Eunuchs). In this sense, Mr Hu Jintao’s position is translated and interpreted as the Lead Eunuch of the People’s Republic of Eunuchs (palace castrated male slaves). Of course, it is very offensive but so is the Chinese term for Mongolia – Menggu (ancient barbarians).
Well both countries love their realpolitik speech. Chris Patten for example was unkindly referred to as many things while he was Governor of Hong Kong, my favorite being “a prostitute who opens his legs for President Clinton”, so the Chinese can’t really complain if other nations do the same to them. The Mongolian slur is by far the most inventive however. Thanks for the translation of the term – Chris
@Chris:
No problem! This eunuch thing is just a tip of the iceberg in Mongolian. If you dig in deep into Mongolian, you will find many, many extremely offensive slurs, labels, and phrases describing China and the Chinese because Mongols were fighiting with the Chinese for 5000 years!
What surprises me is that when the Chinese humiliate and verbally abuse Tibet, Tibetans, Tibetan culture, and HH Dalai Lama, Tibetans and their friends do not encounter them with offensive slurs and labels of the Chinese. Surely, any nation that has had a relationship with the Chinese would have these horrible terms and phrases. Why Tibetans do not do that? If Chinese attack Mongols in this manner, they will be beaten comprehensively by extremely offensive and humiliating terms, labels, slurs and prejudices.
Editor’s note:
Because written Chinese is not phonetic, it has always been difficult for the language to assimilate other languages, forcing transliterated names for things that can often seem stilted and clumsy. The use of 蒙古 for Mongolia is one such example. While the Chinese word’s characters used in the Chinese name for Mongolia 蒙古, do indeed separately mean ancient 古, and ignorant 蒙, this does not necessarily mean that used when together to form a transliteration of Mongol, that the characters meaning is retained.
@Editor
Yes, this is the official interpretation and explanation by the Chinese about the word “Meng gu”. It is very similar to the official Mongolian interpretation of China (Hyatad), that “Hyatad” does not mean “eunuchs” but it means Kitan, an ancient Mongolic nomadic people in North Asia. However, in the academic circles, and among ordinary peoples in both countries, Menggu means ancient barbarians, and Hyatad means Republic of Eunuchs. These mutual prejudices and racism of Mongolians and Chinese are as old and as strong is the Great Wall of China. We can do nothing about several thousand years’ old slurs and prejudices, unfortunately!
I checked, and apparently the Qing also claimed the South China Sea as belonging to their dominions. So it’s only Mongolia that the Chinese let go of, along with territories in Siberia and the Far East that the Russians took from the Qing in the 19th century (Treaty of Aigun and Convention of Beijing).
The single coherent explanation behind China’s seemingly expansionist claims is ‘getting back what belongs to it’, i.e., territories that belonged to the Qing.
The nub of the problem is whether China is justified in laying claim to all the territories of the Qing. The Qing themselves divided their territory into distinct areas. While the Eighteen Provinces of China proper were the heart of the empire, Mongolia, Tibet, and (for most of the era) Xinjiang and Manchuria were quite distinct from China itself. Chinese were not allowed to permanently settle in Mongolia and Mongolia was encouraged to cultivate its own literature and culture, which was focused on Lamaism, not Confucianism. I suspect a Mongol of the 19th century would have laughed in your face if you told him he was “Chinese”. The Mongolian view is that the Qing was an empire which they were coerced into joining, but Mongolia at no time formed a part of “China”. When the Qing empire disintegrated, the Mongolians had no obligation or desire to continue living in the same political entity as the Chinese.
The Chinese see things differently, of course, and in legalistic terms will cite the fact that the last Qing emperor at abdication ceded all his territories to the new republic. (In fact, it’s interesting to note that the Mongolians declared independence even before the Qing were toppled.)
I suspect that there are a multitude of other motives present among the Chinese, including the view of China as a succession of dynasties (since the Qing was a dynasty of “China”, all territories of the Qing belong to China), the traditional idea that the border peoples are backward and barbarous and need the Chinese to lead and civilise them, and the simple desire for a large territory (版图). I do not believe that it is based in any great love for these ethnic groups, which they are now relentlessly trying to sinify, but more a love for their territories. The fact that in their struggle against imperialism the Chinese decided to lay claim to an empire is one of the less pleasant contradictions of modern history.
@Greg
I agree with your analysis and interpretations of how Mongols saw and see Manchu Qing (By the way, notice that Mongols always used and use now the term Manchu Qing – Manj Chin uls – Manzu Qing guo, but Not Qing alone). According to the official and popular view of Manchu Qing in Mongolia, Qing was a Manchu empire, and China proper (traditional Chinese territory – roughly Ming dynasty land and people) was Manchu colonies. The Manchus divided the population into several castes (Manchus being highest caste, and Chinese being lowest caste), and treated Chinese as thoiugh they were slaves. Therefore, it is self-insulting and self-humiliating for Chinese to claim Manchu Qing as Chinese when Chinese were slaves who were brutally exploited and killed like animals. The similar comments apply to the Mongolian Yuan dynasty when Chinese were classified by Mongols as lower (North Chinese) and lowest (Southern Chinese) castes. Mongols valued their horses more than Chinese lives. Therefore, when China emerged from the Mongol occupation in 15th century, its population was reduced from 100 million to 40 million. Yes, black death – plague did kill many Chinese but as did the Mongols. Therefore, I do not understand the Chinese when they claim on Mongolian Yuan and Manchu Qing legacies as theirs when they were treated worse than animals. It is like Hong Kong, a former British colony, claims all the land of the British empire simply because they were a part of the empire, or India claims to Australia, or Cameroon claims to the all the territories of the French empire. However, I see the great hypocricy of the Chinese on these issues: On the on hand, they hate Mongols and Manchus, and Mongol Yuan and Manchu Qing as ebing barbaric empires that exploited China and Chinese peoples. On the other hand, however, the Chinese are quick to claim to all territorial and other legacies of these empires. This is very visible when the Chinese say Tibet was a part of China since Mongolian Yuan dynasty while they ignore the fact that China was a Mongolian colony and the Chinese were treated by Mongols worse than their goas, horses, sheeps, or cows, and even donkeys. My own understanding why the Chinese claim to Yuan and Qing legacies for geopolitical reasons, and they want to have as much as territorie as they swallow because the Chinese are 1.3 billion.
The Chinese “Empire” was at its height during the Qing, although it wasn’t directly controlled by Peking. However, rather like the radical Muslims, who want to reassimilate all lands that used to belong to them under Islam (including for example large tracts of Spain) China expects the same claims to be valid. So much for China’s rejection of “imperialism” then – the Qing was China’s most imperialistic dynasty, so its double standards. However, it doesn’t make practical sense or logic given that empires wax and wane. Or perhaps China would view as equally valid the Mongolian Empire, which subsumed most of China, Tibet, Central Asia and parts of Eastern Europe? Indeed, the only way China can historically deal with the issue the nation was run by the Mongolians historically is to claim Chingghis Khan as a “Chinese” Emperor. I suspect that if you’d suggested that to him at the time you’d have quickly found yourself a eunuch – or worse. Thanks – Chris
The Chinese DO claim Genghis Khan as Chinese — because he was the ancestor of a Chinese emperor (Khubilai Khan). His temple name is 太祖, a term traditionally assigned to the founders of dynasties.
The Chinese also reject the idea that the Qing was a ‘pre-modern empire’. The Qing were a Chinese dynasty, not an ‘empire’.
And according to the ideology of the Chinese state, all the current ethnic groups of China, the Zhonghua Minzu, belong together ‘naturally’. The claim is that these people are all somehow intrinsically Chinese (Tibetans, Mongols, even Uighurs included), for historical reasons, presumably because China (actually the Manchus, but the Manchus are Chinese too) expanded to its natural boundaries. Since all these people have been defined as Chinese by modern doctrine, it is impossible to argue that they are not Chinese.
It is very interesting that many Chinese will look back wistfully to the time when the Chinese were a great and mighty people who fought their way to the borders of Europe. I kid you not. The argument is that the Mongols are “Chinese”, therefore it was the Chinese who fought all the way to Europe.
@Greg. I’m British, not remotely Chinese. However if my future grandson, a’la Kublai, by some quirk becomes President of China, does that mean that retrospectively the Chinese will claim me as a Chinese national? Back to Genghis – his Mother raised him and is revered in Mongolia. Is she considered Chinese too? Plus some 12% of all European men possess the “Mongolian gene” – a genetic marker that only could have come from the Golden Horde. Are they all actually partially Chinese? Does China have a claim on Hungary for example? As for the Uighurs, they are largely Caucasian stock, while the Tibetans belong to the Indo-Burmese. Rather different from the Chinese. The entire theory is based on a form of race profiling actually, not on genetic fact.
@Chris and Greg:
Thank you for interesting posts. Now we will talk about Chingis Haan (The correct Mongolian spelling). We-Mongolians, including those Mongolians in China, Russia, and other countries, are used to these all sorts of funny and stupid claims about Chingis being Chinese, or Kazakh, or Russian, or Ukrainian, or Hungarian, or Korean or Japanese, or Jewish and so on. When Chinese say Chingis haan was Chinese, we-Mongolians and Mongolians in Southern Mongolia just laugh because Chingis haan really hated the Chinese and he wanted to slaughter all Chinese and make China’s Central plains pastures for goats, sheep and cows. But some of the advisors stopped him and plus, Horezm’s Sultan killed Mongolian merchants and diplomats, and therefore, he had to rush to Central Asia… The rest is history as we know it… The Chinese say that Chingis haan was Chinese because Southern Mongolians are Chinese citizens. We-Mongolians do not like it but at the same time, we have to respect the pride and inspirations of our fellow Mongol brothers and sisters in Southern Mongolia. For them, Chingis haan and glorious Mongolian history are the only thing Mongolian they have today. Therefore, we do not give much attention to it. I never ever met a Chinese who claimed that they went as far as Eastern Europe to invade. The Chinese actually deep in their hearts know that they are NOT GOOD at WARS, but GOOD at WALLS (Great Wall). But the Chinese do not like to openly admit that they have lost 90 percent of all wars with Northern nomadic Mongolians for 5000 years! I remind you that even as recent as in 1945, the victorious Mongolian army (20 000 soldiers) together with Soviet Red Army marched into Southern Mongolia and Manchuria and liberated them from the Japanese occupation. What the Chinese were doing, well, they are being slaugtered by Japanese in Nanjing…. Regarding Huvilai haan, he was never recognized as a Grand haan (we have three categories of haans: Great Grand Haan- Chingis, and he is the only one, Grand haan – those haans who rule the entire Mongol empire (there were 5of them including Chingis), and Baga Haans – those who ruled portions of the Mongol empire. As for Huvilai, he was not selected for the Grand haan, but Mongolian royal family elected his brother – Arigbuh as the Grand Haan. But Arigbuh was very ill because when he was young, he wounded in the battles in Europe together with Bat Haan and Subeedei. But Huvilai used this opportunity and organized some machinations, and the Asia portion of the Mongol empire had 2 haans for 6 years. When Arigbuh died, the other Mongol haans did not recognize Huvilai as a grand haan and threatened to kill him. Therefore, Huvilai together with Chinese and manchu soldiers fled to Beijing and estalished Mongolian Yuan. But Yuan was always illegitimate state in the eyes of other Mongol haans in Central Asia, Russia, Eastern Europe, Middle East and even India during Timurlane. Interestingly, the modern Mongolian state does not recognize Huvilai even as Baga haan because his name-table is absent in the room of the Nine White Standarts of Chingis haan inthe Government Palace in Ulaan-baatar. So, for us, Huvilai remains as an illegitmate haan and even betrayer.
Sorry:
Chingis haan – Chinggis Khan
Huvilai – Khubilai
These are correct English versions.
I’m not familiar with the intricacies of the system, but I think that when people elected to found a Chinese dynasty, according to Chinese custom their ancestor (grandfather?) became 太祖, the founder of the imperial line. Presumably this is a reflection of traditional ancestor worship and I suspect that grandmothers didn’t count. The elevation to ancestor of a dynasty happened to both Chinggis Khaan and to Nurhaci, the founder of another state (later called Manchu) that invaded China.
I don’t think that genetics is ESSENTIAL to Chinese thinking. It’s about culture, not genetics. Sinitic culture was accepted by genetically rather different people (especially in North and South China), and accepting the culture is enough be regarded as “Chinese”.
The broader concept of Zhonghua Minzu is definitely not based on genetics. The only coherent way to define Zhonghua Minzu (Chinese nationality, or Chinese peoples) is to say, quite circuitously, that it is any of the ethnic groups found within the boundaries of China. Tibetans are one of the ‘Chinese peoples’, as are Mongols, Manchus, Han, Uighurs, Zhuang, Yi, etc. etc., all told 56 of them. Presumably the Dalai Lama is also considered to belong to the Tibetan nationality (one of the 56 ethnic nationalities), although I guess that wouldn’t help him much if he were in front of a firing squad.
For small minorities like the Chaoxian (Korean), Eluosi (Russian), or Jing (Vietnamese), the classification as “Chinese” doesn’t have any real implications for the related foreign nations. But Mongolia sorely tests China’s self-definition because the Mongolians are historically a part of the Qing empire, numerous, culturally and ethnically the same as their brethren in Inner Mongolia — but they are “Chinese” who escaped from Chinese rule due to the perfidy of the Russians. Mongolia really stretches the legitimacy of Chinese claims to inherit all the territories of the Qing, not to mention the coherence of the concept of the Zhonghua Minzu . Theoretically the Mongolians of (Outer) Mongolia SHOULD be members of the Zhonghua Minzu, but since they are not Chinese and belong to an independent state, China is not able to make that claim (although many private Chinese citizens would probably be willing to make it for them).
@greg
Yes, you are right about how Chinese think about history, legacy and legitimacy of the Mongolian Yuan and Manchu Qing for political, geopolitical and psychological reasons. But what surprises and sometimes upsets me is that many Western historians of North East Asia, in particular, China-focused historians, of the older generation (60s, 70; 80s) are blindly Sino-centric for all sorts of reasons including personal and family. There is a paper written by a China-focused scholar in Izrael who found that 40 percent of North America, Western Europe and Australia-based scholars of Chinese history were ethnic Chinese (Taiwanese, or from Hong Kong, or US and so on – This does not surprise me), and 60 percent were whites. And more interesting thing is that 85 percent of these white men-sinologists were married to ethnic Chinese women. Therefore, because of their personal and family lives, they were in general biased scholars. However, younger generation of sinologists-historians are much more balanced and critical towards Chinese history and historical issues. But surprisingly, many ordinary people in the West seem to think about the Chinese history as though they were these biased scholars who married to Chinese women.
“Theoretically the Mongolians of (Outer) Mongolia SHOULD be members of the Zhonghua Minzu, but since they are not Chinese and belong to an independent state, China is not able to make that claim (although many private Chinese citizens would probably be willing to make it for them).”
Yes, many Chinese may think in this way. However, we-Mongolians in Mongolia also have an equally strong and legitimate claim on Southern (inner) Mongolia. This question of Southern Mongolia will come up because Mongolia is a dynamic democracy, and Mongolian politicians are already under pressure from the Mongolians who live in those provinces which border Southern Mongolia and who have relatives in Southern Mongolia.
Another very important factor in Chinese-Mongolian relationship is that Mongolia is a successful democracy, and this really is very very attractive to Southern Mongolians who live in communist China. China is very nervous if this democracy spirit spills over the border and Southern Mongolians get mobilized.
An interesting point is that Mongolian politicians are already debating how Mongolia will respond if there were popular riots of Mongolians in Southern Mongolia. The consensus seems to be that we will decisively speak for Southern Mongols’ human and cultural rights without excessively angering and antagonizing China.
Well, I’ve already expended a lot of breath on this whole thing, but I think the issue is much simpler than Chris suggests. It can be summarised fairly easily.
* China’s claimed territory is that of the Qing dynasty.
After their century of humiliation at the hands of imperialists, and a lot of territory lost under so-called ‘unequal treaties’, the Chinese firmly believe they have the right to take it back. And Mao did get most of it, the major exceptions being Mongolia (taken by the Russians, to which the Chinese have acquiesced) and Taiwan (taken by the Americans, still simmering along). Deng Xiaoping got Hong Kong and Macau. Flashpoints still exist in the Senkaku Islands, the South China Sea, and the border with India. China has basically given up old Qing territories in Siberia and the Far East taken by the Russians, although the demographics of these areas (more and more Chinese moving in, Russian population decreasing) suggest that one day the Russians might lose it anyway if they are not careful.
* All people of the old Qing territories are now covered by a new expanded definition of “Chinese”.
This is not just a matter of citizenship and passports. The Chinese claim that these peoples are all members of a great and glorious Zhonghua Minzu (Chinese nation), united into a greater whole by shared history as part of the same nation. Currently there are 56 nationalities: the “Han” majority (which we formerly called the “Chinese”) and the 55 “minorities”. Some of these “minorities” are tiny groups; others are potentially nations in their own right — the Chinese don’t distinguish; they’re all minorities, and most importantly, the territories they occupy all belong to China. Whether they want to be “Chinese” or not is irrelevant. They are Chinese and there is no escape.
* While Tibet and Xinjiang are proving difficult to digest, the only place that really escaped is (Outer) Mongolia, a blatant exception to Chinese claims to the territories of the Qing and the concept of Zhonghua Minzu.
* Various habits of thinking are still strong among the Chinese, including a mixture of new and old. These include: (1) Chinese never forget places they once ruled — even Vietnam after 1,000 years; (2) The ethnic minorities and smaller neighbours are generally backward and ultimately secondary. Eventually minorities are expected to assimilate or accommodate to the Han majority; (3) It’s impossible to give independence to ethnic minorities — they’re not economically viable, and besides, how can you give independence to a few thousand herdsmen or a handful of villages in some remote location? (4) Despite ideological protestations to the contrary, in practical terms “Chinese” is still pretty much synonymous with “Han”; (5) The (Han) Chinese themselves are peaceful people and much of China’s territorial expansion was brought about by barbarian invaders from the north (but we like the territory they conquered, thank you very much, so keep your hands off it, and did I say “barbarian invader”? They’re all part of the family now!); (6) most of the minorities that joined China through history weren’t conquered or invaded because they weren’t really “countries” in the first place.
There are many, many more, but I think the various layers of thinking, and the various ways they feature in what is essentially a territorial grab is fairly clear.
I forgot to mention. Because the Zhonghua Minzu are all claimed as intrinsically belonging to China, their previous history, culture, religion, and traditions are all the property of China. China (most likely with Han Chinese in charge) has even taken to registering shared Mongolian cultural heritage with UNESCO as being “Chinese”.
That is why an independent Mongolia is such a fly in the ointment for China. Without an independent Mongolia, the history books could be completely rewritten to reflect the new Chinese ideology. China’s claim that Genghis Khan was “Chinese” would be virtually unchallengeable.
@greg
Yes, I know and many people know all these Chinese illogical and ideologized interpretations of history and legacy. I guess some Chinese believe in them, and some Chinese do not believe in them. There are some signs of serious cracks in the Chinese opinion polls regarding whether China really is a happy collection of Zhonghua Minzu with 55 (many artificially created) minorities. Semi confidential reports on the Chinese minorities distributed among faculty members in the Central Party School in Beijing (some of it made to Internet) clearly show that a significant percentage of Chinese population (15-20 % of adult population) have doubts whether Tibet and Xinjiang really belong to China and whether it is worth of money, investment, efforts and sacrifices of holding on them given all these troubles. Therefore, whether or not all these official interpretations and arguments about history of who belong to whom and why and so on are shared even by all Chinese is doubtful. Moreover, the world has woke up on growing China, and started to challenge the Chinese interpretations and claims on histories and territories. This is very visible in case of Tibet and Xinjiang. The latest opinion polls in the West shows that astonishingly 85 percent of Westerns think Tibet was invaded by China in 1959 and should be independent. So, I do not think the Chinese propaganda of history and territorial claims are effective.
More importantly, China’s neighbors including Mongolia, Russia, Vietnam, Korea, India, and Japan (look, this is a pretty collection of powerful states except small, poor Mongolia) have very strong counter arguments, and these arguments are gaining legitimacy in the West and around the world. Therefore, I am not that optimistic if Chinese can convince the world about their wishful thinking and claim lists.
“has even taken to registering shared Mongolian cultural heritage with UNESCO as being “Chinese”.”
yes, there were a coupel incidents like huumii and so on, China registered with UNESCO without letting Mongolia know this. This happenned because of the irresponsible and corrupt Mongolian ambassador in Paris. There was outrage both in Mongolia and Southern Mongolia when this news broekn last year. Mongolia fired the official (who just happened to be a half ethnic Chinese), and and worked with UNESCO and China on these issues. Mongolia did register huumii and other things as Mongolian together with China and Russia (huumii is popular in Tuva Republic in Russia – former Urianhai region of Outer Mongolia – part of Qing by the way). The official Chinese explanation was that they registered these as cultural heritage of Mongolian minority in China. As for Mongolians, of course, we do not like when Chinese say these are Chinese, on the one hand, and on the other hand, we-Mongolians in Mongolia have to respect the cultural rights and claims of ethnic Mongolians in China. So, as you said before, we-Mongolians are in ambigous position regarding the Southern Mongolians in China.
Thanks guys for the debate. As for me, I just find it hilarious that the hottest Chinese model currently is actually from Buryat, just north of Mongolia and isn’t Chinese at all… – Chris
When ethnic Mongols (Inner Mongolians) claim Chinggis Khaan as their ancestor it’s one thing. When ethnic Chinese (Han) claim he’s ‘Chinese’, it’s another matter entirely. It’s the latter that I’m talking about.
@greg
Yes, This is the problem. We-mongols in Mongolia do not know what to do about this… Of course, Chingiss khan has nothing to do with rice-cultivating, garlic eating, and cabbage smelling chinese people…
Sorry!
I wanted to say “garlic and cabbage eating chinese people”. We-Mongolians are meat eating and milk drinking (including fermented horse milk) horsemen and hunters…
Do Chinese say Chinggis was Han Chinese?
Not Han Chinese. A member of the Zhonghua Minzu. Mongol = Zhonghua Minzu = Chinese. They claim Mongols as their own.
@ baagii and all:-
Hello Baagii and Greg and Chris – all of you have very good and interesting posts and I will take quite some time to read and ‘internalize’ them. I will respond to Baagii’s reply to my post and also a reply to Han in a separate post.
I must say I am saddened by current Chinese-Mongolian relations. We carry too much baggage of the past. Mongols are Mongols and NOT Chinese(Han). Chinese are Chinese(Han) and not Mongols. It’s so simple. Instead of being enemies, why not be friends and respect our different identities? We are all Asians…why do we fight? Perhaps I am naive or hopelessly romantic but how I wish that our relations as two different peoples would be more constructive, peaceful and amicable! Sorry for the rant – but that is my wish.
Regarding Tibet and Uyghur. I see your point. However I think the Central Asian failed states(or near failed states) you mentioned were because of:-
1. Sudden rupture of the Soviet Union left these states with a ‘sudden independence’- with little experience of independence, these states fall into turmoil.
2. These states are close to Afghanistan and Pakistan – areas of instabilities due to Islamic radicals and international crime rings.
3. Russia, China, the USA are powers josstling for influence and hegemony over the ex-Soviet Central Asian republics : further leading to chaos/political instability. I think these nations should actually become closer to Russia to develop some form of political/economic stability(they were part of the Soviet in the past anyway) so as to prevent more great powers game. It is to Russia’s interest to have these states independent but closer to its influence as instability in these states threatens stability in Russia itself. Also, these states are a buffer to the threat of China as a hegemenon in Central Asia. Unfortunately, there is no political will to do so. Unless the great powers stop their imperialistic thinking, smaller states will continue to suffer their intrigues.
4.As for Nepal – it’s being tugged by two Asian powers : India and China all vying for hegemony and influence over the nation.
Tibet and Uyghur should be independent nations. I don’t see why we Chinese should be ruling them! Independent countries (such as Western nations) that support their independence can ‘help’ them in the transition to statehood. The problem is the West which often talks about human rights and all that is just that- all talk no political action. Finally,big business and geopolitical maneouverings win. USA considers an angry China with an independent Tibet or a frustrated Tibet but good business with China(read: cheap Chinese labour to reap big profits for international businesses) and no second guess which one takes precedence!
Tibet and Uyghur should be independent. But the situation does not permit. And they are gradually being ‘Sinified’. A breaking point might happen and finally they could be violence and war. Uyghurs may become more entrenched into radical Islam. Not sure about Tibetans.
Regarding Northern Chinese as “Sinified Turanians”. I am no expert of genetic research on human populations. It’s just what I read about Northern Chinese in some books. I do not mean to say that Northern Chinese are Mongols who ‘became’ Chinese. Or Turks(Kazakhs/Kyrgyz etc.) who ‘became’ Chinese. I do think that the Northern Chinese are a mixed people of diverse origins – ‘original’ Chinese plus Turanian groups. If I remember correctly, Northern China were overrun over the centuries by many Turanian peoples – not only Mongols during Yuan dynasty and Manchu during Qing dynasty but also Liao(Khitan), Xixia(although this is Tangut-probably a Qiangic tribe rather than Turanian), Jurchens, Wei(Toba) – too many that I cannot remember them all. In the Sui dynasty, the first Emperor was not ‘pure’ Chinese but mixed Chinese-Toba. Similarly with the Emperors of the Tang dynasty : mixed Chinese-Toba. Even ancient Chinese dynasties like Zhou and Qin are admixtures of peoples. Northern Chinese are of mixed origins. Whereas Southern Chinese are also of mixed origins but this time with the southern tribes like the 100 Yue. Even Cantonese people are said to speak the Yue language – perhaps a recognition of an ancient non-Chinese ancestry? I admit perhaps ‘sinified Turanians’ is not a good term. I should have said – some admixture with Turanian ancestry in the Northern Chinese. Of course, I believe that Mongols and Northern Chinese are distinct peoples. Mongols are Mongols. Northern Chinese are Han. We are NOT the same peoples. The Northern Chinese and Southern Chinese are actually mixed ethnic origin people who coalesced into a unified ethnic identity calling themselves the Han people. ‘Han’ is thus a unified identity of an ethnically diverse and admixed people.
Regarding Southern Mongolia – what you said cannot happen unless China’s ruling regime crumble or there is a change of heart amongst the Chinese ruling regime(and also the majority Chinese in general).
I am proud of being Chinese but not the way Han does it. I want China to be a great power but also one that is benevolent and respected rather than feared/despised. OUr history with both Vietnam and Mongolia is filled with so much war, carnage and bloodshed. We should rise above our ancestors by respecting each other and being at peace with each other and prospering each other than repeat the mistakes of our forefathers.
Just my thoughts.
Sinotibetan
@ Han ( and any other who are interested):
Hi! I am of Chinese(Han) origin but I don’t live and neither am I a citizen of China. Currently I am a minority living in a non-Chinese dominated(and rather ‘racial-supremacist’) country in Asia. I , thus, do understand how an oppressed minority feel in a supremacist majority ruled country.
You may consider me irrelevant or a ‘traitor’ but I don’t see myself as such. I am proud of my Chinese heritage and am at peace with who I am and my origins. I too have special feelings for the land of my forefathers – China, and the Chinese people there – good or bad- are my kinsmen and kinswomen! I want China to be a great and powerful nation too and our people as progressive , civilized people contributing to humanity. In this sense, I cannot agree with you about China and its relations with neighbouring peoples.
Point #1
“Modern China territory are heritage from the late Qing Dynasty, just like Republic of France territory are heritage from France Kingdom.”
Says who? China has changed borders over the centuries – depending on whether she was conquered or she went conquering. There were periods when it was torn down into semi-independent dynasties.
Independence or non-independence of nations and their borders are dependent on the geopolitical situation of each epoch. The French Empire you alluded to had its borders altered. To which ‘borders’ would you define ‘France’ – that of Carolingian times, or the Capetians, or the Bourbons, or Napoleon’s, or during WW1, or WW2 or…?
The Mongols once conquered all of China, should we use history and say China is part of Mongolia? The Japanese conquered part of China’s territory during WW2 – so these parts should be part of modern Japan now?
Qing dynasty was HISTORY! That regime crumbled and Dr. Sun Yat Sen whom many Chinese revere helped bring that dynasty down! There is no logic to claim ‘lost territories’ based on a vanquished ruling regime.
So…no I cannot accept using history ALONE in claiming that or this territory belongs to a nation.
Point # 2:
Who were the ‘original’ inhabitants of Tibet? Tibetans. Who were the ‘original’ inhabitants of Mongolia – Mongols. Were they/are they the predominant peoples there – yes! Why in the world are Chinese people ruling them?
If you don’t see my point – let me help you. Consider what the Japanese did to our forefathers in WW2. We Chinese were nothing but scum to Imperialistic Japan. The men can be enslaved and killed anytime. Chinese ladies can be used as sex entertainment objects at anytime. Where is our homeland? ‘China proper’ – the historic regions at eastern China. Manchuria(Heilongjiang, Jilin, Liaoning), Yunnan-Guizhou were only rather teneously having political relations with “China proper” until huge Chinese migrations swarmed those areas to ‘make them China’s territory’. Let’s consider “China proper” – our ‘original’ homeland. What do we feel when a foreign race like Japanese conquered us? Forced us to ‘be Japanese’? How do we feel? We are Chinese and NOT Japanese ! China is our original ‘home’! We will not and did not accept a foreign nation occupying and ‘Japanizing’ us!
Now, substitute the Chinese with Mongolians or Vietnamese. ANd substitute the Japanese with Chinese. Do you see the light?
We are great and can be greater not by imperialism. We can be even greater if we sow peace instead of war, freindship instead of mistrust, mutual respect instead of fear/hatred.
Mao ….although it’s true he managed to unify China(and that is a POSITIVE thing) was also a mad man who killed millions of Chinese in his crazy ‘Cultural Revolution’. Tibet became “Chinese territory” because of his territorial ambitions. Should we be proud because of this? Should we be proud if we behave just like the Western imperialists of old or the WW2 Japanese Imperialists? How can we apply double standards when we critisize the West of old for ‘imperialism’ and the WW2 Japanese as ‘wicked imperialists’ when we have exactly the SAME attitude as these justifiably hated enemies of our people? That is your wrong attitude, Han.
Point # 3
You might say we Chinese are ‘more civilized’ than the Tibetans and that we controlling their country is for the benefit of Tibetans because we are ‘civilizing’ these poor, forlorn savages. Hey! I have great news for you! That’s what the wicked WW2 Japanese imperialist though of us Chinese! We were mere scum that needs civilization from the superior Japanese. Hitler thought Germans were a far superior civilization and race that should conquer and ‘civilize’ the ‘inferior’ Slavonic Poles, Czechs etc.
How should China be great?
Improve our civilization.
Improve the quality of life of the Chinese.
Advance in science and technology.
Stress more on academic accomplishments.
Good relations and diplomacy with all our neigbouring peoples – that means STOP behaving like crazy imperialists.
That way, we Chinese will be respected but not feared. Instead of animosity, we have friendship.
That is way better than having enemies all around us. It’s a win-win for China and all neighbouring nations.
My thoughts.
Sinotibetan, Greg, Baagii, thank you again for your contributions to what has turned out to be a fascinating debate over the Chinese links of ethnicity to territory. – Chris
Actually, things are much better than they used to be. China still keeps tight control but is much more relaxed about many things than it was before.
I heard a story about how a poor unsuspecting Inner Mongolian woman was detained by Public Security for some very lengthy questioning for merely saying hello in Mongolian as she passed a visiting group of (Outer) Mongolians in a department store. This happened several decades ago. It is unlikely to happen now.
@ Chris:
Thanks!
@Greg:
Agree. I have to say that Mongolians in Mongolia have legitimate reasons to worry about a rising China. Chinese like “Han” and his vitriolic comments only ‘confirms’ the legitimacy of their worries! Nevertheless, I think on the whole – both Mongolia and Vietnam will be able to maintain their independence albeit with China being a hegemenon in East Asia. I think this is so because in our globalized world, taking away independence from recognized independent countries would be tantamount to diplomatic suicide and instant pariah-state status. China’s ‘imperialistic’ aims will be more of economic dominance – in which East Asian nations(Vietnam and Mongolia included) might not be able to stop. Only a resurgent Russia will be able to prevent China from being the SOLE geopolitical hegemenon in East Asia.
Don’t forget India.
@ Greg
I did ‘forget’ India. Thanks for that!
Only problem for India is that it may not be as important as Russia in terms of checking China’s dominance in North East Asia(i.e. the 2 Koreas, Mongolia, Japan and Asiatic Russia). Russia has problem of stabilizing its state after the fall of Soviet Union and a decreasing population – both are security issues for Russia. India has the problem of rising Islamic population which may pose an internal security threat(increased Hindu-Islam tensions and communal violence), being ‘guarded’ in the west by unstable Pakistan and poverty-stricken Bangladesh – both are Islamic states which may contribute to internal unrest in India via Pakistani/Bangladeshi migration to India. India also has problems with disparity between rich and poor and a high illiteracy rate. Its role can check Chinese influence in Nepal and Bhutan as well as adjoining states in South East Asia(eg Myanmar) but I see that India is much limited in capability compared to Russia because of these weaknesses.
Worryingly, since I wrote this article, the rise of a new form of neo nazism in Mongolia, fuelled in part by a distrust of anything ‘foreign’ (read: Chinese) has been occuring. Guardian report here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/02/mongolia-far-right – Chris
i find it amusing that the nomads of old (mongols) and the nomads of new (brits) would enjoy each other’s company by spitting some crudest forms of racist slurs against chinese.
let me just say if the racial relations deteriorates any further, baagii’s dream of a genocide of han in inner mongolian is far less likely to materialize than a han massacre of mongols in both inner and outer mongolia. the insight of the brit is valid enough, although it came way too late to be deemed useful: a strategic, racial alliance between mongolians and southeast asians has taken shape hundreds of years ago. so when mainland chinese slaughter the mongolians in the north, it means we are making a conscientious decision to send self-pitying overseas chinese like sinotibetan to malay and indonesian pogroms in the south.
but such racial traitors as sinotibetan and their fathers have done so much damage to han chinese in the centuries past that if they indeed die at the hands of vietnamese or malays as a result of a racial war chinese declares against neighboring barbarians, they must deserve what is coming to them. sinotibetan’s comments above must be read in this light: as a desperate attempt to save his own skin at the cost of china’s security. that is why i would imagine i personally would enjoy the butchering of overseas chinese like sinotibetan almost as much as i would enjoy the slaughter of mongols like baagii
the slaughter of the nomads of old will incur the deepest trepidation and terror in the psyche of the nomads of new: the brits will learn that notwithstanding signs of regional intergration apparently taking place in europe or east asia, what is really bound to happen is the vanquishing of nomads everywhere. brits will soon be strangled by their own nomadic and pariah status and continental europeans’ disdain for their isles and lives.
@Chris
I looked up that Guardian article about the far right in Mongolia. That picture of Mongolian youth in Nazi paraphernalia just struck me as ironic as the original Nazis would have considered them an inferior race. I doubt if they could come to power like Hitler’s lot did. Even if they did the Mongolian population is small by Chinese standards and China has a relatively powerful military. As Mongolia borders China, any stupid moves on the parts of these disaffected youths can expect a response from China.
@jia
You are way over the top. To disagree with sinotibetan is one thing. To actually call for the slaughter of overseas Chinese by Malays and Indonesians puts you in the same category as the racist Axis Japanese of WWII who tried to destroy the Chinese communities in S.E. Asia. Today those communities have more choices of places to go in times of trouble. Besides a more prosperous China there is Singapore which wants professional people. Australia is also where many Chinese from Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam went to when they were persecuted and many have re-established themselves successfully there. It’s also not just about China and everyone else in S.E. Asia. Malaysians and Indonesia fought a war over Borneo. Vietnam invaded Cambodia. Everyone quarrels about those islands in the South China Sea.
I see that in my absence the article has attracted more racist bile from a Chinese commentator. The comments of this ‘jia’ person are not worthy of attention, except that they unfortunately represent a racist and jingoistic streak in China that the world is going to hear more of in future. Note the implied threat of invasion (‘if the racial relations deteriorates any further, … (what is) likely to materialize (is) a han massacre of mongols in both inner and outer mongolia’). Coming from the strident supporter of a nation that is supersensitive about its (so-called) sovereignty, it’s interesting that people like this can speak so nonchalantly of invading other countries.
At any rate, I came on here not to read or comment on bilge from the jia’s of this world, but to mention something that has been neglected so far: the absence of Chinese-language signs in Mongolia is, in fact, a product not of official policy, but of vigilante efforts by groups like those covered in the Guardian article. My understanding is that these groups took justice into their own hands a few years ago and smashed all Chinese signs in UB (Japanese and Korean are ok, only Chinese was targeted). If you should be so foolhardy as to put up a sign in Chinese, you can be sure of attracting their less-than-gentle ministrations.
@Greg
You should take into account that just because the commentator used the name “jia” it doesn’t necessarily mean he’s Chinese.
I can understand the Mongolians fear of the Chinese. They are a far cry from the days of Genghis and Kublai Khan when they destroyed a third of the Chinese Empire. Today the Chinese population far outnumber that of their former masters. However, blame for Mongolia’s economic situation cannot and should not be laid at Beijing’s doorstep. More accurately, the Mongolians are so backward is because of the fault of the old Soviet Union with her incompetent, corrupt central planning that didn’t leave Mongolia much when they pulled out. But then it seems to me that history is not the strong point of youth anywhere in the world.
Hi Sinotibetan,
My hats are off to you. I wish more people are thinking like you, so the Chinese and the Vietnamese can live peacefully next to each other for another thousand years.
@The_Observer
“Today the Chinese population far outnumber that of their former masters.”
The Chinese always outnumbered their colonial masters whether they were Mongols, or Manchus, or British-French-Germans, or Japanese. And the Chinese armies, composed of millions and millions of peasant-soldiers, were always defeated by a few thousand nomadic horsemen, or several divisions of the British navy, or a few division of Japanese Imperial army. For example, in 13th century, when Mongols slaughtered 40% of Chinese population, the Mongolian population was less than 1 million and the Chinese were more than 100 million. When Manchus took over Chinese, Manchus were about 4.5 million and Chinese were already 400 million. When Japan invaded former Manchuria or Inner Mongolia, the Chinese were already 600 miilion. This seems to suggest that the Chinese never were a masculine, fighting nation of soldiers, but rather of a feminine nation of Confucian rice-peasants or obedient workers who supply the world with lead- free toys, poison-less milk powders, or harmless and expensive shoes.
“However, blame for Mongolia’s economic situation cannot and should not be laid at Beijing’s doorstep.
Nobody is blaming the Chinese for Mongolia’s social and economic problem. Unlike communist China, Mongolia is a successful and vybrant democracy, and it has one of the fastest growing economies in the world and Asia. As people living in the free and dynamic democracy, the Mongolian people enjoy their rights to express their opinions and views on all sorts of issues including what they think of the Chinese. These neo nazi groups are not an exception. There are a few such groups in Mongolia. But they have no support of most Mongolians. However, these extreme groups are playing cleverly on the anti-Chinese sentiments among Mongolians.
There are several reasons why most Mongolians have negative views of China and the Chinese:
1. historical – Northern nomadic Mongolians fought with the Chinese for 5000 years, and they won 90 percent of these large and small wars. The proof of it the Chinese Great wall.
2. cultural – Mongolian culture is an Eurasian culture of nomadic horsemen and hunters, whereas the Chinese culture is a South East Asian culture of rice and cabbage cultivating peasants. The culture clash!
3. mutual racism – The Chinese always regarded and now regard the Mongols as northern barbarians who only know how to kill and savage. In return, the Mongols always regarded Chinese as short, dark-skinned, weak, and feminine slaves-eunuchs. In contrast, Mongols regard themselves a superior, masculine race of Altaic and Turanian horsemen and hunters. Mutual racism clash!
4. political – China now occupies roughly 40 percent of the traditional Mongolian lands and exploits 5 million ethnic Mongolians. China’s Inner Mongolia region, Bayan-gol and Bor tal district in Xinjiang and certain parts Liaoning, Jilin, Heilongjing, Gansu, and Qinghai provinces are Mongolian lands with Mongolian peoples. Therefore, the vast amjority of Mongolians in Mongolia are dreaming to get back their lost lands and people from China. This is another important reason for anti-China sentiments.
5. Chinese illegal immigrants and migrant workers in Mongolia – Mongolia has thousands of Chinese illegal immigrants who are working illegally in mines, contructions sites, or other things. They very often violate Mongolian laws and committ alots of crimes: The Chinese work in illegal mines and polute Mongolian environment, rivers, lakes, involved in criminal gangs, gambling, prostitution, drug dealing, bribery and corruption, and stealing and killing street children for organ harvesting and cooking. The last winter the Mongolian police found that there were several Chinese groups in Ulaan-baatar who stole and killed street children and sent their flesh to China as medicinal food from baby-flesh. Some even cooked them in UB. The Mongolian public was horrified! This Chinese cannibalism was a really last stroke in Mongolian’s patience. Therefore, many Mongolians do not like Chinese.
“More accurately, the Mongolians are so backward is because of the fault of the old Soviet Union with her incompetent, corrupt central planning that didn’t leave Mongolia much when they pulled out.”
Are the Chinese very advanced when 40 percent of the population eat dog or cat meat, and regard human poop as a traditional Chinese medicine?
The very reason Mongolia stack to the Soviet Union was to re-store its independence from Manchu-Qing. And Mongolia is now a successful democracy where human rights are respected and cherished. Thus, Mongolia escaped the fates of modern Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia where the Chinese police and troops kill innocent people for expressing their views.
Regarding central planning, China was a worse centrally planned economy until the 1970s when the Chinese government literally killed 35-40 million Chinese people by state-induced famine.
Mongolia is already one of the fatest growing economies in the world and Asia, and projected to be the fastest growing economy in the world for the next 20 years. Many analysts describe Mongolia as a new UAE. So, the Mongolian wolf just across the Chinese border is getting strong!
@baagii
“…China now occupies roughly 40 percent of the traditional Mongolian lands and exploits 5 million ethnic Mongolians. …”
The reason why Inner Mongolia is controlled by China is historical. In 1911, Russia was bound by secret treaties with Japan and partly due to lack of support from Inner Mongolian nobles and the higher clergy, that part of Mongolia wasn’t included in the newly independent country. In the Khiagt agreement of 1915, China, Russia and Mongolia agreed on Mongolia’s status as autonomous under Chinese suzerainty.
“…Regarding central planning, China was a worse centrally planned economy until the 1970s when the Chinese government literally killed 35-40 million Chinese people by state-induced famine…”
Yes, there were deaths but it wasn’t intentional as your writing implies. The fact remains that the state of the Mongolian economy was not Beijing’s fault at the time of Mongolia’s independence from the Soviet Union.
“..Are the Chinese very advanced when 40 percent of the population eat dog or cat meat, …”
Koreans also eat dog-meat and is considered a delicacy. Italians and other Europeans eat horse-meat.
“…Mongolia is already one of the fastest growing economies in the world and Asia, and projected to be the fastest growing economy in the world for the next 20 years. …”
Then the Mongolians should be busy working such that they shouldn’t have any time to be resentful.
I haven’t said anything so far, but I think bagii’s idea of retaking Inner Mongolia and driving the Chinese out is a pipe dream.
I certainly hope that Mongolia does well, and that the Inner Mongolians manage to retain their culture and language, even if they are Chinese by nationality. But the possibility of the Inner Mongolians being assimilated to the Chinese is far greater than that of the Chinese leaving, voluntarily or involuntarily.
“…retaking Inner Mongolia and driving the Chinese out is a pipe dream.”
This is what exactly said top Western Sovietologists like Henry Kissinger about the former Soviet Republics like Baltic States, or Central Asian States. But now Soviet Union is history,and these states have sent back millions and millions of Russians where they come from – Russia. For example, in 1990, Kazakhstan was 85 percent Russian. But now, it is 60 percent Kazakh, and 40 percent Russian. So, it is possible to send Chinese colonial immigrants without violence. There is a 1962 United Nations Resolution on colonized peoples and lands. The resolution states that if a new state (e.g., Kingdom of Tibet) or newly formed states (e.g., United Mongolia) declares the colonial immigrants (e.g., Chinese in Inner Mongolia) as illegal immigrants according to that country’s laws, it is perfectly legal to send these peoples back to where they come from originally (China proper). Therefore, this is possible. At this stage, of course, it remains a dream of 8 million Mongolians living in United, democractic and prosperous Mongolia. However, as Russians say, Dream dies last!
Of course, before this happens, many events should occur: China collapses because of internal revolutions, or China fights a war over Taiwan or South China Sea with other nations notably, US, Japan, and Korea, and Vietnam and gets defeated, and so on. Until then, United Mongolia remains just a wet dream of Mongolians.
“The reason why Inner Mongolia is controlled by China is historical. In 1911, Russia was bound by secret treaties with Japan and partly due to lack of support from Inner Mongolian nobles and the higher clergy, that part of Mongolia wasn’t included in the newly independent country. In the Khiagt agreement of 1915, China, Russia and Mongolia agreed on Mongolia’s status as autonomous under Chinese suzerainty.”
The direct reason why Inner Mongolia is in China is that Chinese communist troops invaded Inner Mongolia in 1947-48. This is the main reason. Therefore, Inner Mongolia remains as an occupied and invaded country like Tibet and Xinjiang (or East Turkestan as some Uighurs prefer). In order to save international communist movement and befriend with Chinese communists headed by Mao, Communist Soviet Union did everything to prevent Inner Mongolia’s annex into Mongolian people’s republic (at that time, the name of the country). This Mao-Stalin pact remains as one of the darkest moments in Mongolia’s several thousand years of history. Ironically, if Mongolia sent in Mongolian army in 1948 to liberate Inner Mongolia, they could have defeated easily Chinese peasant PLA. The Mongolian Army at that time, as prominent Mongolist Lattimore wrote, was the best equiped and battle hardened army in North East Asia because of 1939 and 1945 wars and Soviet arms. Mongolia did have a chance to liberate Inner Mongolia in 1948, but because of the pressure of the Soviet Union, we could not save our Southern brethrens from the Chinese colonization.
Before the 1947-48 invasion, many things happened:
In September-October 1911, Outer (Northern) Mongolia declares its independence from Manchu Qing. Notice, this was even before Manchu Qing collapsed.
In 1920, the Chinese bribed Mongolia’s half-Chinese prime minister Badamdorj, and sent in troop to Urgu.
In 1921, Baron Van Stern Ungern troops kicked out of Mongoli all the Chijnese troops.
in July 1921, Mongolian Army and Russian Red Army defeated Ungern’s troops, and declares Mongolian Peopel’s Republic as the second communist country in history.
In 1945, Mongolian and Soviet armies liberate Inner Mongolia and Manchuria from the Japanese. The vast majority of Inner Mongolians including nobles and aristocrats petitioned tothe Mongolian Government join Mongolia proper. Soviet Union, Chinese Goumindan, and Chinese communists do everything to prevent United Mongolia.
In 1945, Chinese Goumindan officially recognizes Outer Mongolia’s independence, and in 1949, People’s Republic recognized Mongolia’s independence.
This is the true history of how Inner Mongolia ended up as being a Chinese colony.
@the_observer
“Yes, there were deaths but it wasn’t intentional as your writing implies.”
I did not say it was intentional. China’s Civil wars, Great Leap forward policies, Cultural Revolution, forced abortions killed more people than the entire huan deaths during the WWII. I guess the country that has 1.3 billion people can afford a several dozen million deaths. But in countries like Mongolia, every single human is very valued because there are very people around anyway.
“… at the time of Mongolia’s independence from the Soviet Union”.
Unlike Inner Mongolia in China, Mongolia was never ever a part of the Soviet Union. Yes, Mongolia was under the protection of the Soviet Union, and it was a part of the Soviet block but not Soviet Union. Up until 1991, 100 thousand Soviet troops were stationed in Mongolia to defend against a possible aggression from China (remember, China attacked Vietnam in 1979). Besides, Soviet Union invested alot in Mongolian economy and built the enitre infrastructure and built up the human capital without erasing Mongolian culture and traditions. In addition, a vast majority of Mongolians still admire Russian culture, music, literature, science, and sports in contrast to the Confucian-peasant, communist culture of China.
@ Chris, Greg, Observer:-
Read the article on Neo-Nazism in Mongolia. It’s a disturbing trend that is occuring in countries the world over. Thankfully these groups are seen as extremist fringe groups. Greg – you mentioned that these fringe groups smashed signs in Chinese and that’s why there were no signs in Chinese in UB. What is disturbing is that they are having things ‘their way’! What do you think?
@ Hoang:-
Thanks. I don’t know what the majority of the Chinese in China think about China’s relations with other surrounding nations. I suspect they don’t think much about these as ( think) the Chinese are generally pragmatic people rather than idealists. But then again, I am an ‘overseas’ Chinese and may be wrong about how the Chinese in China view these issues. I too wish that we Asian countries can have better relations of mutual respect and peace. Not just between China and Vietnam but all the nations in our region.
@Baagii:-
Agree with some of your insights.
But unfortunately disagree with some.
“This seems to suggest that the Chinese never were a masculine, fighting nation of soldiers, but rather of a feminine nation of Confucian rice-peasants or obedient workers who supply the world with lead- free toys, poison-less milk powders, or harmless and expensive shoes.”
Not true. Or else, why are we talking about ‘containing China from Mongolia to Vietnam’?
Qin Shih Huang united China during the warring states era via military conquests. Millions were butchered in doing so. During the Warring States, there were incessant wars between the semi-independent feudal states. Sub Tzu’s “Art of War” attests to the war-like nature of ancient Chinese statesmen. The Three Kingdoms Period at the end of the Han Dynasty was a period od fierce, diabolical war games. And on and on. I would say the Northern Chinese are/were war-like while we Southern Chinese are/were more ‘peaceful’ peoples. Most of the dynasties were founded by northerners. The ‘peaceful, peasant-type’ might be applied in some form of generalization to the southern Chinese but certainly not to the Northerners. By the way, the economic powerhouse of China is the eastern provinces especially the Southeastern ones. We are not so keen with conquest than having peace and culture.
“Chinese culture is a South East Asian culture of rice and cabbage cultivating peasants. ”
Agree with ‘culture clash’. Don’t agree that Chinese culture is ‘South East Asian culture’ of rice and cabbage cultivating. I live in South East Asia(SEA) so I know Chinese culture and SEA cultures are worlds apart! Except for Vietnam(which China and Vietnam have cultural bonds but sadly we were(are still?) mortal enemies), the rest were influenced by India. Even Indonesia and Malaysia in spite of Islamization, has a deep Indian cultural substratum. Better to see this as conflict between settled, agrarian lifestyle(Chinese) vs nomadic Northeast/Central Asian(Mongolian).
“Are the Chinese very advanced when 40 percent of the population eat dog or cat meat, and regard human poop as a traditional Chinese medicine?”
I wonder if the southern Chinese were influenced by the Hmongic ethnic groups who do eat dog meat.
40%? I don’t think that number is right. By the way, Koreans also eat dog meat and I don’t think we view them as ‘not advanced’! As to the dog-eating phenomenon, it’s rather common amongst some dialect-groups in Southern China such as the Kejia people. I am of Kejia descent but I don’t eat dog meat.
Regarding the “Mongolian Wolf” – whether it will materialize will depend on the Mongolians themselves. I wish you the best!
@ Jia:-
I am sorry for you. I am not going to waste my time explaining because I am shocked you entertain such violent thoughts. You can call me a race-traitor : a very untrue accusation – but to “enjoy the butchering of overseas Chinese” is shocking to me to say the least! I am really shocked. If the majority of Chinese in China think like ‘Jia”, then we Chinese are a doomed people!
The Brits were wrong for their imperialism. But that does not mean we should follow their footsteps. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I am just apalled beyond belief!
sinotibetan
@ Greg:
“I haven’t said anything so far, but I think bagii’s idea of retaking Inner Mongolia and driving the Chinese out is a pipe dream”
Agree completely. The Chinese are too entrenched within Inner Mongolia territory to be driven out. And they make the bulk(>80%?) of the 25 million-strong population of Inner Mongolia. I think it’s more viable for Inner Mongolians who want to retain their Mongolian distinctiveness to migrate to Mongolia whilst those who have less Mongolian ethnic-consciousness even now are already Sinified and ‘becoming Chinese’. Physically Inner Mongolians and Northern Chinese are quite similar hence assimilation is easier to occur via inter-racial marriage.
The Uyghurs in Xinjiang will be a thorn in the flesh for a long time because here again the Chinese are so entrenched but the Uyghurs are physically different from the Chinese for assimilation to occur ‘easily’. Their Muslim faith will also render Sinification difficult. Problem for the Uyghurs is that as the way things go, they will have to live under Chinese yoke for a long time to come.
Tibet has a better chance because the place(except for Lhasa) is too inhospitable for massive Chinese influx in spite of all the ‘economic carrots’ the curent Chinese regime offers to would-be migrants. Then again, they can forcibly exile Han oppositionists and criminals there. The inhospitable climate is to the Tibetans’ advantage against Sinification and ethnic assimilation.
Mongolian nationalists should try to stay the influence of extremist groups and maintain their independence as a nation. “Reclaiming” so-called ‘lost lands’ is a waste of time whether it’s from the Chinese or from the Mongolians. But it may be dangerous for Mongolia to think of these ‘land claims’. Mongolians have to accept the reality that China is and will remain a very powerful country with nuclear weapons and a nation with veto power in the UN. A better way would be diplomacy and strategies that would ensure a powerful but peaceful China that no longer has imperialistic aims.
sinotibetan
“I think it’s more viable for Inner Mongolians who want to retain their Mongolian distinctiveness to migrate to Mongolia whilst those who have less Mongolian ethnic-consciousness even now are already Sinified and ‘becoming Chinese’… Problem for the Uyghurs is that as the way things go, they will have to live under Chinese yoke for a long time to come…Mongolian nationalists should try to stay the influence of extremist groups and maintain their independence as a nation. “Reclaiming” so-called ‘lost lands’ is a waste of time … Mongolians have to accept the reality that China is and will remain a very powerful country with nuclear weapons and a nation with veto power in the UN. … A better way would be diplomacy and strategies that would ensure a powerful but peaceful China that no longer has imperialistic aims.”
Well, Sinotibetan, your sentiments are sweet and reasonable. But the problem is that China is RIGHT NOW carrying out transmigrasi and sinification policies in Xinjiang. China is RIGHT NOW attempting to integrate Tibet through transport links and sinification. Inner Mongolia is supposed to be an ‘autonomous region’. You are capitulating to total sinification as some kind of fait accompli when you suggest that Mongols who want to maintain their culture and language should leave their homeland and migrate to Mongolia!
Eventually your ‘let’s all just get along’ sentiments, reasonable as they sound, are music to the ears of those ruthless enough to crush their opposition and steamroller their policies through. If someone powerful enough comes along and presents you with a fait accompli, you will meekly accept it because you ‘don’t want to cause trouble’. I don’t accept bagii’s irredentist thinking because I think it’s unrealistic, but to acquiesce in Han assimilation policies because that’s the way the wind is blowing doesn’t impress me much, either.
@baagii:
“Of course, before this happens, many events should occur: China collapses because of internal revolutions, or China fights a war over Taiwan or South China Sea with other nations notably, US, Japan, and Korea, and Vietnam and gets defeated, and so on. Until then, United Mongolia remains just a wet dream of Mongolians.”
I hope this is not what you think SHOULD occur to China so that the Southern and Northern Mongolians unite!
Do not think for once that Western, Russian etc. true aims in Asia are altruistic. You of all people should know that geopolitics is realpolitik. The Western powers, China, Russia, India etc. are all in the realpolitik games in the Asia-Pacific region. Destruction of China – the way you put it – will alter the geopolitical balance. That perhaps will be temporary till a new more imperialistic regime emerges in China, if China ‘crumbles’.
Also, should China’s current regime ‘collapse’ – it will bring widespread suffering to the Chinese in China. I doubt the chaos there will give rise to a ‘democracy’. It might give rise to fascism as downtrodden Chinese turn to racial and nationalistic pride to unite the country against “foreign invaders” such as the Americans, Europeans, Russians, Indians etc. Look at Russia – the chaos of so-called ‘Yeltsin’s democracy’ has led to the return of a milder authoritharian regime under Medvedev-Putin. If that regime falls, I don’t think ‘democracy’ will take root – instead a Fascist Government might be on the horizon. Learn history – don’t forget what the chaos of WW1 gave rise to in Germany.
I think although the current situation is not the best one, it is still better than a destroyed China. In fact, I doubt China can be ‘destroyed’. There would be ‘regime change’ if chaos occur but ‘democracy’ does not survive in civil war and strife. Only fascism will survive such situation. A truly Fascist regime in China will threaten the surrounding nations. It’s not to Mongolia’s interest for that to occur, in my opinion.
A fascist(and beaten) China will have no qualms triggering a WW3 that will be nuclear. China will be ‘beaten’ in that war(should it happen) with Western powers and all Asia will be under the influence of the West – something I am against. Asia should develop itself without too much ‘intervention’ from non-Asians.
Business and diplomatic relations yes, but not politico-military presence.
I’d prefer an East Asia with Japan, Korea, China and perhaps Vietnam playing dominant roles; at peace with all other nations, independent Mongolia and Tibet together in this grouping plus the other South East Asian countries, Taiwan renuited with Mainland China which it should be. And no more American ships or military bases in Okinawa or South Korea. The group of East Asian nations having a closer relations with Russia-Central Asian group, South Asian group(dominated by India and Pakistan) and Australasia.
My view is that China cannot be a democracy ala Western form. A kind of mildly authoritharian form of government is needed to retain control of that country.
sinotibetan
@ Greg:-
“I don’t accept bagii’s irredentist thinking because I think it’s unrealistic, but to acquiesce in Han assimilation policies because that’s the way the wind is blowing doesn’t impress me much, either.”
Understand your points. I don’t agree with the assimilation policies of China’s current regime either.
I can’t think of any ‘solution’ to stop the assimilation without dismantling of the current regime in China which will lead to chaos there. To my thinking, that will lead the Chinese there to become a country ‘subservient’ to the West(i.e. America) and if the chaos continues unabated, they might even ‘elect’ even more fascist rulers. I simply don’t think that democracy can be ‘fast-tracked’ in such a complex country as China. It failed in Soviet Union. It will fail in China too.
As a person of Chinese descent, I of course wish China to be a great nation once again, as she should be. Which leads me to a dilemma – I don’t agree with so many policies of the current regime and its corruption and imperialistic/assimiliation aims but at the same time I see such a regime necessary to ensure a stable, economically robust China. You might think me ‘xenophobic’ but I dislike the idea that China becomes like current Japan or South Korea which I believe politically kowtow to the USA. I’d prefer a China with policies that are independent from the control of the West. Not that I am anti-Western : I admire many things Western. I just think politically, culturally etc. , I wish China to always be distinct and independent from America and the West.
I have to agree that my thoughts are ‘unimpressive’. Perhaps you can provide some insights on how to halt the assimilation drive. Although, I perceive that it would include a ‘Westernization’ of China with a devolution of the current regime which I don’t think I can agree at this juncture.
Anyway, I am not a Chinese national , so I guess my thoughts on China would have absolutely no effect on that nation.
sinotibetan
“As a person of Chinese descent, I of course wish China to be a great nation once again, as she should be.”
This is always the be-all and end-all of Chinese thinking. The Chinese appear to have a mentality that identifies their own wellbeing with the greatness of their Race and their Nation — and let’s face it, Race means the great Han people, and Nation means the great Chinese Empire. Perhaps it’s because Chinese people have to put up with being kicked around in their own country that they have to take refuge in greater racial and national aspirations. In the end, if restoring China’s Historic Greatness means suppressing or walking over a few Lesser Nationalities, most Chinese are more than happy to do so. It’s part of being Great, isn’t it. Couldn’t have China being treated like one of those little countries, could we. Even the most liberal Chinese seem to unquestioningly accept Chinese Greatness as a kind of religion. And like all religions it’s not something that’s possible to discuss rationally.
As for Japan, there are plenty of people who are quite unhappy being subservient to the United States. They include nationalists and conservatives who want Japan to get rid of its Peace Constitution and develop normal armed forces rather than ‘self-defence forces’. Which gives you a pretty good idea of the kinds of thinking associated with Chinese Greatness.
In the end, I think this is the point of the article. In order for China to restore its Greatness (always defined against other great powers, never lowly nations), surrounding peoples have to submit to being trampled on. The Chinese couldn’t give a damn about Mongolia. They’re mainly sore because the nasty Russians took part of their empire away. And in their heart of hearts, in order to make China Great again, they would really like to have it back. No wonder the Mongolians are so sensitive about their next-door neighbour.
@ Greg:-
I think your judgement on me is too harsh and I believe you are mistaken by what I mean by ‘great nation’ in that sentence.
Time for some rebuttals and clarifications.
“The Chinese appear to have a mentality that identifies their own wellbeing with the greatness of their Race and their Nation — and let’s face it, Race means the great Han people, and Nation means the great Chinese Empire.”
You are generalizing far too much by including me into this generalization. Excuse me – I am NOT a national of China. Whether China becomes great or not actually has no direct practical impact on me. It’s not the Chinese ONLY who have the wellbeing of their own people taken into consideration. It goes the same too with Americans, Germans, Mongolians, Vietnamese etc. Is it wrong to want things to be well with one’s own nationality/ethnic group? I think not!
And if you are talking about Chinese thinking of a great China in imperial, political and military terms – hey the Chinese are NOT THE ONLY ONES GUILTY. Even western powers WERE and ARE just as guilty of the Chinese.
Why are the world over not too happy with the USA – isn’t the USA’s hegemonic ambitions one reason for it? Aren’t Iranians unhappy with America partly because of their nostalgia of a once great Persian Empire? India and China vying for hegemony in Asia. The Russians ever wary of both China and USA even though they have some cooperation with China. It’s NOT ONLY the Chinese who are guilty of this type of idea of greatness – the same can be said of big powers like USA, India, the UK etc. And about imperialism – why do you think most of South and Central America speak Spanish if not for Spanish imperialism? What about the British Commonwealth and how Britain conquered and colonized much of Asia and even Africa? What about the Dutch and their colonies in Africa and Indonesia? Why- even the USA was part of the British Empire before they broke off from their ‘parent nation’. If not for British Imperialism and the later rise of the USA as a superpower, do you think we will be using English as a lingua franca of knowledge, science and commerce? Or do we wish to forget the French in Africa and Indochina? How do you think blacks ended up in the Americas if not for the imperialism and slave trading perpetrated by the European powers such as Spain and the British Empire? Is it not Germany’s belief of hegemony in Europe that led to the last two world wars? Is it not the Japanese who thought their Emperor was a ‘god’ and they are a supreme race that led to their invasion of Asian nations? Is it not an implicit desire of Germany and France to be hegemenon in a ‘United States of Europe’ in the European Union? Etc. etc. That kind of thinking to dominate other nations/nationalities is NOT unique to the Chinese people. One cannot generalize that only the Chinese are guilty of this. I am NOT saying that the Chinese who are racial supremacist and imperialistic are right. They are WRONG and I cannot agree with them. I am just saying that one cannot say only the Chinese are predominantly imperialistic/supremacist.
When I said ‘great nation’, I actually meant more in terms of civilization, culture, science, technology, commerce etc. Although I later mentioned about political and military terms I meant more of China’s political and military independence. That China should not be like Japan and South Korea who are like under political tutelage and ‘direction’ from the USA and her allies. I agree though that the current regime in China – with its hunger for imperialism – is a peril for neighbouring nations. With a population of 1.3 billion(and growing in spite of ‘one child policy’) , economic developments and having nuclear weapons , China IS already a political, economic and military power. That’s reality, we cannot change it. Causing political chaos in a nuclear weapon bearing country to ‘weaken’ it is like playing with fire. I consider that the current regime in China CANNOT be a model to accept in the long term because it thinks of ‘greatness’ also in imperialistic terms – wanting to dominate and maybe even conquer neighbouring nations. I DON’T AGREE with that type of “GREATNESS”.
‘Great nation’ because of demographic strength, possesing a unique civilization that’s 3000 or more years old, BENIGN and NOT IMPERIALISTIC GREATNESS, having a strong military and politically strong to maintain independence from other powerful nations, the nation concentrating in reclaiming our culture destroyed by the Communist , developing science and technology etc. I agree that the current regime is NOT BENIGN.
My idea of China becoming a ‘great nation’ is NOT like the one you described later in your post.
“Perhaps it’s because Chinese people have to put up with being kicked around in their own country that they have to take refuge in greater racial and national aspirations.”
True the Chinese people fought many civil wars against each other in China. But in her history, she was also subjected / kicked around by other nationalities – the Jurchens who founded their own dynasty in Northern China, the Tanguts who founded Xixia, the Qidan who founded Liao, the Toba who founded Wei, the Manchus who founded Qing and not to forget the Mongols who founded Yuan etc. None of these people were Chinese. Many of them also thought of themselves as ‘superior’ to the Chinese and vice versa.
Please do not include me under those who “take refuge in greater racial and national aspirations” because I don’t. In fact, I think that Western Europe and the USA contributed more to science and knowledge ; the Chinese contribution to technology and science of our present world is not much. I do love our civilization and culture but I don’t ‘take refuge’ in it and don’t think that is a reason to dominate others.
“In the end, if restoring China’s Historic Greatness means suppressing or walking over a few Lesser Nationalities, most Chinese are more than happy to do so. It’s part of being Great, isn’t it.”
If you ever read my previous posts, you would know that I disagree with this type of ‘Greatness’. In fact, I am against the Chinese presence in Tibet. Hence my ‘nick’ – ‘sinotibetan’. The Chinese and Tibetans were in the distant past related to each other – that’s why Chinese and Tibetans are within the Sino-tibetan language family. But we became distinct peoples. Tibet should be an independent country. The current occupation of Tibet is WRONG. But how can a small Tibetan population go against the current regime? The West (i.e. USA) does a lot of talking but I believe merely use Tibet as yet another pawn in their politico-military ‘competition’ with China. I doubt the sincerity of the West in truly wanting an independent Tibet.
Part of being great is actually even if one is powerful and can dominate others, one instead humbles oneself and refuses to dominate anyone. The current Chinese regime is NOT GREAT in this aspect.
“Couldn’t have China being treated like one of those little countries, could we.”
Yeah. But not only China – no country, big or small should be treated the way you mentioned.
” Even the most liberal Chinese seem to unquestioningly accept Chinese Greatness as a kind of religion. And like all religions it’s not something that’s possible to discuss rationally.”
Nations, like individuals, have their ups and downs. I can discuss it rationally, just that maybe I am a bit emotional. I hope China will be ‘great’ in my ‘definition’ which is a non-imperialistic one. I don’t ‘unquestioningly’ accept it. I think China should be and could be like what I wish but not unquestioningly WILL be. And if you’ve read my previous posts, you’d realize that I would prefer China – though strong and independent military-wise and politically – be ‘contained’ and ‘constrained’ by other powerful nations. This is to ‘check’ China from being too powerful for their politicians to become greedy for imperialism like the current regime. That ‘check’, however, should be ‘from afar’ and not having military bases in China’s backyard. Just like I am sure the USA will not be happy if Russia has military bases in Canada and China military bases in Central America(America’s ‘backyard’).
“The Chinese couldn’t give a damn about Mongolia. They’re mainly sore because the nasty Russians took part of their empire away. And in their heart of hearts, in order to make China Great again, they would really like to have it back. No wonder the Mongolians are so sensitive about their next-door neighbour.”
After reading the vitriol from the likes of “Jia” and “Han”, I fear it’s probably true that a significant if not majority of the Chinese think this way. I kind of take issue with your statement because you mentioned ‘the Chinese’ which then would include me and that you quoted me at the beginning of the your post seems to mean you think in my ‘heart of hearts’ I think like the way you described.
I’ve said it in my previous posts that I am for an independent Mongolia. It would be great if Inner Mongolia can be reunited but I don’t see how it can be achieved. I truly emphatize with the Mongolians – so please don’t say ALL CHINESE ‘couldn’t give a damn about Mongolia’. Although I am not sure whether I am the only Chinese in the world who feel this way.
I hope this long post clarifies some stuff I took issue with in your post which I felt was a personal attack on me.
My wish is one day we have a reunited China and Taiwan, independent Mongolia, reunited Korea, Japan, Vietnam, independent Tibet and other Asian nations at peace with each other. Looks like it might remain just a dream judging current sentiments.
sinotibetan
What I wrote wasn’t necessarily specifically aimed at you. It was aimed at the strain of thought that makes Restoring China’s Greatness a kind of religion. This kind of thinking regards China as the great victim of bullying, completely oblivious to the fact that restoring China’s greatness means bullying other people. Tibet is the prime example. In order to get back its power and pride, China must incorporate Tibet in its territory. The Tibetans and their wishes don’t matter; only China’s greatness (vis-a-vis other powerful nations) matters. This thinking appears to be shared by most Chinese (Hans), for whom it’s only natural that the empire should be reclaimed. You may be an exception, but in my experience you don’t have to scratch very deep to find chauvinist sentiments amongst even the most liberal Chinese. I tend to find this kind of thinking objectionable.
@ Greg:-
“in my experience you don’t have to scratch very deep to find chauvinist sentiments amongst even the most liberal Chinese. ”
I don’t have much experience with the Chinese from China. Nevertheless, with my ‘experience’ with such characters like ‘Jia’ and ‘Han’ plus an acquaintance from Hunan(he seemed ‘liberal’ to me but I was surprised at his chauvinism), I fear I have to agree with you.
“I tend to find this kind of thinking objectionable.”
Agree with you absolutely.
sinotibetan
Something interesting from the Web. I think that trouble will be brewing in Tibet if the current Chinese regime persists in their imperialism and colonialism of Tibet and if the West continues with a policy of all talk and no action.I think Tibetan patience may be running its course and reaching the limit of boiling point.
http://www.france24.com/en/20090529-tibetans-torn-between-spiritual-authority-political-necessity-
sinotibetan
“This is always the be-all and end-all of Chinese thinking. The Chinese appear to have a mentality that identifies their own wellbeing with the greatness of their Race and their Nation…”
So in other countries it’s called “Patriotism” and if it’s in china, it becomes “Greatness means suppressing or walking over a few Lesser Nationalities”.
FYI, I grew up in both China and US. While in china, I got educated very well in cultural diversity. Infact, you can say I was brain washed with these respect for other cuture propagandas. It looks like it’s something you lack very much from your tune and undereducated knowledge base. So don’t tell me anything about culture assimilation when your minority groups’ culture fail to appear in your text book while almost every chapter of a 5th grade chinese text book contains them one way or another.
Fact: You don’t get respected if you are poor in china. It’s basically fish eat fish free for all world. I think it’s what you called capitalism. I believe these so called culture assimilation is one of its side effects.
It’s not “Patriotism”, it’s chauvinism.
My comments above were, in fact, not related to Americans or anyone else; they were related to Han Chinese ideas of maintaining their country’s greatness by occupying what is arguably other peoples’ territory. The European occupation of the Americas was quite a different process, and not a pleasant one, either. But “pot-calling-kettle-black” retorts are not a very constructive way to argue.
As for: “don’t tell me anything about culture assimilation when your minority groups’ culture fail to appear in your text book”. Obviously having grown up in both China and the US doesn’t do much to disabuse one of the notion that all people commenting in English are Americans. “Undereducated knowledge base” is not a term one should throw around easily.