09.26.07
Was Chinggis Khaan Chinese?
/DSC00091.jpg) |
|
Chinggis Beer, the Budweiser of Mongolia
|
On one of my last days in China I wore a shirt that I bought in Mongolia with the image of Chinggis Khaan, Mongolia’s all around patriarch/superstar. As leader of the Mongolian nomads, Chinggis was able to invade and take over most of China, parts of Russia, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East, while establishing the largest empire in world history. The Ulaanbaatar Airport is named after him. Mongolia’s most popular beer is named after him, and pictures of him can be seen all over Mongolia. Although he died over 600 years ago, Chinggis is by far and away Mongolia’s most prominent historical figure. During my trip to Mongolia, I had to buy a Chinggis Khaan T-shirt.
My Chinggis shirt often becomes a conversation topic when I wear it in China. When my Chinese friends ask where I bought the shirt, and I tell them Mongolia, they are quick to point out that Mongolia was historically part of China, and that Mongolians are one of the 56 official nationalities living in China, and therefore Chinggis Khan was a Chinese.
During several periods in history, Mongolia was controlled by China, and today half of it (Inner Mongolia) still is. However, from 1271 to 1368, China was invaded and controlled by Chinggis and his Mongolian tribes in what is commonly referred to in China as the “Yuan Dynasty.”
Determining who is and who is not Chinese is not an exact science. What makes somebody a Chinese? If we say that a Chinese is a Han Chinese, then the Manchurians who controlled China during the Qing Dynasty would not be Chinese either, and neither would be Zheng He, the famous explorer (and Hui Muslim), who allegedly discovered America before Christopher Columbus.
/DSC00045.jpg) |
|
Chinggis Khaan International Airport, Ulaanbaatar
|
Yet, if we insist that “Chinese” includes all of the peoples who are represented by the 56 official Chinese nationalities, then suddenly our definition of “Chinese” swells to include not only Chinggis Khaan, but Stalin, Kim Jong Ill, the Dalai Lama, and Borat, all of whose nationalities are part of the 56. So where is the line between a Chinese and a…for lack of better terminology…laowai? Calling Chinggis Khaan Chinese seems like a historical stretch to me, but by some twist of logic, I can see how the distinction would be made. However, using the same logic, you could argue that Mao Zedong was Mongolian. Somehow I can’t imagine this would sit too well with the Chinese.
Chip
said,
September 26, 2007 at 11:23 am
I like to blow people’s minds with the fact that there are more Hmong outside China than in, and NOT ONE would refer to themselves as Miao. Or talk about how some ethnically Han americans (IE, born in America, speak only english) would be refered to as Huaqiao, and yet Russians (one of the 56 groups) aren’t given them same “quick!-return-to-the-motherland!” treatment. And then I usually end up saying that in many countries, especially Germany, have learned to not even discuss race, because the concept of “race” has no scientific basis. Oh the joyful conversations I’ve had.
Nick
said,
September 26, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Ben is confusing the modern statehood with traditional Chinese thinking of historical influence. Chinese don’t call Republic of Mongolia part of the People’s Republic of China. Chinese refers Chinggis Khann as a ruler of historical China. Yuan dynasty is one of a dozen of dynasties which received the mandate to rule the land of China in a continuous period of more than four thousands years. There was no the concept of statehood in China. There was only the concept of dynasty and mandate to govern the people in China before the founding of Republic of China.
As recent as Qing dynasty, Mongolians have been considered as Chinese. Manchurians and Mongolians formed strong alliance through marriage in late Ming Dynasty. Both areas of Manchu and Mongolia were considered as the political base of Qing Dynasty, at least in the early founding of Qing Dynasty. Republic of China took over the mandate from Qing Dynasty. That’s why ROC in Taiwan still considers Mongolia as part of the historical China. Mao let Mongolia be an independent country because of the pressure from USSR. In the minds of Chinese people, they consider Chinggis Khann a great Chinese emperor and Mongolians part of Chinese nationality. Remember that the idea of statehood was brought in from the West less than one hundred years ago. Compared to the span of Chinese dynasties, it is a very short time. Therefore, there is a great deal of historical aspect in the mindsets of ordinary Chinese people. You simply can’t understand the Chinese with western periscope.
chriswaugh_bj
said,
September 26, 2007 at 1:26 pm
The construction of national identity always involves a lot of myth-making. The same is true for every country.
I think one distinction you need to draw in this post, though, is the difference between ethnic and national identities. An American Jew can be both Jew and American and not Israeli. A New Zealander of Irish descent can identify as ethnically Irish, of New Zealand nationality but not of Irish nationality. The Mongols of Inner Mongolia are ethnic Mongolians of Chinese nationality; the Mongols of Mongolia are Mongolians of Mongolian nationality and not Chinese. Same applies to Koreans, Russians, Kazakhs….
As for whether or not Chingis or Nurhaci (founder of the Qing) were Chinese, history is always far more complicated than the myths made by modern nationalists. It is worth pointing out that the Great Wall was built specifically to keep the likes of Chingis and Nurhaci and their people, and the Khitans, Jurchens, Xiongnu, etc, in the grasslands to the north and the settled, agricultural folk of the Central Plains cultures to the south safe from the ravages of those wild nomad types. Having said that, throughout history, way back to the Spring and Autumn/Warring States, and the Zhou, Shang and Xia even before then, there has been extensive contact- both violent and peaceful- between the Central Plains cultures south of the Great Wall and the grasslands cultures to the north, and that contact involved a lot of cultural and even genetic exchange. The Xiongnu are a great example- about the time of the Eastern Han there was a big split in Xiongnu society, with the northern branch rejecting Central Plains “civilisation” and wanting to go back to the old nomadic ways, and the southern branch becoming more Sinicised. The southern Xiongnu moved south of the Great Wall and eventually settled in the area around modern Linfen City, in particular Hongtong County (yes, yes, the brick kiln slave scandal. Also my wife’s ancestral hometown- my wife is a Xiongnu princess).. The northern Xiongnu were eventually chased a long way westwards- so far westwards there’s a very good chance, but little solid evidence, that they became the Huns of Europe (you know, Attila). Of course, the Xiongnu as a distinct ethnic, cultural or national group disappeared shortly afterwards, with the southern Xiongnu who settled around Linfen being absorbed into the society that would become known as the Han ethnic group.
The point of all this rambling is: Sure, the Great Wall was supposed to be the northern border of China, but the fact is the grasslands north of there have always been within the Chinese sphere of influence and cultural exchange, even if they weren’t always under Chinese control. So was Chingis Chinese? Yes and no.
Nick
said,
September 26, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Ben, let me ask you a question. What defines an American? If I was born in Switzerland and have both Canadian and U.S. citizenships, do you call me Swiss, Canadian, or American? Some founding fathers of United States were not born in Colonial America. Can you say that they are not Americans? Can you say that people of Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Alaska are not Americans? Now, apply the same mind set you would have for American to the Chinese, but only make it ten times more complex. Will you draw the same conclusion as you have had?
Bjoern
said,
September 27, 2007 at 1:52 am
Dschinghis Khan was in fact never a Chinese emperor. He never ruled over any part of China as China was only conquered by his successors. The first Monolian Emperor of China was Khubilai Khan. As his grandfather, Dschinghis Khan was posthumously declared emperor by the Chinese. Mongolia also was never ruled by Chinese before 1911 as the Mongolians considered themselves loyal to the (Mandschuran) emperor, but not the country.
The idea of the Chinese as a nation (中华民族) or race (汉) is barely 100 years old and saying the Mongolians are Chinese is a ridiculous claim that even the Chinese would not have made had it not been for the Japanese pressure in the first half of the 20th century that let to the rise of today’s Chinese Nationalism. Since then, Chinese Nationalism has unfortunately long left the realm of rationality.
Even if you accept the idea of a “historic nation” as valid (which any selfrespecting historian does not), it only works when the subjects think of themselves in that way. Therefore, when the Han (which is a construct itself, by the way) claim that this or that minority is Chinese, it is actually irrelevant. It only matters what the minority itself thinks. If Mongolians (or Tibetans or Uighurs …) think of themselves as Chinese, they are in fact Chinese, but if they do not, the Han can claim that as long as they want, it will still not become true.
(Sorry if I got a bit emotional here)
Buz Trevor
said,
September 27, 2007 at 9:36 am
According to books I have read, the Chinese are putting their own construct on this because the founders of the great Chinese dynasties were of Mongol descent. This does not fit in with the Chinese view of themselves.
The Mongolians attach no credence to them being “Chinese”.
Matt Schiavenza
said,
September 27, 2007 at 10:39 am
Actually, Stalin isn’t Russian but rather ethnically Georgian.
/nitpicking
Matt Schiavenza
said,
September 27, 2007 at 10:47 am
Calling Mao a Mongolian would not sit well, but one could also call him Japanese (as Japan, after all, ruled over China from 1936-1945). That I imagine would cause more than a minor argument….
chriswaugh_bj
said,
September 27, 2007 at 12:37 pm
“Since then, Chinese Nationalism has unfortunately long left the realm of rationality.”
All Nationalisms have long since left the realm of rationality.
chriswaugh_bj
said,
September 27, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Signor Schiavenza: Stalin was ethnically Georgian, but born in the Russian Empire, therefore Russian by nationality; and then of course a Soviet citizen.
Windlike
said,
September 27, 2007 at 10:04 pm
In fact, Chinese is not only a nation but also a kind of culture concept. And the concept of Han is the same. In history, a lots of nations join into Han and there are lots of different bloodlines in Han.
All these conditions can be summarized as a sentence that “if you think you are chinese, you are chinese”. On the contrary, if a Chinese don’t think he is chinese, then he is not Chinese. This is the history concept of chinese. By this rule, you can understand why Chinese think that Yuan and Qing dynasry were history of Chinese. Because that rulers of Yuan and Qing dynasry follow Chinese culture and named themselves Chinese.
There are two reasons that Chinese people named Chinggis Khaan Chinese. Firstly, cradleland of Chinggis Khaan was in field of Tang Dyansty. Secondly, most Mongolians joind into chinese in Ming and Qing dynasty.
A same example is Hun. In China, a lot of people think that many Han in north china have bloodline of Hun.
Bjoern
said,
September 28, 2007 at 4:03 am
“All Nationalisms have long since left the realm of rationality.”
Fair enough.
“There are two reasons that Chinese people named Chinggis Khaan Chinese. Firstly, cradleland of Chinggis Khaan was in field of Tang Dyansty. Secondly, most Mongolians joind into chinese in Ming and Qing dynasty.”
This is not really true. The Tang Dynasty never controlled the home of Dschinghis Khan and it ended about 250 years before his birth anyway. And the Ming Dynasty never ruled over greater parts of the steppe. The was in fact the Dynasty most close to being a national Chinese dynasty, if you want.
Also, the Yuan rulers did not follow Chinese culture, which was in fact a big reason why the dynasty ended relatively early. The same is true for the early Qing, but later emperors became sinisized.
Nick
said,
September 28, 2007 at 4:26 am
Some westerners always think of the “realm of rationality” in context of western thinking and refuse to take the perspective of other line of thoughts. They found the way Chinese looks at Chinggis Khaan unacceptable to western standards and against their deep rooted western concept of nationality.
Little do they know that some western scholars like Evelyn Rawski considered the concept of “Han Chinese” relatively recent one and was only invented by Chinese scholars under the influence of European concepts of race and ethnicity in early 20th century.
Republic of China (ROC) is the first Chinese “nation”, modeled after western definitions of nationality. The founding father of modern China, Dr. Sun Yat-sen, proclaimed the concept of “Five Races under One Union”, which means the union of five nationalities: Han, Manchu, Mongol, Hui and Tibetan. The term “Zhonghua Minzu” is the concept for creating a unified national concept that respects the differences within it. This concept Chinese nation was actually borrowed from western countries such as Germany which historically was made up of many small states. Nationalism is a powerful political tool for unification. However, it is a “western” concept, not a Chinese one.
So, why is it so wrong that Chinese adopts western standards and include Mongolian as part of the big family? United States claims that Americans are Indian, Chinese, Irish, Russian, and every race on the earth because United States has been a big melting pot in her short span of history. Some westerners are applying “double standards” to Chinese. Never do those westerners want to know that Chinese civilization has been a bigger melting pot in her four thousands years of history. Nowadays, it is difficult to tell what peoples make up to “Chinese” race. The genetic pool of Chinese people from Northern China resembles more closely to that of the people in Mongolia and central Asia than their counterparts in the Southern China. Chinese people in the south, in cities such as Kunming, Haikou, Guangzhou, look more like the people from Vietnam and Thailand. Yet, they all call themselves Chinese.
“Zhonghua Minzu” is a concept to bind peoples with different race and ethnicity together for a harmonious society. It serves a good intention to promote peace. Don’t stir up conflicts just because you don’t want to see Mongolian as part of “Zhonghua Minzu”.
Alan
said,
September 28, 2007 at 6:32 am
>>”The founding father of modern China, Dr. Sun Yat-sen,…”
Hmm… what an oxymoron! Dr. Sun Yat-sen wasn’t even Chinese. He was Cantonese. O.K. Just kiddin!
I have always maintained that China isn’t a mono-race nation, although China doesn’t have the kind of racial issues that America has. China is so big with so many different ethnic people groups. But the difference (as compared with America) is that various Chinese ethnic groups look very similar and hence … Just like Italian and Irish immigrants in America many years ago, these two groups were singled out to become the target of discrimination. Yet after a couple of generations, Italian and Irish descents in America today are practically idential to any other European descents in America. Skin color and physical similarity do play a role in people’s consciousness of assimilation and acceptance of others.
Matt Schiavenza
said,
September 28, 2007 at 11:36 am
Singor Waugh,
Indeed, Georgia was part of the Russian empire so I stand corrected.
I suppose everyone will just have to utilize the cumbersome explanations that ethnicity and nationality are separate concepts. For instance, I’m ethnically Italian and Norwegian (50/50) but am an American national, so I could describe myself accurately as any of the above.
chriswaugh_bj
said,
September 29, 2007 at 7:58 pm
And if I could remember the Norwegian word for Mr, I’d use it: Matt with the long Italian S surname: absolutely. Trouble is, ethnicity and nationality are constantly being confused, as the huaqiao example that I’m sure somebody mentioned shows perfectly, and ethnicity is a rather dubious concept, anyway (what makes you ethnically half-Norwegian and me ethnically Scots-Irish? Looking at the real history of northern Europe, there hasn’t been much difference between Viking and Gael for a hell of a long time), so we’re all condemned to constant confusion and eternal cumbersome explanations.
Jeremy Yeh
said,
September 29, 2007 at 9:28 pm
well,stalin is not russian,he is actually georgian. so in this case,he aint chinese. lol!
zuraffo
said,
October 4, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Gengis Khan is of course Chinese.
If somehow Julius Ceasar reached China he would be a chinese too.
You see, that’s the beauty of chinese philosophy: Much of the world convert (or annihilate, red indians comes to mind) others by defeating them, but chinese convert others by being defeated by them. LOLOL
The sole exception was Japan, whom the chinese traditionally believed was a splintered group of Chinese that somehow hated their motherland. So there wasn’t any need to assert that they are chinese because… traditionally they are! LOLOL
As for Korean, they have been civilized and come to Qufu for pilgrimage every year so that’s fine, they can call themselves whatever they like. LOLOL
The irony of history is that the concept of nationalism and ethnicism is created a bunch of europeans (rulers, at least) that are so close in bloodline that they might as well have been one family. China, who throughout its histories have absorbed so many different bloodline that it’s impossible nowadays to claim oneselve as a “pure” Chinese (the very concept of Chinese a western one, in any case), never came up with that notion.
Wonder why… maybe too much similarity created the need to differentiate?
bachka
said,
February 1, 2008 at 2:39 am
fuk of all CHINGGIS KHAAN was the mongolian. NEVER BEEN IN CHINA maybe u dont know history i dont like chinese. Our mongolia dont like chinese We named chinese all bad words. HAHAHAHAHA Mongolia Mongolia Hey babys If CHINGGIS KHAAN WAS CHINESE WHY great wall was built? IN FACT great wall is built AFraid og our mongolia muu hujaanuudaa
Roasterie
said,
February 15, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Wow, great discussion about Chinggis Khan. Most of you have good knowledge about Mongolia and China. What true history is, Chinggis khan’s grandson Khubilai moved the capital of Great Mongol Empire from Kharkhorin (today’s Mongolian territory) to Beijing in order to execute the vast territory of Empire. Main communication channel in 13th century was “Ortoo” that Ogodei, Chingis’ son came up with, establishing small units where postman can take rest and change the horses. Communication was so important to rule the big empire and I think this is one of the reasons why Khubilai moved the capital city to China, which is the fact later interpreted by Chinese “he is chinese”. But not only Chinese, but also Japanese and Koreans compete for Chingis khan as their hero.
For Mongolians, Chinggis Khan is their great father and leader and southeast asians are looking ways to relate themselves with Chinggis because he established the second biggest empire (after British empire) in the world, but in Arab world, he is not well respected, they simply hate Chinggis…
begi
said,
February 18, 2008 at 4:16 am
The Mongols of Mongolians are Mongolians of Mongolian nationaity! Of course Chinggis Khaan was NOT CHINESE! The only true is that Great wall was built because chinese afraid of Chinggis Khaan.history can confirm it! NO ONE CAN CHANGE THE WHOLE HISTORY!
saruul
said,
March 14, 2008 at 3:31 am
saying as GENGHIS KHAN was a chinese is fukin nonsense, chinese have never ruled our country since they are chinese therefore they cant rule our country since we are MONGOLIANS
LALA
said,
March 18, 2008 at 12:15 pm
OF COURSE GENGHIS KHAN WAS NOT CHINESE!!!!!!!!! READ ABOUT GENGHIS KHAN OK?
Uuree
said,
July 24, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Great comments and knowledge about Mongolia.
Fellow Mongolians: I compared your comments with those from other countries. They seem to be more knowledgeable about the history and the way they justify their comments and views is impressive. Let’s learn LOL.