This article was nominated for deletion on 23/12/06. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

China High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Discrimination High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

The contents of the Han Chinese nationalism page were merged into Han nationalism on 29 December 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Since there are no references in the article, it is difficult to ascertain if the POV is neutral or not. --Viriditas | Talk 21:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is chock-full of (Harvard style)references. Look it up. The problem is that someone's lifted the article from a journal and neglected to include the full sources which should follow, not to mention the quotation marks which should enclose the second paragraph. More to the point, to cut and paste an article, post it under the author's name and then start editing it is highly dubious practice. In doing so you are utterly misrepresenting the guy. (Of course, to post it not under the author's name would be straight-up plagiarism.) The article itself is, in my opinion and if you follow the sources in the original, well-supported and neutral. It is also backed up by plenty of other work (eg. Harrell, S. ed. "Cultural Encounters on China's Ethnic Frontiers pub. University of Washington Press 1995). The article should be cited as a reference in the main piece. I might also mention copyright violation.

article's changed substantially since whoever it was lifted it from the journal. most of the inflammatory/unsupported material has been removed. see history. --Sumple (Talk) 03:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article still lacks references, so I've tagged it. It also contains many statements that are off topic. —Babelfisch

• By the way, notice how biased and irrelevant the sources are? As biased and irrelevant as the PRC government's sources would be! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.68.141 (talk)

This topic is highly inflammatory and has not being supported by facts.

I have never heard of the chinese terms to describe Han chauvinism being used ever, whether in chinese literature or general speech. Unless people can provide legitimate facts on this issue, this topic should be removed.[[User:Rapier28|Rapier28] 13:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Rapier28

Just because you never heard of it, doesn't mean that such a sentiment doesn't exist. In fact, i am quite proud to be a Han culturalist, me and some friends on a Chinese forum tried to revive traditional Han Chinese clothing. We had organized quite a few Han Chinese clothing gathering both in China and overseas. This picture on the left side is one of example.赵里昱 14:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion here is between POV and PC. The article is not politically correct; it is, I think, not inaccurate for that reason. Let me offer an illustration: A chap at one of New York's city colleges recently delivered a presentation on Chinese multi-ethnic performing arts. All of his examples were taken from mass-entertainments — Chinese New Year TV spectaculars, National Day events in Beijing and so on. All such events include ostensibly representative minority-ethnicity contributions; all are heavily choreographed by directors with strong Han-dominant aesthetics, as can easily be seen when comparing the choreographed performances with more "anthropological" films, e. g.. We can ask why this chap, who bills himself as multiculturally, multi-ethnically sensitive, would elect to use "sanitized" examples. Several reasons suggest themselves; at least one is the need to acknowledge Han supremacy, at least a sort of ethnic "primus inter pares" status. Now, that is not PC here; it might be entirely PC among Chinese, especially those who are, as I suspect is the case of this particular CUNY don, politically hoffähig.To acknowledge that this exists, especially in the relatively terse way it is here, is not indicative of a failure of neutrality. Or, to put it bluntly, racism — better, and more embracing: cultural bigotry — is commonplace. Acknowledging it in China is merely sound scholarship, inherent neutral. --djenner 00:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terms like 南蛮,西戎,北狄,東夷 are historic terms no one really use anymore. Except 南蛮(子）, but it's used as a general derogery term to describe "uneducated" southern people in general (who may or may not be Han). (much like "Red Neck", "White Trash" or "Hillbilly" in the United States.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.68.141 (talk)

I removed: "In recent years, some young people tried to revive traditional Han Chinese clothing using internet based forum. They had organized quite a few Han Chinese clothing gathering both in China and overseas. This picture on the left side is one of example. Han Chinese clothing was lost in China for 360 as a result of Manchus invasion and the resulting occupation of the whole of China from 1644 to 1911."

This does not have anything to do with Han chauvinism. It has to do with Han cultural revival, which is not necessarily chauvinistic. I do not think the Hanfu movement has any significant to warrant any mention in this encyclopedia.--Jiang 06:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone notice that this is like, a Japanese fabrication? Japanese? Chinese? Hello? How POV can you get? Ok I don't want to get into an argument about the reliability or the integrity of the scholarly works cited, but think about it: Can you imagine an article called "Anglo-Saxon chauvinism"?? Or "African-American chauvinism"? --Sumple 11:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We actually do have articles on those concepts, see Eurocentrism, Dead white males, etc. As I said on the AFD page, Google Scholar turns up 866 hits for the term Han chauvinism. —thames 16:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading comments on the AfD page and doing a bit of google search myself, I realise that this is a valid term. However, some of the statements made in the article are deliberately misleading, and I'll be editing them. Thanks for your help. --Sumple 00:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some edits, mainly to correct the meaning of the four "deorgatory terms". I still have concerns about the neutrality of that Japanese reference. The title sounds... appropriate, I have to admit... <.< --Sumple 01:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is coming in a long time afterwards, but the Japanese newspaper referred to, the Sankei, is noted in Japan for being anti-Chinese. Bathrobe 09:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to make the article more NPOV. I also explained why the term is now perceived as pejorative and added that the PRC is against the ideals of Han chauvinism (that is, Manchu-bashing and minority-bashing are illegal in the PRC).

Han chauvinism in its pure ideological form is racist, hate-mongering and evil; it is equivalent to notions of white supremacy and notions of the Aryan master race in northern Europe. However, the term Han chauvinism today is widely misused and misrepresented, to the point that using the term Han chauvinism is often done to insult or attack ordinary Han Chinese. For example, Japanese and American right-wing forums often attack the Han Chinese for being "Han chauvinists", implying that the Han Chinese are racists. This is like saying whites in the US today are white supremacists and inherently racist or intolerant. 68.252.250.228 11:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...Not really. It's more equivalent to the concept of white privilege in the United States and other Western countries, in which most members of the majority ethnic group are not actively or explicitly racist but they still, often unconsciously, benefit from being the majority group. --124.119.126.206 (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to professor Endymion Wilkinson, "The austroasiatic language of the Shang was descended from the Dongyi peoples of Shandong and to the South" -"Chinese History: A Manual" (pg.21)

So I'm still a bit curious as to where some people argue that Dongyi people were Northeast Asian. According to many sinologists (I'm simply using Wilkinson as an example), the Dongyi people were probably more related to Austronesians along the coast of Southeastern China.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.209.254 (talk)

I removed "The Dongyi are said to form the main part of the Han Chinese today."

Han Chinese is considered mainly Huaxia.

I removed the subsequent claim that Shang is Dongyi. [[1]] Basically proposes all 8 directions, including the Xia Dynasty territory itself, as possible origins of the Shang. In short, origins of the Shang are disputed, and therefore cannot be attributed to Dongyi. Hanfresco 21:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy seem to have ended and a number of academic sources have been added, so I have removed the POV tag. On the other hand, the article is not very elegant, so it might need a clean-up.--Niohe 01:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned the article up a bit. However, I am not sure if everyone likes it. Please someone help me with my reference. I do not how to add a reference to this article. I have used another way so I am not sure how to do it according to this site. Thanks! Platinumkaiser (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the statement on nanman on this article was deliberately aimed at making the han chinese race seem "fake" by claiming that southern chinese are only descended from the orgiginal non han inhabitanats of the region. that is not true, in fact they were descended from a mix of chinese colonists and the original inhabitants. sentence is corrected.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Nanman" (traditional Chinese: 南蠻; simplified Chinese: 南蛮
2. "Xirong" (西戎)
3. "Beidi" (北狄)
4. "Dongyi" (traditional Chinese: 東夷

These are ancient derogative and racist terms used in the past. Han(漢) Chinese( or Huaxia) were, but now will never be the dominant race in China Proper, the dominance were broken twice in the past(a) Mongols (b) Manchus. After 1911, when Republic of China(ROC) was established, all ethnicity except Han, have entered the Modern Time, and nowadays this terms are hardly being used at all, except on the Han. To put all these terms here under the name of Han chauvinism, is an attack on Han (漢), and I happen to be one.

For thousands of years, Han people(or Huaxia people) were having wars with all those nomads, herdsman, so it was only natural to devise names and labels for their life or death enemies, to express our ignorance and blind hatred against other people. Likewise, Mongols and Manchus have derogative names for Han too, like "small little pee-pee", or "tiny brain".

The article as such, is a clear racist attack on Han, which require a outright ban.Arilang1234 (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. What? — LlywelynII 09:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the article as awhole has problems, or a section has problems, or specific assertions are problematic, then tag accordingly -- but I really don't see what purpose is served by indiscriminately "pockmarking" the article by adding "citation needed" tags to the end of every single paragraph. AnonMoos (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Article is incorrectly referenced and still lacks citations... I don't know which source is for what which is VERY annoying, if anybody that knows what their doing could verify them it would be greatly appreciated... sorry about my uselessness here. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 04:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Han chauvinism and Sinocentrism are distinct concepts (the first is ethnic/culture, the latter nationalistic; the first ostensibly banned within the PRC, the latter approved; the first would refer to movements against the Yuan and Qing, the latter to movements in their support; &c. &c.) and I can't think of any real justification for User:Ross Monroe's blanking the page into a redirect with (a) no discussion and (b) no proper merge of the histories and talk pages. — LlywelynII 09:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is factually wrong. Chinese nationalism is called Chinese nationalism, and is located at Chinese nationalism. Sinocentrism =/= Chinese nationalism, and refers specifically to Han Chinese ethnocentrism, and is used in that sense in most English sources on the subject. In Chinese, there is a distinction between patriotism of the Chinese government, Zhonghua Minzu nationalism, and Han ethnocentrism, but this distinction does not exist in English because of the Western concept of a "nation-state", which equates government patriotism with nationalism. Mao's use of the "Great Han Chauvinism" in Communist propaganda further confuses the issue. Western sources don't distinguish between "Han chauvinism" and Sinocentrism, and having two articles on the same topic is redundant and confusing for English readers unfamiliar with Chinese.--Ross Monroe (talk) 06:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also apologize for redirecting without discussion, which was done a year ago and when I was new to Wikipedia. However, this is a pet peeve of mine. English terms should be defined as they are used in English, and not as they are used in a foreign language. This is the English Wikipedia, after all.--Ross Monroe (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said as much on my talk page. With respect, it remains wrong and generic links to generic google searches of generic terms really doesn't establish much.

Chinese nationalism in and only in its self-conscious 19th-century guise was largely a Han Chinese reaction against the Manchu Qing, particularly when considered by Europeans in light of their own experiences with nationalism. They simply preferred to ignore minority participation in Han revolts or separate minority revolts or considered them separatist causes, which was sometimes true and sometimes not. Nationalism nonetheless remains distinct from Han chauvinism, and modern Chinese nationalism (or its hair-splitting doppelganger cultural Sinocentrism) is utterly a thing apart from modern Han chauvinism and has been since the birth of the Republic. This is not a Soviet man issue (the hypocrisy of which is presumably your actual objection to the distinction being made): this was a pet project of Sun Yat-sen since before Mao Tse-tung was out of his nappies.

I heartily applaud your dedication to WP:ENGLISH – and commend you to take your fury to pages that desperately need it, such as America (which does not redirect to USA) or mate (beverage) (where the local Spanish-based consensus doesn't even allow the more common "maté" as an alternate name in the lead) – but these distinctions exist in English in addition to their complete differentiation in Chinese as well. — LlywelynII 09:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And while I for one accept your apology in the spirit in which it was offered, you are kinda waltzing by the failed AfD above. I'm not the only one who feels this way, so you might want to lay out your case in greater detail. Chinese isn't a redirect to Han Chinese, any more than Briton redirects to English people or Americans to White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. In fact, I challenge you to explain why Han (at 91% of the population) should be merged to either Chinese nationalism or Sinocentrism, while English nationalism (at 84% of the population) and British nationalism should remain separate. — LlywelynII 10:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want specific sources, I'm happy to provide. Your definition of Sinocentrism as strictly a form of nationalism is not a common one, and in English, Sinocentrism has a much broader definition. Many English sources define Sinocentrism as Han ethnocentrism, using the term interchangeably with Han chauvinism. Here are some random examples, among many:

• "...putting the country at risk of being degenerating into chauvinism and what Bianco called called 'Sinocentrism', thereby undermining the relationship between the Han majority and ethnic minorities" Language Planning and Policy in Asia: Japan, Nepal, Taiwan and Chinese characters, page 74.
• "In the early 1950s, his sympathy toward ethnic minorities was expanded into a cultural critique of the sinocentric Han Chauvinism." Seeking modernity in China's name, page 113.
• "The obverse of this "inferiority complex," was Sinocentrism, or "great Han chauvinism," that viewed the outer world-traditionally "barbarian"-with contempt or indifference." China in the 21st century , page 29.
• "Sinocentrism in the form of anti-minority bigotry still remains a strong and visible element of it". Chinese New Migrants in Suriname:, page 41.
• "...understanding the genetic makeup of the Han Chinese as a grand racial and ethnic fusion into a cultural critique of Sinocentric nationalism or Han chauvinism". Trans-Pacific relations, page 86.

I think that, before we continue further, we need to distinguish how these terms are being defined in Chinese and English and how they are distinguished within their own languages. First, in English:

• Sinocentrism refers to Han ethnocentrism, which views Han culture as "superior" to all foreign cultures, and should be English equivalent of 汉沙文主义. It is true that Sinocentrism is sometimes used to discuss "中国中心主义" in English, but whereas 中国中心主义 is defined strictly as an ancient Chinese cultural concept of being literally at the center of the world, the English word Sinocentrism is broader, and many sources describe that Sinocentrism, in its ethnocentric sense, still exists in China today.
• Han Chauvinism is usually used in two contexts in English sources. The first, as interchangeable with Sinocentrism (as has been shown in the examples I've provided above), and second as a historical term used to criticize the chauvinism of Sinocentrism.
• And Chinese nationalism, which can refer to Zhonghua Minzu nationalism, or Chinese patriotism in the broader sense.

And in Chinese:

• 中国中心主义 refers to the ancient Chinese view that China was literally at the center of the world, and it currently linked to Sinocentrism. The problem is that 中国中心主义 is a very specific term, while Sinocentrism has a much broader definition in English.
• 汉沙文主义 refers to Han Chinese ethnocentrism, and is currently linked to Han Chauvinism.
• 中国民族主义 refers to Zhonghua Minzu nationalism, and is currently correctly linked to Chinese nationalism.

The problem is that while 汉沙文主义 and 中国中心主义 are very specific terms in Chinese, the broader English term, Sinocentrism, can refer to both concepts. Ideally, I think that this issue can be resolved by merging Han Chauvinism and Sinocentrism and linking 汉沙文主义 with Sinocentrism, while creating a new article (Middle Kingdom (cultural concept)) to describe the more specific 中国中心主义, which literally views China as the center of the world.--Ross Monroe (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we're having trouble distinguishing between "Han chauvinism," "Sinocentrism," and the "Hua-Yi distinction." Right now, this wiki is treating "Han chauvinism" as a timeless notion like "the Chinese think they're superior," which is far too vague and indeed looks strangely like Sinocentrism. I think all these notions overlap in many ways, especially in modern China, but there might be a simple way to pull them apart. I propose we treat "Han chauvinism" as a modern concept that emerged through the PRC's explicit policies on minority nationalities. Take a look at this search for "Han chauvinism" on Google Books: all the results on the first page are either about Mao Zedong's views or about PRC policy. "Han chauvinism" is actually the official translation of da Hanzu zhuyi 大汉族主义 in Mao Zedong's speeches (apart from the search itself, see also this entry in the Glossary of Political Terms of the People's Republic of China [Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1995]). Another justification for limiting "Han chauvinism" to modern times is that the very notion of "Hanzu" 汉族 (Han race, Han nationality, Han ethnicity) on which it is based was only created in the very late nineteenth century.

In this view, the scope of "Han chauvinism" would be narrower than (and distinct from) either "Sinocentrism" and "Hua-Yi distinction," both of which have much longer histories. Modern historians discuss the emergence of the Hua-Yi distinction in the Spring and Autumn Period (see the first two paragraphs of the "Historic Context" section of Hua-Yi distinction), but treat Han chauvinism as a modern phenomenon. Another difference: Chinese texts used the concepts of Hua (or Xia, or Zhuxia, etc.) vs. Yi (or other names for non-Chinese people) more than two millennia ago. This cannot be said of da Hanzu zhuyi 大汉族主义 (or even of Hanzu 汉族, for that matter). So I think the concepts of "Han chauvinism" and "Hua-Yi distinction" are quite distinct.

The same argument for treating "Han chauvinism" as a modern phenomenon justifies keeping this page distinct from Sinocentrism, which is also a broader notion and has ancient roots in European writings on China starting in the sixteenth century. The sources Ross Monroe cites above show that at least some reliable sources discuss "Han chauvinism" next to "Sinocentrism." This definitely deserves mention in the text of the article, but this doesn't mean the two concepts are equivalent. For one, the sources Ross cites all discuss modern China, which would tend to confirm that "Han chauvinism" is usually treated as a modern phenomenon. Second, Han chauvinism applies mostly to dynamics internal to China (Han vs. other minorities). "Sinocentrism" might be used in that context too, but it also applies to relations between various East Asian polities (China as distinguished from Korea and Japan, for instance) or to comparisons between entire civilizations (Sinocentrism vs. Eurocentrism, for example). I think Sinocentrism therefore has a broader scope than Han chauvinism.

Conclusions: 1) I think "Han chauvinism" should be treated as a post-1949 concept with roots in early-20th-century debates on the relative place of Hanzu and other ethnic groups within China; 2) understood like that, Han chauvinism deserves to exist independently from both Hua-Yi distinction and Sinocentrism. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment. However, the article has to be rewritten. As of now, this article is a retread of the Sinocentrism article. "Han chauvinism," as a concept, originates in the 20th century, as part of the Zhonghua Minzu ideology. It was supported by the Communists, and applied anachronistically to the past to emphasize that that China has always been a "multi-ethnic nation," despite the fact that the notion of nationality didn't even exist among the ancient Chinese. This article tacitly accepts the PRC's take on history, and must be changed to describe, as you have suggested, the history and context of Han chauvinism as a 20th century phenomenon.--Ross Monroe (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reviving this discussion which is almost ten years old, but I think it's relevant. Most of the sources in this article reference Chinese nationalism in particular and not specifically Han nationalism. As a result this article currently risks reading like a personal essay on Han nationalism, with the content being a repeat of Sinocentrism and doesn't feel too different from Han chauvinism -- in fact, the infobox on the right with its term written in Chinese is literally identical. This is obviously a complex topic rife with academic discussion that spans Chinese history, national identity, and its revisionism from the PRC, so I don't think mining stories of racism from the New York Times and ABC News is as germane as serious sociological and historical academic research. This article is not going to get to where it needs to be without help from an expert. quin 04:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]