ETHNIC in Southwest China

Familiar

Manchus

in

Guest

Henry

Late

Cultural

Lessons

STUDIES

Ways

Strangers:

and

Qing

and

People:

M,

Ethnic

oJ

in

Ban

Encounters

and Edited

Jackson

l3LlngEtllnic

Being

Mette

Edited

Edward

ON

Hakka

A

JonathanN.Lipman

Early

Ethnic

History

Identity

Stevan

ETHNIC

by

Chinese:

Halskov

School

by

Identity

Republican

Nicole

I.

on

Relations

Stevan

M.

Haiiell

of

in

in

China’s

Muslims Rhoads

Southwest

of

Soutliwst

Minority

GROUPS

Hansen

Constable

in

International

Harrell

China

and

China

Ethnic

in

Education

Political

China

China

IN

Northwest

and

1861—1928

Frontiers

CHINA

Abroad

Studies

Powei

China

in

UNIVERSITY

\/‘\Ia)Ts

STEVAN

Southwest

E

Seattle

T

OF

H

WASHINGTON and

of

HARRELL

London

N

Being

I

China

C PRESS 1 I Some Ethnic Displays

INTERVIEWING IN A LIPUO VILLAGE, 1988

y research collaborators, mostly graduate students from Sichuan University in Chengdu, were a bit disappointed with our prelim M mary visit in 1988 to the Yivillage of Yishaia on the Yunnan bor der south of Panzhihua City. It was, they said, tai Han him, “too Hanifled.” People there wore ordinary Chinese peasant clothes, livedin four-sided houses with central courtyards, and spoke fluent Chinese, even though they called themselves Lipuo and their daily conversation was usuallyin the Libielanguage, classified by linguists as belonging to the Central Dialect of the Yi Branch of the Tibeto-Burman family (Bradley 1998). When we returned to the village for a two-week stay, there were weddings almost daily because it was the winter slack season immediately preceding the Chinese New Year.At one of these, we learned, a bride from the Mao lineage would be marrying into a Na family, and we asked about the origin of the two lineages. “We Mao,” they said, “come from Anfu County, Ji’an Prefecture, Jiangxi Province, and our original ancestor wassent to the Southwest as part of a mil itary detachment in the eleventh yearof Kangxi [16721.Our ancestors first came to nearby Dayao County and then moved to the current villagesite after a gen eration or two.” The Maos have a genealogy, written entirely in the language of the majority Han Chinese, though they think that earlier on they might have had documents written in some sort of Yi script. Surprised at the east-China origin of the Maos, Taskedseveralmen whether there were any Yizu (people of the Yi ethnic group) in Jiangxi today. Sonic said there must he some, but others thought that perhaps their ancestors were origmally Han who had become Yi after moving here and marrying local

1. Anfu County existed until the Republican period. Ji’an Prefecture still exists, with its cur rent seat at Ji’an County (Xie Shouchang J93. 308; t)itu Ii 9S3: 15). women. find

to

It bily prefect of had another Family crew magazine The known “Yizu” attended ton) yellow-black women ments since appliquéd sive After

was

Huguang. Xichang

The

At

come

luxurious

Sichuanese anyYi.

meal

from

and

a the

this

an

of

Qi was

Bamo (Bamo

in

round

American One

in

by atypically

mgemo to

meal voshe the was

a

lineage,

Central

blouses,

was

(pop. “hundred

more

few

Liangshan

various

said

lacquered

Han

Erha

mostly

jia of

Liangshan

in

Wuliang

Xichang,

weeks

(pork). 180,000), A drinks, in (bitter-buckwheat

de

he

the

language

Television

by

anthropologist

silver

(a

cold

evidence VISIT

nuermen),

would

Nuosu

contrast, So-mu Qo-bo Come Yuan Yi,

Sifangdepengyou,.. ordinary [Guests heated

pleated”

hence.

to

trays

When

evening Ye jewelry,

or

the

finish

Hotel.

makeup

capital

dao

very liquor

Nuosu) as

as

go dignitaries

di—vi FROM

waitresses

from Studios

banquet

bearing

than

friends

tuotuo

Ia traces

de

filming Sichuanese

eating

full

to

much

A

su...

wo

and in

gui

of and afar

be

in resident

dinner and

skirts

November

came

pancakes) CENTRAL

Liangshan .

bin rou, any (Zhongyang

broadcast its

fancy

matching .

began was room

the

like

sang including

origin

medium

conversation

but

to with

documentary

was

underway, to cooking,

embroidered

in

on meet

the

singing,

in

go

town,

to

planned

and

horizontal 1994

as Prefecture,

Nuosu the

shot

Chinese

to

Nanjing, TV,

a heels)—burst Dianshi

me

part

Jiangxi

ground cardiac

two

but

in

in

joined glasses

and

the 1994

of

I

simply the

the

for kinds Daughters

have

with

headpieces

translation

a

Martin

Tai)

hotel

stripes,

and and

valley-bottom lobby national

when

by surgeon,

floor a

filled

the

film-and-sound ever

as

of

the

in

the see

help—young

yuoshe

in

boiled former Beijing, vital

of

of

Schoenhals, with

local

engaged

of

elaborately if

Na

with TV

the the

(and

the

he

the

supple

lineage

expen

guests:

news

could

(mut Bamo hotel,

shab

meat,

vice-

term

who also,

red-

city

in.

Another

tion

trotted being and Nationalities rather home, daughter, casting

This In closer those ously tell, unequivocally of attending five Narneze, branch speaking spoke

in

their ethnicity The Yanyuan

I

one

so from

different

had

wedding—most

Yi.

translatable

to I it

overwhelmed

I

next

on

out

Daughters

had

houses

of

turned anymore) of

round. those

spent

The

Nuosu, Gyalrong,

the

Bamo

a

through

these

Tibeto-Burman,

to

two

in wedding

experienced County,

University

waitresses

minzu, following

show

I A

Baiwu,

the Han.

and

on

had

Then, groups, days

Ayi,

or WEDDING

of

was as

past

the

the seen

Ersu, seen how

Yi,

the but

Yizu

He “Zou When “When

the [The

“Tibetan”)

or in a

between

a

of

TV

nothing

not

and fieldwork

few

evening.

little

called

December iiu the in Bamo that

state-determined

a

crew a

still

much

it,

in you

and Yi

floor lu

few

in

Beijing, much

vao you

Prmi

days

you

southwest at

related

have Han-Chinese

yao

town

my

good-natured

yiiu

would Duoxu,

Zang

years

Family.

least—seemed he

a

like

drink, OF

they plan

walk,

yong

beginning

hotel

groom Even

because in

a

later,

hua

shuang collaborator

of saying

Tibetan, out 13,

in

their HAN

before

closely

knew that

spend

you

shuang you about

shuo,

local

but

the

room 7

the

I

in

corner another

thought

who

bei

own

that

seemed

should

should the

of

only day AND

in two of ethnic

communities

Han-language

filming

to

to

a

Han

having

jw”

his

tui

and

the villages goes,

thousand Yi

was language

try such before

very

of

of

distantly

foreigners

zou;

tray

mother, drink

walk

language

Lipuo

guests ZANG,

it was

to

Liangshan

mine categories.

to

Zang

Vice-Prefect

been rather

familiar

other link

unravel of

with

being

I

startled

a

left

community pair

(insofar glasses,

people and

from

to

(a them

classified

and

in

parlance,

a

languages 1993 superficial. and

in

Chengdu

Tibetan.

term

an

pair

of

Taiwan a

to

Prefecture, the

attendance

As

the

a

to

professor cups”],

to ethnologist

culture,

divided

bride

and

me, of

as

Bamo’s

find

far

complex only

various

capital.

in legs;

any

Ozzu

of

I the

similar as

the

as and to

it

had

who

precari

Yishala.

of

I

broad for

among

Qiang, return

asser

Qiang

eldest

at

could

when

other I

them

were

been even

web

and

was was

the

the

to local groups, but which was not much likethose I had seen in pictures of Tibet, area of southwestern Liangshan tor nearly two thousand years at mimmum. or even of the Khams area, usually thought to be “Tibetan,” in western 1-{isauthority was “the HoziHan shziof Sima Qian” (sic), which records a song Sichuan. I had spoken with these people about their knowledge of Buddhism, sung by the king of Bailang, somewhere in the Southwest, at an imperial court and it was practically nonexistent. They claimed to have scriptures, written in banquet in Luoyang. Linguists, said Mr. Fu, had demonstrated that the lan Tibetan, but somehow nobody could everfind them. The ritualsthey performed guage recorded was that of the Pumi, whose history therefore went hack to in their homes honored a series of mountain and earth deities that seemed to that distant period. he elements of apurely local tradition. Their clothes were not only unlike those Mr. Fu was, however, unconcerned that people in Sichuan who spoke the of any fibetans I had ever seen but were identical to those of two other groups same language as he, practiced the same customs, and called themselves Print in the same town: one clan that was classifiedin the Naxi minzu, and another in their own language were classifiedas Zang rather than as Pumi. It stemmed, singlehousehold, recentlyimmigrant from elsewherein the county, which called he said, from the local politics of the early 195os, when the king of Muli—who itself Naze in its own language but was also known as Ozzu in Nuosu and was wasboth abbot of a Gelug-pa monastery (and thus religiously subordinate to calledMeng (precariouslytranslatable as“Mongolian”) when speakingChinese. the Dalai Lama in Lhasa) and a tn.ci(local native ruler) enfeoffed by the Qing Out to deconstruct, nay to destroy, the simplistic errors of the Chinese state empire and allowed to continue in office under the Chinese Republic—had project of inuizu sliibie, or “ethnic classification,” or more officially,“nation thrown in his lot with the Communists in return for making Muli into a Zang alities identification,” I was stopped in my tracks in the courtyard where the autonomous county that was part of Sichuan. In Ningiang, where there was wedding feast was being set out on low, square wooden tables, surrounded by no equivalent Prmi local official,the Prmi had remained “unclassified” until benches, as one could see in Han or Yi communities anywhere in Yunnan or the late 19505 but through the good officesof Premier Zhou Enlat were even the nearby borderlands belonging to Sichuan. A drunken old man, dressed in tually classifiedas a separate tninzu. His Pumi and the Zang across the border ragged clothes with a large, dusty, faded turban around his head, was talking in Sichuan cooperated just fine, he told me; in fact, even in my own area of to me, the foreigner. Figuring, I suppose, that I did not speak any of the local scholarship, he was hoping to organize a local Center for the Study of Pumi languages very well, he pointed to his own painted nose and resorted to a sort History and Culture, and the Party secretaryof Muli ZangAutonomous County of baby-talk: “Zangiu—Dalai Lama ... Zangzu—Dalai Larna.” in Sichuan had already agreed to contribute some timber revenues to the effort.

STOPPING IN A WOODYARD, 1993 A WELCOMING PARTY, 1994

The trip—nine Jeeps,thirty-some cadres of everylocal nunzit but Han, sixdays It had been a rather hard hike. l,the Westerner, was as usual carrying too much of dusty roads and colorfulmaidens, severalscenicwonders and one hot-springs stuff, and it was a warm day and we had seven hundred meters to climb. Two bath—had landed us in the overflow yard of a logging camp, with no place to teenage girls were scouting our arrival just around the corner from the moun- go and nothing to do but sit on rotted or otherwise unusable timber and talk tam slope that is the seat of the headquarters of Dapo Mengguzu (in English, ethnohistory. While the cadres who made a difference were meeting some that usually comes out “Mongolian”) Township, in the eastern part of Yan where, deciding how to divvyup the profits from one of China’slastold-growth yuan County, and they ran ahead when they saw us, to tell everybody to get 2 I decided to talk to Mr. Fu, a vice-chair of the People’s Consultative ready. As we marched into the little town, firecrackers started going off, and forests, Conference for Ninglang County, Yunnan, right across the provincial border then we were between two long lines of schoolchildren and villagers, who from Yanyuan, and a self-appointed spokesman for the Pumi people. chanted (in the Han language) as we went, “Huanying, huanying... relic Mr. Fuwas anxious to tell me about the history of the Pumi, who he thought probably came originally from what is now Qinghai but who had been in the x Sima Qian, of course, was author not of the lion Han shn (I listorv of the latter Han dynasts hut of the S1 jz (Records of the historian), ssritten about three hundred years earlier. The pu i-ian a. For an extended account of this trip as an idealized display of the New China as a multi mary author of the lion Han slw was Fan Ye. This passage does in fact exist in the I-Ion shn ethnic nation, see Harrell 1996h. (chap. ii).

S 9 huanying” into ing the should so

had ceremony (in and Chinggis of man, Inner resembling Chinese silver Mongolia, Mongolia, ship disputed) Burman It Catholic our belongs Jinsha economy. when minority household

affiliation only Shuitianzu,

was

congratulations beer

Red

Chinese), large

school

a daily been celebration

head

language

a courtyard,

Mongolia,

leaping anybody

already

River,

have

papers schoolteacher,

would

to

or

bowls family

Khan’s

village

village forty-minute

given

that

the

and

as a About

it and (Welcome,

registration

at

Naru a TWO

group

gotten

or,

really

Shuitian,

Mongolian

We

next they least.

hot,

with have

although horse completely

most

of the spoke

by

perhaps were

(though

of

and mausoleum

of

and

in

were 8o

delicious,

that CONVERSATIONS day,

the apologized, on

even

was

Zhuangshang

township

According black chiong

to

Jingtang

the

percent

soon

of

and although in it,

the

do.

welcome, could

People’s

records,

and called

the

conducting

trek 70

them

local

though both

the

and

more its

robe,

writing

establishment

we After

percent a

unrelated (as township

in

through closer

language

lukewarm

picture

sound whose itself

of in

(Scripture were

language)

government Chinese 1988 ordmary knew)

they

to

commonly, but

for it or

the Government

the

that it

heartily

was

on

across

linguists,

was deel,

Laluo

example,

affiliations the

met

call

Ordos it

interviews

population

Han out AND

Party hike, them

rice

to of

they

written wasn’t

spoken 10

only

and same

by it presided

beer.

conversation

Mongolian.

the

crowds was

in Hall), an of

name

fields welcome).

in ABOUT

women

continued

(Khan it

secretary,

adorned

its

1994 buildings;

Mongolian,

the

eroded mid-morning

simply

it

their

letters had

as did

superficially

so

Since

of own entirely here

too

with

about

Mengguzu and the

was

where

of common

originally

Yikezhao just

in on 1995).

own

in

is

language,

the

in language

of

streambed they as

banana

front one ETHNICITY,

still

the

Up

plain-colored a a resplendent

fine.

household

in

Dapo to

the

the in minzu,

we

member language),

village

sunny

I walls

though in or

the

were a

refer

Chinese,

was

of

latter.

slope,

slogans were unlike around listed

when

dispute

township

League,

another

trees

Han (called

a

back

of

told

and

Mengguzu,

a of

framed to

day

flowing

Western

term

staying, people’s

of only

we At along

Zhuangshang from themselves structure

language

in that

a

by

doorways or it

of those

in

the

in

skirts few in

Mengyu

branch the

something

completed

featured

the

in huangjiu

one

1988. that welcome

Western

of

message front

the

a

Tibeto into

decades

1984,

official

town

ledge,

to minzu parts,

bear Inner Inner

local

they

con- Han

(the The and

the the are

of

in of

as It

a

they trasted

from bench, point crossed an a whom body recognizes early who had of

household ity household, team All p1v they call sibility

relating nic ately of specific in up is

wooden

an

people,

1988, Ms.

local,

Mr. uncle

In was

When

would the by

citizens

them

were

nothing

were

were

attempt

bordering

recognized

the in

leader.

pen 1994

our

paraphrasing

with

and

of Hu

only Hu’s preceding

out

the 1993,

local to

national,

of

village,

Yi,

Yi—they developing bench who

minorities; I

and

nothing research

not

the that

1

Guanghui,

pronounced,

a

first

income,

and

Ms.

day,

in

Hanzu.

one

paid and

in

He resentment solution

to

and

contexts

be my

questions were

the

areas common. we

make

written

wrote,

that Hu’s, regaled

in

of led

greeted the

engaged THE

a 1994,

and stories

printed

southernmost

team

but are

the

were the

brief

here

The

me indication

the

we

of

installation

commercial

sense yes, to

global

and

minzu

a shade

of

savages

many

Yunnan,

in with

were CONTEXT

their over spoke—they

to me

very

former first government,

certainly was me

of “When

visit

relate

they ethnic The

a in household

he, my

out

ethnic

very for

brief

perfunctorily,

the

after

relations niinzu. of to

long-standing shared

beefs anymore.”

helpful

to

village

called

seemingly

first

in

of

in

to over

the

reflect

U.S.

in

question

Old

relations

Zhuangshang

formulaic

parts

of

these the the

mango visits all,

a

the

relations

southwest

the

household courtyard

branch

Now

at an

could electricity

themselves

Man OF household

had

house was

questionnaire. and

mountains

ways however, 11 to

this

local

presentations of

the

in

hour

which

and to already that THE

poor,

of

Sichuan

intelligent

in

1991, Mao

not

decision.

time

sat

of people irrigation-water

and

be

in

speaker

people

the

this

with

China.

pomegranate

we

and

the this see

lumped for

down 1996, the again

and

[Mao DISPLAYS

had and

simplistic

registration

by

name Shuitian;

have

with

area

in

why

Yi.

got the

success

area

Province

present

presentations

had

many

the his

Tip recently

I

I running

of and middle-school

on

conducted Laoyej and

Old out

day, stood

they,

whom

(Harrell

of

in

for

self

cups, with

dispute

O’Neill,

the

with

the 1998

other

yes, my

stories—tripling Man

interviewed

manner,

and

three

themselves

as

crops.

and

shortage,

to records

and

other

the determined

was

local

the

four-color a

although

the

water it

also.

greet

separate 1990),

Deng, I

the

about

villagers

was

field government.

months

sat

the

are alive,

local proclaiming

Yi

But

group.

end

discourses

This

about

down had

(Nuosu),

alright graduate

the

directed. immedi

in

research

the

nobody

I

he

ethnic

people

as

a

every

of

ended group

it

every

host, book been

ball

local with

sim

each pos

that

eth

was

Yes,

th.

the

on

of to - every that

does defined time, ing the of

here courses vation Shuitian essarily Unlike distribution many and level-jumping texts, colleges, a the approach to tity ters reflect implementation not or scholarly parts of uments, reports. define

citizenship

a

formulaic At Southwest

nation-states To a

a

ways

in

“all dialectical

matter

particularly still differently

are sanitized

so

all half-truth

person

the what

of

approach

context, purposes.

or

one

certain

Xinjiang,

congruent

ethnicity

is

ethnic in

ethnicity,

Anthropologists

contingent, more

replacing

and this nation,

it

most undermining

discourse

anything what

the

context

matters

one’s

in

of

who

or

book birth-control

sense;

China

between complex the

version kinds

context

one

basic collectivities

interaction

in

shapes

resources

this

categorical

to

from

These but

on is

for

ethnic are

considers different

like with

same it

local.”

must emphasize

of

rely like

in

kind

and

the

entirely is

there level

ethnic

of shifting, example,

members

understanding—official

others.

one all

one

of their

of

of local

ethnicity realistic include

understanding level local heavily

way identity in

combine

of

politics,

Like too of

reality;

governmental as interaction

language of is

such

realistic quotas. understanding

contexts, between

relations

of

him

understanding,

lives with

and

varied

and

in

level.

no

often the

negotiated;

O’Neill

a

or

which

on psychological understanding

each

of point.

real

question is. in or

national

places

as understand knowledge

they

the field is

They

make documentary

another; understanding

nationally—and At herself

not

as

ethnic

to

situations

are

local,

context. the

Tibet

discussing

their

in i2

and

mining also one

another. All

of

just

where

do and

vitally

a

ways

the

ethnicity

is

ethnic

of

local

found ethnicity documentary

citizens

a greater

local

dictate

Autonomous

national,

more local.

at

then,

contexts

member

gathered

imagined

mistake

that

an

self-understanding,

But

its such

it

policy claims,

of

as

important

community.

Everybody politics,

matters communities

independent relations,

most

in

than People

the sources,

it

meetings

even of

even

level

categories

of

dialectical

in

matters,

official

is

ethnicity

shift

phenomena, of often and

and of modern

in

one

admissions local,

simply

involved national

though

of discounting this

I field

an

research.

in

in

suspect,

the Region,

over

in

since

context cosmopolitan

complexity,

particularly

the and

and here ethnic

one

internationally—

is in

in

peoples’

research.

principles But

that

and

present

interaction

nations.

Yi

are too

almost space

modern

ethnicity

the

order,

scholarly

and the context

these

is

I or at

ethnic

Documents

boundaries

we are collectivity a to the

is Chinese simple. was

sense

writing

part, complex.

the

the

and

Pumi not

teachers

lives must

an

all and

sources

used preser

Several

speak

it what

world

for

kinds affect

same

iden

mat

ideal time con

doe nec

may

that

dis and and

the

for

To

go

its or

in

of in

I

the between Most call of context discourses from important context, Liangshan. mary in dealing of not Rather, my relevant disadvantage tive. that usual for tried intimately; by central different tigation by oratis closely research covered

villagers

one

ethnohistorv. a

At

My

Professor the

While

work

way

an

conformed the

community

I I

to

of

purpose the the

have in

e. have

place, hour same own

by

point

official with

this

of

From cover

the ethnicity

along

the

was information the them,

team

conformed

were

from

the same

notes

as

carried

the leg

traveled The

not

I

fieldwork

data study,

fieldwork

or

problem triangle many Tong

data

know or family

of

research of

of as January

officially with

daily

of

“iai

ethnicity

to discourse

is

been a primary

time,

even

this

this

that

defined

wide The

this and

day

my a

collection

the out

matters

Enzheng

as from

Han

key

the

a to

lives

economy

book’s

to

kind

of tempted

to traditional five triangle argument moderate most that in I way

however, or

of

many

in

a

for

experience, through

the

way

took component

affiliated

discourses.

the

meetings

range

context

the

into.”

two;

in

by

ethnicity the

of

different

of

of

passed

this

that

differently

usual

of

another, of

this

more argument: something local

independent beginning,

communities ethnic

nontraditional People’s

during

of

some

the

Sichuan

to

as

book

in

During

these

March

this

amount

context is

in

anthropological

anthropological discourses

with take

possible,

communities me

and three

recent analytical

to

agencies

when

there which

identification

for

of

is

has

even

two

by show

three

documents.

any

the in Republic i3

University. primarily

i988,

the namely,

the

other

Yi

a has

in interacts

been

method

about each is

I

discourses this

of Southern few

particular if

villages went in

a

every

analysis

whole how undoubtedly

long of

been would

positions I

ethnicity strategy local

approach

Liangshan,

than

was

book

regional,

days

of the

a

that and

of

ethnicity to

single

paradigm an

seasons practice both

them

large of

with

one authorities

Panzhihua Without

time, and

The

kinship

and China

be

Yishala

or

approaches

of

Silk

an their

ethnicity anthropological

place interact

that

missing.

of

in weeks.

taken

ethnicity regional those primary the

is

number

place.

extended

one and

it

Road

I

visiting

six

both

much

that,

has

of leaders,

has (PRC), was of

matters

scflolarly

as or

fieldwork,

and

of

members Han

in

a

of in

field

city

or with

also typical, The

locality.

shaped I single

Project, an

in

places

mnomtored even

the

this

know the

object

and ethnicity important

found

of

local

in

some one

extended

however,

investigation

village;

government,

been

and advantage

in

research

each

places. interactiot

two

Liangshan.

book

more

collabora researche

discourse

locality

this

is

account.

the scholars.

but

no the

of of

directed Nor

of

the

that

official shaped

collab

other,

inves a

them is

I

plac’ mos

mo stem

local

have than

yei’,’ field

pr

stay The

and

dis

has has the

the

in

is

is well. and good energy he area in of the by a mate Bureau possible and ernment to lies collaborations Nationalities ing and to days top to ing ars fessional conflict less-than-representative co-opted have unethically views emerged particularly

road

Panzhihua order

foreigners December

Guabie, approved

this For

This

research

brings in in

base

the of permission

because

closed

The

in

influenced relations

toward

Mianning

of on

(fortunately,

further

of the

Manshuiwan, time, but

kind

Liangshan

because with

to

there.

ethnicity

my ethics whole organs. from

to

Mr.

with

a

obligations go

expanded

to

with

the the

was

remote the

of

a of own

foreigners

and each

University. 1994, Municipality,

foreigners, Deng

to

few

not

research

and conversations Still,

views Secretary in close it

scholarly

project,

research,

County, mine. finished, to

of

the

regard

My

an

would there

mind.

in years

other;

oniy

his Prefecture

conduct

I

began

the

I

Yaozong area

continued

obligation the Nuosu

collaboration

to of

will

research

I

good

A

did

to

with from were Chinese

the and earlier.

my

in

local to

At

different sample have

long

the without

views This

we

Yang’s

we we

not to

the

not fact,

the

Sichuan the unofficially closest

relations

the village

my

work

local

had

only

had

had

fewer January

between

of

context open

forget

been

Nationalities subjects period

even

with

of

research

same

His

was my

to

own research

of

word the

open-minded

to

to

roads to

one’s

set defense

scholars

closely one’s

field

with

common

to impossible. answer of

report collaboration restrictions

promise need

dependent Provincial

Ma municipal

go when

time, of

familiarity with

of

foreigners

presented through

Gaoping, 14

in

me,

of

collaborators, together collaborators, to

conversations

that

officials

research

subjects

official Erzi

refers

official

at

with

bring

County is one’s

results

1

there

was, but

my

Research

asked all

to

would

not people.

in

collaborators,

Nationalities

March think with

Professor to

was Artifact attitude. In upon

“Take

and

New

and

because and Yanyuan research. for

in to

is

clearance, to to

was (AAA

to

with trails 1994

Secretary Party

also

this

local

do have

the

contingent example,

the cadres

requirements. scholarly All officially

Year things

even the

Ma

Institute,

even care

1993,

might

any

the

a 1 book

as 1976, home

municipal

Bureau

these

Secretary

of continued

been people

Both danger

Barno goodwill

Erzi

greetings.

well

County

These

research

easier. you

Panzhihua

the

and if

since

and

through

Research

Yang

have

are

one Hsieh

local

people’s

which employed

and totally of

the hosts,

satellite

as

don’t

bureaucrats

both on Ayi had

in

from

of

the

a

Manshuiwan may

roads). has

For

revealed if political Yang

Bamo

authorities. vice-mayor in elites, Panzhihua;

and

one’s

cultivating

these Still, away

1987). of

I Even

views improved

was

with

added get off-limits

also not 1993

could our Institute

October

at

views— Artifact

launch

Central

tireless

Zipuo,

schol

hurt.”

Avi—

mov being times

After and in from acted same

after

gov nine

pro

that The

was

still

cli

on an

go

as

a

ditterent as possessed tical diverse with would ethnic well; match, and stand Naze. sometimes research, has will many time, detailed history the collaborative of of area

with

these At

Finally, being This

I

reader meant

address

begin colleagues.

plane.

in

are

and

the

the

Sichuanese

This

of

identity.

reinforce

enough

chapter

different

I

short in

examination observations.

thoughtful, views; the data

ethnic same

I

think

I

of

with

chapters judges there

a would

referred

is

The

can

these

further

people

an

research.

not

presented

introduction

time,

to

some

4,

And

tills

carry scholars

insider’s

in

that is

that

fleldsites.

an

and illustrate in and

the

have

the

chapters

to

would 2 great

I

collaboration reliance ideal a

general dedicated,

point

if

first work. on and

language very

present Yunnanese in

of

A

learned

and

it

forthcoming

this

and

the

knowledge

simple

detail

linguistic

3, met

had

important the

nave

but to But

the

5

book

give

considerations

intellectual

on

many

through a

a

contextual

in

question.

not arguments

been

series from long far I

highly nappeneci

my

conversations

still

a field

accents

as

has

less

brief

of

substantially

apparatus

collaborators,

the

hook

that

three

volume

possible

of

think result

its

the 15

research 14.

knowledgeable about

“Han

case

advantages, historical and

I

no nature

to

officials

Chapter

made speak does

different witn

of about that

various

foreign

studies

by

ethical

Liangshan,

language”)

for

this

to

in

have not

dnnerent

Bamo

must

standard of

the

change

a

conduct

ethnicity

Nuosu. and

collaboration

overview

ethnic i

have serious

perspectives.

degrees,

illustrating

researcher views

issues and become

assesses be

Avi,

teachers

people,

the

it.

room

not

colianorators

very

its

Chinese

identity;

I

Ma

expressed

raised fieldworker,

independent and

know standard

people,

of

but

only

my

fluently; the

Erzi,

for

many

I

the about could

different

has

have

usually

In close

on

by

significance

(Mandarin,

no serious

more

and

Liangshan

the

been and

the

by

regional,

here

of

Prmi Chinese

hope

worked

friends under

as

mean

myself

which

and

views

them prac

fairly

their

ways

field

weii

that

and

are

or to

it what are and Because Perceptions need particular ways as kinship physiognomy—have and as E

tition Neither history not iognonsv lective minor

historical long

As i.

so

subject

global

others,

to

this The

of self- in far

with

embroiled

thnic and cated

as between

place

before

were places

and talking, the salience

as

China and

group there

2

perspective.

each we

to

Pre-State

the

daily attributing

evidence,

descent,

they COLLECTIVITIES

other-perception. by

of relations like

modern /

larger

can different

the

projects of

Foundations

have

the

is other different

of difference—of China

lives

in

part the

tell

that

origin

people,

relationship

China, racial

social

been

and Societies

been collectivities—varies by

of Chinaand

for

or of that

in

they

to

of

modern

any Egypt.

the

Liangshan, component—imagined

places

of

different

resources

the

societies.

the

readily and humans,

a

we

are

division the

people—Nuosu,

feature

and

others Thus

Chinese

need

political

embroiled

where

between state

ethnographic

culture,

its

and

the

looks. my IN

allocated

ethnic

It

living to

of

complex of

different of

these 16 ambivalence

Universality

universally greatly

seems

they

make state

labor

relationships HUMAN

entities,

the

Ethnic

language,

in

in.

relations

culturally

ought from

and (whether built local

clear,

one

a by

Prmi, as In

analogy, ways

few extreme some

and they

the order in

classify place

on

ethnic

to

of SOCIETIES

from including

initial

of

in

Naze, real

putative

thus these

be, Identity Collectivities territory,

between

are,

distinctive

central

doing comparative

in to in

and or

ethnographic

different

groups

humanity the

the

do

were are

observations not)

cultural

Han, it

associating United as period that,

things,

Chinese

further

political dif±rences

human

one not

kinship,

and

of

groups States

relations

in

differences. aspect

the

in

into

of

historical

others—

different turn,

compli

compe

nation.

human groups

power.

region

to as in

with

about

selves ot

were rather phys

well

and col we

of

a 111 ens sisted six characteristics diversity where of for unit Africa had example, groups ing in or itary they of about people place, related more selves speaking, there immutable) or sorts: groups. may Saussurian istics mon difference

Fore,

one II

intensive the

may thousand

Here, Such

sometime

at

to 10!.

continuous

with

called

intermarry

hostility.

with

that are

parts

least

language, cultural recent and

how

eighteenth from

collectivity,

outside people 1I.Jllg

by

here,

(such

shift Tate,

These

relationships

clearly,

the

in

power the

descent group acting,

perhaps one from

each

different thirty

of Sit

sense: customs,

investigation

those

and

characteristics and

and between

or time,

as

interior

the

in

spoke i4.it

and characteristics, another, the we

Similar

eight

Etoro,

people other

territory,

are or

the members Usurufa over superior

or

who

earth

and thousand

and and

now

by

folks influence

believing

and they

kin-based.

sporadic UI

not, ethnic

“peoples”

Pleistocene

a

thousand virtue

the looking

the and language,

talk, d5i marriage,

of

have

nineteenth

huge

Bosavi, examples where

outside

associate

they

and

in

include

and

New in

members to

two.

of

themselves

and

conceive differences ittlic

the act,

that

both

of the years

those

externally,

that more variety

of relationships

other

relations

local

is

speaking

originated both

Cultural

and

Guinea, customs

the

next and

Eastern

years

West-African

group UCiVVCt1

practicing

both

kinship

and

an

ideas they with

can

and

of

centuries,

collectivities group, often

Onambasulu peoples

maybe

of

internal

internal

differentiate

valley, of

their

before the

be

inherited

look by

in members farmed

notions 17

the

with

of

Highlands),

mutually

there the

inhabited

characteristics

but

found their

than a

systems. emergence iHC

at

in

neighbors

similarity

local series

of

the

somewhat

look

same

and

who

the

are

the them

all and

and 11Il5C

or

are

intermarriage,

most

states.

not

for

same

of

the

beginning on

from distinguish

not

in

collectivities. present, perceive their

funny.

of

language,

an

external, on are

the

them

unintelligible

race.

nine

according may think and

many

the

areas

distinctive

embryonic

and

external part

customs,

the LiLc.

(and

corresponding of

not within

their

cultures,

alike,

North

are from those

thousand

They

Even

he

the where

Great m listed

that

there

of

that

parts

closely

thus

of

are

peaceful

being

paradigmatic

ancestors -

themselves first

any

differentiate .V,,’,.,

members

the aspect. the

alliance,

often

into

to they

their obvious

living

American We

pnmari

the Papuan

names above.

developed

desirable).

of form, there

larger

idioms, states archaeologists

world

demonstrably group related

(Lillev

sub-Saharan social

can

hold our

own have

in

or

Internally,

character

have

Members

(and

Kin

for

and

the

take,

political

physical own

perhaps

Plateau,

warlike,

of or

accord

in

groups

and way

stories

of

where

them Plains to 1992),

social

in

other some

char- corn- great _‘p

same

They

per

thus mil

two

era

the

for

the

of

of descent acteristics, tance ness of one in wealth, that ruling nization but words, prestige. language ties sense majority local-linguistic-racial-kin physiognomy—were American With changes human these ship, of similarities differences mine, situation states”) than

distinguishing

one

In

Nevertheless,

labor

As

as this

set

by

enables

in

bases of a and

of

the

far

they

or class

the

descent

cultural-linguistic-local-racial-kin

nonstate

of

and and

proclivities

the

inclusive is

were

again to

history

And, that

of that

at where

as

territorial plains

intercommunity

not

goods

emergence

on

operate confer of

began

and prestate

the to

least

we people

marriage prestige—may

rather becomes

is

differentiation

done

when as appropriate the

or

know,

bases

the

differences

prestige,

in society,

1

that as

influence, Levi-Strauss marriage

criteria

or

think

to

or

other

the

C’ollectivities

after a

to

to

development

by

local exclusive situation.

affiliation make

the

withhold are

of

there series

among

communicate

the absence

differentiate of

a

any

it

differentiation—language,

key in state the this

hand,

power, is collectivities

affairs,

is

states

first

between

a

perennial

already

surplus

central

relations pervasive

in of mistaken

the be

different

development

to

is

are

takes members

criteria

has language,

of

changes

states

people’s

began status about

differentially

are

allocation

as

in

and used

and

state

of

pointed

in

Subordinate

or

one

and

the one’s the

syntagmatic:

short with to

to social

wealth

most New and

to that

kind in all

of

to overriding

in systems.

28

group

form

that form

another,

rights

of last draw

aggrandize

human kinship

non-state

there intersect culture,

own power,

changes one

and

supply Guinea

collectivity

of the

of

of out

classes

were have

few

distributed

of

(what

difference—they

prestige, too

them

and

according another, is

group, from

imposition It

(1966:

to

the

societies.

to

or

but is

physiognomy,

and millennia, political

wide in

they

much

with led another.

or the

systems,

when

the and

it.

culture

probably culture,

modern status; Fried any

other

the the

if

There to

State

232),

and

specific

or

a include

power,

the

the

there it

social

less

line

Amazon

the the

presence

to

among

carries another;

[1967]

organization.

people

of the

The

there

increasing varies and

state, there

their

territory,

evenly

state is

between nation-state.

present. these

is involved,

state

manner

system—power,

lack no

and

began

relanve

a such relatedness

common

calls

no

lingua collectivities,

is

membership

is

and appears,

greatly

or

by ruling

of

power.

preexisting there

wealth distributed of

no

usually

particular

the

collectivi

this means

cultural-

“pristine

to

In in

kinship,

thus related

division

written

impor

at

franca

North

which

deter

other orga

from

is

kind

their

kin

The

and

in

the

no no

by

of

a

bers haps LU! the too within alliances China,

ulation a sion region, four come nication). 1.

2.

which lapped

The ethnid not 2bly

territory

bly tory It have later

in

It political perhaps ture, be ping parts happened consolidation C,

time . 2.

some

area

also can small of

can poses. this ways:

the

organized IlICIlILnIl,

under This based

according

There designation

in

will

one developed for only the

short and who lam

in

the

become

of time, peripheral imitate

organize of way.

Xia

is

on the

When

example,

whole to power three has the its

or

have

a It

thinking

formalizing a

the

on a

were

term

with

if

of the a few

seems

conquest

few a been

hundreds contain

I

to

most

it

few U! series as northeastern state’s

the

call

Manchuria. full

its

existed

tribes,

two

traditional

order I

areas states of

powerful of to a

a

many hope

centuries not U1I1

itself considerable

of

state

threatening

state,

same hundred

this state

certain

what to

the populous

includes Chinese

states

of

influence of

part

will

at

me

of

many Out by

in

such

the

in Shang process in

some allied

of

of

all.

while

organization.

kind

magnitude is

get

historiography

the

the

provinces,

that

imitation

a

the

of

thousands

rather

rules leaders, clans.

See

now Lot

all

their

more

revived

as

of controversy

years

Zhou narrow

the different

state

kinship or

and

steppe

Chang the

of in C!111h1

the

those

and

this

neighbors

part

imitation.

of

China

the

clan

territories These

collectivity

than

peripheral,

formal

economically neighboring

in kinship,

earlier,2

although

rationalizing

must

rule in

expand, of

provinces,

of, 5U1,L1t

1980:

of

the

mid-second

peoples

sense

each

groups.

(David 1049

alliance preceded

t9

The

over

and

one. proper3

a

cultural-linguistic

current

early,

335

in

react modern

of

manner

and

those

the

B.C.E. to

result

succession,

of tontLIa& seem

the the

The

55. expanded

neighboring

particularly

less

that

of

counter

N.

existence

to

The kin-based

that

debates

the

form

and

eighteen

was

collectivity retain,

Central immediate

its

the

productive Zhou,

Keightley, populous,

Chinese

is

to Shang, probably millennium

originally

than

first

word.

political

rule.

that

occupied

threat

a

have

over

in

and

a

provinces

state

in

and

greatly—the

states

threat

Western

but for

before,

the

Asia

As

the

national

states .

timing

This

peoples

province

been

that

now marriage, example,

directly

can and

of and

personal collectivities,

core

Southwest), a •

pre-Imperial

part,

formed

in

to

by

from, result,

of

B.C.E. its

appears

the

languages

were of

looks

react

less based reaction

giving form military

identity

the

states

of

the own,

continues

state in

and

Qing the controlled productive

the

as

Xia

Shang

probably

the

the the

in

may commu and but

in

and

around

if

formed

explicit

to in

region, proba expan

only

Shang;

a dynasty one

north

it struc

though to

state,

terri same

(

pop

stop

per have

prob

over well

hira but

and

thc

by

the

of

to ?‘J) Union to had alized dynasty assimilated incorporated the first particular past ening (221—206 . 3. experience the so times jects whose include result toethnic Chinese of perhaps territory, untarily local but arate It iognomy into It of process from These states their have few can can what forth. European over first of descendants and the of unit (618—907). and the be altered be of millennia, ethnic state B.C.E.) four to ancestors undergone region: is different of millennium the a this the (Brown as polity conquered incorporated assuming Empires, group until sixteenth now may the thousand distinct come and into tribalization a individuals power processes state process formation process identity north or colonies. south and retain they the sometimes the of from In first even They of 1996). peoples, were rulers. the (and inhabitants of a Chinese trihalization Han that to totally members became or in years different of China of B.C.E. to traces consolidated course, the reemphasized) the expanding are otherwise the into may, unequivocally imitative in of ethnjcization initially deny usually has (206 Language, rulers reaction eighteenth as ago the all middle the has the race empire, of been of “nothing those characteristic sequence, and have B.C.E.-22o of were independent of the political undergone course, culture lower) retaining and (records clearly nationalism the overcome the the state. then of former are to and existed 20 ethnicized almost customs, previously their central is the the centuries differences main defined something but succeed an strengthened status to and steppe-dwellers structure Language, distinguish incursion first CE.) are empire—a lower forget difference this cultural in Chinese” certainly and trend of -stans Yangzi language with scanty) many millennium from religion, by process into the times, absorbed (Jennings one different status them, the in of in else the in expansion of customs, group Valley, the that parts another language, by the since the human from under preexisting the state but state and breakup of of are ethnicization, Russian in voluntarily endogamy, of state, of SJi,jLiJi assimilai-ion; 199os. without cultural-linguistic- incorporated the of certainly 1984) the at then B.C.E., Central and now power at for the the Soviet the temporally the and history least rulers, but society. and example, customs, central territory of original was Empire were nothing world •_tflhiSii_1 center. (but even much in with the then rule, Asia strength the imitated or separate the a for though slowly Soviet in similar people some norm, invol Much Tang a phys since were trib only may form pro trace sub and Qin sep that The and in the but a pendent lapses. reversible. when assimilation political ethnic Fujian or to groups. sary tural serve history, small within of as solidarity of nic legitimacy, tory. formulate, kinship the different peoples torical main history-, Ways the long outside In descent ,,fl ideology With identity. advent but difference, Empires as none as status long-lost subject of advantage. (Gladney Ethnic the as sequence the The but what ti’s— who villages as the Being independence, not from kinship-, they and a States disseminate, group. from of of a memory s-as_s,LisJi& demonstrating of state as there cultural can emergence sufficient distinguish possible of we these state and are a those out-group groups a Ethnic ethnic people when this be there buttress common 1991: may call polity. during not must These, and nations reversed power four of of book. differences an completely s_,, revert in must basis chap. external The incorporated the culture-based a identities, as condition be and of language The processes ethnic 5_S_,ij_sS_,_ either which themselves Southwest an to too, exclusiveness and other both something Empire ancestors the that preserve be for state ethnic if 6; to existence can it ideology, state—and a pressure Fan marker tribal as the group (see tile groups need has sense forgotten, power, once such for be and do states group, China Ke Chinese in-group not below) from state into ethnicity (Keyes put not the polities the there 21 of of spoken identity. the as n.d.), with emerges: (Keyes goes gone then, and these in cultural or relatedness be ideology—a formation that a empires one is Nation-State particularly nation, for depend they the which 1976), state great—they concerned as “,“——-‘——- away are has all the or or another interact history of 1996). cultural ethnic nonstate foreground Tile can the the even common revived the use a has differences or it or may and common partly consciousness way become comes or different as And when simply Muslim of included is identity third to in by with —, differences marriage a with persistence aspire added written local to can collections for the people, polities. on in and into disappearance, demography basis or the a the he political addition a aforementioned themselves history past, contexts category Hui to ways particular laid to to divergent under contact. something development basis languages for build and an culture or of And and is of aside, of in-group in ideology of a for a achieve for affinity coastal and/or its to —- shared neces are ethnic inside on, which a inde With even their lead col eth cul past his rule and his but the as to as to .un.uaI, Imt4u1t1L, Icli IlUllal, aiiU 1\flL UUU11UdIIC aim S11a1 a wiise UI 0 LUIII tnem a tuna or aerective I uriusn citizenry, ratner tnan memoers or groups mat mon history and kinship, including descent from common ancestors (Keyes combined to make an empire (Gunter 1994). Until very recently, Kurds were 1976). States that include such diversely perceived peoples are often divided often not allowed to use their written languages in schools or other public con into two types: empires and nation-states, with the former replaced by the lat texts, and they were considered not only defective but rebellious if they did ter in the last few centuries. Ernest Geilner, for example, asserts that (Gunter 1994). The same kind of process has occurred, in even more violent ways,in many there are twogreat types or speciesof the division of labour, of socialstructure, of the new states that emerged from the decolonization of Asiaand Africa after both of thembeingmarkedbyverygreatcomplexityand size,but whichdiffer World War II. In many casesa national print languagehas had to be constructed, radicallyin theirimplicationsforculture,in themannerinwhichthey make use if not from whole cloth, at least from quite variable threads, as with Tanzanian of culture.... One of these, which may be calledadvanced agrarian-based civi Swahili and Bahasa Indonesia, and myths of origin in the remote past have lization, makes for great cultural diversity, and deploys that diversity to mark been the basis of what I have elsewhere called “the hiding of a history of nego out the differential situations, economicallyand politically,of the various sub- tiation behind a narrative of unfolding” (Harrell 1996a).In the rare casewhere populations within it. The other, which maybe called growth-oriented indus intellectuals attempt to create a nation (necessarily including a national his trial Society,is stronglyimpelledtowardscultural homogeneitywithin each torical narrative) in a relativelydemocratic environment, asin Taiwan or Belize cultural unit. (1987: 17—18) in the mid-’9os, there develops a real puzzlement over what the national his tory ought to include (Zhuang Wanshou 1996a,b; Haug 1995). ln most places, Benedict Anderson’s now-classic treatment (1983, 1991) similarly traces the however, intellectual stooges in the service of a ruling class create a narrative processof development from tile “dynasticrealm,” held together by divineking that servesthe fictitious but compelling idea that the nation—with a coinmon ship and a sacred “truth-language,” to the modern nation-state, held together culture, language, kinship, territory, physiognomy, and history—-isan eternal by ideas of citizenship and a common “national print language,” the former thing, and citizens can and should point to a glorious past, a proud present, consisting of diversepeoples bound by allegianceto the monarch and his asso and a bright future. ciated clerisy, and the latter of a people with the perception that they share a In many polities, of course, the attempt to impose state nationalism on a common heritage and culture. multicultural population is not entirely successful; cultural and territorial The attitudes toward cultural, linguistic, and kin-community difference are minorities who are included in the new national whole may resent and/or resist. said to differ greatly in these two kinds of polities. In the empire or dynastic In doing so, they also incorporate the third basis of group identity—a com realm such difference istolerated, even promoted, by state authorities, because mon history—into their identity, along with culture and kinship. When this it not only is accepted as inevitable but also facilitates both division of labor happens, ethnic conflictisborn, with resultsobvious today from Tibet to Bosnia and political control in a society with a weak state and low revenue base. to Kurdistan. But direct resistance is not the only strategy available to leaders Examples abound in actual empires. The Ottomans, for example, minutely of local minority communities. Where the state attempts to co-opt the lead classifiedthe population of their realm; Jews,Armenians, Greeks, Arabs, and ership and ordinary people of minority collectivities, it may be just as possi Georgianseachhad their own religion,culture, language,territory, marital com ble, and much more advantageous, for elites among the minorities to co-opt munity, and, most importantly, their legallyrecognized position as part of the state policies for local purposes, especiallywhere the policiesare lessthan com larger imperial community (Sonyel 1993, Batatu 1978). pletely assimilationist and recognize some rights to cultural and other dis The transition to modern Turkish nationalism under Atatürk eliminated tinctiveness on the part of the minority collectivities. This can lead to a allthis qualified inclusiveness;Turkey was now tile land of the Turks, who had situation in which the central authorities and local leaders are using each other their language (which was pointedly now written in the Roman alphabet, in for rather divergent but not directly contradictory ends. (I see this as the pre contrast to the earlier Arabic one), and the minorities, though they were not vailing mode of interaction in the area described in this book.) Resistance and entirely eliminated or assimilated, now had a problematical status: they were accommodation are, of course, not mutually exclusive strategies, and mem lessthan full citizens in the ideological sensethat their cultural difference made bers of minority groups may use both, either simultaneously or at different

23

between

tribes—governed

way,

modern

are

the

the

now

of

that

very

over

contemporary

even

unequivocal

unequivocal

has

gence

into

attempts

ance historical

its

cases

uation,

based

mon nearly

and

on between

nation-states,

agrarian

tinction

the

citizens;

At

This

identity

assimilationist

voices

United

We

the

become

too

even

ethnic

as

the

problems

name

marital

at

or

the

descent

they

of

on

everywhere,

much

aforementioned

tile

must

even

members

nationalism. much

distinction,

extent

the

the

between

polities

same

in to

the

gender,

arguing

narratives

strengthen

opponents

connotes

States

identity

end

through

the

a

eliminate

nation-states

communities

state

nation-state”

promotion

empires,

as

and national

remind

much

world

diversity

are

when

of

time,

same

of

9

as or

by

cultural

percent

of age,

intermarriage

not

project

(or

the

for

the

whether

a

of

empires,

treaty

time

more

such

demonstrating

are

at

however,

we

not

political,

The

state.

of

these

ourselves

fundamentally

a

the

occupation,

twentieth ruling

them

the

and

least culture

will

more

human

unequivocally

rnulticulturalism look

11uct11u1,

of

all

(Harrell

collectivities

issue goes

of commonality

in

significant

majority

minority

(along

and

(1996:

In

differences

feelings

lead

the

a

state-minority

in

in

the

the

as

class

at

the

nod

pluralist

on

like

rather

an

and

administered

nation-states.

of

well

universal that

Turks

actual

same

population

to

(Keyes

century.

153’).

with,

United

empire,

in

the

1996a).

toward

and or

iiowveI—1esismnce

separatism

so

minority

of

people

Furo-Americans)

the

as

the the

24

different

than

factor

even

places,

nation-state

many

nation-states. commonality

see

the

cases.

in

society and

of

the

1976;

inevitable

schools,

that

stable

States,

empires

display

of

In

The

course,

a

themselves

pluralism)

much

cultural,

artistic

tends

protoethnic

relations

nation-state,

in

Italians

of

forming

ought

other

distinctions

territorially,

but The

Horowitz

As

ethnic

from

social

difference

and

even

France

and

for

media,

more

Keyes

the certain

to

Ottomans

other

and

unfolding and

words,

is

disunity,

to

community.

example,

rather

each

be

in

The

have

classical

and

cultures

far relations

are

cultural,

is

be

as

the

and

(Tash

musical contentious

that

strengthened.

points

1985:

riven

kinds

collectivities

from and being

required cases

or

United

structured

or

difference

other.

is

of

and

suspicion

not

more

unproblematic

accommoaation—

between

Native

even

locus

while

town

ideal

and

1997),

of

nationalist’s 59),

the

by

characteristic

settled.

are

of

involving

since

related

linguistic,

all

out,

interests).

the

Both

States

debate

communities

recently a

Muslims

relationship

Rornans

and

states

in-between,

classicus

or

halls,

types,

prestate

liberals

American

distinction

and

“Ethnicity

group

by

the

the

and

the

expected

are

found

in

by

(whose

writing

in

emer

while today

same there

local

toler

many

based often

com

local,

runs

fear

And

run

and

are

ran

see

the

dis

sit

of

of

in

ship

government

China state

contexts, ambiguous. than

relationship no empire deal

nic tile Nowhere

there

clearly the “autonomous national

the ing made alities”),

models sons rify more

members tivities. schools;

lives their ration)

But

have

territorial

This

groups

myths world

ideal

to

the

with

between

even

in

legitimacy,

and

been

in

interaction

for

are assimilationist

a

the

distinguished

and

of

terms

In

of culture

hook

the

meticulous,

and

state

type

than members

which

different

daughters;

special

of does

of

nations

of

people everybody

of

other

before

empire

At People’s

nation-state—manifest

to

ot groups

base

a

nation-states

a

the

the

of (tongyi

is

of

regions,

visceral

common

do

the

the

the

the

and

to

a

because

South, words,

in

strongly

with

state

dispensations

or

the

in

nation-state

of

they

same

ways

and

state

a

of

Native

conflict

many

governmental

that

the

the

large

“scientific”

the

a

duominzu and

Republic

few

and

from

minorities;

local

distrust

or

prefectures,

national

nationhood

Southwest,

and faced

the

region, of

time origin

history

northern

share

the

of

remaining

thus

held,

all

extent

THE

today,

ways

communities—is

being

foreign

cultural,

people

between

their

to

things

majority

African

the

kinship, (sometimes

the

further

and

as

of

they sometimes

uojia,

print-language,

in

of

process.

CHINESE

looks

concerned

ethnic

there

outlined

it

numbers

China.

and

autonomy,

Han

language, nation-building

and

and

minority

of

a

explicitly

soil,

foreign.

conflict

itself

Natives,

have

glorious

linguistic,

the

Americans

Liangshan

and

western

from

lit.,

are

counties”

somewhat

Northeast.

territory,

majority

even

to

At

two

China

probably

more

officially

by

African

“unified

combined

unquestioned

be

and

the

with

with

the

very

“nationalities”

CASE

among

proclaims

religion,

living

past;

Geliner

and

models

defended

periphery

marital,

same

relative

acutely

also

ideal

was

than

pose

organize

for

and

the

each

whose

clirterent

The

like

Americans,

the

promoted

country heid

mostly

the

various

projects

taught

once

ways

time, with

and

culture.

a

type do

of

idea case

and

other

an

much

or

itself

power

southwestern

and

these

with

legal

the

a

have

Anderson

beliefs

a

envy

more

an

in

empire.

studies

in

than

of even

political

trom

all

great

of

universally

minority

classified

territorial

nonnational

in

a

which

remote

aspects

of

greater sacred

the

empire,

As

attempts

kinds

the

a

diverse

which

unified,

in

the

or

very

many,

childbearing,

ambiguously

tile

that

iong

toe

part

many

blood

elements

in

even

context

There

of

these

system—

are

territory,

this

relation

are

different

threat

areas. People’s

involves

peoples;

they

accord

as

groups. of

nation

though

heliefi,

collec—

and

to

multi

admi

in

there:

social

more

of

there

book

their

eth

gb

two

the

are are

its

In

to

of of in -

got

explore

to

Chinese

and

between

last

ideas

regions

Geliner’s than

nic

that

orientation

and

mon

had

religious

In

came

nic project;

is nature

members

all

to beliefs

categories,

in

themselves

themselves

nic ivcpuuuc,

about

The understand

This

the

accordance

each

to

groups

been

in

those 150

literary

still

many

(or

repressed

history,

about

to

be

Liangshan,

Chinese

past

ruled

and

and

how

living

does

years,

there

the

other

those “nationalities”)

has

incorporated,

them.

the

ideal

practices;

coming of whose

ulc

characteristics

in

century

practices

toward

contradictory

boundaries

and

and

as

forms

way one

the

state-defined

not

from

with

under

are

practicing

terms

types.

than

ways

with

holding

how

simply

or

empire, Before

other

practice

center-periphery

extremely

they

cultures

however,

mean,

still

denigrated.

myths

under

Beijing

associated

and

government the

they

Liangshan uiese

Chinese

and

of

Rather,

of

different

are.

floated we

groups

The

in

unquestionably,

categories

their

at

of

however,

all

a

a were

identification

the

their of

of

groups

are,

common,

least

proceed

core of juncture

(or,

half, we

“nationalities,”

these

these

Rise

important

origin

jurisdiction

relations

there

“core

commonalities

nationhood

officially

with

need

previously. were

ways

very somewhere

during

influence,

came

political

China

of

groups

service”

collectivities

were

in

that

has

Chinese

relations

culture”

to

and

to

it;

of

briefly,

of

all

and which

26

to

examine

review

being

between

some

been

its

aspect being

constitutea,

at

has quite

China

descent;

(minzu

its elite,

and

as

have

the

least, last

11992:

or

(Townsend

The

or

Ntitionalisn,

moved

citizens

they

Nanjing) in

a

present

that

both

common

in

nature

ethnic

Chinese briefly

and

variable.

in

significant

few

of

minzu.

has,

with

not

have

a

promoted

in

which members

the

shibie)

a

emerged

we empire:

25])

happy

a

periods boundaries,

an

detail

third

distinctive

been

through

from

core in

tne

of

a

usually the

been

of

predicament,

empire

or,

living

But

common

the

to

Since

Liangshan

folklore, the

lists

the

process began

characteristics

formulation,

eradicated

compromise

the

transformation

to

and

being

rule

being

partially

and

of from

the of

region,

Chinese

boundaries

put

elsewhere.

“a

refer

the

ways

and

dynastic

the

these

the

written

over

differences

celebrated

are

in sense

the a

it

by

an

turmoil education life

a

project

to

modern

another

the

periphery

and

of

is

nation-state.

more

which

transformed

groups

diverse

empire

we

project.

by

state

as

rituals

entangled

of

being

rule,

195os,

language

this

between

between

Chinese

In

need

the

they

between

a

similar

of

of

rather

and

order in

China

in

com

way,

book

state

was

state

have

eth

that

and

and

eth

eth

The

the

the

saw

the

the

to

of

as

be

characterized

ing

terms.

had course ing

in be legitimacy

the

dynasty

principles.

social

than in

them from

tion, Ming

beyond.

behavior. Ming

of

Yuan and lyzed

from notions

word and

Chinese,”

cally will group, arc

deny

fact

which

known Confucianism

faced At

.

Mongols

elite

anachronistic. to

use

the Koreans

206

consider

dynasty

inheritance

that

there

to

when

The

and

in

any

the

Jesuit status

and

any

from

Those since,

the

embodied

right any

B.C.E.

as

defined

the

of

with

Operas

they and

term

not

same

word

Qing

currently

And

as

“Han

writing

particular systematized were

in

This

proper (Endicott-West

(1279—1368),

other

the same

in

Matteo

were

themselves

of

it

“Chinese

and

are to

who

“I

the

by

constant,

only

the

throughout

has

were

time,

the

most Ian’

220

ethnic

numerous

is

itself Unlike

I—lan.

people”), 4

and

a

and

in

duty

hardly

reflected eyes

sense

in

Southwest

come language.

why

were

particular

the

lineage Yuan

Cit.

has

the

Ricci

spoken

written

certain

oral

mastery

important,

kinship-and-culture

the

and

however,

to

of

group

to a

and

canonical

certain

culturalism” Mongols

in

Chinese

that

able ethnic

varied

in

independent

he

this

and

folk

rule.

modern

the

stories

seems

1989:

its

came

and

and

Chinese

the but

in

Confucian

was

book

it form,

texts

Non-Han

to

Set

criteria

the

of

elite

authors, history.

cultures

of

particular,

belonged

it

Most

nationalist language

13).

master

pervading

classics,

members

family

to

Chinese-speakers

a

referred

of

to

high

and

told

Manchus

times

as

for

texts

Han

known

he

if The

it

(Zhongguo

have

doctrmes

there

consiSteilcv,

of something

it

(Levenson

they

was

for

Manchus

I

tales

culture

of

was

to

of

language;

the

organization;

Qing

do

could

but

those

to

to

notions

there

to

ancestor

come

refer

membership

Han

Han

of

the

much

in

the was

not refer

resonances

mastered

revolt.

principles

that Han

collectivity,

of

also

dynasts.

other

the

people

dynastic

are

ceo,

who

unambiguously

and

wani

ann

the

and

ethnicity.

communities

of

no

realizing

to

close—but

could

demonstrated

officials

1968,

the

West

closer

millions

an

of even

Zhoguoco,

what

Qing

worship

sharp

did

practices

its

ethnic

achieved

to

(known

of

ethnonym

themselves

proper official

name

the

usc

north

consequent

customary

of

between

though

Townsend

rule

master

we

not

as that

to

(1644—1911),

but

The

dividing

civilized of and

“Chinese”

classical

“Confucian

now

collectivities,

adopted

those

Certain

China,

in

the it

people

enacted etc.)

at

to

strictly

tnat

this

documents

all

relationships

classical

did

scholars.

in

terms

it—even

it

least

call

this

Manchus,

empire

the

the

over

later

and

differed

mastery

spoken

including

nave

by

particular

not law

1992).

who

Han

political

rhetoric

group.

line political

to

virtues

elite

in

the

just

in of

times.

could

Confucian China

refer

belong

of

language

the

or unequivo

come classics”

between

cultural Liu

belong

In

and

as

the

such

culture

used

greatly

A

1-lence

family

of

forms

Khitan came

cleady

addi

Qing

to

usages ethnic

In farnib

gain

ana

rul

dis

and

and

and

and

late

not

the

this

the

the

to

as

to I i uttug ciassaitu peasantry or rnercnants In iing Lflina, there was alsono sharp reforms of 1898, the Republican revolution ot 1911, the May Fourth Movement line dividing elite from folk cultures. An unassimilated Yi or Yaowho passed of the late teens and twenties, the Japanese invasion, the Civil War, and the the examinations and became an imperial official had to be markedly bi wholeset of cataclysmicsocialchangesbrought about bythe imposition of com cultural, operating in the home sphere with one set of assumptions, practices, munism beginning in the late 194os, Chinese intellectuals and politicians came and vocabulary, and in the official sphere with quite another set. But a Han to the realization that China would have to become a state like other states, villager who made it in the officialworld simply had to shade over from a folk and they set about creating such a state in much of the territory that had been to an elite version of the same language, rituals, and manners. Elite Chinese ruled by the former empire. We need not rehearse modern Chinese history culture claimed universality; this claim was justified in the sense that anyone here, but we should outline briefly a set of processes that effected the change could participate. But it was universality on the condition that one act in a liter from imperial to national ethnic relations. ized (wen) manner, and the basis of that literization was Han culture. First, as intellectuals around the turn of the century increasingly despaired In late Imperial China, the idea of a superior culture at the center went along of China’sability to survive as an empire, Republicans began to identify China with the imperial version of what I have elsewhere called a “civilizingproject” as a nation—an ethnic group with common descent, territory, and culture, (Harrell 1995a) but will refer to here with the neologistic but more accurate but which was also politically sovereign. It was at this time that radical reform term “literizing project,” since the basis of status was not urbanism but famil ers, beginning with Liang Qichao in 9o2, began to think and write of China iarity with texts. The universal validity of the high culture meant that anyone as a minzu, a term probably first used in Meiji-era Japan (and pronounced mimi could adopt it; its moral superiority meant that the ruling classwasduty-bound zoku in Japanese, but written with the same characters in Japan as in China) to acculturate others to it. If peoples were originally included in the Chinese as part of the process of building a nation out of the fragmented feudal order empire by a process of ethnicization—political subjugation with minimal cul that wasJapan of the Edo period (1615—1868)(Morris-Suzuki 1996). When Liang tural change—the ideal of the literizers was still assimilation, making others picked up the term, he first defined it as a group with a common geographic literate and moral by persuading them to conform with norms dictated by the origin, a common bloodline, common physical characteristics, common lan high culture, whose basis was Han. As Townsend points out (1992: 125), this guage, common writing, common religion, common customs, and a common amounted to “state nationalism”—pursuit of the idea that citizens of a state mode of livelihood (Peng Yingming 1985: 9). For Liangand his associates, the should have a common culture and thus constitute a nation—on the part of unification of China as a nation could still he accomplished under the over the imperial authorities. That this state nationalism was successfulis of course lordship of the Manchu Qing dynasty, but radical revolutionaries who demonstrated by the expansion of Han culture from the North China Plain in picked up the usage—the most prominent among them Sun Zhongshan (Sun the third millennium B.C.E. to the eastern and southern oceans and the south Yat-sen)—began to identify the culture of the Chinese nation explicitly with western mountain walls by the twentieth century CE, a single ethnic group (the Han) and to exclude others (particularly the ruling What differentiates this imperial form from the present one, however, is Manchus) from this national-cultural community (ibid.: 9—1O). very clear. In Imperial times, the high, literate culture wasvalid for everybody; But this explicit Han nationalism wasunworkable unless the Chinese patri no other culture was as good, for anyone. People around the peripheries were ots who advocated it also wanted to give up half or more of the territory that inferior because they had different and thus inferior cultures. Since the early had been under imperial rule. A strong China, for reasons of pride as well as twentieth century, the new versions of the high culture have been seen as the natural resources and military defense, had to include parts of Central Asia, exclusiveproperty of the Chinese (whether just the Han or all Chinese within Mongolia, and Tibet, as well as the ethnically mixed areas of the South and the borders is still a matter of contention), and people around the peripheries Southwest. Sothe original idea of the nation-state, so effectivein exciting anti have been thought to have different cultures because they are inferior. This Manchu rebelliousness, evolved quickly into Sun Zhongshan’s idea of a transformation has come about asChina has become a modern state, stillstrug “Republic of Five Nationalities”—Han, Zang (Tibetan), Meng (Mongolian), gling with whether it is really a nation-state, Through a series of historical events beginning with the Opium War (1839— Yingmmg’s invaluable essayclii . I am indebted to Zhang Ilaiyang tot pointing me to Peng 42) and proceeding to the sernicolonialimposition of unequal treaties,the failed eussing the earliest uses ot the term nhtuzu in China.

28 29 was 1951 Republicans conferred to century, hanna The remnant the national tion, or was the the become having remained tural in Manchus, lation, to to Turkic ethnic its mulation Ilui new is nationhood the now 6. Chinese political be very possibility. Sipsong There It Nationalist process Nuosu, Chinese perceived (Muslim—but Republican Daizu which One inferiority—something is in Southwest, afraid but groups at no quite or Xiniiangh titles assimilated; a population cultural could were least about Panna on process the are Autonomous Mongolian Muslims, recent nation, very sovereignty. of had became of on Communist significant the combination argue all, its being These by with in no this leader the seriousis’. as responded claims, far flag nationalism the a including Chinese in stripes state area of ruler, and kingdom. that he reasonable, in the peripheries assimilated. living our groups’ in and short ethnicization; (Sun Prefecture) Chiang in this meant, peoples the though Man implying the sovereignty.6 And general explicit Though that of modern on Party, Tibetans—they Tai case The nationalists the within 1928: run. See last of by the the (Or incorporation (Manchu)—each the it course they Kai-shek fact ideally of Hsieh conscious prevented is Comniiinjst then referring centuries did his Dai) ones and upon policy flag, after still 12). the four Neither the that sense, China’s subordination, at have the 1995. 01 not previous within in described Republic least Republicans however, at Chinese They those Sipsong minority taking Tai these a as allowed of the referred, least, to functioning nations—large, tribalization, of state tribalization a the also early implicitly borders the Variont were, somewhat barrier China’s into the power cases imperial Panna was imitation a Republican in and Turkic Republicans had in for and potentially groups represented empire Chinese then, the small this in opposed historically (now sovereign any the the (Chiang the to in regimes territory, Republic shared a and book. speaking 1949, ignorance to eventual nor sense, very closer of whereas called publications represented added had a the front weak, territorially few the government. partial state culturally from sovereignty inherited different with 1947: In precluded in by Zhonghua to peoples the taking of would founded, they so disadvantage Chinese addition on peoples into a total others the the them, no the peoples stripe 39). the to assimilation Chinesc any Yuan the recognized center in refer Mongols, thus part Marxist- assimila Xishuang uniform both centered compact twentieth Tai this were such assimi of minzu, for to When on on claims tu of claim what have who state pre cul had for the had the the the in as of Leninist were had disprivileged ture on neither Communist chauvinism.” either politically of historical however recognized was opment ical systematized socialist ethnic in whom example oprnent skip the Koreans) times development pied rationale: the the an along diverse the general At objective Communist development. Han People’s to Han no empirically some legally its the one with they real take groups longer the ignore higher views example that modes that many in of same nationalities. stood nations in would less or of others the their were and priority unequal, their the doctrine Republic’s Imperial scale in urged promised or the be project divided Instead, on stood organized ethnic time, Han gradations, there Stalin’s at accorded nationality advanced of obvious subject position considered urged be because “the rungs As place should that the represented production, the cultural in orthodox (along the on and turned and resisted distinctions top. times, national was human they official Soviet “brother constituent to of erasure on What different to Communists in follow. it groups on the equal the follow The prominence Han originally the but was overt policy with had the superior nationalism, peoples the out nation-state this Union: literizing both Marxist-Leninists, policy ladder. question” Communists history in conveniently morally of and in China status to scale nationalities,” The to perhaps the pressures rungs in meant was the ethnic nor scientifically create “nationalities” the be—and the move of a formulated Han the at only of five-color were thus priori One as make of empire the superior in as project of Southwest least, progress. was primitive, distinctions, elements (Connor or the what a model, example the quickly this general difference quite periphery effect committed of few do that and thus these placed explicitly 19505 and most cultural ladder model, Han of orxiongdi they discovered in they Hui simple flag that all without of formulated in Second, the (niinzu) 1984). it its forward of distinctions into slave, and because the that developed the this minzu which called demanded espoused hut no Muslims, between own had the old of The in ethnic to including assimilation. in Han elsewhere—had five group policy members human feudal, which 1 also new respect been Empire economic right; ,ninzu, its his Communists they had zhuyi—”great a equality in historical it at stages, “unified conception. a latter, groups the state. stood the history, an be policy to urged and was the had invidiously, Manchus, in ethnic that capitalist, progress, to idea either be to not was smaller Communist Communist of top. to to the who was 01 and follow identified, originally higher Han in In to of different of only order, countr) he thus confirm course, even groups China, people legally follov short, devel based devel could polit occu to given First, Han cul and and and and the the the be on as to It ground, the the munist turned interacted task,

opportunity

direction

and

out

policy-—ethnic

particularly

the

with

to

development

be

of

local

for

or

universal

the

coerced,

in

categories

identification

such Han

would

progress.

core.

areas

depending

and

The

as be

and

local

the

as

Given

ways

32

hard

economic

Southwest,

on

society

in

one

the

or

which

harder

s

preexisting

are

point

and

identification these

the

cultural

for

or

subjects

two

view)

the

situation

prongs

development—

minorities

to

of

was

develop

chapter

of

no

on

Com

easy

as

the

in .

it

Since existence, long that

males as vocabulary

“race,” salience J cards dances as spoken, high

in into tance communicative

one of communication

communicate systems specific

the

long

the

the

Communicative cuhure,

The

nations, use n communicate

as far

way

the

school

ethnic

simply of

any

for

language

causal

police

3

as as

are

as

of

first

in

and

types

categories

of

Chinese

in

I

long

census their

they

the

political

one

American performed

and

ethnic

kinship, admissions,

which

Ethnology,

way groups ideas

as

for

in

sense.

communicative

of

are

as

about set

intonation

existence

American

long

known

being

acts

languages. forms

in about young

citizens

of

relationships,

framed of

we

system

the

Yi,

which

acts The

and nationhood and

as

symbols

are

ethnicity,

society.

can

in in

Han,

continued

members

citizens

ask

group

to

men

such

necessary

thing

history a

nations

remote must

cities

carry

in speak

pattern, that

particular

languages

its

respondents

Zang,

categories

on

rather as

own Similarly,

involves Linguistics, act

membership

communicated be

of differentially

and

a

of

there

those

and

certain

that township

exist

of

designation

the

continually

salience the

to

and

to ethnic

speakers

each

certain

than

identity

part

communicate have Liangshan

sustain give

categories

are

described

33

only

relevant

so

relations

street as

to

of

of

another

two

identity forth.

their

meaning

of long

squares

check

these

categories insofar

town

stop

and

as

maintain

(and

the

general

reinforced labeled

corners

about

Nnosii

to

area

meanings

“black”

as

among above

group in

and

one

at

categories.

equivalent the

and

is

sometimes

the

on

turn

as about

a

will

in

as

question

must particular lives

ways

of

niinzu,

their

ddoma

state people

are speak

personal

a the do

relationships.

and

ethnic

continue

is

several

series

Politics

and

ethnicity such not given of used

first in

have

salience

occasions,

“white”

with

the set,

For

which

as

restated

continues

recognize

create)

darker-skinned

create

of groups

in

salience.

place. time

identification boxes

long

preference

participants.

some

thereby

to

example, languages

a

two

only

particular

be

will

is

languages

of ethnicity

as

the

through

In

and/or labeled or by divided But

impor as

night,

retain

inso

circle

their

to

Thus

corn— three

most

long

facts acts

the

he as

in

of rnunicaung me etnnic aspect or tne communicative reiationsnip in wflicfltne cliscusseci in iocai communities, oecoine incol j)UILU Ii LUJ LI1 IUL41 UI IOU’. symbols are used. Two kinds of languages can communicate about ethnicity ratives and classifications (Hanson 1989,Haley and Wilcoxon in this way. The first of these is simply what we conventionally call languages, The third language is that of the state discourse of ethnic identification, such as English, BlackEnglish, standard Chinese, and Nuosu ddoma. In many through which authorities in multiethnic states identify everycitizenasbelong situations, merely using a particular idiom conveys a lot of information about ing to one or another ethnic group or category. In the United States,this takes the speaker and the listeners: whether I speak English or Chinese or Nuosu the forms of census categories and affirmative action goals,among others, and ddoma, when, and with whom, communicates things about ethnicity that are in China takes the form of the process of “ethnic identification,” through which not necessarily explicit in the content of the conversation. the Communist-led government, beginning in the 195os, attempted to classify Signs other than speech and writing also communicate information about all of its citizens into one or another mninzu(Lin 1987, Fei 1980). Allofficialcom ethnic relations simply by being used. The whole series of cultural behaviors munications use this language of ethnic identification. usuallyknown asethnic markers—which can include food, dress,housing styles, The manifestations of ethnicity described in this book can thus be seen as ritual, and many other things—are at this level nothing but signs, often con a series of communicative acts, performed in the kinds of languages described vevingsimple information about the ethnicity of the person employing them. above. The remainder of this chapter describes how the formal languages of People in the United Stateswho wear yarmulkes or celebrate Passoverare mak ethnic discourse have been formulated in the period of Communist rule, how ing a statement to each other and to outsiders about their Jewishethnicity, for the process of ethnic identification established the vocabulary of the official example, in the same waythat people in Liangshan who preserve boneless pigs discourse and influenced that of the popular discourse, and how the work of and worship the household deity Zambala are making a statement that they ethnology and linguistics provided the language of ethnohistory to support are either Naze or Prmi, but certainly not Nuosu or Han. and reinforce the categories formulated in the process of ethnic identification. The second way that languages express ethnicity is by talking about it, by employing the categoriesthat refertoethnic groups and relations. In the Chinese ETHNOLOGY, LINGUISTICS, case, and in Liangshan in particular, there are at least three different types of AND THE LANGUAGES OF ETHNICITY idioms that are used to talk about ethnicity. The first of these is the ordinary speech of people as they go about their business and have occasion to speak The Chinese Communists came to power in 1949—50 armed with two ideolo about themselves and their neighbors in terms of ethnic categories, which exist gies.The first of these was nationalism, through which they were determined in all the languages spoken in the area, though the categories used in one lan to forge a “unified, multinational state” within their borders, including the guage do not map exactly onto the categories used in another. This language minority regions around the peripheries. The second was Marxism-LeninisnL often includes self-referential aspects, as people use their ethnic languages (in through which they were determined to lead the inhabitants of that state in the above mode where the use of one language rather than another indicates China proper forward from their “semifeudal, semicoloriial” historical stage, something about ethnicity) to speak about ethnic relations, and even about and the inhabitants of the minority regions forward from whatever earlierstages the use of language, which in a polyglot area is an important aspect of their of history they might then be at, into the future of socialism and eventual com daily lives. munism. To accomplish the twin goals dictated by these twin ideologies, the The second kind of language used to talk about ethnicity is the scholarly Communists needed the help of social scientists, particularly ethnologists and one of ethnohistory—the geographic and temporal story of the location and linguists, and these social scientists thus became closelyimplicated in the plo movement of peoples, presuming for the sake of argument that there are such jects of state-building and national development, particularly as they applicd things aspeoples, civilizations,cultures. This language has been developed pri in the peripheral areas. It was the ethnological projects that, in a sense, wrote marilyby scholars,but the line between scholarship and local discourse isnever the lexicons and grammars of the ethnohistorical and ethnic identification Ian clearly drawn, Thus the stories and legends of a local community are data for guages used in China today not only to talk about ethnicity but to attempt to the scholars’ systematic accounts, even as the systematic accounts, read and regulate ethnic relations.

34 35

peoples

sets

keyat

and

minzu

modern

toms those groups

tance

temperament,

assumption

are

nology res,

perament,

of in

genre

rial literati

gazetteers writing

nected,

ogy

devoted period

works

Southwestern

around early

general

of

s.

of

addition area

a

Despite

By

named

Precursors

the

peripheral

they ethnology

See

of these

stylized

and

of

who,

of

of

that

Successor

of

the

first

UniversitvofWashington’s

China

are

to

who

foreign

Diamond

such

Yonnan,

and

traditions

each of

hahitation—analogous

history,

to

different

cards,

share

the

a

Ming

is

(fang

divided

in

livelihood,

accounts

the

and

ethnology

to

degree. century

Book

of

printed

administered

a

as

picture

spite

group

peripheries

to

sort but

to

those

customs,

of

a

very

peoples

mostly

peoples.

a

Barbarians”

Records

(1995)

this

categorized,

common and

zhi Ethnology

common

Records

the

the

of

languages,

of of

of

in

into

genre

First,

from

or

Barbarians

different

only

of

called

and

n.c.e.,

Qing

the

Tibeto

their and

ethnological

catalogue Miao

and

in

difang

non-Han

two have

and 19805;

of

Hostetler

Miao

is

the

uninese

of

the

they a

perhaps

history

obvious of

or

dynasties

customs.’

Foreign

in

Miao),

Burman,

set to man

brief

basic

the

so

(Xinan contains

are

sense

East

album

Late

each

batting

cultural visited a

and

zhi)

levels

the

are

of

forth,

long

of

Historian

(Man

(aoos)

still

tu

Asia

the

description

has

peoples

rrnnology

Imperial

assumptions

types. and

minority

the

Chinese

and

reporting

each

driven

of calling

I

cc,

non-Chinese

Countries

average

have

packets

of

participants

library.

a

yi

there

non-Han history

36

Second,

describing

for

picture

ideal

often

shu)

categorization

in

chapters

in

discourse

liezhuan).

afforded

seen,

descriptions

into

Shu,

the

a

in

by

and

(Shi

of

had

Times.

set

It

of

from

world,

“peoples”

on

called

ce/ore

question

standard

a

about

personal

does

postcards

in

a

RBIs?)

of

“cooked”

rare

they (Huayang

the

of

one

ji),

classificatory

areas.

evolved

that

China.

dealing

physical

the notclepict

in

origin

characteristics a

the

manuscript,

embodied

Description

Han

side

written

and

are

“Miao

two-page In

1949

the

the

on

including

the

customs,

still

or

Tang

The

the

only

accounts

and

is

analyses

documents

concerned

(including

Chinese

Southwest.

core. name

trading

two

and

The

or

anchored

other.

guo

inform

primarily

with

a

characteristics,

album”

other

by

set

“ripe,”

dynasty

slightly

is

their “Miao

different,

In in earliest

spread

impulse.

of

kept

zhi)

cards

of

Sima

I

habits,

and

various

“Record

have

Miao

political

these

many

of

facts

was

of

Chinese Sliao

inferior

under

other

with

albums.”

in

such

scholars

of

from

peoples

classification

One

both

livelihood,

two

later

are

Qian

albums.

(population

consisting

the

the

systematic

English,

two

hut

and

sources,

but

Groups

the

lock different

entirely

was

as fifty-six

groups

peoples

order,

the

picto

of

rather

in

times,

in

tem

cus

gen

local ecol

eth

dis

con

and

The

are

and

an the

the

the

Jin

a

worship,

even appointed

and ruled

present

influence inations. 2 Era

and

tionalism the

ogy a

Xiamen Yenching thought

and thereafter entific

universities ders tity

among

ern

gists, of nologists feature

and Zhaotao,

ethnolinguistic ars to

ing

flood

escape

the Already

Tile

2.

the

empire

native

and

and of

military

scaling,

the

and

a

participate

(Chen

and

‘l’he

host

either

of

Nuosu

iconoclasm

Southwest. reasons

Development

of

minority

peripheral

already southern

as

sophistication

local

University

anthropology.

are

participation

the and

Lin

anthropological

of

to Western

caught

University

thinking

Sheng,

evolutionism,

of in

local

in

village

the

in

government,

these

ethnic

Yongling

literization

bilingual

directly

Japanese

19u,and

others

Yaohua,

their

the

various

why

two

projects

in

in

rulers,

populations,

coastal

the

or

of

period

relations

areas,

literature

the Many

regions

and

homegrown

-ologies

about

in

China

Manshuiwan,

basic

contributed

of

“raw,”

of

attention

in

by

especially

classical the

invaders,

Ma

in

ethnically

parts

1998).

during

absorption

and

a

In

conducted

carried

cities Beiping,

German

entirely,

before

the

their

of

principles

Chinese-Western

during

the

ignorant

city

linguists—such

Xueliang,

had

now

the

flowed

often

China’s

peoples,

of

from

problems

imperial

moved

Ethnology

the

of

but

native

1920S

developed educational

of

non-Ilan

the

included described

the

students

after

World

and

out

to

that

Kulturkreislehre,

Zhongshan

out

Chinese practice

war

the

Qing

this

of

into

of

this

country,

field

of

later a

Yang

the

most

and

Han

inland

languages

by

large

Western

name

of

years.

late

the

research,

War

field

period

effort

peoples

of

China,

iii

beginning

research

had

in

contrast,

reach

under

early

detail

differently

and

Chengzhi,

the

language

as

eminent

1950S

centuries

scholars,

Chinese

Hybrid

number

the

system

II,

(Guldin to

administration

Many Wu

including

conducted

in

as

relations

University

in

Sichuan,

in

anthropology

foreign-educated

Republic’s and

many

1930S,

ideas

of

well

the

ethnological

and

the

paradoxically,

Wenzao, chapter

among

any

and

of

Ethnology.

and

are

intellectuals

among

civil-service

and customs

of

ethnologists,

Communists.

places

first

as

of

Chinese,

beginning

1994:

from

the

Feng

such

them,

but

British

those

to

Peking

the

between

the

8.

Yunnan,

culture.

considerable

so-called

eager

the

the

in

in

administrative

Fei

23—56).

Hanyi,

the

civil-service

the

them

diverse

Imperial

the

along Guangzhou,

minority

such

or

ethnological

still

project,

Xiaotong,

structural-func

examinations

were

After

and

West,

Southwest,

to

University

most

grew

from

in

Classification

China

indirectly

were

Chinese

and

anthropolo

look

May beyond

Fu

as

about

sometimes

with

systems

the

taught

era.

hut

sporadic

ancestor

in

Guangxi

Maoji— the

research

are

peoples

ethnol

for

proper Fourth

exam

schol

quan

fall

includ

Liang

soon

east

1959,

bor

thus

was

eth

and

and

and

sci

the

by

ol

of

in a

and

Minzuxue

regions. characteristics

the

19205

Republic

flag.

up

alist

tioned

Zhonghua

of

or

ogy

the

ors be

almost

the Zhonghua

as

in

that

for

ancestors. 3

through

the

forebears.

on

of

tenets of

of

3.

the

Communist

Chiang

the

Ethnology,

used

rninzu

use them

chapter

the

The

the

Yan

dragon) “ethnology”

Soviet

careful

writers

of

descendants

The

I

had

through

have

term

Chinese

in

China

scholars

of,

Nuosu

of interchangeably

kind

in

cuniuiugy

[or

and

ethnologists

acquired

still

science

chapter

treated

thus

in

this

for

ininzu. nationalistic Kai-shek

Russian

minzu,

nnnzu,

If

as

and

2.

Shen

and

periods

of

represented

its

retained

i940S

the

example,

Sun as

of

became

or

in

term,

That

empire

the

who

classification

often

in

a

second

the

of

minzuxue, Yan

in

Liangshan

2,

descriptions

Nong]

Zhongshan

or

nature

“unified

which

a

standard

term

Ut

to

in

certain

greater

the

but second

wrote

many

nationalistic

using

“Chinese

Huang

refer

“The

Lnese

working

extended

the

the

and

structural-functional

appeals

term

of

also

with

natsiya

sense,

refers

and

by

study

historiography

classifying

History

to

on

and

peoples

were

it country

times

detail

sense

however,

Chinese:

the

by

[19611)

zisun

was

the

these

in

such

Huang the

to

nation”—not

were

to

diverse

in

of are by

the

five

observation,

(Connor

scholarly

to

groups

refer

of

Southwest

originally in

is,

the

hut

the

cultural

sense

China’s

(children

terms

scholars

the

be

mentioned

Communists,

united

were

stripes

addition

of

as

more

38

and

groups

minzuxue,

is

still

[or

to

Southwest,

and

History

included

one

peoples

diverse

most

classified

the

has

as

foreign-trained

ordering

ethnology the

1984).

retaining

and

and

lifelike

Communist

of

migrit

in

engaged

used

major

long

(such

and

that

of

only

the

to

concerned

Yellow

been

analysis

the

the

social

nationalities,”

administrative

in

who

the

as the

or

Zhonghiia

de

grandchildren

make context

in

original

and

the

expect,

however,

who

of

and

by

citizens

Yi”

greater as

historical

“the

tendencies

perpetuated—in

nationalistic

this chuan

the

the

inhabited

difference,

in

Emperor]). Lin

ancient

cultural

(199 5 b).

described

into

less

Vi

used

is

up

study

Party

character

sense

with

Yaohua,

peoples

indicated

a

was

and

Chinese

the

ren

of

Chinese

their

hybrid.

niinzu stereotypical,

quickly

tninzu

groups

texts,

the

of

the

nationalists

and

all

nation. often

by incorporated

of

China’s

(descendants

journals

of

in

in

accounts,

minzu,”

of

one

their

such nationalities,

new

second

in

the

In

of

the continues

their

government

Republican

While

now

the

to

by

nation,

that

his

expanded

still

the

Republican

their

described

defining the

As

Chinese

translate

the

Imperial nation

border

emper

works.

account

of

known

that

ideol

made a

men

sense

based

many

term

term

term

such

early most

the

the

or

of

to

of

ethnologists

Emerging

1978,

opment

restricted,

“rightists”

of Leap

but

in But

istent,

out

from

to

form. development

with

same

since

recording stages

and

ethnic

of

sense

as

1984),

English

and

66—67).

translate

ethnologists,

the

the

the

Communist

The

a Identification:

.

judiciously

after

again

cultures,

to

group

psychological

new

socialism,

Forward

in

1950s,

the

I

Great

had

became

which

of

except

Cotnmunists,

polity

have

contribute

contribution

their

the

(Chen

translation

(Around 1978

history.

from

revolution

versions

and

the

as

after

never

noticed,

with

198os

to

own

Proletarian

and

was

and,

was

out

after

in for

the

histories

the

Yongling

published

equated

this

‘1

and

1957.

tucked

Party

name

and

official

he

four lost

linguists

defined

and

in

a

of

the

project

Deternuning

From

to

extent

however,

1979,

the

of

rather small

Chinese

nature

the

the

“nationality,” the

the

thus

as

asked

From

its

by

and

role

19905

the

common rule

“nationalities

same

of

1980s,

into

and

with

importance.

Cultural

1998: the

Party-led there

ruins

the

subsequent

by

that

in

of

amount

old

from

the

bourgeois,

development,

were

of

in

that

of

1966

manifested

as

that

project Revolutloil

tourist

the

ethnology

drawers

Soviet-derived

time,

all the

many China,

now-fixed

25—33).

reconstructing

projects

the

it it

of

at

Which

much

asked,

had

eminent

proceeded characteristics:

198os. to

intellectuals,

least

Cultural

Revolution,

Soviet

ethnologists

projects

institute,”

of

1978,

which

literature

articles nnnzu,

of

been

the

From

one

foreign-influenced

during

linguistic

famine

of

nationalities

Minzu

between

of

39

And

literally

and

in

the

entities, Russian

of term

though

ethnologist

Marxism-Leninism,

classification

in

Revolution of

it

has

the

a

1958

researched

to

so

period Chinese

the despite

notions

an

retains,

the

national

common

on

their

recently

and

Exist

many

regional rninzu

various

and

defined,

economically

continued

work to

19505.

1949

language,

China

radical

standardizing

frequently

term

1966,

linguists

rebuilding,

role

of

unity

in

the

LtnnOtOgy

Josef

of

changed

of

and to

in

onnzu

unity

(Guldin

the

In

radicalism. derivative and

China.

natsionalnost’

and

today. culture

whom

was

the

the

the

acquired

nationality

de

interlude, background,

both

was

1958,

truly

Vissarionovich

where

written territory,

xucv000,

facto

period

and

second,

horror

scaling,

was

its

practically

changing

developing,

stiU

With

)4

periods,

name

as

1994:

were

and

radical

their

their

socialist

(Gladney

These

thus

turning

a

tasks,

it

the

a

of

in

formula

nsost

to

were

crucial

of

had again

and

the

more

structured

labeled

chap.

languages

economy,

the

the

much

the

role

standard

(Connor

Chinese

Western

four

policies

its

it

nonex

such

of

left

advent

“Central

devel

multi

of

began

19505,

Great

taken

Stalin

away

after

ideal

local

whivli

1991:

was

io). one

the cri

the

for

off

as as

shuoshu

scholars, Republic

ignated

into

China

ple,

ethnologists

much in

ing

states

tinue

different

a

sonablv

statehood.

Uygurs

idea

the

variation

ably

criteria

fifties,

having cations,

(Du

four

Stalin’s

teams applications

ethnic

multinational

6.

. that

In

minzu

Recent

Lnglish.

The

conventional

that

well.

University

In

of

For

1985)!’

hundred

or to

there,

most more

rninzu,

see

this

stabilizing

area,

ot

of

identification.

nationality,

wish

been

probably

in

four

identification

oppose)

an

uniform

the minzu,

itititati

researchers

In

China,

Heherer according

in

hook,

researchers,

determining

retrospective

officially

Their

of

for

difficult

and

such

the

actual

sometimes

criteria.

and

for

for

augmented

othcial

groups

the I

“minorities”

extent

or

Fthnic

state, tiieiitoersnip

none

the

reserve

1989

rather

areas

there

inclusion

culturally,

fits

Chinese

at

sanctioned

Southwest,

different

number

since

to

status

to

designation

fifty-four After

and

in

fairly

Groups.”

in

as

submitted

project

other

as

to

apply

the

have

supposedly

unambiguously

group

the gave recent

Gladney

scholarship,

advertised.

Inner

which

since

these

term

researchers of

is

usage

well

in

cultural

account

of

standards.

Southwest

a

been

and

Stalin’s

minzu.

This

lip-service

were

customary

in

began

China

boundaries.

‘minorities”

however,

groups

centuries.

Mongolia,

minorities 5

then peoples

1991.

the

with

the

of

such

all

does

few

classification

of

inc

identification

to

the

and

According

had

criteria

only

when

an

4°

not

(which

however,

the

compiled

applications,

was

historical

determine

Lin

and

ostensible

term

lived

discovered

linguistic

makes

English

really

process. to

things historical

for

In

Tibet,

by

Yaohua

determined

piLls local

reasonable

In

his

those

this

to

many

solve

the

rninzu

in

system

some

nationality,

the

criteria

to

has

data

are

see

and

the

kind

compact

speaker’s

groups

ethnic

instances

addition

the

process

later

collectivities,

whether

basis

(1987)

People’s

experience

Pet

of

shown

people

somewhat

early

majority which

cases

East

for

problem

on

translation

of

a

1981;

groups

modern

accounts

while

to

the

a

Mongols,

were

ot

Turkistan

has

situation,

territories,

on

they

actually

be

intuitive

for

of

were

that

of

in

and

the

four

they

of

Republic

that

shown,

somewhere

that

actually

Han

the

critiques

invited

state.

those

translation

ethnically

of

of

worked

different,

95OS

live

in

there

hundred

then

are

(Fei

the

conformed

Jinuo

independent

fact

In

Tibetans,

the

used

in

or

officially

intermixed

it

feel

official

areas

the

for

1981),

were

judged

prolect

by

was

becomes

1962, to

of

Xinjiang,

classify

Chinese

kind

of

reason

People’s

Stalin’s

for

exam

in

foreign

submit

China

based

ntinzu

appli

in

since

great

con

term

des rea

1979

over

and

the

the

of

or

by

to

of

with

implied

commented intermixture

rion

that

edness”

“yet

still

munities erly

to

who

in

way. 8 were such

a

Lama essays

of

and,

Fujian,

plc minority

tiated, in

to late

lecture to

the

cal

ars

However,

Upton

separate

groups

the

this

use

this

the

Despite

equality,

fact

7.

and

8

primitive

of

much

in

to

many

policy

for feel

at

a

included

distinctive

1

while

Other

The

classifying

1998.

that

at

1980s.

that (who

book

day.

this

in

group; the

the

be

described

one

of

by

in

the

identification. 7 Zang

they

explains

whose

Panchen’s

status

identified”

whole

the the

identity

groups

the

dispute

original

the

demonstrate

identities

the

second

Stalin’s

The

L’niversitv

recommendations stages.

time

examples

that

(see

died

of

earlier

criteria

scholars

peoples

have

debate

they

terms

scientific

in,

ethnic

idea

members

uncertainties

the

despite

also

project.

the

In

at

byDru

in

and

hut

stages

opposition

been

type, of

in

have

project

inability

were

definition,

fact,

of

was

such

least,

of

identification

have of

1989)

Harrell

in

their

certain

(Cheung

are

the

not

southwest

groups

it

Washington,

decided

there

of

designed

as

their

Guizhou

official

unjustly

even

premises

in

is

begun

Jiang

These

Gladney

Pumi

the feel

many history

buluo

enough

to

prevented

reported

own.

or

this

was

is

1990).

classify

Ge

their

separateness

areas

printed

and

the

tound

as

in

to

a

Yongxing and

thus

China

(tribe)

are 1995a,

for

a

classification

according

case

widely

of

of

a

The favor

attack

debate

lumped

follow-up are

rninzn.

(1991: March

areas

and

disputes

on

own

teams

the

of

southeastern

The

over

southwestern

that

fell

were

that

one in

or

l3aima

of

two local

still

and

both

circulated

the 1996).

in

where

seeming Shuitian

41

that

buzu

minzu

using

other

back

1999). chap.

See

to

researchers

whether

still

the

relied

that

the

with

kinds. (1985),

Zang

distributed disputed

the

the

from

people’s

almost Sichuan

19505

area (tribal

,it

the

Zang

work

ttitnzu

Morganian-Marxist

primarily

opposition

“separatist”

type

as

6)

the

successfully

identity

larger

rumor

groups

transition

too

finality

people

the

from

Han.

as

and

The

Guizhou

did

feudal,

writing

ethnic

minzu

of

for

to

consists

that

Sheng

inevitably

heavily

own

Tibetans

and

not

whether

who

northwestern

Fan

most

that

groups according

all

Certain

being

a

was

slave,

group).

goes

ideas

described on to

of

of

collection

contorm

Minzu

wishes,

many

were

Ke

1

of

capitalism

still

about

(Cheung

the

have

common

this

wrongly

won

of

on language

to

or

the

of

(n.d.)

on

broken

but

whose

groups

people

come

paradigm,

apply

For

to

occasionally

“historical

had

identified

Hui

Yanjiu

certain

never

project,

groups

in

reclassification tenth

Stalin’s

with

Guizhou,

ought

teasons

to

in

are

was

some

of

to

the

Stchuan of

determined

1995a,

from

tnmzu

sects

Suo

are

me Li

Bainsa

who

as

chapter

up

the

historical

come

trim

an

southern

alt

Panchen

ot

Shaoming.

criteria

are

there

a

to

ot

groups

model

eady

1980

in

cvcn

in

places

whethet

exam

prop

result

crite

relat

corn

claim

1996)

polit

tto,i-u

have

schol

they

prioL

still

has

this

are

up

ini

a

the

s by

13 ci I he existenceof continuing controversies over identification points out two an encyclopedic series of reports on society and history. I hese first-genera important things about the identification project and about ethnic relations tion reports known colloquially as “white-covered books,” or baipi shu, were generally. First, the project is not a one-way thing, imposed top-down on pas compiled in great haste at the time of the Great Leap Forward, only to fallquickl sive local peoples. From the beginning, consultation with local leaders was an under criticism for their insufficiently Marxist content, demonstrated by the important part of the process, and from the beginning also, many if not most fact that many of the senior scholars involved in their compilation were pre of the agents of the state who implemented ethnic identification and other revolutionary bourgeois ethnologists, some of them officially coming to be aspects of the literizing project were themselves mem bers of the minority com labeledrightists in the Anti-Rightistcampaign beginning in summer 1957 (Chen munities. In other words, the language of ethnic identification is one that can Yongling1998:33—36). Many reports never sawthe light of day, and went under bespoken by people of all ethnic identities and claimed identities. And the par ground until the revival of ethnology and ethnology research institutes in thc ticipation of people with local, changing interests ensures that even this 19805. During that decade they were then published, together with many results attempt to determine classifications once and for all will always run up against from research newly conducted in the 198os,in the provincial collections of shifting identities and interests of those being classified. In other words, the “reports of social and historical investigations” (shehui lishi diaocha baogao. vocabulary of this language is not entirely closed or predetermined, though These reports (over fifty volumes for Yunnan, for example, and ten or more the ethnic identification project tried to make it as closed as possible. Second, each for Sichuan and Guizhou) consist both of individual reports on various classificationis a vital issue in the minority regions of China. Not only people’s topics and of ordered presentations of what is important to know about a par pride and their understanding of their heritage and their place in the world, ticular ininzu at a particular stageof development. For example, Summary Vol hut also their access to resources are heavily dependent on it. ume of Historical and Social Investigationson the Yiof Liangshan in Sichuan Description:CoiningtoKnowtheMinzu. Mere identification of minzu, how Province (Sichuan sheng Liangshan Yizu shehui lishi diaocha zonghe baogao. ever, is not enough of a contribution from linguists and ethnologists to enable treats the followingtopics concerning the Nuosu of Liangshan, generallyplaced the state to accomplish its goals in minority regions. Because the state project at the slave society level of development (Sichuan 1985:5): involves not only ruling the peoples within its territory but also economic and cultural development (definedasprogresstoward socialismand eventuallycom Part I: SocialProductiveForces munism, starting from wherever on the ladder of history a particular group The principal sectorof production—agriculture might have been at the time of the Communist takeover), peoples must also 2. Production activitiesthat serveassubsidiaryoccupatiOLlsherding,fishing, he described in considerable detail, both in order to determine where they are forestry,and others on the ladder of development and also to provide specific knowledge about . Handicraftsnot yet separatedfrom agriculture them that willbe useful in various aspects of rule and promotion of economic . Exchangeof commoditiesthathadnotdevelopedinto aseparateeconomic and cultural development. To this end, the project of ethnic identification in sector the 195os was combined with a massive project of ethnology, and many of the . Production and saleof opium and its effecton the productiveforcesin Yi same scholars who contributed to the founding and early development of Society Chinese ethnology before 1949, along with younger scholars coming of agesince the Communist takeover, were enlisted in this effort of data collection about Part 2: Castesand CasteRelations the minorities’ society, history, and language.Through this massiveeffort, con i. Castestructure tinuing to this day, the scientific language of ethnology and ethnohistory was 2. The means of production controlled by each caste, and its economic created and developed as a supplement to the political language of ethnic situation identification. 3.Casterelations In the first heyday of this project, many investigations were conducted and . Caste mobility reports written, and in preparation for the celebration of the tenth anniver . Class(caste)struggleand itsform saryof the People’sRepublic in i959, a large-scale effort began in 1957 to publish o.Summary

42 43 i. land tenure relations through history; it charts the obstaclesthey have encounteredin their long and 2. Landsalesand pawning arduous path to realizefull socialand economicpotential, to becomea social

3. The situation of land management ist, modern iniuzu. 4. Other situationsof rent and tenancy [Yaozujianslu The concisehistory of the Yao) takes the reader on a tour through the long historical stretch of Chinesehistory, as moments in the his Part : Clan system tory of the Yaoare situated in different dynasticregimesand related to social i. Clans evolutionarystages.(l.itzinger1995: 130) 2. Enemies

3. Household and marriage Works on other rninzu are similar in their conception and construction (Harrell 95h). There are three features to notice in these histories. First, there 19 fact The reports of social and historical investigations, along with various jour is no questioning of the idea that these nzinzu are real units, despite the nals that have sprung up in ininzu studies in provincial and prefectural insti that they were definitivelyidentified for the first time in the 195osand that some tutes, as well as in departments of ethnology and anthropology at various of their boundaries are stillactivelydisputed. Second, the history of each ininzu universities and nationalities institutes constitute a rich corpus of ethnographic is calibrated to what I have elsewhere described as “history with a capital H, thesc data spanning five decades (though concentrated very heavily in the 1950S and which stands for Han” (Harrell 1995b:75). There is no doubt left that again in the 1980s and 199os), but they do not simplvpresent data in an empir rninzu are part of the Chinese nation and have been for a very long time. Yet ical fashion. In accordance with the responsibilities of ethnologists and lin placing them in the context of the stages of human evolution makes it clear guists to the state’s minority projects, these works are concerned not only with that they are a backward or inferior part of that Chinese nation. Third, much identification, classification, and description but also with ordering. Each of the writing of these histories is done by scholars who are themselves mem rninzu, envisioned as a group with certain characteristics in common (Stalin’s hers of the minority minzu in question. As representatives of their own rniiizr four criteria), must be regularized, systematized, normalized in Michel and at the same time participants in this hegemonic state project, they partic gets Foucault’s sense (5977: 177—84), made to conform to a paradigm of what a minzu ipate in the two-way process of co-optation mentioned above: their story is. This standardization or normalization has taken many forms, including told, and it is a glorious one, but it is told as a part of the larger story of the the ethnographic collections described above, but others have been particu Chinese nation as a whole. larly the province of scholars: the writing of histories and the preparation of StandardizingLangiuiges.One of the clearestindications of the Chinesestate’s linguistic materials. ambivalence about its status as a present-day empire or a nation-state is its atti Writing Standard Histories. Along with the reports of social and historical tude toward minority languages. Although the Han language is clearly hege investigations, the State Nationalities Commission also published, in the mid- rnonic, as the only one used in nationwide media and taught in all schools, thc and late 19805, a series of concise histories of rninzu (,ninzu jianslii), one for government, especially in the i95os and again in the i98os, has actively pro— each of the flftv-fve officiallyrecognized minority ethnic groups, or shaoshu meted the use of minority languages alongside Han Chinese. It has supported minzu. Along with other historical works published by institutes and univer the development of print media in many of the minority languages (particu sity presses, these standard histories set forth orthodox interpretations of the larly those with large numbers of speakers), thus using (.)neof the most pi omi unitary history of each of the fifty-five minorities. Although these histories nent policies of nation-state building described by Benedict Anderson (1991 vary somewhat in content, they mostly conform to a standard format, one in the service of building a state that is not exactly sure of the sense in which that placesthe history of each minzu into the framework of the history of China it wants to he a nation. as a whole, and into the universal framework of the Marxist-Stalinist stages In order to promote the use of non-Han languages, of course, linguistic of evolution in human history. As Ralph I itzinger describes the volume on scholars had to he enlisted in a linguistic project, much as ethnnlngists were the Yao, enlisted in the project of ethnic classification, description, and history writ

44 45 ject

were termed by these lars task, it spoken systematically

a guages zhou context sometimes to eties those ing.

some and Barno dard 2001). after dard, bet); takeover guage recording

i7ation nearly spoke Mongols.

had

those

The The the Description, 10. 9.

grants

in

development.

If a

was

handled all, to varieties Han

those

they tasks Zhuang

[Bradley in

attached For 1998). families

and The

Only

the

one-to—one

a 198os

are

linguistic paradox be

by dialectal.

of minority

of

and

variety

insufficient; had fuller and Guojia only

languages

a needed used nation-building

each voice retains

other

officially

with

subdialects that

when

large

Those

each

to Hong

(Guojia some

exceptions differently

had descriptions

in

could 2001]),

have to

in areas, Minuei

iniuzu

were of

the

of

of

to ininzu.

the

project

nzinzu number a (known

textbooks, the to the the to

Diversity basis,

media.

languages Turkic

this the

course,

minority

available scripts

these be schools. of be see

a

Minwei

written

practical varieties

ethnic

minzu

and were to

(cifangyan) 951:

members

the described,

I chosen

linguistic

A

needed of in larrell

minzu this

in language;

was

standard languages

But

of the 186). the

invented and

textbooks minority the

involved one-to

further

is

newspapers,

identification that

have varieties. It

previously

West not only

process 1981: languages. 1993

displayed

diversity

spoken

purpose three

(for economic has and

to the

of

had just

project, and as one classified,

two

have to

585—86) and

been

Stainmbawn

Yi,

broken their ‘Fail

for were minorities of Yao,

provinces

minzu

promote Dwyer

a correlation

no

written

descriptive language

by

languages;

to

But

local

them

heavy language;

its

of can some

by often the written

languages.9 those

take

members

magazines, development.

of

own

using

that

merely

the teams

down

were 998.

go work standardized,

vernaculars of

(usually

course,

recording, for

an investment

needed

tile of were whom

only of

only use

language and

conveniently

form

classification

the

to

example, the

and

use otherwise

Sichuan, into

in of

messages

recording the

the of

of

come

insofar

so

languages spoke linguists,

fifty-five the

is In

based

and

the prior

Yughur. in

Hui classificatory,

standardization a

dialects classification,

that far;

addition,

This

minzu

schools

(tuyu) 195os,

classified

numerous and

other a

up

written,

in

this

Yunnan,

on the ‘tao.

to

as the

any

of some

means Man,

to

and field

minority correlated,

the

was

the

beginning

they

(flingyan), cut

linguistic in some was

national

to

(Bradley print

minority the

variation

(Harrell of

Communist

the

the

Latin most

listing

and worked accomplish

and

across linguistics, and

whons a

sign

Han a

that

however;

and vernacu

complex

media.’°

varieties Miao,

modern standard of

related

rninzu,

if taught

alpha

on

unity sshom 1990,

stan stan

vari

spoke Gui

pro with

they on

lan lan

and and was

out and

to

a

the to

expressing gent mon,

the help Chinese the its great in jects though

of the for tory,

tives: Communist oping its The

ethnological lion the

and and in The (1999). sized INTEGRATION

the

speak,

“minorities

programs

When great

national

content rrlinority

knowing substantive 195os,

minorities

voices

whole

development.

Thomas

of

earliest bureaus,

to

normalizers, were

as

including

minority

the the

a

ethnologists, The

“rescue

related

ethnology

detail

vital

and

minority

Mao

he

Party’s

any

only

speaking

industry

pro)ect,

has

following

“nationalities

called rule,

policies

who of

reports

Heberer

one,

give

messages

was

in

work,”

and

Zedong

preliminaries

regions.

in projects the

the development

shifted

works

willingness

minorities

building

the the

of

The

created

them is, regions

the

upon

minorities

of

backward,” for

INevertheless, AND

the

to

linguists,

of Administration

then,

case

minorities or

creating (1989,

summary

minority

policy

launched

local

of

by But

standard

the

of

along overall

the

tile miuzu

conflict

as studies DEVELOPMENT

June

policies”

in

tile

national

in

the

Chinese

ethnic 2001)

scholars

part

work

media

to

to the

and

and

a

in

base

knowledge

with historians,

work

program the sense

gongzuo.

Teufel

or

regions grant

tile

places

service tile

were,

histories

of

practice it

or

in

national

and,

has

qiangjiil

groups

real

of

the

is

of

to project integration

the Communist

separatism.

chapters

great

of

of

a and

knowledge

ctimcuit 47

a

Dreyer still

the

creature do

and development objectives

the

in

Minority the

in

of

great

of

Party

of students

its

and of

have to Chinese systematic so,

the

these

maintained

present

development

ethnologists

integration,

of

placing

luohon

minorities,

cultural

minorities

language

5

deal while

(1976), national

to projects

other IN

line

become

through

of

and

Especially

greater

grant

Regions and

Party.

of

and

participating

of MINORITIES

Communist research

(Chen

them

over

minorities

development still

of

scholars.

Cohn vocabulary aspect,

ethnological

autonomy

textbooks

permission of integration,

an

its

the

described

work more

the was

Tn

projects 13

carried

keeping

national the

two on

important

Yongling

in

of

country

order

Mackerras

Party

in only

by

the

the

has this and

half-century

primary

Thet’

context.

work.

Louisa

Party

out

in 19905,

that to of to

a

scale

been and

them

above,

book. more

needed

to

integration

projects

small 101

those

as

and

local carry WORK by

including 1998:

were

agent

proceed

Though allowed

a

trarisk

empha peopie

treated

of

(i994j, mean.’

diver Schei,

whole,

objec

deve)

com

from

part,

from

pro

gov

his out

the 31) the

of

in

of - not (CCP nient in rcsponsihie in ansI ship county Although secretaries

in not

was the ing members to as

1991: schools, 198os trol since able autonomous As by comprise mulated to

areas——most 1959 toward ernments ities that Guomindang Liangshan technical

primary the

suppress

the u. 1989 appointing soon occupied 15 positioiw

the radical

only

of heads

to ‘Kids’ actually

to

(Goldstein 91—92; percent

their government, I

population, and

central have, budgets

exercise

Cultural

(Heberer pursue this

integration

as

to and 1991).

direct to positions

of

by positions 199os,

the

Sen (the in

five

establishment.

or bi serve

periods or is for

minority

Heberer I

minorities;” minorities

since a Ian.

prefectures

emerged a

supplementary of

those the government

minority e

Party idso, site example,

(Kuomintang, higher Nuosu during

than

administration during provmc policies

has it

which 1997),

Revolution, Tn in legislature,

1989:

many of does theads

Party ssho it

the the this Mishi,

from varied

actually is

of percentage

is

1989: (Y,) this

culture, this to ieported Party. been not serve

Autonomy

4o)—have

the county,

there firmly

all

were Party

regions

of of

at time, for Lime,

(zizhi described

there (Heberer appear 1957

1-level

The able departments)

within

case in 25—28;

the greatly, odds as army, It nine

assumed secretary is

was Part

established

eight Beijing. only

media

autonomy unofficially

KM’r) religion, from of to subordinated interesting,

to

cadres

has degree zhou),

in

by years to Han look

that

with and ten

autonomous 1979, no in

Guo were secretaries in

its

nonautonomous substantiate

Law 1976

been

mostly

however. chap.

forces

of were among at 1989:

essence and positions

opportunity other

territory,

took

power,

With

of

and

Nuosu, in those the 48 tend 1996). until instruction and

on

that of hossever,

wide by Nuosu 6), relative

was

the records

in 105 1984, offices,

Han party to a

the 41).

(Gladney in

its sii,ce whose

customs the 1987 I-lan

the

been

of eight the at however, governments he

administrative, Party

During

nothing

latitude The

autonomous and

side

other the

partial secretaries and

ihe the Han

cadres,

of The

1991 that there charge

for regions 19505

autonomy population thirteen Han,

under twenty prefectural all

efflorescence

whatsoever

in position three

and

in even

central there than

administrative the

were cadres 1991:

hand, elementary

designated

the and

to has that

but exception

but the

its

but within were years. government do

direct

has nature use were than 1950s (zizhi attentions one

widespread

been there legislative, appointed of

87—91, a is

civil which cadres

counties of been government level

deliberate

and

that

Elan; word about

minority counts Zang. would Of the Nuosu

minority

rule for are

and

more

war and the a

of

qu) of Party, of

especially

they

in of

and

Atwood de 8

had no Of

in autonomous party

local be in “autonomy” and seventeen general varied

from Party percent

Tibet above.

again tacto

were

districts. and

against (zizhixian) Party minorities

a

thirty-one Xide found

secondary have

local

more have

languages

(Gladney

grown

title, arms attempts secretaries

author secretary six policy

regions

Beijing

as turned County

depart before leader

in Nuosu

man- 1995). cadres in

been

been

con dur units I vice

and

for lan.

the

the the

In

to of in

itestations tially

during

Creation part

determined whose of formation.

time Communist from where and agriculture of

ism to such as of of allowed not long prevailing underwent as

a in id

human

“slave

the l.iangshan, the the

“primitive

Land the

This 12.

carried Pottr

of

(see then

explicable during

as

recognized

its

local

beginning

“landlord it To purpose

same the development

‘fibet,

was delay

to former r

reform

society” Diamant

and 5989; accounts

within

development,

ot

Cultural

land

remain Nearly

out.

land

until

land

where

determined the Party township

ethnic

society” staffing Sin or

in

the

of

was

Tile

as

Indeed,

systems

was

“feudal

years tenure

where

social reform,

economy,”

1w

1989; the a 01

stages

(most

Traditional

Sipsong a

all 1999).

cadres,

minority

few in the

to

Democratic

Revolution reaction

identity

imperial

also

policy

early

place tile Friedman,

of

depose land

between

(certain

either reform

years

social

systems of of in

the landlord”

in

and administrative that

carried

rural

In rcforn,

many and

the 1980s.’2

feudalism

Panna

alongside

individual

for

authorities

those

populations

which

ctescrmect

to

those to

evolution Political the

governments

reformed former

Nuosu Selden, to

lasted

communities

groups

minority

bad 1947

years.

Reforms were

tile p of

out

social

transform roc,’ss

Tai

areas these that basis

is

collectives memories

aild

in and

until

represented

landholding areas

also the conceptualized

kingdom,

and

villages. in in 49

system

in many had

was did

or

where

structures, I Pickowici areas,

and first

regions. southern

new 1952 lan

in

in

tile

Economic 1956

temporarily of

not,

as retarded to

various

the

place. rural

in

the

to

Liangshan)

minority

Party-led case

by

face

lusi

native

had

the of

that

in

China

structure was

individual

and

Displacement coin

1991. the

in

oppression by

most

elites Yunnan)—land

the The or

sniutes society

already

however,

the were

often regions niu

at much the

Structures

authorities,

Land

as

other

problem proper

even

separation

regions,

areas lilies,

left beginning,

administration

and

a

manorial

or

the

later

of

very

had itt

evolved

peasant

Reform

of

alone

native

even

earlier stood

replace scc

landholding

of tilts

basis and

were

are

the

local,

stage

developed I

of

Tin the

but

sonic

the 0120K

only

ac western

persecution

social ton

of on

economy—

rulers,

stages,

once to rent of reform

Southwest; ownership

campaign,

only them

of with

late

areas ording 1966

the the

Chinese

of

a

feudal is

as

some

trans

it

stages

small

those

them

stage scale

itself

areas pai

with

were

such Pottci

only

long

was

part

that

was

to told

this followers tricts revolts revolts largely mies Forward. campaign, the were

relationship tain tle out only reform tenure,

ancy, a they for Though Consultative the who administration People’s ers ity wnen gle gles Mingai

dismantling

13.

This

Along old

that

years

areas

against made short)—excepting

book, four according

within

of

a

and classified, retained

cooperated

of

Different

rerorm

serfdom,

year

in

and

the

scores, honorary

the

process,

possibility

which

for

northwestern

they

Congress arms

northwestern with

1957—59,

struggled Many with underwent

“five an

some

guerilla

Land

itself

or

the

short). and

with

attempt

Conference

people

were came,

them

a two

don’ts”

raise of

the to

of

was

as

(in establishment

measure

overthrow former

it

of

the and

Reform

with

vice-posts the the

traditional

in

the

as

seems

co-optation

of

(Renmjn

In of some

warfare

able

these

itself

against.

from remember

old it

possibility

Han

the

were

state—the

so-called the

a slavery,

conflict this

land

to was

the

Sichuan,

Sichuan

process

in

local

land to

Party’s

areas,

co-opt to

original of soon among and leaders,

don’t campaign.

(Renmin process,

mitially

most

Communists

wield

in

against

have

their

prestige

In

Daibiao

at

different

claims,

elites

systems

other the

came

curse,

and

many

replaced many

this of of

of “five

probably

called

general cases

as as

People’s

their

very been

indigenous

old

often

native a Democratic

or

People’s

rather

the

well many

and

much Zhengzhi

landlord time beat, their

to

lists.

don’t” Instead,

as

Dahui, a of

or

areas, economy.

former little

50

the of

a

dilterent Communist

fruition Democratic

long

landowners them taking

as success

jail imprison,

line by were leaders

Peng

and

land

contributed

local than

replacement

Government

more

leading

the

power

collectivization,

principles: such

people.’3

Communes,

or

as

radicalized

economy

had leaders,

the tenants Wenbi,s often

Xietiao

made

tenure,

areas Reform.

inducing

a

leaders

Renda

they

in

polarized

sort

in

into

considerable kill,

previously

as

been

many

in

arm,

many

Party were

Reform

the

trom

or were

cooperated. of into

local

(personal

these

or

Weiyuanhui,

to

But

Party

for

including

struggle.

co-opted

areas,

as

Liangshan

don’t by

At (Renmin

ethnically

retainers,

the the

parts

local with

areas,

branded

administration; vice-heads

short), the

struggle, possible

dismissed

and

the administration

the

vice-

individual

geopolitically

nationalities Communist

(Minzhu

untouched

sometimes

communication) according violent

struggle, peasants the

of

process

number beginning

the

as

already).

the

(fu)

or

manorial

Zhengfu), Anti-Rightist

staged it

as discussed Tibetan

into

since

Great or

the

was

country

from

class

of

class

positions,

Zhengxie

Gaige,

did

freehold

to

kill,

People’s

of

the

three

to

carried

people minor armed

within

of Party. work more

Those strug

these

strug

came loyal

their Leap

their

con ene

dis

ten

new

set

was

the

the

in

in

or of

signiiicassi the holdouts rections their Forward policy

Conference, along so institutes, that

were of and

The proceeded

grounds, Leap other to

there Revolution economy forests decollectivized different situation

seen systeri trains finished

region

they socialism

what

insurrection

The

14.

people

control

tortuous positions

considered

by

Forward with

was

in of public

For

of

continue s

on

was

had

economic central

and

theorists

industrial

tibet, in

the

to

from reminiscent tankers

a

and

I99 it

certain a inhospitable

in remote

dramatic

had

took

followed or rewrite

publication; been but push

the

198os,

mobilized

works

see

one

course

as

then the

mobilized

U1ISH1

that

economic

and

to

Cultural

there lasted

vice-heads

Goldstein to

much

grain

(Wallerstein

pasture

minority full

for

sense adaptability

goods.

tread

areas

development

eaniple test not

the

a

in were

and

closely

of

market

the

has

of

of

the

for

as history

the

only more

mountains.

well 111

parallel in very

economic

Revolution;

colonialism

and oil

to in

When

the or encouraged

huge been development

planners

one

01

Han

limits

liuci,

Economic

intellectuals

in

the

general

“manufacture”

proceed uncultivated were by

Beall

into

the

key economy

sensitive

cautiously.

the

1984),

of

of to

the a

numbers

ci000mics areas, I

minority

to

cautious

visited 1990. of this

of iii the

link the

People’s two

many

twenty

that development

as

during

tolerance

And

the

China’s

with

196os.

Marxist-Leninist

period

or east

Development

sources

and

to years

and

than

in

Xinjiang

of

neocolonialism

employed in

members

minority

produce

when

of

of

the areas,

toward

effort

the

Congress tumultuous expanded districts

in what the

the

The clecollectivization

in

even

of

people

steel

peripheral

general

three

of of

198os

most

rest ethnic

1980s

agriculture ““

final

terraces

among

the raw

was

in

in

such

on

China for

regions of

in

of

1994,

important

to

also.

and and

propaganda China’s

areas,

suppression

materials loosening

the

universities

at first the

former

the conflict,

China.

build model

years

questions

regions

least,

many

as

appeared People’s

for 199os,

area

proper,

old

market.’4

When

called

in

described

has,

though

decollectivized

example,

a of

dams, b’

minority

elites

village

minzu

of

When of

erv

though

of

ways.

and

of

have

the

minorities

however,

development,

its

a these

departments while Consultative

the and

of

as

nationalities

remote

in

commodity

restored

Great

there

markets

cultivation

roads,

the

the

often questions

threshing the

by newly

First,

I

research

Cultural in

watched

people,

regions

endless

insur

world

worth

doing

pastoral

Great

were

Leap

been

been

also and

and

in

cut

for to

a lun 01 11d11un1 passu iuiii on iliC paiauei tracks going west 1999; awaiii 19O9, 1990). 111 dUUIUUII 10 Vl1115 1-’-- This was pointed out to me as a common symbol used by Uygur and other been a factor in the revivalof ethnicity during the reform era. Some areas, such minority peoples in Xinjiang to portray their dependent economic position as the Dali plain, home of the majority of the Baipeople, who were quite accul (see Heberer 2001). Since minorities occupy over 50 percent of the People’s turated to Han ways by the early part of this century, have seen a revival of eth - Republic’ssurface area, they sit on top of a great proportion of its mineral and nic things from clothing to religious ceremonies in order to provide an ethnic forest resources. Minority elites complain, albeit privately, that what is rightly atmosphere for tourists. In this and other areas, along with the revival of eth theirs is being exported for the benefit of colonialists in the big cities and in nic cultural forms and customs has come private entrepreneurship on tile part China proper generally. of minority individuals who manufacture and sell crafts to individual tourists Second, since the minority regions of China are sparselypopulated in com while their communities are paid by tour operators (and indirectly, of course, parison to China proper, central planners have at various times seen these areas by the tourists themselves) to display songs, dances, food, and other ethnic ele as convenient outlets for surplus population. This availability of “nearly ments for the tourists to enjoy (Oakes 1995, 1998; Cheung 1995a; Schein 1999). empty” territory, along with the desire to move more Han into the peripheries for security reasons and the lackof trained personnel among most of the minori Variation in A’fi,iorities’Participation in and Reactions to Development ties, has meant a great influx of Han settlers, merchants, cadres, teachers, and other government personnel into all minority regions at various times begin Economic development, in the form of both infrastructural construction and ning in the 19505. In Xinjiang, for example, approximately 5.7million, or 38 rising living standards, has been a real feature of life in minority areas of China percent of the 1990 population of ‘5million, was Han; of those 5. million Han, since 1980. At the same time, minoiity regions have suffered almost uniformly 2.2 million were composed of the soldier corps, or bingtuan, the descendants from tile twin plagues of resource extraction and Han migration, meaning that of the armies sent to secure the area in the 19505,who now dot the whole region the benefits of development in most areas are less than what they might oth with their massive agricultural colonies (Rudelson 1997: 22, 37). In Inner erwise be. And as the state continues to promote nationwide development in Mongolia, most I-lan in-migration has consisted of individual families mov a waythat integrates the minority regions into dependency or interdependency ing at government instigation; they are more scattered, but Han now compose with the geographic core of China proper, different regions react differently about 80 percent of the 22 million people of the Inner Mongolian Autonomous in Tibet and Xinjiang,and to a large extent in Inner Mongolia also, many mein Region; Mongols, by contrast, are only about s percent (Borchigud n.d.). As bers of minority groups see development in quite critical terms, especiallyas a final example, Han migration into Tibet was not encouraged until the late it brings more and more Han people and Hail culture into the regions. People 1980s, but since that time there has been considerable in-migration, which has are glad to have regained a measure of religious and cultural freedom but still been one important issuein the repeated civilunrest engagedin by localnation wish, frankly, that tile Chinese would go away. They tolerate and participate alists in Tibet (Schwartz 1994: 202—6). Almost nowhere are minorities entirely in tourism and even turn it to the advantage of the local separatist cause, since in charge of their own economic development. At the same time, members of foreigners are likely to side with peoples campaigning for self-determination minority groups in many areas nevertheless work hard, both as government (Schwartz 1994: 20]). cadres and as individual agriculturalists and entrepreneurs, to bring develop In other regions, such as the Southwest,there isenormous resentment toward ment to their own regions. Han people ill general, over issues of resource extraction, immigration, and Third, even as the country has moved in the l9Sos and 19905 away from the the superior, condescending attitudes of Han toward mrnorities. For exam

Marxist-Leninist strategies of development toward the strategy of building a pIe, 1rode once in a car with a Yi driver, a Yi scholar and a Meng cadre to visit market economy, a large number of minority regions have marketed a com a Hui township. When we got going, the Meng cadre, a Communist Party mem modity available only to them: their ethnicity itself. Ethnic tourism, by both ber and rather fierce custodian of her unit’s resources, burst out, in the local Chinese and flreigners, has come to China in a big way in the last fifteen years, dialect of Liangshan, ‘1 oday’scertainly gonna be fun. No Hans along” (Jintiai and it is often promoted in minority regions as the way to create income in yiding hui haoshua. Meidei Ilanchu). The meal leaders of ethnic minority com those areas for development (Oakes 1995, 1998;Cheung 1995a;Schein 1989, 1997, munities, however, have bought in wholeheartedly to their membership in the

52 tourism, ethnic Chinese in administration, development, partly bolic, members or trying nohistory. tion. the expressed tory on Since century of and sis. Nationalities tion is in Xingxing of questioned difference: contents

so

building

immigration general

This the

ethnic

the

If

Yi

There

collective

class

fluid

as and

Because

Districts

and

we

the

in

five to Naze

\urtur1ng education

“slave

book

account

nation,

the

showing

make

struggle

of

society of

identification: is compare

1994). that late

by because

by stages

But

The

up

even

(Ma

the

described officially

metalanguages

Lin Chinese

Studies

they

is

of

though

society” period,

no

198os because

their

their

New

general

into

which

about

and

the

of Liangshan”

of

Frzi In

a

of to (1987)

is conclusive

the

possibility

their are

history

cultural

Market no

addition,

a

allow

Role minority own

way

vigorously their

there

designated (Liangshan 1993).

glories

they

scholars

few

they

parts in

longer

one

among allows

they

report and

identity

maybe

chapters

within

of

corners

areas.

members

supplemented

Economy

article

have also

have of

evolution,

Ethnology:

also

of

of

Jiang

of

identification

of

a

the

them peoples.

those

ethnic

the

on the of

prescribed

their

seems

questioning promote

Stalin’s speak little

the

was

or

different

rninzu ethnology

of

characterization

Yi

(1985), 11

titles

Nuosu

Chinese

self-promoted

Is to

Chinese

and

of China;

differently areas

society

own

control identification

the

54

in

is

A to set

The

their

criteria

from no

yanjiu), 12 their

by More

and

Key

sucn have

culture

in at

ingredient

where

approaches

of can

nation,

longer

Lewis old

and

cited and

both

least own

Liangshan

nation

to

there

over

this

own

the

Open integrative

be been

constituted

normalizing

lleviating

are

the

ethnohistory

established

ethnically

the Henry

above, to

communities the

book, made

minority

unquestionable major

languages, annual of

may

they

and

inapplicable,

to

ethnicization

Han

Conversation? a

of premises

details

such

a

to change

ethnohistorical be has of

communicate

(Li

where more Morgan’s

we

extractive

and

Pin

being

measures

ethnology

situations,

journal

modes

before Shaoming

ethnic

also

non-Han

immediately

paradigm,

of erty in

verbal

foreign

toward respected

of

in

ethnic

the

to 1992,

ethnic

been

in

the

as

the

of

nineteenth-

groups,

and orthodoxy,

participate

of

the

industries

Liangslian

agenda

suggested

and

as

language

the

and

visitors;

with produc

like

attitude severely identity

the

people,

1986, Poor

at

during

etnnic

today.

analy

based

posi

sym

local

least

see

eth

his

that

are

the

of

Li

a

Yaohua Trial And,

development, linguistics, of most only ilarities anthropology ethnology. anthropology ethnologists chapter phere directed in for ter her never ically contrast, outside. anthiopologists research five of

ation In

Chinese

of

\Vho the

In

doing ethnic

It 2,

projects

or

opening

tolerated

“An

“Miscellaneous

“Mr. Xichang”

in

sharply, Discussion

this is

publicly remains risky;

and

in

orthodox

his

Encouraged a in between 1993).

(Schein

To Investigation

Communist and and

so,

volume

question

Teng identity

new

life and formation. this

There

while

for

question of during

I

several of

inspired since

I

did

or but no in

entirely

Guangdian

It a atmosphere,

foreign

contend, national

kind

many

5999,

the

powerful

and

in Marxist the is service seem

of

longer

still not recently

positively

in

the everything,

print.

clear

Me

the

Thoughts

Chinese Remnant

of

kind

short

Liangshan:

Chinese

into

chaps.

the

people simply

China,

dedicated

M ethnologists 1970S to

projects

in

to first

a

development,

of is

must

that

cosmopolitan-trained

In

Attend situation

[a basic model

China, Commercial

of

emotional

essays in

visits

edited

state- part

famous

addition,

collaborative

and

4

encouraged,

field

the colonial

it observe

as on

the

ethnologists and

Caste

do

is

and unity

are

of

well

during

the

School”

presence

of

I the

to

and emotionally on

and at

disciplines

to

also so

5).

the

Nuosu

are

that

just

historical

as

virtual

the

the

Yi Attitudes Clan

new

within

as

But of Chinese

force

and

Activity

even normalizing

twentieth nation-building

a still

participated

the

55

culture

the which

Nationalities

state

result, now

I the

leader

because ideas.

even

conducted Question

record of research

widely

basic

absence

remains for

sincere for

Zhonglmua

a

a

beginning

of

by projects

nationalism,

progression rigid,

wrenching.

self-critical

I

some though in

almost

collaboration

during

and

anthropologists

collected

century

assumptions

\‘illage ethnology,

the

divergent.

Yi

of

proJects

with

of belief among

in

society

uneasy, normalizing

the

Areas

varied

people

the

such

University

the

a

everyone

of

the

minzu

described

Yl

minor

unfree

and foreign

to

the

Republican

three

ot

nation-building

discourse Women

Western

the scientific

and discourse as

of

he

will aided Where and

ethnohistorv,

even

many

the who

data

described

betwee

behind

Liangshan”

is

Liangshan

questioned,

way

political

its

periods

to

kind

soon changing

not

scholars

who

paradigm.

in

with earlier have

for

in 1w

be

imphcation

elI

they

scholars,

in

in Beijing,

period}, tOe paradigms

only

in

European great

of

this

s

has

the

appear

their nologist

Western

Wester

the

traveled Chinese

in

applied diverge Lity

atmos

of

Yi”

in

is

book. polit chap

state-

spell

bases

sim

(Lin

rela

field

and and

and

crc this

not

“A

by

in

nology,

we

briefly

ical

China, of

also,

long

ing

the

must

cultural

this

demonstrates

afterward.

discourses

in

but

and

book

first

chapter

also

ethnic

studies

sketch

within

their

The

;

of

identification.

perhaps

Louisa

discourse.

ethnohistory,

increasing

euiuoii

our

fact

a

few

own

that

Schein

years,

better

u-iarrell

Nuosu

version

The

interaction

(u9)

ethnology,

and

than

process

56

and

20000),

of

perhaps

anything

treats

the

Han

with

of

cliscurscs

and

discursive

as,

it

scholars

even

a

at

else

global

I

ethnic

far

suspect,

Prrni

the

greater

will

ethnological

of

interaction

identification

interaction

ethnohistory,

and

will

certainly

length.

Naze

this

is

book

and

But

not

be

scholars

treated

within

read

here

only

crit

eth not a cuiuuii riatIH uuuvj, as, I SU5L1, wlu LIIIS 000K HOt long afterward. The fact that Nuosu and Han scholars will certainly be read ing this book within a few years, and perhaps even Prmi and Naze scholars also, demonstrates perhaps better than anything else the interaction not only of the discourses of ethnohistory, ethnology, and ethnic identification within China, but also their increasing interaction with a global ethnological and crit ical cultural studies discourse. The process of discursive interaction is treated briefly in chapter 9; Louisa Schein (1999) treats it at far greater length. But here we must first sketch our own version of the discourses of ethnohistory, eth nology, and ethnic identification.

56