【09.11.19 Granite Studio】古文，句法，国家（民族）和文明定义之争

和解团结

【原文链接】http://granitestudio.org/2009/11/19/scripts-syntax-and-competing-definitions-of-nation-and-civilization/
【原文标题】Scripts, syntax, and competing definitions of nation and civilization
【日期】2009-11-19
【作者】Jeremiah Jenne

【原文】
Now mocking Chinese state media for breathless and brainless historical hyperbole is a bit of poor sport, but this little bit from the China Tibet portion of the People’s Daily website seemed even more breathless and, if possible, brainless than usual.

The article, in theory, is about the opening of a Museum of Chinese Characters in Anyang.  So well as that goes, Anyang is known as a place for studying ancient writing and early scripts.  But then the article takes a little detour from Henan out to the western steppe.

At the top of the page a prominently displayed caption reads:

Photo taken on November 16, 2009, shows the silver plates to commend high commissioners sent to Tibet by the Central Government of the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) displayed in the Chinese Character Museum in Anyang, central China’s Henan Province. They serve as the witnesses to the fact that Tibet has been part of China since ancient times.

Leaving aside the question of whether the 18th century qualifies as “ancient,” it’s the desperation and the chronic lack of self-awareness that makes this so sad/funny (Like a drunk baby, but maybe not as funny) and it is this shrillness that tends to make such claims seem even less legitimate in the eyes of the world.

Moreover, the rest of the article — and again this is an English language article written for a non-Chinese audience — switches between the words “Chinese nation” and “Chinese civilization.”

For example:

The museum shows the evolution of Chinese characters since ancient times, showcasing cultural relics, including rubbed stone inscriptions, bronze vessels, Chinese seal engraving, ancient coins, writing bamboo and silk, and calligraphy work from different dynasties.

Zhang Gongjin, a professor of Central University for Nationalities, said, “The museum treats equally the characters of Han and ethnic minorities, showcasing the inclusiveness and cohesion of the Chinese nation.”

Okay, again I think the lady doth protest too much, but if your vision of the PRC is a multi-cultural/multi-ethnic nation-state then I can at least see where Professor Zhang is coming from. But it’s this part that gets me:

“The Chinese characters used by all ethnic groups in China constitute the ‘cultural genes’ of Chinese civilization and history,” said Wang Yunzhi, a professor from Zhengzhou University.

Experts on characters believe that although the Han characters become the most widely-used ones in China, characters of ethnic minorities are playing an irreplaceable role in recording and passing down the culture of their own ethnic groups and have made a significant contribution to the development and spread of Chinese civilization.

I can’t tell if the mangled syntax is accidental or in fact is an intentionally subtle shift of meaning.  First of all, what does Wang mean by “Chinese characters’? Does he mean hanzi or is his definition broader, including, for example, thedongba script of the Naxi people in Yunnan? And if it’s the latter, then are the cultures of China’s ethnic minorities being forced not only into a state-sanctioned definition of Chinese nationhood but also into a larger project to recast “Chinese civilization” as being totally inclusive of all non-Han peoples and culture who are now living or have in the past lived within the claimed borders of the People’s Republic of China?

While many people would understand — if not entirely accept — claims by the CCP that members of non-Han minorities are part of a broadly defined Chinese nation (as a political entity), it’s harder to make the second jump to including non-Han minorities, especially those in (relatively) recently acquired borderlands such as Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia, as being part of a broadly defined Chinese civilization.

(Is it the same as Cornish being a part of “English civilization” or Navajo being considered a part of an American  civilization? Or is that since neither England nor the United States seeks to build their nation relying quite so heavily upon the girders of ‘civilization’ writ large that the effectiveness of such a comparison is thus reduced accordingly?)
At root is the basic question — one I’ve explored on the blog and in my classes — over how you define “China” and what it means (or meant) to be “Chinese.”  It’s a difficult question for China.  In fact, for many Chinese (and the Chinese government), the idea that “China” and “Chinese” could be understood as terms with fluid, unstable, and evolving definitions is not a comfortable notion. But it’s an important one to consider.

communicator

这些无耻的家伙，说什么西藏、新疆和内蒙都是中国新得到的土地 （recently acquired borderlands such as Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia），还拿来和英国、美国文明的什么Cornish和Navajo比。你英国美国才多长历史？ 西藏、新疆和内蒙属于中国领土的历史都至少与英国国家的历史相当或更长上千年