Can a Black Man be Chinese?

I wrote something about the possibilities for increased immigration and expanded multicultralization (yes, I'm making it a verb) in China.  I even submitted it to a journal, which today told me they would not publish it.  Without time to work on it further, I am going to post it here.  It is a bit long, ca. 2000 words.  I will tuck the bulk of it below the fold.

     During the Olympics the world went to China.  And when Games ended the athletes, the spectators and the media all packed up and went back home; the world left China.  If China’s economy continues its dynamic growth, however, a new question may arise: what happens when the world wants to stay in China permanently?  How will China accommodate the globalization of its multiculturalism?

    With its 56 officially recognized ethnic minorities, China has long been a multicultural society.  But the demographic dominance of the Han majority, which includes its own linguistic and cultural diversities, has largely marginalized the other groups.  Zhuang and Yi and Miao and other peoples must find their niches in a political-cultural space controlled by Han Chinese.  Some, most notably those separatists among Tibetans and Uighurs, resist integration into Chinese society.  Yet most, the vast majority of ethnic minority people, take what little cultural autonomy they can get and struggle to fit themselves into dizzying economic and social changes defined by the Han leaders in Beijing.

            For Han people, then, domestic multiculturalism is largely a matter of ethnic minorities accommodating themselves to the ascendant Chinese civilization.

            China has, of course, historically had to adjust to the impositions and attractions of foreign, and especially Western, culture.  But those transformations have been understood in terms of outside and inside: new cultural practices and ideas flow in from without and are adapted to the unique circumstances within.  Mao Zedong was said to have “sinified” Marxism, just as we might say today that avant-garde art and architecture and hip-hop have taken on “Chinese characteristics.”  Although China has changed extensively in the past fifty years, as cultural expressions of “Chinese-ness” have expanded, there remains a fundamental interior racial identity.   It is commonsense to virtually all PRC citizens that a Zhuang person is “Chinese” and that a Caucasian person or a Black person is not. 

            China, in this sense, however much it has been transformed by foreign culture, simply looks different than the West, at least in the eyes of most Chinese.  The inside is distinguishable from the outside.

            What happens, however, when immigration begins to change China from within, to change its color?

            Even though the official stance of the PRC government is multicultural – i.e. inclusion in the Chinese nation is not restricted to any particular ethnic group – and there is a process for foreigners, without reference to race, to become naturalized PRC citizens, the overwhelming cultural expectation places whites and blacks outside of the category of “Chinese.”  History and politics actually narrow the field even further: most Chinese would be uncomfortable with the idea of a Japanese person becoming Chinese.  Popular notions of race and blood trump legal and bureaucratic procedures.

            And that is the rub.  In the past three decades, as China’s economy has boomed, people from all over the world, from all races and ethnicities, have traveled there searching for a piece of the action.  The numbers of foreigners living in East coast Chinese cities has grown dramatically.  PRC laws have changed to accommodate the inflow: a “Green Card” system has been developed to allow foreigners to reside in China for an unlimited period of time and move across its borders without visas.  Intermarriages between Chinese and foreigners are increasing.  With more and more foreigners staying in China for longer and longer periods of time, it is inevitable that the numbers of non-Chinese people seeking naturalized Chinese citizenship will grow.  But will they really be accepted as Chinese?

            The widening and deepening of multiculturalism would be a new challenge for China, working from the inside out, as the foreign becomes the domestic and the domestic diversifies beyond all historical recognition. 

            Look at the experience of the United States, the United Kingdom and other Western nations.  Forty years ago, Enoch Powell delivered his infamous “rivers of blood” speech, in which he inveighed against the inclusion of non-whites into the British mainstream.  He was an embarrassment to his Conservative colleagues then (he was sacked from the Shadow Cabinet the day after the speech) but today his memory is merely a pathetic anachronism.  A stroll through contemporary London reveals an dazzling array of cultural variation, without the violence and breakdown of which Powell warned.  Yes, there remains a vestigial racism in all advanced industrial societies, but immigration born of globalization has produced genuinely multicultural societies that are accepted as such by the majority of citizens. 

     In the US, the presidential candidacy of Barak Obama, and his acceptance among Hispanic and other ethnic communities, while perhaps not heralding a complete transition to a post-racial age, signifies the normalization of multiculturalism. 

           China is not the same as Europe and the United States, and it experiences globalization in its own unique manner, but there are forces that press in the direction of increased immigration and multiculturalism there.

            Most notably, in the realm of economic innovation, the creation and development of new ideas and products that will set global standards and define world consumption patterns, China must open itself to the widest array of human talent.  Indeed, China, if it truly desires global economic leadership, must welcome and support creative people from all over the world.  This is happening to a degree, with the Green Card program, but to become even more creatively competitive,China must stand ready to absorb the best minds permanently.  It will have to accept culturally and socially, not just legally,  those foreigners who want to become Chinese as Chinese, whatever their race of national origin.

             The expansion of a multi-racial, multicultural creative class, in and of itself, will not pose too great a challenge to Chinese identity.  The numbers are too small.  The relatively few newly hyphenated nationals – American-Chinese, African-Chinese, Hispanic-Chinese – might function like existing ethnic minority groups.  Greater racial diversity would change the nature of Chinese-ness in novel ways, but the demographic dominance of Han Chinese would remain.

            Something along the lines of  soft power, however, would push the transformations further.  Global leadership is bolstered by cultural attractiveness.  And this is not simply a matter of feel good psychology.  A country that is globally popular and admired has an edge in the marketing of its ideas and images and technologies.  Soft power appeal can become hard economic gain, not to mention effective political capital.  The PRC government knows this, which is why they worked so hard to impress the world with the Olympics.  In addition, they have invested heavily in establishing more than 200 Confucius Institutes, which teach Chinese language and culture, in about 36 different countries.  The global dissemination of Mandarin proficiency and cultural understanding serves the political and economic interests of the Chinese state.  Foreigners who are drawn to China culturally will be more likely to want to buy Chinese merchandise and consume Chinese creations.  Sinophiles will also want to travel to China, spending millions of tourist dollars and euros and yen. 

            If Chinese multiculturalism does not deepen, if whites and blacks and other racial and ethnic groups cannot become Chinese, China will discourage the very people it has invited to understand its language and culture; and in the process it will be limiting the global market for its cultural products and undermining its world-wide political influence. 

            Success in the global economy requires both innovation and attractiveness, the former to help produce new technologies and products, and the latter to encourage the consumption of those same products and technologies.  The key to both is openness to immigration and naturalization, the possibility for non-Chinese to become Chinese.  But people will want to become Chinese, with all of the economic and political advantages that would then accrue to China, only if Chinese society accepts them.  A broader multiculturalism would seem, then, to be the wisest way forward.

            There are, of course, countervailing forces. 

            Economically, immigration has always involved unskilled and semi-skilled labor.  In the US and Europe, many newcomers have escaped from difficult circumstances, and have had little in the way of education and training.  They thus take menial jobs that established citizens shun and, in the best cases, work hard and succeed in making a better economic life for their families.  Indeed, these “huddled masses” have added critical density to the pressure for multiculturalization in the West.  The expansion of the definition of “American-ness” and “British-ness” has historically been driven as much, if not more, from the bottom up as it has come from the top down.   

            By contrast, in China there is really no need nor very much opportunity for unskilled immigrants.   There is plenty of low cost labor to go around, even if wages are being bid up in the Pearl River delta.  While there may be a real necessity for creative symbolic analysts from abroad, there is no pressure to encourage an inflow of ordinary workers.  Quite to the contrary, current unemployment and underemployment problems in China actively work against an increase in immigration.  Thus, the numbers of those likely to demand greater Chinese multiculturalism will be relatively small compared to the experience of the US and Europe.

            Politically, too, immigration to America and Britain are distinct from the Chinese experience.  The legacy of colonialism fuels the movement into Britain by South Asians and West Indians and Africans and other people.  In the US the ideology of being an “immigrant country” guarantees a strong political voice for those pressing to maintain relatively open borders.  And, it should be noted, the expectation of political freedom in mature democratic states is a draw for refugees.

            None of these conditions apply in quite the same manner to China.  Instead of a former colonial empire, there is global Chinese diaspora.  In its original phase, families left China generations ago and likely experienced racial discrimination in the West.  Although they have assimilated into American and other societies, the rise of China now can create an alluring possibility of historical return.  For more recent arrivals, movement between cultures has become a commonplace reality.  Yet, however disorienting this might be for some individuals, it does not raise a challenge of racial redefinition of Chinese-ness. 

            We should not assume, however, that the authoritarian nature of the PRC state will necessarily repulse immigrants.  Trading off freedom for stability is not simply an “Asian value.”  Especially for the rich and talented, stable property rights, which are gradually taking shape in the PRC, may well prove more attractive than the apparent inefficiencies of democracy.

            On balance, then, it would appear that globalization will encourage an increase in immigration and subsequent racial multiculturalization in the PRC in the coming decades.  These processes, however, due to unique economic and political conditions, are unlikely to be as extensive as they have been in the US and Europe in the past several decades.  China will face an historically unprecedented cultural change from within, but that change will exist within the continuing demographic dominance of Han Chinese.

            To anticipate a bit further we might ask: how will China deal with the pressure to expand the racial and cultural definition of Chinese-ness? 

            There is the possibility that, in the manner of Enoch Powell, a virulent racial nationalism will reject the widening of Chinese multiculturalism.  Tensions with the West bring out a racialized discourse on all sides.  Defining “Chinese” as a “yellow” race, descended from the Yellow Emperor, would seem to prohibit the possibility of an Afro-Chinese or White Chinese.  This might happen but it is far from inevitable that it would be all that happens or that it effectively obstructs the expansion of Chinese multiculturalism.

            Chinese history and philosophy are capacious enough to include cultural resources useful to the encouragement of an ever-widening understanding of  Chinese-ness.  Various dynasties have absorbed significant foreign influence, transforming “barbarians” into Chinese.  The Qing and the Yuan were ruled, respectively, by Manchurians and Mongols.  In both cases, the outsiders became insiders, in a mutually interactive process: the foreigners learned to adapt to Chinese culture and Chinese culture was enriched and expanded in return.  Perhaps the best historical precedent for multicultural tolerance, however, is the Tang Dynasty, ruled by Chinese but welcoming of Western influences, an apogee of cultural production and expression.  Beijing of the twenty-first century may have much to learn from Xi’an of the seventh century.

            Philosophically, Confucianism, although often associated with a certain Chinese exclusiveness, has a universal quality to it, at least as it is expressed in The Analects and Mencius.  The central value of Humanity (ren) is not delimited by ethnicity or race.  It is an ethical practice that anyone can pursue and accomplish.  If you act humanely, you are humane, regardless of national or social status.  To those who might want to reject a multi-racial China, Confucius might reply, as he does in Analects 12.2: “…never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself…”  A contemporary corollary might be: if you do not want to be excluded from the benefits of a dynamic, globalize China, do not exclude others who are culturally unlike yourself. 

          China, then, has the indigenous resources to adapt to a multi-racial multiculturalism.  Global dynamics are pushing in that direction.  What will be required is an open-minded and generous cultural leadership.

UPDATE: A commenter, darts, raises an interesting question about how the sex imbalance in China's demography might affect this question.  I respond here: Can a Black Woman be Chinese?

Comments

[Peony]

Hi Sam,

I question your basic premise (which you state but I don't think anywhere really argue) that economic development *necessites* a multi-pluralistic society. Is the US model a universal model? (The US, of course, was founded on principles that almost demand this kind of multiculturalism, for example-- but does that mean that it is the only way to play the game?)

Japan, of course, during its own economic boom saw in influx of foreigners-- but they remained foreigners. In Japan, a black or white person really cannot be Japanese in the ordinary understanding of the word. They may hold citizenship (a rarity) but even if they hold a Japanese passport, they would not ordinarily be called "Japanese"--

What about Singapore? Korea? Malaysia? More interesting, what about India? Russia? Poland? Mexico?

I remain puzzled by your premise that global dynamics are pushing a European-style or US-style multi-culturalism as I think there are other models-- and more: that there are other *valid* models. And does maintaining culture or race (as the Japanese for example do) does that necessarily imply you are "excluding others unlike yourself"? Is it really as "black" and "white" as all that?

[Justsomeguy]

Like all issues of cultural importance, I refer to the glorious Yan Xishan:

If our first horrible name [Da Shan 大山] displays equal parts ignorance, insecurity, and misplaced arrogance, the second horrible name reveals in its holder a willingness to debase themselves for fame. I speak of what I take to be the most idiotic name ever taken by a laowai (and that says something), Aihua (爱华). Meet Aihua:

Aihua. What a fucking name. It means “love China.” I suppose it will not surprise you to know that Aihua is an actress. Here is what the always reliable CCTV said about her:

[She is an] American girl who has embraced and adopted Chinese culture and tradition as her own. Meanwhile, she is beloved by the Chinese people, and they have accepted her as a Chinese, not a foreigner. She has graced the stages and TV screens of China since the young age of 10. “Ai Hua”, meaning Love China, is her Chinese name. And the name proves very appropriate, for not only does she love the Chinese, but the Chinese love her as well.

Shocking, is it not, that this CCTV report is inaccurate? Note to all laowai: You will never be accepted as Chinese. Picking a suck-up name might make us feel comfortable around you–it does show that you will kiss our asses for as long as we keep you around–but it does not make you Chinese.

I still cannot believe anyone would take this name. To balance the scales, I am currently looking for a Chinese citizen to move Montana and take the name “Me Love USA Long Time.” If you know anyone who might be interested, contact me at once.

YXS

http://yanxishan.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/how-not-to-pick-your-chinese-name/

[Sam]

Peony,
You raise an excellent point. Thank you.
Let me begin to respond this way. I do not mean to suggest (as the piece itself may have) that there is a US or British "model" that others should copy. Rather, I would argue that there are global forces that effect all countries in similar ways, even if individual countries find distinct ways of responding. For example, it is virtually impossible to maintain old-style state socialism (i.e. where the state owns and manages most of the means of production). To attempt to do so, as does North Korea, seems to guarantee poverty.
Thus, Japan has faced pressures to multiculturalize. In the 1980s PM Nakasone called for an internationalization of Japanese identity (Thomas Pyle, The Japanese Question, pp. 94-101) but, as you might respond, even he stopped short of immigration and naturalization. The pressure was similar to what China faces, but the response may have been different.
But why was Japan able to respond as it did? The pressure to multiculturalize is, at base, economic. To remain competitive, socio-political change is necessary. Japan was able to avoid some of the more challenging cultural changes because it was rich. Indeed, it was so rich, due to its earlier industrialization, that it was able to absorb a ten-year recession without too much in the way of socio-cultural change. Remarkable. Whether it will be able to continue to avoid change as the indigenous population ages and the need for younger, foreign, labor increases, will be something to watch in the coming decades.
But China is not Japan. Chinese identity has always had a universal element to it, while Japanese identity has tended to be more ethnically focused. China, over the centuries, has interacted with many "foreign" or "barbarian" cultures. It has absorbed elements of them but it has also itself been transformed in the process. Confucianism, generally, is not an ethnic ideal: the pursuit of Humanity is open to anyone. Indeed, I think Confucius and Mencius understood their philosophies as universal. Thus, there is a kind of philosophical precedent for the idea of "foreigners" becoming "Chinese."
But the bigger question is how far will this dynamic play out. You may be right. There may be countervailing forces that limit the changes.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment.

[Luis Andrade]

Hi Sam,

In general, I agree with your opinions on many issues. In this case, I have a few qualms.

First of all, globalized or not, we are a society obsessed with taxonomy. The irony is that your article is one such example. Look at all the "little boxes" you described there. We are all guilty of it. The first thing we do when we meet people is to find differences and "classify them." It isn't even second nature; it is our first. Ugly? Yes, I think so. Can we do something about it? Well, we can discuss and rationalize the flaw ad nauseam but we may as well be lobotomized before rationally change our ways. Even people that inter-marry, for all the love they may have for each other, are acutely aware of their differences. Heck, I find great differences between my wife and I and we are both white hispanics. We share a common language but come from different hemispheres with different cultural nuances (hint: language isn't the unifier is made out to be and, since we are at it, would someone enlighten the masses that Latino/Hispanic is not a "race" but a bunch of people that share a common "language" and that come in as many colors and shapes as you can imagine...)

Now, let's bring the ball from China to the U.S. field, the "Land of Immigrants." I'll share MY own experience, which is typical of first generation immigrants, specially Hispanics, whom can be as pale skinned as a Norwegian, as black as you can find, and everything in between (Fujimori anyone?). I've been living here for almost 25 years. I've become a citizen, I vote religiously, I've two American children, one of them in college. Still, to this day, I feel excluded and not always welcome and here is the thing: I can write English as well as anybody but, the moment I open my mouth, my accent shows me as "different." The funny thing is that many "Native English speaking Caucasians" feel deceived by someone that, at first sight, looks like them in every respect but ends up being different. This is particularly true of the U.S.A. and their biggest minority group. See, the key to "taxonomic harmony" is to be easy to classify. If a snag is found in a first impression "classification," the person doing it feels deceived. The sad part is that many times it shows...

Speaking of ironies, please take a look at this picture I took a few years ago. and read the explanation. As I said there, not much of a difference from today. Only the taxonomic focus has changed.

So, I predict that, if the future brings to China anything close to what the U.S. has experienced in the last hundred years, the "easy-to-spot" immigrant minorities (examples as described by your note) will perhaps fare much better than other minorities with similar physiological attributes associated with the Han but come from neighboring regions with different languages.

Call me a cynic but everybody will remain "different" and will live in the same tense harmony, in danger of snapping at any given moment, as we enjoy here. As long as no one deceives by appearance, they'll fare better than the rest.

Come to think of it, this isn't much of a risk in China, mind you. With 1.3 billion Han-looking people around, any given minority would have to breed like rabbits on Viagra to catch up and blend with the whole... So, vive la différence!!

Best,

Luis

[Sam]

Luis,
I do not find you cynical at all. I accept your central point that multiculturalism in the US creates "...a tense harmony, in danger of snapping at any moment..." I do not mean to play down those tensions. Indeed, my argument could be wrong. But I will stick with it for a while longer.
So, even if you have better described the American experience, perhaps it is still possible that the pressures for multiculturalization in China still hold. The outcome may well introduce more tension into the "harmonious society," but maybe that is a cost of globalization.
Thanks for the comment - it helps me think through the issues....

[Peony]

Hi Sam,

I do (I believe) understand what you are saying and yet-- to be honest-- I remain puzzled as to why economic development should *necessite* multiculturalism. That it would make isolationist economics or isolationist politics difficult-- that is without question I think true. But why, for example, do you jump from saying that an expanding economy would make old-style socialism impossible (true) to the statement "thus Japan has faced pressures to multiculturalize." I am having a hard time grasping that logical leap...

More to the point, though-- and perhaps this is where we may have to agree to disagree: while I agree with you whole-heartedly that Confucian philosophy is universalist in the sense that

"The central value of Humanity (ren) is not delimited by ethnicity or race. It is an ethical practice that anyone can pursue and accomplish. If you act humanely, you are humane, regardless of national or social status."

Why does this necessite that a black man **should** become Chinese.

That is to ask the question whether a nation cannot maintain its sense of race and culture without being isolationist? Isn't there other valid styles of cosmopolitanism other than modern multi-pluralism? This is a question--not a statement per se.

I have myself spent my entire adult life in East Asia and to be honest while I have never felt myself inducted into the Japanese or Chinese camps-- at the same time, I have never in any way felt excluded. And, while a Japanese person could relatively easily become an American or Australian but not a Chinese, this does not seem to be something problematic in the way you are hinting; which perhaps is really to suggest that as long as their is mutual respect, then I don't think the Sage would have demanded the Chinese or Russians or Polish or whatever other non multi-pluralist society you name to change.

What do you think?

[Sam]

Peony,
I think it comes down to the way I think about globalization. It seems to me that to succeed in the world economy a certain openness is required, economic openness and cultural openness. Looking at China these past thirty years the two have gone hand in hand. To my mind, never before in Chinese history have the cultural expressions of "Chinese-ness" been so varied and expansive. Cultural practices that were, just twenty years ago, considered wholly and irrevocably "Western" are not commonly enacted all around China, and especially in cities. If we add to that dynamic the increasing movement of people, also driven by globalization, and competitive pressures at the level of creativity and innovation, then I think, at the very least, the question of ethnic and racial multiculturalization in China arises.
Part of this, too, is a matter of teh intentions of the Chinese government. Do they really want to lay claim to some form of global "leadership" - i.e. become the place that sets global technology standards and produces more, and more profitable, global cultural "content". If they do, and I think they do, then more openness of all kinds, including immigration and naturalization, will be required. If they are willing to step back from the pursuit of global leadership and cede creativity and standard-setting to the US and Europe, then the pressure for openness will be less.
Also, all I mean to do here is suggest that a certain pressure for multiculturalization. The Chinese government and people can, of course, chose to resist it. They are facing this pressure, however.
Finally, I have not directly dealt with the normative question of whether a black man "should" become Chinese. I am, at this point, trying to analyze the empirical factors that seem to be making it more likely that foreigners will ask, or apply, to become Chinese. I guess I would start the normative investigation from the negative: why shouldn't a black man become Chinese?

[Luis Andrade]

Hi Sam,

Big Brother (FBIS to be precise) is watching. I'm sure you'll get a chuckle out of this. From my site's stats counter...

Say HI.

Best,
Luis

[Dave]

Hi Sam,

I have a bit of a problem with your assertion that “it is inevitable that the numbers of non-Chinese people seeking naturalized Chinese citizenship will grow”.
I believe there is a huge difference between staying in a country that is not yours, for whatever reasons (work, love etc.) and adopting the citizenship of the country of residence.
As China opens up, there are indeed more and more ways to stay for a longer and longer period of time, and the so-called “green card” you mentioned (even if the number of holders is pretty small as far as I know) is a good evidence of this trend.
However, as of today, how many citizens of say the US, France, Germany or Japan have applied for, and secured a Chinese passport? I have a hunch (I know, it is not much) that we are not talking thousands a year here, are we? So why is that?
I believe the political system in place is not a small matter when considering applying for citizenship. And if you value basic freedoms, no doubt will you wait for a ‘new China’ i.e. a more ‘democratic’ one, before asking to legally be Chinese. And it would seem that this ‘democratic China’ is not for tomorrow.
Therefore the number of foreigners living in China will certainly increase, but in my opinion the number of non-Chinese people seeking naturalized Chinese citizenship will not grow noticeably in the foreseeable future because there is simply no incentive to do so.

So, if you look like Da Shan, I’m not sure any of us will live longer enough to see you being considered otherwise than a Laowai, simply because there would be an infinitesimally small chance that you are legally Chinese.

[Peony]

Hi Dave, I don't think Sam is necessarily talking about large numbers of white laowai but rather-- as happens in the US or in parts of Europe-- peoples from less wealthy surrounding countries will desire to live and work; and then take advantage of citizenship of the country where they are residing. It would be starting from economic reasons and then as immigrants marry or become entrenched in the life of the country, they would seek citizenship. Is that correct Sam?

Well, I suppose we will have to disagree because again I remain unconvinced that there is anything logically demanded by economic expansion (and international participation). Greater openness can occur (indeed we see it in Japan and to some extent Russia)while still maintaining cultural concepts concerning nation or races. For me, personally, I don't have a strong opinion about whether Japan would have been better off if it had culturaized-- what I object to (ever so slightly) is the assumption that there is one way inevitable method for adopting a cosmopolitan outlook. Basically I think you really are starting with a lot of assumptions that I am just not so sure logically or even empirically hold up. I suppose being raised in the same country as you, I too share these values (and love them) but I just logically I remain unconvinced that high level creativity and competition necessarily demands a pluralistic society in the way you are hinting.(this can be evidenced by the large number of US copyrights held by people in monoracial societies). Yes, they are not #1, but they are #2 and #4 (I used to translate copyrights and have since given that up so my figures could be old-- but let's at least say that Japan and Taiwan do quite well in the creativity department).

Anyway no sign of Big Brother on my stats but just in case, I guess I'll sign off.

Looking forward to chatting again!

[Sam]

In a way, Peony's and Dave's points work together. Dave suggests that I have not adequately considered political factors and Peony holds that I am overemphasizing a certain view of economic globalization. All of this is helpful, should I try to develop this analysis further. And I thank both of you.
I am actually thinking that, if pressure to multiculturalize is to come to China (and the various critiques of my piece suggest that it might not be terribly likely) it will come from the top, not the bottom of the economic ladder. There will be little pressure for low income, low skill labor immigration. Rather, it is my sense of the competitive pressures at the information and education intensive levels of creative innovation that leads me to suggest that China will have to encourage people with those sorts of skills to stay and, perhaps, become Chinese.
The copyright point is well taken. I'll have to think about it.
And Dave's argument about politics is also worthwhile. I was aware of my un-playing political factors, but will have to do more to integrate them, if this goes forward....

[Falen]

One real tough "barrier to entry" is the whole family aspect of the general asian identity. Since one's Chinese identity is so much defined by the extended family, it is almost impossible to individually become "Chinese"(or Korean, Japanese...). Honestly pretty much the only thing that would remotely come close is marriage... which is in itself tough.

[shellyuan]

As a Chinese,I have to admit most of Chinese will be more friendly to white men,though we claim to be hospitable.Maybe it is because most of us are looking forward to going to America or Europe .However,it don't mean we despise black,we can accept them to stay with us,to work with us,so I believe China will be a fantastic place for foreigners.If you have any problems,I suggest you to http://hellomandarin.com/

[Peter]

Congrats on the link from the WSJ China Blog. I haven't done as much reading as I'd like in this area, but I'll ramble for a bit anyway. The idea of Chinese-ness seems tangled up in multiple meanings. On the one hand, you have being politically Chinese - carrying a Chinese passport and being subject to the rights, responsibilities, and restrictions of a Chinese citizen. As noted before, we haven't seen many Americans or Germans or Japanese jumping on board here - and probably won't until Chinese citizens have just as much freedom as foreigners. On the other hand, there is the idea of being culturally Chinese. Linguistically, have waiguoren and zhongguoren - political terms. But as a counterpart to huaren, you have...again, waiguoren, and perhaps laowai - both terms defined by their "outside-ness". When a "foreigner" lives in the US long enough, she can be an "American". But the cultural ideal among "Chinese" of "blood", of a mythologized past connecting people and being passed down by ancestry, seems to preclude the transition from waiguoren to huaren. It's this cultural idea which allows overseas Chinese to think of themselves as fully Chinese in their own minds.

[Dr. Michael Dunn]

Yikes! All the Mental Masturbation reminds me of my time at the University of Chicago. Wake up,folks! In Taisan(sp?) dialect,white people are called 'Bakgoy"or, White Devils. African-Americans are called 'Hokgoy', or, Black Devils. The Chinese word for 'Japanese' translates as 'Brown Dwarf Pirates'.

The 'Middle Kingdom' is, was, and always will be the most Racist in the world. I know. I was a Big-Nose posted there for 3 years. iMike