What Countries Still Wear Traditional Clothes

Feb 2011
1,018
Through personal research and encounters, I have to completely disagree with this statement. Let's not forget that the major national identity that's constructed by the PRC is Zhonghua minzu, not Hanzu or the other minorities. This construct has real affects on the psychology of the common masses.
They are not mutually exclusive. The PRC's initial ethnological work, carried out in imitation of the Soviets, created the 56 nationalities of China, of which Han were the majority. The term Zhonghua Minzu was introduced to serve as an umbrella identity for the different ethnic groups in China, not by the PRC, but by late Qing revolutionaries and more specifically the Nationalists.

Just because minzu identities exist on ID doesn't mean people view it the way that it was originally designed in the western sense of the word (and the government doesn't want it to be interpreted that way, and they are successful at it). Everyone knows there are ethnic minorities, but the term commonly understood by the Chinese populace is very different from the American idea of race or nation. The fact of the matter is, the average person in China (Han or minority, the major exceptions being less Sinisized groups like Uighurs and Tibetans, but even here, I've lived among them long enough to see many also follows the standard Chinese view) do not think ethnic minorities are different races and most even think that ethnic minority languages are another variety of Chinese just like Chinese dialects. The idea that most Han people think they are a race separate from the other minorities is an intellectual delusion; most Han don't think like that at all. I've done a survey particularly on the subject and asked minorities (including Manchus, Hui, Zhuang, Bai, and even some Mongols) what race they are, the first thing most of them answer is not the identity on their ID, it is Chinese. Chinese, not Han, is the national and yes, even racial identity. That is the popular view. It is Han minzu which is the bigger political fiction in today's reality, not Zhonghua minzu. The idea that ethnic minorities are not racially Chinese are restricted to a selected few intellectuals.
I've never suggested that nationalities in China are viewed as "races." The concept of "race" in the Western sense is indeed under-emphasized in Chinese society and most people I've talked to still subscribe to the idea that 99% of Chinese - ie except the Uyghurs and Russians - are of the "yellow" race and so not basically different from a biological perspective.

But they would also include peoples like the Koreans and the Japanese in this "yellow" race, while fully recognizing the fundamental ethnic and cultural differences between them. To this end, whether the Chinese consider themselves racially "Chinese" or "yellow" is immaterial, since they obviously have a different way of thinking about ethnic difference than people in the West.

It is this ethnic difference that informs issues like the hanfu movement and the majority / minority divide in China, and potentially regionalism, as well, since Han could also be further divided into smaller, self-identifying regional groups with their own language and tradition. The bottom line is that you cannot assume that ethnic identity has no significance in modern China just because Chinese people don't think these differences are racial.

And you are assuming that there is a one way evolution; all people will simply want to adopt Han clothing and relate to a Han identity. People might just as well promote Qipao and Magua as they have for over a century and modify it to become the traditional Chinese national clothing. It is supra-ethnic nationalism that is gaining stronger grounds in this new age among professional intellectuals and grass root non-intellectuals, not Han nationalism. You can easily see this through the numerous attempts by Chinese anthropologist, however ridiculous, at trying to trace Mongoloid DNA in the Uighur population to prove they are related to the Han. This is also the same force behind denouncing Yuefei as a national hero and why history schools like the New Qing History is attacked fiercely in China. Han nationalism is largely restricted to the realm of amateur historians. Zhonghua minzu, not Hanzu, is the greater historical force today and it is the only way China can move if it ever wants to incorporate it's minorities into its system.
I consider myself well read in Chinese anthropology, population genetics, etc. and the term "Han" is used very frequently in articles from the PRC. For a concept most Chinese do not consider "racial," Chinese anthropologists and geneticists sure do like to argue that it has profound coherence as an anthropological and genetic unit. To this end, I think you understate the currency of Han as an identity in Chinese intellectual circles. This should be distinguished, however, from Han nationalism, which I agree is not popular and probably won't become popular in the PRC. Still, insofar as Chinese intellectuals and online citizens subscribe to the concept of a Han identity, heritage, and history, the pressure to create a specific traditional costume is going to increase.

As for the development of the supra-ethnic Zhonghua Minzu identity, I am sure it will proceed, as well. Again, I want to emphasize that the two are not mutually exclusive, because Zhonghua Minzu is not an ethnic identity but an unifying identity for the nationalities of China. That was its official definition. Whether this identity can take the place of the individual nationalities, we can only guess; but as long as the Chinese government keeps promoting the "traditional" cultures and costumes of its minority nationalities, it is likely that ethnic differences will continue to persist and inform Chinese concepts of self, in which case movements like hanfu revival are to be expected because it fills a much needed gap for the majority nationality.

Finally, caution: while Han nationalism is more or less the domain of amateur writers in China, I think the situation in Korea and Japan shows that amateur writers can have a tremendous influence on popular nationalism, and even pose a significant political challenge to establishment historians and academics. Such a challenge maybe much harder to accomplish in China due to the government's control over the media, but I wouldn't write it off as a counter cultural force just because it isn't official. What typically causes ethnic nationalist movements to explode in power is the emergence of group grievances and conflicts, and unfortunately, there are such triggers in China - for example, ethnic violence between Uyghurs and Han, rural discrimination under the hukou system, biased economic development favoring certain regions over others, etc.
 
Last edited:

heavenlykaghan

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,467
They are not mutually exclusive. The PRC's initial ethnological work, carried out in imitation of the Soviets, created the 56 nationalities of China, of which Han were the majority. The term Zhonghua Minzu was introduced to serve as an umbrella identity for the different ethnic groups in China, not by the PRC, but by late Qing revolutionaries and more specifically the Nationalists.
The concept of Minzu used today isn't only ethnic and there is really no exact translation into English even though the concept originated from the west. The term came from the Russian anthropological word народ. The strict definition given by Stalin, which the PRC took as a model, is that it requires four criteria; territory, history (including descent), language, and economics. In this sense, Zhonghua Minzu has real substance as a Minzu, and not a mere political umbrella identity.


I've never suggested that nationalities in China are viewed as "races." The concept of "race" in the Western sense is indeed under-emphasized in Chinese society and most people I've talked to still subscribe to the idea that 99% of Chinese - ie except the Uyghurs and Russians - are of the "yellow" race and so not basically different from a biological perspective.

But they would also include peoples like the Koreans and the Japanese in this "yellow" race, while fully recognizing the fundamental ethnic and cultural differences between them. To this end, whether the Chinese consider themselves racially "Chinese" or "yellow" is immaterial, since they obviously have a different way of thinking about ethnic difference than people in the West.

It is this ethnic difference that informs issues like the hanfu movement and the majority / minority divide in China, and potentially regionalism, as well, since Han could also be further divided into smaller, self-identifying regional groups with their own language and tradition. The bottom line is that you cannot assume that ethnic identity has no significance in modern China just because Chinese people don't think these differences are racial.



As for the development of the supra-ethnic Zhonghua Minzu identity, I am sure it will proceed, as well. Again, I want to emphasize that the two are not mutually exclusive, because Zhonghua Minzu is not an ethnic identity but an unifying identity for the nationalities of China. That was its official definition. Whether this identity can take the place of the individual nationalities, we can only guess; but as long as the Chinese government keeps promoting the "traditional" cultures and costumes of its minority nationalities, it is likely that ethnic differences will continue to persist and inform Chinese concepts of self, in which case movements like hanfu revival are to be expected because it fills a much needed gap for the majority nationality.

I don't just mean the Mongoloid race. There is a very real believe among many in China that all 56 minzu shares one ancestor (usually Huangdi). I've heard professors in universities say just that to the students. Even Uighurs are included in this (though people tend to purposely ignore Russians). In this model, even Uighurs are considered lineage wise more "Chinese" opposed to "Japanese" people, just with a different phenotype (the word race can have different meanings).
In this sense Zhonghua Minzu isn't just a political umbrella term, it has real anthropological meaning as a descent group reflecting the Soviet idea of Narod (nation). Minority Minzu are more conceived in terms of different culture and language (and even here, many Han confuse these languages as dialects of Chinese) and a sub-branch of this Zhonghua Minzu in descent.

I did not say that minzu is not important in modern China, I am saying that most Chinese other than Han nationalists will accept Qipao and Magua as their own, because they will see Manchus as Chinese (not to mention, the Han also wears the clothing), which is the more important identity.




I consider myself well read in Chinese anthropology, population genetics, etc. and the term "Han" is used very frequently in articles from the PRC. For a concept most Chinese do not consider "racial," Chinese anthropologists and geneticists sure do like to argue that it has profound coherence as an anthropological and genetic unit. To this end, I think you understate the currency of Han as an identity in Chinese intellectual circles. This should be distinguished, however, from Han nationalism, which I agree is not popular and probably won't become popular in the PRC. Still, insofar as Chinese intellectuals and online citizens subscribe to the concept of a Han identity, heritage, and history, the pressure to create a specific traditional costume is going to increase.

I've seen just as many attempts at making Zhonghua Minzu into a coherent anthropological identity. If it wasn't for the historical problems this create, I believe it will surpass the popularity of attempting to make Han a real anthropological unit.

Finally, caution: while Han nationalism is more or less the domain of amateur writers in China, I think the situation in Korea and Japan shows that amateur writers can have a tremendous influence on popular nationalism, and even pose a significant political challenge to establishment historians and academics. Such a challenge maybe much harder to accomplish in China due to the government's control over the media, but I wouldn't write it off as a counter cultural force just because it isn't official. What typically causes ethnic nationalist movements to explode in power is the emergence of group grievances and conflicts, and unfortunately, there are such triggers in China - for example, ethnic violence between Uyghurs and Han, rural discrimination under the hukou system, biased economic development favoring certain regions over others, etc.
Fair point. However, Uighurs and Tibetans are really the exception rather than the norm among the 55 minority groups (and even among these groups, those living among the Han have different psyschology and values compared to those who doesn't. There is a notorious group of young Tibetans for example in Lhasa today who promotes using Mandarin and considers the Tibetan language as crude). This is largely due to the fact that these two groups have their own ethnic space without the Han and are hence not as economically and socially integrated. Most others, especially the Hui, Zhuang, and Manchu, which have the most population, are different and there are far less inter-ethnic violence or conflict today (I would say the conflict is no more than between Han of different provinces or different religion), because they are also spacially and economically integrated into the Han majority. In this case, I think the conflict between say the Uighurs and the Han, is really the conflict between an non-integrated group with different values from the majority and Han is merely a name used to symbolize that majority (which in reality also includes non-Han groups like Manchus and Zhuang etc.).
 
Last edited:

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,265
Italy, Lago Maggiore
In Italy only for celebrations ...

In Nepal also there is mix of traditional and foreign clothing. Plain's dress culture is similar to North India, hill people wear pyjama Kurta coat while high Himalayas dress culture is similar to Tibetans.
Yes, when I visited Nepal I noted an evident mix and actually the country is a mixture where the Tibetan and the Indian worlds get in touch.

Among the traditional cloths coming from India, the saree is not rare in Nepal.

About Italy ...

generally traditional cloths survive for celebrations. There are some local populations who still wear traditional cloths, but they are quite isolated minorities. And this usually is just related to the preservation of a cultural identity [for example the German population of the Walser among the Alps near my hometown].
 
Feb 2011
1,018
The concept of Minzu used today isn't only ethnic and there is really no exact translation into English even though the concept originated from the west. The term came from the Russian anthropological word народ. The strict definition given by Stalin, which the PRC took as a model, is that it requires four criteria; territory, history (including descent), language, and economics. In this sense, Zhonghua Minzu has real substance as a Minzu, and not a mere political umbrella identity.

I don't just mean the Mongoloid race. There is a very real believe among many in China that all 56 minzu shares one ancestor (usually Huangdi). I've heard professors in universities say just that to the students. Even Uighurs are included in this (though people tend to purposely ignore Russians). In this model, even Uighurs are considered lineage wise more "Chinese" opposed to "Japanese" people, just with a different phenotype (the word race can have different meanings).

In this sense Zhonghua Minzu isn't just a political umbrella term, it has real anthropological meaning as a descent group reflecting the Soviet idea of Narod (nation). Minority Minzu are more conceived in terms of different culture and language (and even here, many Han confuse these languages as dialects of Chinese) and a sub-branch of this Zhonghua Minzu in descent.
The issue with the Chinese term is that it lacks a quantifier. Linguistically, Zhonghua Minzu can stand for both a single nationality, or a plurality of nationalities. My understanding is that official PRC policy uses it in the plural sense - that it is an unitary term for the 56 nationalities of China - as opposed to a single nationality, which is what, ironically, Sun Yatsen and his fellow revolutionaries originally envisioned to create through absorbing the then Five Minzu into one.

I acknowledge that this reading may change, depending on the context, and wouldn't be surprised to learn that there is a concerted effort to recreate the 56 nationalities as a single Zhonghua nationality. However, I will submit that, both officially and popularly, such a goal has not been accomplished.

I did not say that minzu is not important in modern China, I am saying that most Chinese other than Han nationalists will accept Qipao and Magua as their own, because they will see Manchus as Chinese (not to mention, the Han also wears the clothing), which is the more important identity.
As their own "what"? There is a difference between accepting Manchu clothing as the - or one of the - national clothing of China, and accepting it as their own ethnic costume. Again, the semantics are highly relevant but can become completely confused in English. Asking people a question like:

旗袍是中国人的传统服装吗? Is Qipao the traditional costume of Chinese?

Is very different from asking them:

旗袍是汉人的传统服装吗? Is Qipao the traditional costume of Han Chinese?

And I would guess most educated Chinese would not answer the latter in the affirmative, even though it is technically correct that Qipao and Magua were, in fact, the standard clothing of Han Chinese during the Qing.

I've seen just as many attempts at making Zhonghua Minzu into a coherent anthropological identity. If it wasn't for the historical problems this create, I believe it will surpass the popularity of attempting to make Han a real anthropological unit.
I, too, have seen many anthropological and genetic attempts at linking the various groups of Zhonghua Minzu together, and specifically attempts at linking minorities with Han or other well integrated groups, so to speak. But the fact that Chinese anthropologists and geneticists use the official nationalities as basic units tells me that these basic units are still differentiated from each other and are still assumed to be the primary relevant anthropological units of China. Zhonghua Minzu is a work in progress, not a fact on the ground.

Fair point. However, Uighurs and Tibetans are really the exception rather than the norm among the 55 minority groups (and even among these groups, those living among the Han have different psyschology and values compared to those who doesn't. There is a notorious group of young Tibetans for example in Lhasa today who promotes using Mandarin and considers the Tibetan language as crude). This is largely due to the fact that these two groups have their own ethnic space without the Han and are hence not as economically and socially integrated. Most others, especially the Hui, Zhuang, and Manchu, which have the most population, are different and there are far less inter-ethnic violence or conflict today (I would say the conflict is no more than between Han of different provinces or different religion), because they are also spacially and economically integrated into the Han majority. In this case, I think the conflict between say the Uighurs and the Han, is really the conflict between an non-integrated group with different values from the majority and Han is merely a name used to symbolize that majority (which in reality also includes non-Han groups like Manchus and Zhuang etc.).
I concede that the sort of differences we're talking about - of tradition and history - are unlikely to ever flare up in the same way that Uyghur-Han violence does. But I still don't think you should dismiss the Hanfu revival movement as merely foolish nationalism, because it is quite similar to the cultural and traditional revival movements that we see from minority groups all around the world, most of which are not politically nationalist or have any separatist designs. What is interesting here, perhaps, is that the Hanfu movement is coming from the majority group, rather than a minority group, perhaps because Hanfu advocates perceive the loss of their own tradition and history as acutely as minorities in other countries do?
 
Aug 2015
1,965
Los Angeles
The issue with the Chinese term is that it lacks a quantifier. Linguistically, Zhonghua Minzu can stand for both a single nationality, or a plurality of nationalities. My understanding is that official PRC policy uses it in the plural sense - that it is an unitary term for the 56 nationalities of China - as opposed to a single nationality, which is what, ironically, Sun Yatsen and his fellow revolutionaries originally envisioned to create through absorbing the then Five Minzu into one.
I don't believe Sun Yatsen envisioned the absorption of the Five Minzu into one. His slogan was republicanism of the five minzu, which means not only the acknowledge of their differences, but governance through the difference with republican means. I don't believe he envision that they will eventually join as one, as the KMT never implemented things that would make one consider that as a policy, such as moving population systematically to ensure mixture of population, or enforcing of languages etc.



I acknowledge that this reading may change, depending on the context, and wouldn't be surprised to learn that there is a concerted effort to recreate the 56 nationalities as a single Zhonghua nationality. However, I will submit that, both officially and popularly, such a goal has not been accomplished.
Curious, isn't the PRC action the opposite of this? I mean, if they really wanted one minzu, all they got to do is enforce the elimination of other languages. While they enforces this on the local dialect, they didn't exactly forces the Zhuang, or the Tibetan, or other to speak Mandarin only. Or at least not that I am aware of and I could be wrong.


As their own "what"? There is a difference between accepting Manchu clothing as the - or one of the - national clothing of China, and accepting it as their own ethnic costume. Again, the semantics are highly relevant but can become completely confused in English. Asking people a question like:

旗袍是中国人的传统服装吗? Is Qipao the traditional costume of Chinese?

Is very different from asking them:

旗袍是汉人的传统服装吗? Is Qipao the traditional costume of Han Chinese?
Isn't he saying that to modern Chinese, the identity as citizen to the nation-state China is more important than the traditional ethnic based Han?

And I think it's a very normal thing. One professor who teaches classics from Harvard talked about one of his teacher who teaches him the classics in Taiwan. The conversation was in Chinese, the man was a Manchu prince or something, I couldn't get that part clear, but the question was, teacher why do you still teach the classics when most people think it's useless. And his teacher replied, people today in China, their hearts were complicated, they are confused as to what it means to be Chinese. I know, because I know the classics.

That professor (Peter K Bol, or包弼德) was pretty old, and his teacher was way older, and Pro Bol learned this in Taiwan, and his instructor was from Qing era, but even then the idea was more of the nation-state, and less of this ethnic base concept.
 

heavenlykaghan

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,467
The issue with the Chinese term is that it lacks a quantifier. Linguistically, Zhonghua Minzu can stand for both a single nationality, or a plurality of nationalities. My understanding is that official PRC policy uses it in the plural sense - that it is an unitary term for the 56 nationalities of China - as opposed to a single nationality, which is what, ironically, Sun Yatsen and his fellow revolutionaries originally envisioned to create through absorbing the then Five Minzu into one.

I acknowledge that this reading may change, depending on the context, and wouldn't be surprised to learn that there is a concerted effort to recreate the 56 nationalities as a single Zhonghua nationality.
Again, I see the PRC viewing the various other groups as a sub-branch of the main Zhonghua Minzu. Zhonghua Minzu clearly isn't just a political term, it is a nation with a constructed territory, descent, and economic ties. And one can even argue that there is now some degree of linguistic unity since mandarin is becoming the main medium of communication.

However, I will submit that, both officially and popularly, such a goal has not been accomplished.
Is it not? I find the Chinese identity far stronger than Minzu identity when we are talking about people subject to the mainstream culture. I'm not only talking about minorities who lost their language either, I've met minorities who speak their own language fine who associate with the Chinese identity first, and this Chinese identity certainly isn't just political, it is racial as well.



As their own "what"? There is a difference between accepting Manchu clothing as the - or one of the - national clothing of China, and accepting it as their own ethnic costume. Again, the semantics are highly relevant but can become completely confused in English. Asking people a question like:

旗袍是中国人的传统服装吗? Is Qipao the traditional costume of Chinese?

Is very different from asking them:

旗袍是汉人的传统服装吗? Is Qipao the traditional costume of Han Chinese?

And I would guess most educated Chinese would not answer the latter in the affirmative, even though it is technically correct that Qipao and Magua were, in fact, the standard clothing of Han Chinese during the Qing.
This thread is about countries wearing traditional clothing. If the national identity of Chinese is stronger than your identity as Han, which I find to be the case with most Chinese today, then the second question has less relevance than the first.
I, too, have seen many anthropological and genetic attempts at linking the various groups of Zhonghua Minzu together, and specifically attempts at linking minorities with Han or other well integrated groups, so to speak. But the fact that Chinese anthropologists and geneticists use the official nationalities as basic units tells me that these basic units are still differentiated from each other and are still assumed to be the primary relevant anthropological units of China. Zhonghua Minzu is a work in progress, not a fact on the ground.
That's where I disagree. Maybe intellectually, the concept is not as mature, but on the ground, most people in China, minority or Han identify with Zhonghua Minzu more than their individual minzu identity.



I concede that the sort of differences we're talking about - of tradition and history - are unlikely to ever flare up in the same way that Uyghur-Han violence does. But I still don't think you should dismiss the Hanfu revival movement as merely foolish nationalism, because it is quite similar to the cultural and traditional revival movements that we see from minority groups all around the world, most of which are not politically nationalist or have any separatist designs. What is interesting here, perhaps, is that the Hanfu movement is coming from the majority group, rather than a minority group, perhaps because Hanfu advocates perceive the loss of their own tradition and history as acutely as minorities in other countries do?
The Hanfu revival movement is still a minority movement. Most Han simply don't care. Not to mention even the Hanfu revival movement isn't unified in the type of clothing they wear. The point is that Qipao and Magua is very much the Chinese Minzu clothing, because Zhonghua Minzu is a real identity and a more important one than the individual Minzu.
 
Feb 2011
1,018
Again, I see the PRC viewing the various other groups as a sub-branch of the main Zhonghua Minzu. Zhonghua Minzu clearly isn't just a political term, it is a nation with a constructed territory, descent, and economic ties. And one can even argue that there is now some degree of linguistic unity since mandarin is becoming the main medium of communication.

Is it not? I find the Chinese identity far stronger than Minzu identity when we are talking about people subject to the mainstream culture. I'm not only talking about minorities who lost their language either, I've met minorities who speak their own language fine who associate with the Chinese identity first, and this Chinese identity certainly isn't just political, it is racial as well.

This thread is about countries wearing traditional clothing. If the national identity of Chinese is stronger than your identity as Han, which I find to be the case with most Chinese today, then the second question has less relevance than the first.

That's where I disagree. Maybe intellectually, the concept is not as mature, but on the ground, most people in China, minority or Han identify with Zhonghua Minzu more than their individual minzu identity.
I think we are speaking too much in the abstract and the anecdotal. Is there any study you can show me that evaluates people's identification with Zhonghua Minzu as an ethnic identity? In Western scholarship, the mainstream trend has been to treat modern PRC ethnography as under playing the ethnic distinctions and tensions between Han and other groups, and between sub-groups of Han. Obviously, this makes claims of a monolithic Zhonghua Minzu exotic, to say the minimum. But, I recognize the political bias of Western scholarship, so I'm asking for counter evidence.

The Hanfu revival movement is still a minority movement. Most Han simply don't care. Not to mention even the Hanfu revival movement isn't unified in the type of clothing they wear. The point is that Qipao and Magua is very much the Chinese Minzu clothing, because Zhonghua Minzu is a real identity and a more important one than the individual Minzu.
Speaking in strictly history terms, Qipao and Magua are certainly Chinese clothing, and can be included within a diverse approach to Zhonghua Minzu clothing, but as THE traditional clothing of an unified Zhonghua Minzu, it still doesn't seem appropriate, since its history of use within China is relatively shallow. Were Zhonghua Minzu to become the actual ethnic identity of all Chinese, as you claim, then I have no doubt that this issue will come back even stronger in the future.
 
Last edited:

heavenlykaghan

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,467
I think we are speaking too much in the abstract and the anecdotal. Is there any study you can show me that evaluates people's identification with Zhonghua Minzu as an ethnic identity? In Western scholarship, the mainstream trend has been to treat modern PRC ethnography as under playing the ethnic distinctions and tensions between Han and other groups, and between sub-groups of Han. Obviously, this makes claims of a monolithic Zhonghua Minzu exotic, to say the minimum. But, I recognize the political bias of Western scholarship, so I'm asking for counter evidence.
There are plenty of studies on acculturation of Yunnan ethnic minorities. I have friends on field trips with professors from Beijing University such as Luo Xin to conduct such surveys and the conclusion they derived was that most ethnic minorities there wants to associate themselves with the mainstream "Han" culture and do not like to be treated as "minorities". However, I am no professional anthropologist, so I did not pay attention to which specific publications these fall under; I'll have to look for them.

However, its not like western scholarship has actual statistics on the issue; so there is also nothing more than anecdotal evidence from there. Western scholarship is too much focused on groups like Tibetan and Uighur and ignores the rest of the minority groups, which makes up the vast majority in number and even there, I doubt anyone from the west has made a survey on the Chinese identity of ethnic Tibetans and Uighurs, and I've met plenty who identified themselves that way. It's not even about bias anymore; its about the utter lack of such studies period.

The term Zhonghua Minzu might not be used, but the simple identity of being "Chinese" in terms of race is and I've done a survey of my own; although I only have around a dozen or so samples asking overseas Chinese ethnic minorities. If you live in China, this should be very self evident even without a survey. The concept of Han only matters relative to minorities, no one outside of China when asked about their race, say Han. They will simply say Chinese, Zhongguoren or Huaren.




Speaking in strictly history terms, Qipao and Magua are certainly Chinese clothing, and can be included within a diverse approach to Zhonghua Minzu clothing, but as THE traditional clothing of an unified Zhonghua Minzu, it still doesn't seem appropriate, since its history of use within China is relatively shallow. Were Zhonghua Minzu to become the actual ethnic identity of all Chinese, as you claim, then I have no doubt that this issue will come back even stronger in the future.

No one said anything about THE traditional clothing. I am only arguing that it is in fact a minzu clothing of China.
 
Last edited:
Sep 2019
2
Canada
In a country like Iran, there are many cities that still maintain their culture and tradition and wear local clothes. A year ago, as a tourist, I visited Sistan and Baluchistan. In the city, women made local costumes in silk, red, orange, and black, complete with needlework. One of the most expensive clothes was in that city
268097_364.jpg
268098_495.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aupmanyav