Talk:Hua–Yi distinction

Sections on Christianity

Hi everyone. Does anybody else agree with me that the two sections on Christianity (on the Jesuits and on early translations of the Bible) have absolutely nothing to do with the announced topic of this page? I think we're heading straight back into original research! Madalibi (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't see a connection. The article should focus on events and statements that illustrate the "differences" concept in practice and theory, with references. Conceivably someone might dig out some content that discusses reactions to barbarian concepts like Buddhism or Christianity, e.g. restrictions on missionary activity. But we have to keep focus: this is not a history of China. It is a discussion of a cultural concept. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of you about keeping focus, but I cannot help myself to push the content into the next level, that is, the 3000 years old isolated Confucius-based civilization, what might have, or might not have evolved, when it clashed with modern, and western Christianity-based civilization, when there were catholic, Jesuit, protestant missionary came rushing in, with Bibles in hand. That was the scene in Ming, when Jesuit missionary interacted with Confucius scholars like Xu Guangqi, and together they were trying to merge two great civilizations into one.(Maybe not into one, but surely they did try to learn from each other.)
One more thing I like to say is, this article's title is still temporary, that means there is still room to move around. Just a thought, I may be wrong. Arilang ^talk 17:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What is in my mind

We all agree that Hua-Yi zhi bian is about differences between Chinese and outsiders.
But throughout 3000 years of history, Hua-Yi zhi bian manifested into different expressions in different dynasties.
(1) Tang, Hua-Yi zhi bian was about mergeing the Xianbei, the Shatoi, the Turkish, and Han cultures into one. The Tang civilization was a very colorful one. Take Li Bai as a example, he was not a Han, he was from Kyrgyzstan, a central Asian country, yet he was very much loved by all the Han Chinese.
(2) Yuan dynasty, the Mongols were the boss, all the Han ethnic had became barbarians and got slaughtered.
(3) Ming dynasty, situation reversed, Mongols became barbarians and got tossed out, and Mr. Zhu's families began to play big at world stage, by sending Zheng He to sail the seven seas, and embracing Christianity by accepting missionary into China.
(4) Qing dynasty, situation got reversed again. This time all the foreigners were barbarians, that included Lord Mackartney, who was required to perform Kowtow to Qianlong
(5) Xinghai revolution time, Manchus were the barbarians
(6) Cultural Revolution time, British and American become barbarians in embassy burning episode
What I am saying, Hua-Yi zhi bian should be looked at differently in different time frames, because it is not a static kind of things. Arilang ^talk 18:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I read through it, and it seems like the section on Christianity delves too much on detail on the introduction itself, and not enough on "external influences". Currently, I feel that removing the entire section and replacing it with: "Christianity, as promoted by _______ in _____ contributed to the evolution of the interpretation of Hua Yi Zhi Bian" would actually be concise, and go over all of the main, relevant details that I can see already in the section. We don't need to reinvent the wheel for every article, just have to wikilink to the main article. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Nojan, I can only point out the rough direction, all the details have to be left to you guys. Arilang ^talk 08:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It has become quite clear that Wikipedia has become a propaganda and promotional tool for the anti-Asian and anti-Confucian evangelists to criticize Chinese and Asian indigenous cultures and religions, condescending on such practices as ancestor worshiping and animism or shamanism as crude oriental barbarianism with their condescending and weasel editing, while gloating over western colonialism and their achievements. Their dirty fingerprints are all over the Chinese history related articles, Asian culture related articles and all these other "Hua-Yi distinction" like articles.66.214.169.159 (talk) 05:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Hua-Yi concept did change over time. However, there were also people who disagreed with it in the past. For example, Liu Ji of the Ming dynasty (he was a key advisor of Zhu Yuanzhang, the founding emperor of the Ming) advocated racial/ethnic/cultural unity, harmony and egalitarianism in one of his important works, the Yulizi (Of course, the great majority of the times, the Hua-Yi distinction was just about differences in culture, and nothing else). As for the Yuan and the Qing, I would say that despite some oppositions, most Chinese did accept the legitimacy of these dynasties. As for the Cultural Revolution, I am not aware of any Chinese using "barbarians" to address/describe the Americans and the British or any other people at that time. It seems to me sayings like "down with Western imperialism" were the slogans back then. Using the word "barbarians" in a more traditional sense could be seen as "feudal" and "reactionary" in the Cultural Revolution. 146.151.105.16 (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge to Han chauvinism

Like it says on the tin.

The Hua-Yi distinction was an early form of cultural distinction by the Hua themselves. Following the Han dynasty, they gradually became known as the Han. Han chauvinism is the proper venue for a historical treatment of this topic, divided into sections regarding Hua-Yi (often lauded or understood; btw, it really should be Hua–Yi), conceptions of Han identity under the Yuan and Qing dynasties (generally lauded today), and modern Han chauvinism (generally condemned all around). Both articles, of course, need cleaning up and pruning of useless or misleading "sources" including unexplained reference lists; after the merge, there should be enough serious material for a decent article.

Hua–Yi isn't really a sinocentric and nationalistic topic but a cultural one, esp. during the period of fragmented states, so a merge there seems inappropriate to me. — LlywelynII 09:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think these two concepts are equivalent, so I think the move is not a good idea. For one thing, "Han chauvinism" is both a recent concept and a negatively connoted term, whereas the "distinction between Hua and Yi" was positively advocated by Chinese (and, later, Korean) thinkers for more than twenty centuries. (I present more arguments for the non-equivalence of "Han chauvinism" and the "Hua-Yi distinction" here on the talk page for Han chauvinism.) I think you could make a stronger case for merging with "Sinocentrism," though. Like the "Hua-Yi distinction," "Sinocentrism" is very old and it could take both cultural and racial forms. I think the two can still be distinguished (because the Hua-Yi distinction is a category that Chinese thinkers would recognize as their own, whereas "Sinocentrism" is a category of analysis), but they clearly overlap in many places, perhaps too much to be kept apart. Let me think about this further... Madalibi (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever happened to this? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hua–Yi distinction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090403230844/http://www.koreanhistoryproject.org:80/Ket/C12/E1204.htm to http://koreanhistoryproject.org/Ket/C12/E1204.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hua–Yi distinction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090217145944/http://jwsr.ucr.edu/archive/vol2/v2_nf.php to http://jwsr.ucr.edu/archive/vol2/v2_nf.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Du-tong-hoang-de.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)