Talk:Pan-Mongolism

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Soviet support for inner mongol separatists

KGB Agent Victor Louis (journalist) wrote a book about his support for Uyghur, Mongol and Tibetan separatists, he encouraged the Soviet Union to try to wage war against China to allegedly "free" those nationalities from China's rule, claiming that China was an "empire" and not a state.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZavAkGUNdSkC&pg=PA175#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=cEdQ1IuJFH4C&pg=PA172#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Halh Mongol xenophobia against other Mongols (Buryats and Oirats and Chahars)

Halh Mongols, the dominant Mongol group in Mongolia, hold xenophobic views against other Mongols like Buryats, Oirats, and Chahars. Buryats and Oirats suspected to be loyal to Russia and to dominate the country like Jews in anti-semitic conspiracy theories, Chahar Mongols are suspected of being loyal to China.

[1]

http://books.google.com/books?id=K3JZIdw8YDkC&pg=PA139#v=onepage&q&f=false

[2]

http://books.google.com/books?id=K3JZIdw8YDkC&pg=PA93#v=onepage&q&f=false

[3]

http://books.google.com/books?id=ApTfycfcJ1EC&pg=PA41#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=H03NngEACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Uradyn+Erden+Bulag%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WgwAVIuEKofFggSiy4LgCQ&ved=0CEYQ6AEwB

http://digitalcollections.sit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2147&context=isp_collection

Rajmaan (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bulag, Uradyn Erden (1998). Nationalism and Hybridity in Mongolia (illustrated ed.). Clarendon Press. p. 139. ISBN 0198233574. Retrieved 1 February 2014. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  2. ^ Bulag, Uradyn Erden (1998). Nationalism and Hybridity in Mongolia (illustrated ed.). Clarendon Press. p. 93. ISBN 0198233574. Retrieved 1 February 2014. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  3. ^ Kaplonski, Christopher (2004). Truth, History and Politics in Mongolia: Memory of Heroes. Routledge. p. 41. ISBN 1134396732. Retrieved 1 February 2014. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Exclusion of some Mongolic groups

Could Hazara of Afghanistan, Daurs, Sichuan Mongols and Khatso be included? Even Tartarstan, or all Tartar groups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hazara etc may be included as Mongols. But obviously not all Tartar groups. --Evecurid (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about Lipka Tatars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC) And those Baig or with the surname Khan?[reply]

Are they considered Mongols by any reliable sources? --Evecurid (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, he is just trolling. -- Comment left by 89.185.229.220

footnote

This article currently has a footnote stating that "The official name of China in Mongolia is literally "People's Republic of Han" (Bügd Nairamdah Hyatad Ard Uls), and Inner Mongols are called "Southern/Inner Mongols" and "Chinese citizens" (Hyatadiin Irgen). By contrast, in keeping with Zhonghua minzu principles, the official Mongolian name for China inside China itself is Dumdadu Ulus, a translation of zhongguo, and the Inner Mongols call themselves Mongol.[1]: 180 "

This is problematic on three counts:

  1. The part about people from Mongolia calling Inner Mongols "Inner Mongols" or, more literally, "Southern Mongols" (Övör Mongolchuud, after the official name of Inner Mongolia in Mongolian) is trivial at best. In contrast, Inner Mongolians usually call people from Mongolia "Northern Mongolians" (Ar Mongolchuud).
  2. The word Hyatad, as used in Mongolia, can mean both "China" (the country) and "ethnically Chinese". It is wrong to automatically assume the second meaning is implied whenever the word is used. English uses "Chinese language" for 汉语 and "Chinese characters" for 汉字, but that does not mean that the Chinese translation of "China" is 汉国.
  3. The relation to the accompanying sentence "The feelings are not reciprocated, as the history and geography of China are not taught in Mongolian schools, and knowledge of the Inner Mongols in Mongolia is low." is not very obvious.

Yaan (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right. In particular, the official English name for China is "China", not something like "Central State" or "Middle Kingdom", which are direct translations of Zhongguo. Similarly, it is wrong to automatically assume that Hyatad always refers to ethnic Chinese rather than the country as you mentioned above. --Evecurid (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Manchu, Korean, Vietnamese and Japanese languages all differentiate between 中國人 (person, citizen, or subject of China/Middle Kingdom) and 漢人 (ethnic Han Chinese). And they don't obfuscate the two terms together.
In Manchu 中國 (China) is Dulimbai Gurun ᡩᡠᠯᡳᠮᠪᠠᡳ ᡤᡠᡵᡠᠨ, 中國之人 is Dulimbai Gurun i Niyalma ᡩᡠᠯᡳᠮᠪᠠᡳ ᡤᡠᡵᡠᠨ ᡳ ᠨᡳᠶᠠᠯᠮᠠ, while 漢人 (Han person) is Nikan Niyalma ᠨᡳᡴᠠᠨ ᠨᡳᠶᠠᠯᠮᠠ and 滿洲人 (Manchu person) is Manju Niyalma ᠮᠠᠨᠵᡠ ᠨᡳᠶᠠᠯᠮᠠ. Manchus include themselves as 中國之人 (Dulimbai Gurun i Niyalma).
In Vietnamese 中國 (China) is Trung Quốc, 中國人 Trung Quốc nhân is Người Trung Quốc 𠊛中國 and 漢人 nhân Hán is Người Hán 𠊛漢.
In Korean 中國 (China) is 중국 Jungguk, 中國人 is 중국인 jungguk-in, and 漢人 is 한인 han-in. South Korean media called ethnic Koreans in China as 中國人 중국인 jungguk-in or 韓國系中國人 한국계 중국인 hanguk gye jungguk-in "Chinese (citizen) people of (ethnic) Korean descent".
In Japanese 中國 (China) is ちゅうごく Chūgoku, 中國人 is ちゅうごくじん chūgokujin, and 漢人 is かんじん kanjin.
In Mongolian Dumdadu Ulus exists as a term to refer to China, but Mongolia deliberately uses Hyatad Ulus while all the other people I mentioned do not obfuscate. It is notable that there is a discrepancy in Mongol usage. "Middle Kingdom" was never an accepted term in English to use for China.Rajmaan (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Middle/Central State refers to Republic of China (1912–49) or ancient and medieval China, not modern Taiwan. In Mongolian language China, Chinese, Hyatad and han always refers to ethnic Han or PRC, not all ethnicities in China. Khorichar (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, languages are certainly different from each another. While it may be true for some languages such as Manchu or Japanese, for Mongolian language at least, we should also look at the history and meaning of such word. Even if the word "Dumdadu Ulus" does exist, it does not necessarily mean it should be the correct one. Here is a quote from the book "Patriotism in East Asia": "According to Christopher Atwood's research, as a translation of the Chinese term Zhongguo, the Mongolian term Dumdadu ulus "appeared in the history of the Mongolian nobility written in 1735 by the Eight-Banners bannerman Lomi, and in the writings of Injannashi (1837-92) from southeast Inner Mongolia whose Khökhe Sudur or Blue Chronicle of 1871 exercised a tremendous influence on those Mongols familiar with Chinese literary culture." However, both Lomi and Injannashi limited Dumdadu ulus "to the area south of the Great Wall," and "both continued to speak of Mongolia as a separate ulus or realm."". Obviously, even during the 19th century, the newly born Mongolian word "Dumdadu ulus" only referred to the area south of the Great Wall. Also as far as I know, the modern Tibetan word for Zhongguo, "Krung-go" (which is a transliteration of the Chinese word Zhongguo) only existed since the 1950s. On the other hand, the traditional Tibetan word for China, "gyanak", only referred to areas east of Tibet proper. --Evecurid (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dumdadu Arad Ulus is defined as referring to the Republic of China. By the way how does a Mongol thinking Dumdadu Ulus only applies to Han areas prove that Hyatad is a better term to refer to the entire China? If anything Hyatad would apply even more only to Han areas.
The Han and Mongol opinion during the Qing was that Zhongguo 中國 only applied to Han areas. It was Han literati like Wei Yuan who claimed that 中國 should only be used to refer to Han provinces. [1] [2]. Han literati were either doing it to criticize Qing expansion into non-Han areas or because they were Ming loyalists. However, the Manchus and the Qing Emperor openly rebuked them for that, and the Qing Emperor's position was that 中國 (Dulimbai Gurun) applied to every single part of the Qing, including non-Han areas like Mongolia, Tibet and Xinjiang, and that all ethnicities in the Qing Empire, whether Manchu, Mongol, or Han, were to be considered as 中國之人 (Dulimbai Gurun i Niyalma). [3]. The Qianlong Emperor said the position of the Han that 中國 was only Han areas was incorrect and all the lands of the Qing were 中國.
It was Han or Mongol private writers like Wei Yuan and Injannashi who said 中國 is only Han areas in their own privately written works, while the Qing Emperor who was in charge said that all of the Qing Empire was 中國 (Dulimbai Gurun) and proclaimed that that in official Qing documents, treaties, and edicts. The Manchu point of view was that 中國 was all of the territories of the Qing and all its peoples were 中國之人 and it was this position that was permanently adopted in China.
The Republic of China inherited its usage of 中國 and 中國人 from the Qing.Rajmaan (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say which term should be the better term for China, Dumdadu Ulus or Hyatad, just that it does not mean the former term should be the correct one. Have you seen the difference? Not to mention that even during the 19th century both terms only referred to Han areas. While you may be right about Qing rulers' position, I highly doubt Qing emperors had ever forced their subjects to accept this position. The continued use of Zhongguo/Dumdadu Ulus/Hyatad to referred to only Han areas by both ethnic Chinese and Mongols during the Qing proved that this was not the case. --Evecurid (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Republic of China's official full name was translated as Dumdadu Arad Ulus and this is recorded in the dictionary I linked above. This means between 1912-1949, Dumdadu Arad Ulus was an accepted term in Mongolian to refer to the Republic of China.Rajmaan (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was one of the Mongolian names that had been used to refer to Republic of China, but obviously only used by some. What exactly do you want to say in your above statement? --Evecurid (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think your point would be more clear if you had also posted the page with the translation for "kitad". Anyway, this map predates Lessing's dictionary by roughly one quarter of a century, and has "kitad ulus" written in the lower right corner. Yaan (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bulag was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Pan-Mongolism"