Talk:Donghu people

Version Comment

Is this version good to start with? Let me know, thanks! (Also, please note the addition of a mediation reminder to the article page to avoid drive-by edits that would further complicate our work). —Finn Casey * * * 05:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again Finn. In my opinion, this diff clearly shows the current version is not a good starting point. The deleting editor once again removed: the lead's zh template (with characters, pronunciations, and literal meanings); the paragraph about Donghu and comparable names; the "Tianxia zh-hant" map and paragraph on Sinocentrism with di Cosmo and Pulleyblank quotes; the etymology paragraph with Schuessler and Yu quotes; the Shiji paragraph with most of the Watson quote (except for unmarked alterations of "Barbarians"); additional quotes by di Cosmo and Pulleyblank; and references. I could be misinterpreting the edit history, but it appears this individual insists upon exclusively using his Chinese-language sourced contributions and refuses to allow practically all English-language sourced contributions from other editors. Wouldn't it be better to start with the unexpurgated version of 23 October and discuss whether there's a valid reason for deleting the non-Chinese scholarship? Keahapana (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User:Keahapana's comments above - I think it will then take less work to get the article together. This does not mean that some of User:Alexjhu's references shouldn't be added - just that it will take less work to add any he has made that seem pertinent than to make all the changes listed above. Thanks again taking on this difficult job. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• OK! First, I want to say that I am a little bit busy of late, so I may take a day or two to respond sometimes. I am glad to help with this discussion, I just wanted to let you know. Anyway, you suggest the revision of 23 Oct. I will revert thereto barring dissent within the next day or so. Check back then so we can start discussing. In the meantime, consider thinking over the most pressing changes to the 23 Oct. version that will be needed. Then you will be ready to start discussing. —Finn Casey * * * 01:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article was not a good version. It outlined an overview of the history of Donghu, mixed with bits and pieces of quotes from various sources without being framed in a proper coherent theme. I made minor edits in the article by incorporating the latest findings from analyses of the original records of Shiji, Houhan Shu, Guoyu, and contemporary Chinese historians, and by removing the loose bits that did not fit the article. As stated earlier, I have no objections to include English sources, but I would like to see more research done on them, as Finn Casey suggested. I don’t think taking in bits of quotes from different books does any good to the article. Alexjhu —Preceding undated comment added 05:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC).

Keahapana: Your characterization of what has been done to the Oct. 23 version is incorrect. I have no biases toward either English or Chinese sources. In most of my own research and writing, I have placed a primary reliance on English sources, since I received most of my education in the U.S. In the current article, what I would like to provide is the most updated knowledge based on solid scholarly research. In the Oct. 23 version, you mixed up “Donghu” with “Dongyi.” They are two completely different concepts. I suggest you conduct more research to distinguish them. To put simply, “Dongyi” is not part of what is known as “Hu,” but refers to the eastern Chinese mainly centered in the present Shandong Province, the homeland of Confucius. The flaws and presumptions made in Shiji, Houhan Shu, and Guoyu were analyzed in the extended rely above. Those were not my own research findings; I merely went through them and analyzed their flaws based on my understandings and what was written by contemporary Chinese historians. As emphasized previously, in order to establish your case that “Donghu” meant “eastern barbarian” or “foreignness,” you need to show evidence that the character “Hu” meant “barbarian” or “foreign.” Your illustration that the English name “Barbara” as having come from the Greek word “Barbarian” does not apply to the Chinese context. The reasons were laid out in preceding extended reply. Thus far, you have not provided any scholarly evidence to back up your claim. In order to have your argument accepted by the others, you need to conduct solid research and grasp basic historical facts, rather than merely making allegations. Alexjhu —Preceding undated comment added 06:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC).

Commencing Article Improvement

Per discussion above, I have restored to the Commencement Version of the article. Please do not make any edits to the article without discussing them here! We will open discussion regarding potential changes within the next couple of days. —Finn Casey * * * 21:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned, when we begin, discussion will be in this format:

If you are concerned about the wording of a line in the article, try posting with this format:

1. (Current text of article)
2. (Proposed revision)
3. (Short explanation of why the change is a good idea - under 100 words)
4. (Sources)

• We can thus discuss small sections of the article in a concise way.
• If the sources section is not included with independent secondary sources that directly support the proposed revision, the revision should be summarily rejected and ignored.
• Thanks again to all for the enthusiasm and good editing!

—Finn Casey * * * 21:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete final paragraph?

Shouldn't we remove the final unreferenced sentence?

1. Current text: "According to historical records, the Donghu rulers wore headdresses of gold known as huguan (胡冠）, and gold-decorated belts known as a hudai （胡帶）."
2. Proposed revision: Delete.
3. Explanation: Tagged three months for lacking citation.
4. Sources: Can't find any English references or reliable Chinese ones.

Can anyone provide good sources? Keahapana (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been searching for these terms and can't find any reference to them anywhere and no one else has replied, so I think I will remove them now. We can always restore them later if someone can provide a good reference. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

External links section?

How about adding a section for weblinks? Here's a start:

• The Hu Peoples, Silk Road Seattle Virtual Art Exhibit.
• Non-Chinese peoples and neighboring states: Hu 胡, ChinaKnowledge.

Can you find others? Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Add paragraph on Old Chinese pronunciation?

Here's a rough draft of some new information about Donghu's original pronunciation.

The Modern Standard Mandarin Dōnghú 東胡 and Mongolian language Tünghu pronunciations historically differ from the Old Chinese pronunciation, which roughly dates from the Warring States Period (476-221 BCE) when Donghu was first recorded. Old Chinese reconstructions of Dōnghú include *Tûngɣâg, *Tungg'o, *Tewnggaɣ, *Tongga, and *Tôŋgâ.

References

• Baxter, William H. 1992. A Handbook of Old Chinese Phonology. Mouton de Gruyter.
• Dong Tonghe 董同龢. 1948. "Shanggu yinyun biao gao 上古音韻表搞", Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 18:1-249. (in Chinese)
• Karlgren, Bernhard. 1957. Grammata Serica Recensa. Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities.
• Schuessler, Axel. 2007. An Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese. University of Hawaii Press.
• Zhou Fagao 周法高 . 1972. "Shanggu Hanyu he Han-Zangyu 上古漢語和漢藏語", Journal of the Institute of Chinese Studies of the Chinese University of Hong Kong 5:159-244. (in Chinese)

I'm quoting Dong's and Zhou's reconstructions from a secondary source and don't have the original page numbers at hand. Any suggestions or corrections would be appreciated. Keahapana (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks & Legal Threats Archived
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment In a free world, it is one thing to hold on to your personal fixations and racist bigotries about the others being “barbarians,” but a different matter when you lash them out in a public space. Your assertion that the Chinese character “Hu” meant “barbarians” and “foreign” may have violated the rights of basic decency and dignity of the others, and subjected Wikipedia to a possible class-action lawsuit for slandering and defamation from some of the 16 million Chinese people around the world who bear the character in their names. In a court of law, it is doubtful that those “eminent historians and sinologists” whom you relied upon would come to testify on your behalf. If you believe that your claim of the English name “Barbara” having come from the Greek word “Barbarian” can justify your assertion that the Chinese character “Hu” meant “barbarian” and “foreign,” and that the outdated English sources which you resorted to can withstand cross-examinations in front of a jury, especially since the Chinese scholars have clarified the history of “Donghu,” you may go on with your pursuit. In that case, you may want to review the “verbose and tendentious” messages posted above, because they may become the legal arguments used against you.--Alexjhu (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Inappropriate. Please see my reaction to similar comments in a lower section. —Finn Casey * * * 01:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Settle down! This article is under mediation! Stop acting unilaterally! I think you may remember me calling for the use of "foreign" or "foreigner" as one of the valid translations of Hu - but saying I thought the translation as "barbarian" was going too far. Now, Alexhu, I don't think you have given any real argument - let alone convincing evidence, that "hu" did not sometimes refer to foreign peoples - whereas I have given strong evidence that it did, some of it from very early and authoritative Chinese sources. If you wish to just ignore this evidence - that is your right - but in a Wikipedia article this evidence needs to receive due consideration. As I also said earlier (and will not state it again), just because the one character carries differenct meanings does not mean it can't be used as a name as well (which does not usually carry the other meanings in ordinary usage). In English, as I said before, calling someone Mr. Black does not imply he is of a dark complexion, likewise Mr. French is not expected to be French because of his name, or Mr. Smelly to stink. It is similar in Chinese. If you are disturbed about the meaning of hu being foriegn reflecting on people (your ancestors?) who carry that character as their family name strikes me as a bizarre and rather paranoid fanatasy. Do the alternate meanings for hu of "moustache", or "dewlap" bother you as much? This is a ridiculous arguement and a ridiculous waste of everyone's time - including your own. And now you have taken it upon yourself to reverse the article once again, without seeking any compromise or agreement, while it is still under mediation and after we have all been specifically asked to disuss suggested changes on this page first. Haven't you read the box at the top of the page? Or do you think it doesn't apply to you? You could have maybe tried just to fix any things you thought were mistaken - not unilaterallt reverse the whole article! At the very least you should have discussed it first. I call upon the mediator to try to defuse this silly edit war or else we had better take the whole mess to the administrators to sort out. I can't believe I have just wasted so much time again! Far out! Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 10:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC) The matter will be straightened out. I appreciate Alexjhu's contributions, but his participation is becoming counterproductive. I hope that he will realize the inflammatory and confrontation nature of his comments. If he does not, we may have to request he stop participating at this venue. —Finn Casey * * * 01:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Final word The only way to resolve this dispute seems to be a lawsuit. Some of those who have followed up on this discussion in China and the U.S. observed that the WP mediators treated my messages unfairly by “hiding” them. I am restoring the messages to their original format. You may reverse the pages, but beware that each of your words and acts may be used as legal evidence in the suit. --Alexjhu (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC) This is an unambiguous legal threat. That is in violation of Wikipedia policy. It WILL result in your being blocked. Please stop! At this point, your involvement in this article is becoming counterproductive. Please consider stepping back from the situation! —Finn Casey * * * 01:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC) The legal threats are inappropriate. I appreciate Alexjhu's contributions, however this must stop. In view of the potentially threatening nature of his comments, I have asked a more experienced mediator for advice regarding how best to help Alexjhu to see the seriousness of these types of comments. I will post updates soon. —Finn Casey * * * 01:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC) User:Alexjhu has been blocked from editing Wikipedia. We do not tolerate legal threats. I really am saddened that it came to this, as I believed we could work toward a compromise. Hopefully if Alexjhu returns in the future, he will do so in a more cooperative spirit, understanding that we are all volunteers trying to work together. In any event, we should be able to get started making any necessary revisions to the article now in a constructive manner. —Finn Casey * * * 01:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Revise first paragraph in "Name" section?

• Current text: Comparable exonyms include Dongyi 東夷 (lit. "Eastern Foreigners", "Eastern Barbarians") and Wu Hu 五胡 ("five barbarians" or "five foreign tribes") "northern nomadic tribes". The usual English translation of Donghu is "Eastern Barbarians" (e.g., Watson, di Cosmo, Pulleyblank, and Yu), and the partial translation "Eastern Hu" is occasionally used (Pulleyblank).
• Proposed revision: "Comparable exonyms include Xihu 西胡 ("Western Barbarians" or "Western Foreigners") "non-Chinese peoples in India, Persia, Turkestan, etc." and Wu Hu 五胡 ("Five Barbarians" or "Five Foreign Tribes") "northern nomadic tribes involved in the Wu Hu uprising (304-316 CE)". The usual English translation of Donghu is "Eastern Barbarians" (e.g., Watson, di Cosmo, Pulleyblank, and Yu), and the partial translation "Eastern Hu" is occasionally used (Pulleyblank). Note that "Eastern Barbarians" also commonly translates the Chinese exonym Dongyi 東夷 "ancient peoples in eastern China, Korean, and Japan".
• Explanation: Owing to the criticism of confusing Donghu and Dongyi, we should clarify this point.
• Sources: Existing. John Hill: Do you have a page reference for Xihu in your new book?

Keahapana (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi again! I agree with your proposed changes above except I do not think that "Western Barbarians" is a fair translation of Xihu for the reasons I gave previously: i.e. Xihu is used to describe a range of peoples including Indians and members of the Roman Empire who they certainly saw as highly "civilised" - not cultures we would conceive of as "barbarian". The only mention of 西胡 in the 'Chapter on the Western Regions' from the Hou Hanshu is a late reference by the compiler Fan Ye 范晔 (398-446 CE) in the "eulogy" he added to the end of the chapter - see my book, Through the Jade Gate to Rome, p. 58, for the Chinese text, and p. 59, for my translation (in which I have rendered 西胡 as, simply, the 'Western Hu'.

In note 27.6 (pp. 453-454) I quote Ethnic Identity in Tang China (2008) by Marc S. Abramson, pp. 87-88, to show the conflicting views in China of the physical features of the Western Hu - ranging from disgust to seeing them as beautiful. I should just quote here the end of this passage by Abramson on p. 88: "Thus, while the high nose and deep eyes was the classic Hu look, the high nose combined with a long neck had been viewed in Chinese culture as a mark of divine or imperial parentage since at least the Han dynasty.”

I deal with the sometimes very negative attributions given to the term in note 29.2 on p. 464 of my book in which I quote a passage dedscribing the unflattering accounts of 西胡 by the anti-Buddhist and very racist Fu Yi from Abramson (2008), pp. 58-65.

Hope this is of some help. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for these references, which I've included in the draft revision below. Please let me know what you think. Wow! I only knew of Fu Yi's DDJ scholarship and didn't realize he was such a xenophobe. There's no need to add his views into this article. Keahapana (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Discussion seems to be proceeding nicely. Keep up the good work improving the article. Let me know if there is any disagreement or future problems. Glad to work with you! —Finn Casey * * * 02:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being carried away by emotional reactions earlier. As my schedule becomes increasingly tight, I will not be able to spend much time here. I maintain my objection on translating the character "Hu" into "barbarians" and "foreign." The reasons were outlined in the preceding messages and in my talk page. I hope the mediator and authors of this article to kindly remove these derogatory terms. Thanks. --Alexjhu (talk) 07:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back Alexjhu. I'm glad to see that you've agreed to follow the Wikipedia rules and have been unblocked. While I can understand what you consider "derogatory" meanings of hu, these historical facts are verified in numerous references and publications, and removing them would damage this article. My intention in revising this lead paragraph is to tone down the pejorative "barbarian" connotations. Do you think we should add John Hill's note about this term? Keahapana (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Revised proposal:
  

The "Eastern" Donghu exonym compares with "Western" Xihu 西胡 "non-Chinese peoples in India, Persia, Turkestan, etc." and "Five" Wu Hu 五胡 "five northern nomadic tribes involved in the Wu Hu uprising (304-316 CE)". Hill (2009:59) translates Xihu as "Western Hu" and notes,

The term hu 胡 was used to denote non-Chinese populations. It is, rather unsatisfactorily, commonly translated as 'barbarian'. While sometimes it was used in this general way to describe people of non-Han descent, and carried the same negative overtones of the English term, this was not always the case. Most frequently, it was used to denote people, usually of Caucasoid appearance, living to the north and west of China. (2009:453)

The usual English translation of Donghu is "Eastern Barbarians" (e.g., Watson, di Cosmo, Pulleyblank, and Yu), and the partial translation "Eastern Hu" is occasionally used (Pulleyblank). Note that "Eastern Barbarians" also commonly translates the Chinese exonym Dongyi 東夷 "ancient peoples in eastern China, Korea, Japan, etc.".

• Hill, John. 2009. Through the Jade Gate to Rome: A Study of the Silk Routes during the Later Han Dynasty, First to Second Centuries CE. BookSurge. ISBN 978-1-4392-2134-1.

I've made these changes. Thanks again to everyone for their cooperation. Keahapana (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Requested

I am writing to request for WP mediation on the wrongful translation of “Donghu” as “Eastern Barbarians”. In the end of last year, I debated with a couple of others on the subject. Outraged by their racist assertion that the Chinese character “Hu” meant “barbarian” in the name of “Donghu,” I indicated intent of a lawsuit, which resulted in a block on my account. Although it was later removed, the issue remained unsolved.

I now refer to my recent article that addressed the history of the Donghu and Xianbei, entitled as: “An overview of the history and culture of the Xianbei (‘Monguor’/’Tu’)”, published in Asian Ethnicity (2010):11 (1), 95-164. With the analyses presented in the internationally reputed academic journal, I hope the dispute can be resolved and the derogatory assertion of “barbarian” be removed from the name of “Donghu.”

Below is a section from Page 145 that addressed the origins of the Donghu and Xianbei:

“Whereas ‘Donghu’ was a Chinese transcription, the first character ‘Dong’ in Mongolian language was ‘Tüng’ and meant ‘forest’, and the second character ‘Hu’ may have been a variance of the Mongolic term ‘Khun’ which meant ‘people’.241 The Xianbei were traditionally presumed to have descended from the ‘Donghu’, but this was unsupported by the sequence of emergence in their names in historical records. The earliest Chinese record of the ‘Donghu’ occurred in the ‘Chapter on the Meeting of Kings’ or ‘Wang Hui Pian’ in the ‘Book of Yizhou’ compiled during the Warring States from the fifth to the third century BC, indicating that the Donghu were active during this period.242 However, the earliest record of the Xianbei was found in the oldest Chinese classic, Guoyu, which indicated that the Xianbei had contact with King Cheng, who reigned from 1042 BC–1021 BC during the Zhou Dynasty.243 In the ancient Chinese history as it is today, the ethnic groups were noted in the historical records only when they accomplished prominences. The different sequence in the emergence of the names of ‘Donghu’ and ‘Xianbei’ indicated that the Xianbei had existed long before the Donghu federation was destroyed by the Xiongnu. This suggested that ‘Donghu’ was originally an ethnonym of a group who along ‘with the Wuhuan belonged to the Xianbei series’.244 As the Donghu were distributed closest to eastern China and became active, the federation that they formed with the Wuhuan and Xianbei were referred to as the ‘Donghu’. By the thirteenth century when the Mongols emerged as a mighty power, the ‘Monguor’/‘Tu’ were the only ethnic group who remained as having come from the Donghu. This explains why the Mongols referred to Western Xia as ‘Tangut’ to represent the ‘Donghu people’.”

241 Hao and Qimudedaoerji, Outline of Comprehensive History of Inner Mongolia, 17. 242 Lin, The Donghu History, 1–2. 243 Lü, The Tu History, 7; Zhu, The Origins of the Northern Chinese Ethnic Groups, 93. 244 Zhu, The First Emperor of the Qin was a Jurchen who spoke Mongolic language, 75.

References cited in the above section:

Hao, Weimin [郝维民] and Qimudedaoerji [齐木德道尔吉] (2007). Neimenggu tong shi gang yao [Outline of Comprehensive History of Inner Mongolia] 内蒙古通史纲要. Beijing [北京], Renmin chu ban she [The People's Press] 人民出版社. Lin, Gan [林干] (2007). Donghu shi [The Donghu History] 东胡史. Huhehaote [呼和浩特], Nei Mengguo ren min chu ban she (Inner Mongolia People's Press] 内蒙古人民出版社. Lü, Jianfu [呂建福] (2002). Tu zu shi [The Tu History] 土族史. Beijing [北京], Zhongguo she hui ke xue chu ban she [Chinese Social Sciences Press] 中囯社会科学出版社. Zhu, Xueyuan [朱学渊] (2004). Zhongguo bei fang zhu zu de yuan liu [The Origins of the Northern Chinese Ethnic Groups] 中国北方诸族的源流. Beijing [北京], Zhonghua shu ju [China Book Group] 中华书局. (2008). Qin Shi Huang shi shuo menggu hua de Nüzhen ren [The First Emperor of the Qin was a Jurchen who spoke Mongolic language] 秦始皇是说蒙古话的女真人. Shanghai [上海], Huadong shi fan da xue chu ban she [Eastern China Normal University Press] 华东师范大学出版社.

Below is a section from Pages 148-9 that addressed the wrongful translation of “Hu”:

“In the name of ‘Donghu’, the second character ‘Hu’ has been conventionally presumed to represent the northern nomads.257 In the Western literature, the character ‘Hu’ and ‘Di’, the latter of which was also a summary term for the northern nomads as ‘Northern Di’ or ‘Beidi’ (北狄), were often translated into ‘barbarians’. This is unfounded,258 since both Huang Di and Yan Di, whose names are translated as the Yellow Empeor and the Flame Emperor, came from Shaodian as a branch of the ‘Northern Di’.259 The reference of ‘Di’ seems to be related to the Shang Dynasty founded by the nomads from Manchuria, which was accounted to be established under the special blessings of Heaven. The founder of the Shang was Qi, whose mother was named as ‘Jiandi’ (简狄).260 The summary term for the northern nomads as ‘Di’ likely came from her name. Since Huang Di and Yan Di established the foundations for the Chinese civilization, and the Shang Dynasty gave rise to the oracle-bone inscriptions of the Chinese language, to translate the northern nomads as ‘barbarian’ would be equivalent of treating the very founders of the Chinese civilization as ‘barbarians’. Likewise, there is no ground to translate the character ‘Hu’ into ‘barbarian’. Its first usage was recorded in the name of a king, Hu Gongman, during the Western Zhou era about three thousand years ago, indicating the Hu clan was the authentic descendants of Huang Di.261 Today it is one of the most common last names, with more than 16 million Chinese people who bear it in their names around the world. The transformation of ‘Hu’ to represent the northern nomads occurred from the Xiongnu, who after destroying the Donghu federation, self proclaimed to be ‘powerful Hu in the north and the proud son of heaven’.262 After the Xiongnu expanded to control the northern and western territories, the reference of ‘Hu’ was applied to all the nomads in these areas. The change in the references alternated in the subsequent history. In the first century, after the Xianbei defeated the northern Xiongnu, the Xiongnu remnants self proclaimed to be ‘Xianbei’. After the Mongols emerged as a mighty power in the thirteenth century, the Tuyühu Xianbei proclaimed to be ‘White Mongols’, a reference that still persists. The transformation of such ethnonyms is also evident in that the dominance of the Mongols gave rise to the historical reference of the Asians, including the Chinese, as the ‘Mongoloid’.”

257 Liu, History of the Five Hu. 258 In the Chinese language, the only character that can be literally translated into ‘barbarian’ is ‘man’ (蛮). Its derogatory connotations are manifested in its structure: on the top is ‘yi’ (亦) meaning ‘also’ or ‘remains’, and on the bottom is ‘chong’ (虫) meaning ‘worm’ or ‘bug’. Combined together, the character suggests ‘remains to be worm or bug’. The other character presumed to mean ‘barbarian’ is ‘yi’ (夷), which originally meant ‘people’. The character is made up of two parts: a person, ‘ren’ (人) standing through a bow, ‘gong’ (弓). Its pronunciation, ‘yi’, was a variance of ‘yin’ for ‘ren’ meant for people. The pronunciation of ‘ren’ as ‘yin’ remains seen in the eastern and northeastern dialects today. Its usage to represent people came from the historical reference of the eastern Chinese in Shangdong, the homeland of Confucius. They were referred to as ‘Dongyi’ (东夷) which represented ‘the easterners who carried bows across their shoulders’ and referred to the eastern Chinese who traditionally carried bows across their shoulders and used them in hunting and war. Its derogatory connotations as ‘barbarians’ were presumed from its traditional association with ‘man’, as ‘manyi’ (蛮夷) to mean ‘the barbarian people’. 259 Liu, Legends of Shennongshi in Shangdang and the Origins of the Chinese Civilization, 203–10. 260 Gu, Classic Theses Collection of Gu Jiegang, 28–30. 261 Huang, Comprehensive History of Chinese Surnames: Hu; Yuan and Zhang, Population Genetics and Distribution of Chinese Surnames, 423–7. 262 Fei, The Framework of Diversity in Unity of the Chinese Nationality, 258; Lin, The Donghu History, 5.

References cited in the above section:

Fei, Xiaotong [费孝通] (1999). Zhonghua min zu duo yuan yi ti ge ju [The Framework of Diversity in Unity of the Chinese Nationality] 中华民族多元一体格局. Beijing [北京], Zhongyang min zu da xue chu ban she [Central Nationalities University Press] 中央民族大学出版社. Gu, Jiegang [顾颉刚] (2003). Gu Jiegang jing dian wen cun [Classic Theses Collection of Gu Jiegang] 顾颉刚经典文存. Shanghai [上海], Shanghai da xue chu ban she [Shanghai University Press] 上海大学出版社. Huang, Qichang [黄启昌] (2003). Zhonghua xing shi tong shi-Hu xing [Comprehensive History of Chinese Surnames: Hu] 中华姓氏通史-胡姓. Beijing [北京], Dongfang chu ban she [The Eastern Press] 东方出版社. Liu, Xueyao [劉學銚] (2001). Wu Hu shi lun [History of the Five Hu] 五胡史論. Taibei [台北], Nan tian shu ju [Nantian Press] 南天書局. Liu, Yuqing [刘毓庆] (2008). Shangdang shen nong shi chuan shuo yu hua xia wen ming qi yuan [Legends of Shennongshi in Shangdang and the Origins of the Chinese Civilization] 上党神农氏传说与华夏文明起源. Beijing [北京], Renmin chu ban she [The People's Press] 人民出版社. Yuan, Yida [袁义达] and Zhang Cheng [张诚] (2003). Zhongguo xing shi qun ti yi chuan he ren kou fen bu [Population Genetics and Distribution of Chinese Surnames] 中国姓氏群体遗传和人口分布. Shanghai [上海], Huadong shi fan da xue chu ban she [Eastern Chinese Normal University] 华东师范大学出版社.

Sincerely, --Alexjhu (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A Summary

Since my article entitled as “An Overview of the History and Culture of the Xianbei (‘Monguor’/‘Tu’) published in Asian Ethnicity 2010, 11 (1): 95-164 is very long, below I will highlight some of its key significances or discoveries:

1) The article clarifies the ambiguities and controversies concerning the ethnic origins and history of the Xianbei (“Monguor”/“Tu”). Although they have been extensively studied and reported by the Western scholars since the mid-1800s, their history has been misunderstood, especially following the misconstruction of the Flemish missionary Schram. The article reviews the latest research findings and sets the record straight.

2) The article takes a new view on the complex history of China, which has been systematically rewritten or distorted in the past two millenniums. Whereas the post-Yuan history after the Mongols of the thirteenth century has been better known, the earlier dynasties were not, especially the important role of the Xianbei, from whom the Mongols were accounted to have descended by the Chinese scholars. The article reviews the earlier Xianbei dynasties, and also briefly touches on the importance of the northern nomads in developing the pre-historical Chinese civilization.

3) The article points the ethnic background of the founders of the Sui and Tang Dynasties, the latter of which led China to reach the peak of its civilization, to the Xianbei based on the genealogies of the emperors and the cultural characteristics of these dynasties. They inherited the political structure laid down by the Northern Wei of the Xianbei, which in turn was inherited by the subsequent Chinese dynasties. This indicates that the ancient Chinese social and political structure was developed by the Xianbei, whereas the territory of China as one of the largest in the world was accomplished by the Mongols of the Yuan and reinforced by the Manchus of the Qing. This means that China would not be what it is without the northern nomads.

4) The article presents an alternative view on the functions of the Great Wall. It was conventionally claimed to have been constructed to protect China from the invasions of the northern nomads. From historical perspectives, it was built for offensive functions to carry out military campaigns to subjugate the northern nomads, and defensive functions to protect the troops for retreat.

5) The article presents the origins for the English reference of “Tibet,” which had perplexed the international scholars. It came from the reference of “Tiebie” used by the “Monguor”/“Tu,” which in turn was derived from the Tuofa Xianbei who had founded Southern Liang. The Tuofa were of the same descent as the Tuoba Xianbei who founded Northern Wei in China proper. After Southern Liang fell, a small fraction of the Tufa Xianbei went into the Tibetan areas and gave rise to the reference “Tiebie”, which evolved into the ethnonym. Both in the Tibetan governance and religion, the Xianbei “Monguor”/“Tu” played substantial roles and their elites had considerable mergers.

The above findings represented mostly a synthesis of the Chinese sources, especially the latest publications that saw an increased openness and a shift toward the post-modernistic deconstruction of the conventional presumptions made of the Chinese history.

Below is a summary of the original discoveries presented in the article:

A) The article interprets the genetic relatedness between the “Monguor”/“Tu” and the Xi’an people as further genetic evidence that the Sui and Tang Dynasties were founded by the Xianbei. It suggested that the Xi’an people were the descendants of the Xianbei, who from the Northern Wei through the Sui and Tang Dynasties made Xi’an as one of their dual capitals. This is the only explanation for their genetic relatedness.

B) Based on the cultural and linguistic characteristics, combined with historical research, the article points to the fact that those who were classified as “Han” were not of the same ethnic group, and that “Han” was a political identity imposed upon diverse ethnic groups. Since more than one billion people have been labeled as such and indoctrinated with blatantly chauvinistic ideologies for over half a century, the article warns potential dangers embedded in it. As a political scheme perhaps necessitated by the domestic and international contexts when PR China was founded, the rapid development of the country now indicates modifications. The article espouses a new ideology of Ethnic Relativism to advocate that no ethnic group is inherently “superior” or “inferior” and to grant each ethnic group with equal dignity and decency which, combined with the effort to narrow the economic gaps, may help to make China become more “harmonious” as so aimed by the Government.

C) The research discovered an interesting link between the “Monguor”/“Tu” and the relocated Hmong/Miao, in that the latter formed the majority of the population in the Tuyuhu and Western Xia Kingdoms founded by the Xianbei in the northwest. This led to a new interpretation for the national title of Western Xia as “Bai Gao” (or “White and Mighty”). Within it, “Bai” (“White”) represented the founding ethnic group, the “Monguor”/“Tu,” who were historically referred to as the “White Section” and “White Mongols” due to their lighter skin, and “Gao” (“Mighty”) represented the majority of the population who were summarily referred to as “Qiang” and comprised the relocated Hmong/Miao from central China about four thousand years ago. Previously, “Bai Gao” was interpreted to represent a religious symbol by the Western scholars, whereas the Chinese scholars attributed it to a phantom river.

D) The article makes a new interpretation for the Mongolian reference of Western Xia as “Tangut” that it represented “the Donghu people” from whom the “Monguor”/“Tu” had come from in Manchuria. This corroborated with the theories of the Outer Mongolian scholars who have held that the Mongols had descended from the Xiongnu whereas the Chinese scholars attributed their origins to the Xianbei. The differences reflected alternations in the self references of the Xiongnu and Xianbei through history.

E) The article also makes a new interpretation for the name of “Xiongnu” as having come from a combination of the clan name “Xiongxiong” and personal name “Nunu” of their highest leader at a shift of political power, based on the reference of the clans with Xiongnu descent as “Xiongxiong” and the common name of “Nuernuer” among the “Monguor”/“Tu.” Historically they were referred to as “Hun” in the Western literature. The second character “nu,” meaning “slave” and “servant” in their name was believed to be inserted for derogatory purposes by the Western and some Chinese scholars.

F) The article presents a new discovery that the name of “Chiyou,” from whom the Hmong/Miao were believed to have descended, was pronounced as “Chiyi” in archaic Chinese phonology. This resonated with the Hmong shaman’s god in the U.S. as referred to as “Shiyi” or “Shee Yee.” The latter spelling was used by Ann Fadiman in her book entitled “The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down.” This corroborated with the assumption that the Hmong/Miao had descended from Chiyou, the mighty leader who was defeated by Huang Di, or the Yellow Emperor, who had come from the northern nomads and laid down the foundations for the Chinese civilization.

The above finding in F combined with C corroborated with the oral traditions of the Hmong that they had founded a powerful kingdom that lasted four to five centuries. The account was presented in the Hmong history written by the earlier Western scholars but doubted by recent researchers. After the fall of the Tuyuhu and Western Xia kingdoms, some of the Xianbei (“Monguor”/“Tu”) seemed to have migrated southward into Yunnan and Guizhou through the “ethnic corridor” in Sichuan. Likewise, the original “Qiang” from these two kingdoms may have migrated to join the other Hmong/Miao settlements and brought the legends of the kingdoms with them. This will be elaborated more in my upcoming book to be revised from the doctoral dissertation entitled as “Under the Knife: medical ‘noncompliance’ in Hmong immigrants” to be published by Russell Sage.

Sincerely,

--Alexjhu (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Inherent racism

I completely agree with User Alexhu's espousal of the position "that no ethnic group is inherently “superior” or “inferior” and to grant each ethnic group with equal dignity and decency." However, we don't (and never have, lived in an ideal world with everyone of good will) and such feelings (of superiority or inferiority of various races, cultures, social classes, clans and even families) are commonplace in almost every culture and should play no part here in deciding whether the name "Hu" ever carried connotations of inferiority of various groups seen as 'alien' to the main body of the population (summed up, as closely as possible in English by the use of the term 'barbarian'). I think all of us are agreed that the use of the word is unwarranted outside these contexts in an encyclopedia article, but I do believe it is silly (and, indeed, very misleading) to try to pretend that the name "Hu" never carried such negative connotations in Chinese.

Anyway, I have reversed Alexhu's major changes to the article. I believe it should remain basically as it was until the mediation he has called for is complete and a decision is made.

For myself, I would request that a brief discussion of the various meanings "Hu" may have carried at different periods of history and the various (mis)interpretations of it by various scholars and translators, should be included and then leave the rest of the article at least relatively clear of these issues. Best wishes and kind thoughts to all involved in this important but rather sad debate. I do hope we caqn finally put this contentious issue to rest. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence Needed

In order to establish your case, you need to show:

1) concrete evidence that the Chinese character "Hu" meant "barbarian"

2) counter-argument against the analysis presented in the latest publication

Alexjhu (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply to User Alexjhu

Dear Alexjhu: All these matters have been discussed already in detail on these pages - especially by User Keahapana. I thought I had made a workable compromise by suggesting that use of negative overtones to "Hu" in Chinese (of which I believe there are quite a few). It seems to me that you are quite "one-eyed" about this matter and are avoiding the actual situation, trying to change it into an idealistic, but unreal one. You seem to take it all VERY personally - I wish you would stand back and look at it more objectively, rather than throwing around accusations of racism and hints of Western bias. Please be assured that if I have any bias (and I try hard not to) I would more likely be pronounced pro-Chinese than pro-Western.

However, I refuse to get in a fight with you about this, and will be happy (and most relieved) to let the mediators decide. Unfortunately, I will not be able to spend much time on this problem in the near future as I leave on Thursday to go to Vancvouver in Canada to celebrate my mother's 96th birthday and, as she is quite frail, I may be occupied for some time with family matters.

I will also, of course, be away from my library and unable to check for more references of derogatory connotations attached at times in Chinese literature and historical references to the the word/name "Hu."

I protest you making such major changes to the article BEFORE discussion and mediation but I certainly don't want to get into a silly edit war with you.

I do hope these matters will be properly and fully dealt with by the time I return home on the 24th of June. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with John Hill that Alexjhu should have discussed making drastic changes beforehand. Deleting citations from two dozen reliable references and exclusively citing yourself is blatant self-promotion. You are certainly welcome to cite your publication to improve this article, but no single opinion can negate the consensus of mainstream sinology. The above "Mediation Requested" section is not a WP:FM, and the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-09-17/Donghu was closed. I suggest that we revert the article to the version of 10 April 2010 and formally request mediation. Sincerely, Keahapana (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to give my opinion regarding the edits made by Alexjhu. I think given the extent that he has cited himself, the edits are highly questionable, and it would be better to revert those edits. PhilKnight (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion and for reopening the mediation case. I hope all the involved editors will quickly resolve this unproductive disagreement. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree the fact that this user Alexjhu is getting into this on-going edit war and is using an article that is written by himself/herself to back up major claims and make changes, is highly suspicious. Not to mention the self-advertising aspect.--TheLeopard (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A Question

Who in this world today, other than the blatant racists and mentally retarded “red-necks,” impose such names as “barbarians” upon the other people?

It does not make those who call the others as “barbarians” any more “civilized,” nor does it make those who are called as “barbarians” any less human.

They reflect more on the evil-mindedness of the racists and morbidity of the “red-necks” than those who are deemed as “barbarians.”

Alexjhu (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Calling people "mentally retarded red-necks" is extremely offensive and insensitive, and would not get the conversation go anywhere. No one on this talk page is calling you names, thus it is completely inappropriate of you to use such language. It seems to me the whole issue is that given your background you perceive your have a connection to these ancient people (based on your comments in User_talk:Alexjhu#Block) and result in you taking offense to the meaning of "hu" is being presented here (in spite of many reputable citations), and you are basically here tweaking and rewriting, and citing a source written by.......yourself. In no way do I believe a sensible person would do something like that, and certainly not make the kind of comments as you did above.--TheLeopard (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted back to the stable version advised by mediator PhilKnight. Why would you ignore a mediator's opinion after requesting mediation? Generations of sinologists and historians, many of whom you repeatedly delete from this article, have translated the early Chinese ethnonym Hu 胡 as "barbarian" in English. Whom are you calling racist rednecks? The Chinese people? PhilKnight? Me? Keahapana (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Alexjhu, I have been observing this debate for quite some time, and I musk ask: who, exactly, is "imposing" such names as "barbarians" upon you and/or your people? The editors here? Leading sinologists in the West? Because neither of those accusations bear any merit. You seem to have some basic misunderstanding of the discussion, which is not a value judgment rendered by scholars either Western or otherwise as to whether the "Hu" were barbarians, but a debate of whether the ancient Chinese (ie people who are long dead and gone) considered them as such. Plenty of sources from centuries of research indicate that, indeed, they did, and these are the same sources that you are continuously deleting in favor of your own, "post-modernist" evaluation based on "Ethnic Relativism" which, while perhaps politically correct, tells us nothing of substance about history. If you would like to challenge the prevailing view among sinologists, that is of course legitimate, but surely you realize that Wikipedia is not the arena for such a challenge and that browbeating editors into submission with accusations of "racism" and "retardation" is entirely the wrong approach.

It's one thing to get your article published in Asian Ethnicity, but citing yourself without giving alternate POVs any voice is obvious POV pushing. I hate to bring out the "deferring to authority" argument, but as Wikipedia does care about the notability of its sources, you can't simply cite a single article that you published and expect that to overturn the prevailing consensus of leading sinologists in the world. You have even admitted that you are not a trained historian and do not possess the necessary expertise to navigate a lot of these topics, to which end why persist in presenting your own reading of a topic as the only valid one, even to the point of writing something like "the latest article by Alex J. Hu writes" as if you were a major authority on the subject? Wikipedia is not a place for advertising independent research and you are clearly doing that here. I would ask you to consider the nature of encyclopedic objectivity and to follow the intellectual guidelines established by historical academic communities across the world if you desire to make changes to the scholarly consensus. In any case it - and by it, I mean the entire set of articles you've been rewriting according to your own POV and independent research - is not a controversy you should be forcing upon Wikipedia. Lathdrinor (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible Replacement

Perhaps I can intervene. It seems to me that the best thing to do is to replace the whole article. The current version is verbose and has too much controversy. The following is the best I can do from my sources. Anyone else please make suggestions, corrections or additions. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The Dong Hu (东胡) or Eastern Hu were a nomadic confederation who lived to the north of what was then China during the Warring States Period. About 207 BC they were conquered and absorbed into the Xiongnu. After the breakup of the Xiongnu empire in 89 AD their descendents reappeared as the Wuhuan and Xianbei. The Xianbei later formed the Xianbei state and intervened in China after the fall of the Han dynasty. They are thought to be proto-Mongols.

There were several groups of Hu. It seems that 'Hu' meant 'steppe nomad', while 'Di' referred to non-Chinese living south of the steppe.

Dong Hu to the northeast of this map of the Qin Empire (double click to expand)

Di versus Hu: Ancient Chinese names for foreigners are often quite vague and it is difficult to be sure what they meant. The ancient Chinese referred to their northern neighbors as Beidi or Northern Di. Since the peoples to the south, east and west were called the Southern Man, Eastern Yi and Western Rong, the name may simply mean 'northern foreigners'. If the Di were a definite ethnic group, we can say very little about it. They are often associated with the Rong and both were considered more warlike and less civilized than the Yi and Man. The Di seem to have lived south of the steppes, practiced a mixed agricultural and pastoral economy and screened the Chinese from whatever was happening on the steppes to the north. By the start of the Warring States Period most of the Di were conquered or absorbed by the Chinese who then came into direct contact with the steppe nomads whom they called 'Hu'.

The term 'Hu' (胡) seems to be a general term for the steppe nomads. Since they could not understand each other's languages they were probably a mixture of ethnic groups with a common nomadic way of life. Major divisions from east to west were the Eastern Hu, Liu Fan and Lin Hu ('forest Hu',林胡). The Xiongnu in the Ordos Loop to the west are often classed with the Hu, but seem to have been somewhat different. We also hear of the 'Mountain Hu' in the east and the 'three Hu'. The Dong Hu seem to have lived to the north of the states of Yan and Zhao along the upper Liao River and somewhat to the west.

The nomadic way of life seems to have developed in the ninth century, especially in the northeast. By the sixth to fourth centuries we find fully developed 'Scythian' remains including iron and that animal style art which is found all the way to the Ukraine. In the mid third century, mainly in the Ordos region, we find luxury grave goods implying some change in the class structure. The system of nomad raids into Chinese area developed very slowly and was not fully in place until the rise of the Xiongnu.

• 457BC: The Hu are first mentioned when a Qin general conquered Tai and 'drove out the various Hu'.
• About 337 Zhao defeated the Lin Hu.
• In 307 BC King Wuling of Zhao adopted the use of cavalry from the Hu. His conservative opponents objected mainly to Hu clothing - apparently trousers for horse-riding. By this date we still do not hear of large-scale nomadic raiding. Wuling apparently wanted to use cavalry against his Chinese enemies.
• About 300: Qin Kai of Yan attacked the Dong Hu and 'drove them back a thousand Li'.
• Before 236BC: General Li Mu of Zhao defeated the Xiongnu, Lin Hu and Dong Hu. In Sima Qian's account of Li Mu we first hear of large-scale nomad raiding.
• 215BC:Meng Tian drives the Xiongnu out of the Ordos Loop.
• After 209BC: Modu Chanyu of the Xiongnu conquers the Dong Hu. We do not have the exact date, but it seems to be not long after Modu came to power in 209.
• After this we hear nothing more of the Dong Hu. This implies that the Dong Hu were merely a political group and not an ethnic group that would continue to be recognizable after its conquest. For the history of their descendents see Xiongnu, Wuhuan and Xianbei.

References

• Nicola Di Cosmo, 'Ancient China and its Enemies',2002
• E. G. Pulleyblank, Chapter 14 of David N. Keightley, 'The Origins of Chinese Civilization', 1983

Benjamin Trovato (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Did Xianbei exist before Donghu?

Earliest mention of the Xianbei is in the Guoyu it seems, dating them to the reign of King Cheng of Zhou (1042-1021 BC). What about the Donghu? Sima Qian says they were present north of the Yan during the 7th century BC. The Lost Book of Zhou (Yizhoushu) and the Shanhaijing both have mentions of the Donghu, some say this makes the Donghu similarly ancient as the Xianbei (going back to the end of the Shang dynasty). These very ancient mentions seem a bit isolated from the 4th century BC when the Donghu are known to have done specific actions (battles with King Wuling of Zhao, King Zhao of Yan and General Qin Kai). Are there any more mentions of the Xianbei or Donghu before the 4th century BC (other than the ones mentioned above)? Are the very ancient Donghu and Xianbei (late Shang - early Zhou dynasty era) the same people as the 4th century BC Donghu and Xianbei? I guess the 7th century BC Donghu are the same as the 4th century BC Donghu because it is the same one historian Sima Qian who mentions them. Did the Xianbei exist before the Donghu, or did they exist side-by-side at the same time (Donghu may have subjugated Xianbei later)? Any info will be highly appreciated. (Yastanovog (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC))

One must always be careful about the names of ancient peoples since they often refer to politically organized groups rather than distinct peoples. The Donghu and Xianbei may have been different dominant clans ruling over basically the same people. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

On editing article

Is a consensus forming? Reading the discussion page and its history suggest not. In fact, the last edit to this talk page was over two-and-a-half months ago and there is more name-calling than there is any consensus building, no matter how slowly. The fact of the matter of translation from Chinese: there is no Chinese (at least Classical Chinese) word meaning "barbarian". See, for instance:

• Beckwith, Christopher I. (2009): Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-13589-2.

pages 320-362, especially 358-360.

Donghu and Hu are proper nouns: they are names that designate certain groups of people. It is also not true that the Chinese have always despised non-Chinese people, and that the use of an ethnonym automatically implies contempt and disparagement. Even if it were true that the terms used for non-Chinese groups of people somehow implies that they were thought to be somehow barbaric, it would be inaccurate, in a literal translation to add this in. It is also possible to consult a more reliable dictionary than Wiktionary, which should not be relied on very much as a reference. Furthermore, just because a character represents several homophonic word in Chinese, does not mean that it is truthful to claim that every time a character appears all of these different meanings are present or implied. For example the Chinese Text Project online dictionary defines Hu (胡) as:

"(Of animals) Tissue drooping down under the chin. / Neck. / Part of a weapon which hangs down. / Longevity. / Far, large. / Bearded. / What, why. / Arbitrary, unjustified. / The state of Hu. / Outsiders, foreigners. / Type of sacrificial vessel."

There is no mention of Hu being correctly translated as anything remotely like "barbarian". And, there is plenty of evidence that outsiders and foreigners could be and were perceived both positively and negatively at different times and places in China, and by different Chinese people, ancient and modern: the translation of "barbarian" is incorrect and not supported by the facts. The correct translation of Hu in the context of the "Donghu" and similar articles is "The state of Hu" , "Hu people", or something similar (Dong as "Eastern", however, is reasonable).

Indefinitely tagging an article to prevent changes is not part of Wikipedia policy. Even more so, when the article tagged is preserving a counter-factual, non-neutral point of view. Dcattell (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"Barbarian/(derogatory) foreigner" again?

Yes and no, the edit warring stopped because of compromise that hu means both "barbarian" and "foreigner". "Eastern Barbarians" is the standard Chinese-English translation for both Dongyi and Donghu. One can deny or ignore this linguistic fact but one cannot make it disappear.

I haven't yet seen Beckwith's Empires of the Silk Road and look forward to reading his "objective history." The epilogue presenting his facile no-barbarian hypothesis is interesting, but apparently based on two false linguistic assumptions.

"No word for X" A frequently heard example of this deceitful meme is "Chinese has no word for democracy." Beckwith claims: "There was and is no word or expression in Chinese equivalent to the Western term and concept of the barbarian" (p. 354). "The Chinese, however, have still not yet borrowed Greek barbar-. There is also no single native word for "foreigner", no matter how pejorative, which includes the complex of the notions 'inability to speak Chinese', 'militarily skilled', 'fierce/cruel to enemies', and 'non-Chinese in culture'" (p. 358).

Humpty-Dumpty semantics "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." Beckwith says, "In sum, the word barbarian embodies a complex European cultural construct, a generic pejorative term for a 'powerful foreigner with uncouth, uncivilized, nonurban culture who was militarily skilled and somewhat heroic, but inclines to violence and cruelty' – yet not a 'savage' or a 'wild man'" (p. 360). I checked "barbarian" definitions in several English dictionaries, but couldn't find any that met Beckwith's ideolectal standards. However, I was surprised to learn that the OED's barbarian definition gives: "3.a. A rude, wild, uncivilized person. 3.b. Sometimes distinguished from savage. 3.c. Applied by the Chinese contemptuously to foreigners." Beckwith demonstrates an extreme I'm-right-and-all-the-dictionaries-are-wrong case of Humpty pragmatics. He admits that Chinese-English dictionaries will define "two dozen or so partly generic words [giving examples of hu 胡, yi 夷, and man 蠻as] 'a kind of barbarian'," yet concludes "Chinese has no generic word equivalent to barbarian, or indeed any one word that is even close to it" (pp. 358-9).

Waving a wand of Political Correctness will not make the history of derogatory "barbarian" translations disappear. Reliable sources are the basis for Wikipedia, and many English-speaking sinologists have translated hu 胡 as "barbarian". Adding Beckwith's WP:FRINGE hypothesis would improve NPOV, but removing this article's well-vetted references to censor "barbarian" is unacceptable POV pushing. Deleting quotes from Chinese-English dictionaries that mention "barbarian" – the popular editions by John DeFrancis and Liang Shih-chiu, and even Wiktionary (really?) – violates basic WP policies. Thus, I've reverted both this article and Dongyi to the last stable versions. Please follow the mediation rules to discuss significant edits here first. Keahapana (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not (in the preceding comment, or otherwise) pushing the views of either Beckwith or of "Political Correctness": nor am I trying to "censor" the use of "barbarian" or any other vocabulary words. I do think that Beckwith is a main stream academician (Indiana University), and a specialist in this area, not some fringe nut-job, and therefor a reasonably reliable reference. Also one who has written within the Twenty-first Century. I have no problem with the word "barbarian", nor its proper use in the context. What is important for Wikipedia as a modern encyclopedia seeking a neutral point of view is to clearly distinguish historical uses of "barbarian" and to keep this within context (in the past phlogiston was believed to be the cause of combustion, this does not make it accurate to write in zh.wikipedia articles that "燃素" (plogiston) is the cause of combustion, even if numerous, older Chinese references are found that state this as a fact). What is ruinous for any claim to NPOV on Wikipedia's part is to allow a free-for-all use of "barbarian" (even with surrounding quotes to indicate its unreliability as a term). This is also true of some of the uses of the word "tribe". Some use of the term barbarian is accurate. Some use of barbarian is careless and due to a lack of effort to find a more neutral word in certain contexts (that is, a word that doesn't seem to require quotation marks around it to excuse its use in that context); for example describing the Tibetan Empire as a "tribe" of "barbarians" would be extremely irresponsible, inaccurate, and non-NPOV -- yet I've seen it done too often. What is really unfortunate, and a disgrace to Wikipedia is that the term barbarian is being frequently misused to push an argument that goes something like: all Chinese people have always been prejudiced against all foreigners, therefor any word for a non-Han ethnic group or groups means that it is accurate to translate the proper name of that group as barbarian (and, in some cases to go on to argue since all Chinese are now, always have been, and always will in the future be sinocentric and similarly believe that All under heaven should be Chinese, and that therefor they can be expected to take over the world, or some such hypothesis). Translating "Donghu" (東胡) as Eastern Barbarian amounts to cherry-picking dictionary definitions (it is irrelevant how often the term has been mistranslated in the past, or in how many sources, other than as a historical note). It would be far more in accord with Wikipedia policy to accept Hu as a proper noun which describes an ancient ethnic group (or groups) from the northeast frontier area of China. I have consulted a number of dictionaries, and defining Hu as an "ancient ethnic group" or the "Hu state" are far more favoured than defining Hu as "barbarian". This currently includes Wiktionary, the definition for 胡 (Hu) there is:

Han character

胡 (radical 130 肉+5, 9 strokes, cangjie input 十口月 (JRB), four-corner 47620, composition ⿰古月)

recklessly; foolishly wildly (archaic) a generic term for any peoples who lived outside of China's borders (particularly to the north and west) Chinese family name a Barbarian fiddle (as in erhu)

[edit] References

KangXi: page 979, character 12 Dai Kanwa Jiten: character 29400 Dae Jaweon: page 1431, character 4 Hanyu Da Zidian: volume 3, page 2056, character 8 Unihan data for U+80E1

What is there to gain by insisting that Hu, Yi, Yue, Tibetans, Mongolians, Sogdians and so on are all best translated barbarian into English? Note the Capitalisation in English for all these terms, and also in the case of Donghu: if it's not not the first word of a sentence, then the capitalization must be due to the fact that these are all proper nouns (a different semantic class than barbarian). Thanks for thinking about it. Dcattell (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Cherry-picking? Wiktionary's 胡 definition also translates, "1. (archaic) barbarian; a generic term for any peoples who lived outside of China's borders (particularly to the north and west)." Wiktionary likewise translates Dongyi 東夷 as, "eastern barbarians (a term used during dynastic China to refer to non-Chinese ethnic groups to China's east)."

For purposes of Wikipedia, the question of translating a foreign word isn't what someone considers "correct" or "proper", it's how the word is generally translated in Reliable Sources. This no-Chinese-word-for-barbarian hypothesis is Politically Correct but linguistically wrong. "Barbarian" is an international concept, translatable into any language. The WP barbarian entry has interwikis in 44 languages – including the Chinese Manzu 蛮族 (meaning "barbarian tribes") entry that mentions foreign and Chinese barbarians. Wiktionary defines man 蛮 as, "1. barbarians, 2. barbarous, savage." If one looks up "barbarian" in any reliable English-Chinese dictionary, there is no shortage (let alone absence) of Chinese translation equivalents. This particular translation is so commonplace that the OED barbarian definition includes "Applied by the Chinese contemptuously to foreigners."

I'm sorry that we seem to have gotten off to a bad start. My intention is to improve these articles and maintain the integrity of existing references – I don't want to engage in edit warring. Can we both please agree to follow basic WP policies for references and quotations? Let me explain what I mean. Under Hua-Yi distinction, you deleted two garbled citations because of "no actual valid reference." But a Google search easily finds both.

• Yuri Pines (2003). "Beasts or humans: Pre-Imperial origins of Sino-Barbarian Dichotomy", in Mongols, Turks and Others: Eurasian nomads and the sedentary world, eds. R. Amitai and M. Biran, pp. 59 -102. Brill.
• Frank Dikötter (1994). The Discourse of Race in Modern China. Stanford University Press.

I'll add these and the other references back if you'll agree not to delete them again.

Also, can you read and write Chinese? I've studied Chinese and would gladly cooperate with you in clarifying that some ancient Chinese exonyms (like siyi 四夷 "four barbarian tribes on the borders") were derogatory, but that the modern ones are not usually disparaging. We could write this up with Beckwith's hypothesis and add it into relevant pages (perhaps a central new section under Sinocentrism?). Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Correction I'm sorry, DCattell. I conflated your edits here on Donghu with Got Milked's edits on Dongyi. It's curious that two editors would simultaneously make such similar "barbarian" deletions. My mistake. Keahapana (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

What about an article Eastern barbarians? The current disambiguation page could be changed to an actual article. And, a Western barbarians article would almost certainly be even more interesting.

As far as Pines and Dikötter go, based on a quick Google search, both seem to be viable references, with academic credentials behind them: the references were indeed quite garbled, and until I have more familiarity with their cited works I don't really feel comfortable with adding the references back in myself; but, if you feel comfortable with adding them back as references, then I certainly have no problem with it. (And I, too, prefer to be constructive in terms of building articles!)

Certainly, we're dealing with an historically involved and complex issue here. Dcattell (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi DCattell. I think the Eastern Barbarians DAB page is suitable because there are two referents. You could make redirects for Western B-word to Xirong, etc., but I don't know if it's necessary. On a related question, the current sections of the Barbarian article seem Eurocentric, with a section for Arabic context and "Non-European" subsections for Indian, Chinese, Japanese, and American contexts. Wouldn't it be better to simply list examples by county, with, of course, Greece first? I'm going to expand on Beckwith's hypothesis on the Barbarian talk page and look forward to hearing your thoughts. Keahapana (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In regard to above comment by Keahapana, it does indeed seem true that a "Non-European" subsection for Indian, Chinese, Japanese, and American contexts" is eurocentric and should be changed. Also, for historical and etymological reasons, I agree with Keahapana that the Greek conception of "barbarian" should have priority over any other country/culture/linguistic group in this regard (however Hellenic may be better than Greek? After all, wading into the issues surrounding Greece as a modern nation state versus Greece as an ancient historical concept may not be necessary, in this context). However, despite the fact that that the "Barbarian" article has at this point a general relationship to some of the issues under consideration in regard to this article on the Eastern Hu people, I think that it is better to discuss that article at [Talk:Barbarian]. More specifically, in this case, I still think that the translation of the Chinese terms for the Dongyi and the Donghu into English both as "Eastern 'Barbarians'" in the English language Wikipedia is subject, if nothing else, to the obvious criticism that we are failing in the English translation from the Chinese to make a distinction which the Chinese terms themselves make (that is, between Yi (夷) and Hu (胡)). Of course, the lack of precision in the historical usage of these terms in Chinese texts doesn't make make for as clear as a distinction as one might hope for in an encyclopedic context, however presenting the terms Yi and Hu as synonymic sacrifices helpfulness to over-simplicity. Keahapana says that a disambiguation page for "Eastern Barbarians" addresses this issue, which it does to some degree; but, I hope we can do a little better than that. Dcattell (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, in regards to "Eastern Barbarians" and the future of this concept on Wikipedia: whether or not as a separate article, it seems likely that we will see more candidates for this term in the future. For instance, included as one of groups within the category of the Hundred Yue (百越) are, or were, the Dongyue (or Dong Yue) people (東越). Yue has been translated into English as barbarian or barbarian tribes: thus the Dongyue can also be considered as "Eastern Barbarians". Although there does not yet appear to be much information about the Dongyue on Wikipedia, yet, it appears that the various Yue and Việt related articles are under active development and it's probably just a matter of time before Dongyue or some other "Eastern" version of some ethnic group that has been formerly or is currently translated into English as "Barbarian" also qualifies for consideration as "Eastern Barbarians". Dcattell (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hu is also a Chinese surname

Hu is a Chinese surname, so to refer to or translate the "Hu" people as barbarians is probably incorrect. 109.148.223.104 (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donghu people. 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/20140322043037/http://www.orientaldiscovery.com/html/2011/11/201111231554001713.html to http://www.orientaldiscovery.com/html/2011/11/201111231554001713.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://lucian.uchicago.edu/workshops/earlychina/files/2008/07/ec25_pulleyblank.pdf

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Reliability of a secondary source

A teriary source, namely Zarrow (2015) "Educating China: Knowledge, Society and Textbooks in a Modernizing World, 1902–1937" (& added by user Karl Kraft), wrote on p. 191 that

Fan and Han noted that the Jurchens were of the Eastern Hu race (Donghuzu)

The secondary source Zarrow relies on was a 1937 Commercial Press textbook by Fan & Han.

Yet apparently none of the Chinese-language articles about Sushen, Yilou, Mohe, Balhae acknowledges Donghu ancestry for that the Jurchens, their Balhae cousins, & their predecessors Mohe, Yilou, & Sushen. Nor does any primary source cited in those articles traces those peoples' ancestries back to the Donghu. I really don't know how Fan & Han reached their conclusion that the Jurchens descended from the Donghu.

According to WP:BIOSOURCES:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors

Yet Fan & Han (1937), the secondary source cited by Zarrow (2015), contradicts all available primary sources. I propose that Zarrow (2015) should be removed as well as the claim that the Jurchens also descended from the Donghu; even though I think Karl Kraft added Zarrow (2015) in good faith. Other editors, e.g. @KoizumiBS:, @Kwamikagami: What are your opinion? Erminwin (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

According to Viktorova (Монголы: происхождение народа и истоки культуры, P. 183), this is due to the insufficient amount of materials and partly due to the mistakes made. For example, the phonetic identification of the ancient people of the Donghu (Eastern Hu) with the Tungus, made at the beginning of the 19th century by Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat only on the principle of sound similarity between Donghu and Tungus. This led to the fact that for a long time all the descendants of the Donghu were considered the ancestors of the Tungus. In the early 50s, the Soviet researcher Nikolai Kuehner, who critically reviewed the works of Chinese ethnographers, established that the ancestors of the Tungusic and Paleosiberian peoples at the end of the 1st millennium BC. in chinese sources were included in the Dongyi group of peoples. In Russian: "Это отчасти связано с недостаточным количеством материалов, отчасти - с допущенными ошибками. Например, фонетическое отождествление древнего народа дунху (восточные ху) с тунгусами, сделанное в начале XIX в. Абелем Ремюса лишь на принципе звукового сходства дунху - тунгус, привело к тому, что всех потомков дунху долгое время считали предками тунгусов. Лишь в начале 50-х годов советский исследователь Н. В. Кюнер, критически рассмотревший работы Лин Чуньшэна, Лян Цичао и других китайских этнографов, установил, что предки тунгусо-маньчжурских и палеоазиатских народов в конце 1 тысячелетия до н. э. китайскими источниками включались в группу народов дун-и. Дунху же были степными кочевниками, у которых значительную роль в хозяйстве играли коневодство, овцеводство и разведение других пород скота".--KoizumiBS (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Erminwin:, perhaps the text should be corrected and it should be written that some authors also considered the descendants of the Donghu to be the Jurchens in the past.--KoizumiBS (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@KoizumiBS:: Good idea! Erminwin (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)