Nationalism in China and Japan Through the Years

Tonnesson and Antlov identify three types of nationalism, ethno nationalism, official nationalism, and plural nationalism; which are derived from Anderson’s linguistic/vernacular, official and creole nationalism and Smith’s ethnic, civic and plural nationalism. This essay will first define the terms in the order listed above. Then, The People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Japan will be used as examples to evaluate how the modern statehood of each nation fit with each term. A comparison will be made to conclude whether each nation fits with each term.

For a nation to be ethno nationalism, the state must be formed by only one ethnic. Unlike ethno nationalism, official nationalism focuses on the expansion of territory for a nation — when “a state uses its bureaucracy to mobilize a single nation culture.” Instead of expanding territory, plural nationalism is when a larger nationhood is formed with a multi-ethnic state by separating from a larger state or colonial power. Japan’s Edo period fits with ethno nationalism. Edo period was influenced by the idea of ka-i, which Schlichtmann stated, is “a model of interstate relations”, “the concept of ‘inner’ in relation to the ‘other’ or ‘outsider’. Like China, the model suggests that Japan was considered to be the civilised centre (ka) and others “who were conceived as posing a permanent, potential threat”.

Edo period was ruled by the Tokugawa family who replaced opposing feudal lords with family and allies. In the seventeenth century, the third shôgun, Tokugawa Iemitsu carried out isolation from the rest of the world as he believed that “influences from abroad (meaning trade, Christianity, and guns) could shift the balance that existed between the shôgun and the feudal lords”. Isolation of Japan fits the definition of ethno nationalism where the state is formed by one ethnic. However, at that time Japan had “homogeneity obscures internal sources of diversity” which are the Ainu, Okinawans and burakumin. Japan reconsidered their identity in East Asia by looking at the relations with Ainu and Ryukyu. In order to focus on the advanced, civilised aspects of the state, a precise boundary was drawn between “Japan” and “the other”. The two nations, Ainu and Ryukyu were banned from all the Japanese culture related things, such as clothing, language, long swords, etc. Making Ainu and Ryukyu as “the foreigner”, Edo Japan becomes a nation with ethno nationalism as there is only one ethnic and one nation. “Nothing can be better demonstrating the prevailing strength of Japanese separateness than the recent internal urge for ‘internationalisation’.

Japan’s relations to external powers has varied between the Edo and Meiji period. In the Meiji period, Japan started to include “the foreigners” which makes the state at that time a nation with official nationalism. “The use of the Ainu language was banned, … the national government declared Hokkaido terra nullius (empty land), removing Ainu from their traditional lands, … attempting to train the Ainu into an agricultural economy.” Once Ainu and Ryukyu successively become Japanese territory, official nationalism can be applied to Japan.

Policies were made for “Japanisation”. A considered important policy was Tokyo dialect became the official language of Japan. Social standardisation came after language standardisation. Japanese government’s actions indicate that Japanisation is an important step to become an official nationalism nation. This, therefore, suggests that official nationalism can be applied on the route of Japan’s modern statehood. Although Japan had trade with the United States in the 1850s and later with Russia, Britain, France, and Holland, Japan never colonised with any of them. Japan was forced “to enter into trade with the United States and demanded a treaty permitting trade and the opening of Japanese ports to U.S. merchant ships.” Because the Japanese did not have navy to defend themselves, they had to agree to U.S. demands. Japan did not colonise with U.S. nor did it separate from a lager nationhood. Therefore, this suggests that plural nationalism does not fit the route of Japan’s modern nationhood.

Unlike Japan, China’s long history makes ethno nationalism harder to apply to the route of its modern nationhood. In the Huangdi and Yandi period, which is considered the starting point of China, China can be suggested as an ethno nationalism nation because there was only one ethnic group Han. But because it was a long time ago, the accuracy of the written records can be questioned. Although “people at that time already developed the concept of territory”, this cannot suggest that there was a distinguish between “Chinese ethnic/us” and “the other”. Therefore, due to the ancient time with no precise written material to show ethnic and nation, ethno nationalism does not fit China’s modern statehood. The closest time period to modern statehood would be the Qing Dynasty, which was when China was ruled by the Manchurian. Not only did Manchurian took over China, but they also invaded other territory to expand Chinese territories.

During the Qing Dynasty, ethno-nationalism cannot apply to China because China had two ethnicities; the Han and the Manchurian, but China is an official nationalism nation because Manchurian was expanding Chinese territory through invasion. However, compared with Japan’s “Japanisation”, China’s official nationalism was not as successful. Similarly with Japan “Japanising” Ainu and Ryukyu, Manchurian had policies for the Han, forcing to replace the Han tradition with Manchurian. “Shave off the hair on the forehead and grow the hair at the back unit it can be tied to a braid”, “wear Manchurian clothes” were mandatory for Han males. Because of this enforcement, Han people were provoked and “lead to riots around the country”. Unable to control the angry Han people, Qing government made an adjustment that “Han tradition will be kept for females, Han males are allowed to wear tradition Han clothes at their funerals”. Although Manchurian was forcefully trying to replace Han tradition with Manchurian traditions, Manchurian did not change the language because “the emperor did not like his own language.” Manchurian’s goals and policies for China can fit with the term official nationalism, but due to the pressure from Han, only Han males’ appearance was changed by the Qing government. This suggests that official nationalism can be applied to the route of China’s modern statehood but not as well applied as Japan’s modern statehood.

Same as to Japan, plural nationalism does not apply to China’s modern statehood. Although China was colonised by Western powers and ceded Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macau because of being defeated bythe United Kingdom, Japan and Portugal, China did not demarcate with other countries to form a larger nationhood. Therefore, like Japan, China does not fit with plural nationalism. Going back to ethno nationalism for China, Hao is suggesting that PRC as a modern statehood is no long an ethno nationalism nation. “Ethno nationalism is on the wane in the PRC, not only among the Han but also among other ethnic groups.” However, even though the ethno nationalism is falling apart in PRC and among all fifty-six ethnic groups, their identities will continue to falter. However, written record by Chinese (Han) nationalists suggested that throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, there was “a unified consciousness among the Han”, which indirectly indicates that the Chinese government wanted an ethno nationalism nation, but had enormity challenges due to “the diversity of language and cultures among those who would be considered Han.” Can this suggest that ethno nationalism nation in some way applies to PRC?

In conclusion, out of all the three types of nationalism; ethno, official and plural, identified by Tonnesson and Antlov, the most well-applied term to the route of both China and Japan’s modern statehood is official nationalism. Under the ruling of Manchurian, the Chinese territory expanded, but most of the policies Qing government applied to the Han was against the Han ethnic, thus, instead of colonising, Han caused riots which forced Qing to adjust their policies, only changing the appearance of Han males. This is not a good example of an official nationalism nation. On the other hand, Japan “Japanised” Ainu and Ryukyu with the policies of banning the Ainu language and removing all their traditions, etc, which gives a clearer image of an official nationalism nation. Both nations had a time where there was only one ethnic in the state, which ethno nationalism can be applied, but China’s history was too ancient which means the written record may not be precise. Therefore, Japan fits ethno nationalism better than China. Both nations do not fit with plural nationalism. Although China was colonised by Western powers and Japan was forced to sign treaties with Western power, they both did not separate with other countries to form a larger nationhood.