Chinese Ethnocentrism: It's Written Right Into Their Name

Ethnocentrism \ ETH-nō-SEN-tri-zəm (noun): the attitude that one's own group, ethnicity, or nationality is superior to others

中华 \ Zhōng-huá (noun): literally, "central race;" Mandarin word for people of Chinese origin(1)

中国 \ Zhōng-guó (noun): literally, "central nation(2);" Mandarin word for China

The World is Finally Seeing the Real China

As China elbows their way onto the world stage it has become a cliche to speak of a clash of cultures between their values (and their way of doing things), as compared to the rest of the world, or, as China likes to say, compared to "the Western-Led Imperialist Order." While nearly every Sinologist predicted this would be the case, few have been able to make the world understand just how deep these cultural clashes run. It's not just a question of art, etiquette or manners. No, the contradiction between the West (or should I say at this point, the world) and China runs down to the very definitions of basic concepts taken for granted by most of the world, such as "what are Human Rights." Most of the world, from West to Middle East to Far East, agrees (at least on paper) on a very basic level of rights that every Human Being is entitled to, and governments make at the bare minimum token efforts to ensure the protection of these rights. China, however, has been quite open about considering the very notion of Human Rights to be an "invasive foreign ideology (World Report 2016, CPC Central Committee Communique)."
Another interesting difference of opinions between the world and China is in their attitude toward racism. Simply put, the world has long held a rather simple view on racism: it's bad. The Chinese, however, have a slightly different take on it. In China, racism is only bad when it comes from "Evil Western Imperialists." When it comes from their own, it's praised. To say China is ethnocentric falls short of the mark. To be more precise, Ethnocentrism forms the backbone of their entire civilization. Of course, trying to even bring up the subject with Chinese citizens and imply that maybe China is NOt the center of the universe, usually meets with blank responses. The blogger Guaporense best sums up what I have seen of this, or of any other attempts to even tapdance anywhere close to questioning the Chinese "faith" of CCP dogma. "It's like discussing the existence of God with a priest.

Maybe Not the First, But Definitely the Worst

Okay. So, reality check. It's not like China is the only nation in history that has gone through a phase of thinking they are the center of the universe. Rome, for instance, left a mark on history that we still run into every day. The Gregorian calendar divides years into years Anno Domine(3) (A.D.), and years Before Christ (B.C.). However, as there are many who did not like using a religious figure for the calendar, the terms have been changed to Common Era (C.E.) and Before Common Era (B.C.E.), with the "Common Era" beginning from another event that happened in the same year as the birth of Jesus of Nazareth: Caesar's decree that Rome was the center of the world.
Centuries later, Britain and France issued competing claims to the title of "center of the world" when one drew the Prime Meridian through Greenwich and the other drew the "Rose Line" through Paris. If you own a map or globe, you know that the British won out in popularity. And of course, while America slightly modified the concept to no longer apply to an ethnic group, one would not be completely unfounded in accusing us of a sort of "ideocentrism," to coin a phrase (I hereby copyright that term and I want a nickel every time anyone says it). That, and we went through that embarrassing phase of making maps like the one you see below.

'MURICA!

But even though there have been no shortage of Empires, Federations, Republics and Hegemons who have thought themselves to be the center of the world and a few who were even brash enough to declare it, there has not been another who took this belief of their own centricity and clutched it so deeply to their hearts that they enshrined it within their very language as their name, making it cornerstone and capstone alike of any and all national identity they would ever develop. They are not just ethnocentric, they are proud to be ethnocentric, and they want so badly for the world to KNOW how ethnocentric they are that they built an entire culture upon a loud and proud affirmation of that sense of superiority, and then have held onto that belief for millennia.

So Where Did China Get This Idea?

Well, China got it from the same place Rome got it: the egotism that comes with being the only major power in "the world," or at least the part of the world you have any contact with, for countless generations. In China's case, however, it was allowed to flourish century after century as China's isolation from the rest of the world prevented any other major power from encountering them. And when one did, such as the Mongol Empire, China simply rewrote the history books afterward to call their conquerors the Yuan Dynasty, and claim they were Chinese. Never mind that Genghis Khan was born, raised, and died in Mongolia, and denounced the Chinese as enemies throughout his life. Anyway, China's peculiar rewriting of history (and the baffling logic by which they claim the Mongol and Manchu Empires were Chinese) will have to wait for another entry. I used it here to point out that the Chinese never encountered a peer or even near-peer rival with a few short-lived exceptions. As a result, they developed the view that they were the so-called "Middle Kingdom."
To be fair, this view that their civilization, the most powerful and vastly the most numerous within their sphere of contact for more centuries than most of us dare to even contemplate, was the "center of the universe" is a natural outgrowth of basic Human Tribalism. For the Chinese, however, it became the foundation of their entire cultural paradigm. The earliest use of the term "Middle Kingdom" that I have found (which is not to say there is not an earlier one out there somewhere) was from the Jin Dynasty. This ethnocentric mindset found its way into Chinese government policy in the form of the Tributary system, a system by which the Chinese emperor was declared to be the ruler of 天下 (Tian xia), or "all under Heaven," which meant that any nation seeking to trade with China had to go through an absolutely humiliating ritual of swearing subservience to the Chinese emperor (the pronunciation of this ritual's name is where the English word "kowtow" comes from), and be formally recognized as a vassal. In early contacts with the English, the Chinese emperor's note wherein he denied an exchange of ambassadors (due to the English ambassador's refusal to perform the above-mentioned act of obeisance) described China as "the Celestial Empire, ruling all within the four seas." As Cao Dawei and Sun Yanjing note, the Qing Empire even used the sinocentric theory to explain Western Technological superiority, by claiming Western science must have been ancient Chinese secrets lost to time (Cao, 183).
Though it is worthy of note that the term was never officially made the name of the country (the region now called "China" referred to itself by the surname of the ruling Dynasty throughout most of its history), it has been cited in literature and even in trade treaties and government documents throughout history. However, history is not without a sense of irony. During the 19th century, Europe's gunboat diplomacy forced China to open up to the world and China, for the first time in her history, found out what it's like to be on the other end of Imperialism: the receiving end. It was near the end of the Qing Empire, during the run up to Sun Zhongshan's overthrow of the Manchurian Emperor, that the controversial Chinese philosopher Liang QiChao made this observation.

"Our greatest shame is that our country has no name. The names that people ordinarily think of, such as Xia, Han, or Tang, are all the titles of bygone dynasties... the other countries of the world all boast of their own state names, such as England and France, the only exception being the Central States."

The irony I spoke of is that in their desire to assign themselves a national identity so they could be equal with other nations, China reached into their folklore and chose the most swaggeringly arrogant one imaginable: 中華民国(Zhonghua Ming Guo), or "Central Race's Republic" Then along came Mao Zedong's Communist Revolution in 1949 to re-style the nation as 中華人民共和国 (Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo), or "Central Nation's People's Republic." In both cases, 中国 was chosen as the short form.
Well, as one would expect, taking the nickname "Middle Kingdom" and making it official has done nothing to curb the egotism demonstrated by the emperors of old. If anything, it has merely made the arrogance of the name as official as the name itself. As Joel Kotin writes in an article in Foreign Policy Magazine...

"Essentially, the Han has become a tribal superpower that treats other groups — from China’s non-Han minority to much of the rest of the world — as a vast semi-colonial periphery."

Sinocentrism in the Twenty-First Century

As regards modern examples of Neo-Sinocentrism, viz-a-viz, Earth-shattering PRC arrogance, I'm scarcely even sure where to begin. Above, for starters, is a quote from an article by Yu Sui, a Professor at the China Center for Contemporary World Studies. In it, he flatly asserts that in settling China's territorial disputes (such as their illegal claims over the Senkaku Islands and the Scarborough Shoals), smaller nations will "Have to make concessions" because China is "not willing to lose face." Is there any statement of reciprocal intent? None whatsoever. And what is the justification given? None is given other than repeated, self-righteous affirmations of China's importance. Now, consider for a moment. Can you think of a time when any other power has so openly said "we require special treatment because we're bigger and richer than the rest?" There will be plenty who accuse the U.S. of acting as if we believed this, but can you think of a time a nation had the cheek, the unmitigated audacity, to just flat-out say it out in the open like that? Neither can I. And the best part is look where it was published. China/ U.S. Focus is a Chinese Government Operated organization for spreading the CCP's view of the world to American audiences (see previous articles re: "Three Warfares Strategy"). It's not for internal consumption, the target audience is abroad. Not only did China make statements this bafflingly arrogant, but they are so proud of it that they want the world (especially America) to know they said it.
Yang Mifen's Opinion of China, a source I've frequently cited of late, is filled with additional examples of China's "one set of rules for you and another for me" mentality, frequently asserting their "unquestionable sovereignty" over the West Philippine Sea (103 - 134) while later criticizing Ukraine for not "compromis[ing]a little on the sovereignty issue (199)." Further, the book routinely refers to the "interference" of extra-regional powers in the West Philippine Sea issue (106, 112, 116), then ends every chapter by affirming China's right and responsibility to take part in affairs in every corner of the globe.
Social media, of course, is replete with examples of Sinocentric douchebags spouting their drivel and saying anyone who dares disagree with them is a "Western Imperialist." Quora.com is a prime example. The question "why does China call itself the Middle Kingdom" produced a stampede of Zhonghua Nationalists rushing to the rescue of their empire's reputation. One actually doubled down on the arrogance by claiming it was right: "If you know much about the history of China, you will think that we (I mean, the concept of the culture synthesis of China) are qualified to be called this." Another said that the very question was offensive (presumably because how dare a filthy laowai barbarian presume to have an opinion that dares to question China the Great). Still others tried to say the name was never used before 1911 (which is a half-truth). Another actually tried to say "we only call ourselves that because of the weather."
Seriously, dude?
And then of course, this example is from one of the Chinese Government's facebook pages that are designed to try and make China marketable to Western audiences (which isn't working).

Whoever this David McFerrin character is, thank you for saying what we all were thinking.
But I think the most important aspect of this new manifestation of China's ancient ego is from Beijing itself. As China has attempted to flex its muscles, it has run into resistance and criticism from many corners, and their reactions show that they clearly cannot fathom why. Indeed, China's response to this backlash has, on multiple occasions, demonstrated that the CCP is baffled that there are any in the world who dare criticize them, as J. Michael Cole of the University of Nottnigham UK's China Policy Institute illuminates in a probably-mistitled article for the blog "National Interest." The Eastern nation's petty, childishly indignant responses have ranged from telling Canadian reporters "your question is full or prejudice... and arrogance" for "irresponsibly" asking about a Hong Kong bookseller detained by the CCP on dubious charges and not seen or heard from since (Guardian, Jun 2016).
It was Christopher Ford, attending the 4th Xianghshan forum in Beijing, who finally got a high-ranking Chinese official to admit the reasons behind this double-standard. He published an account of this and as you'd expect, they are tied back to the old Sinocentric Theory of China being the "glorious fount of civilization," surrounded by petty inferior kingdoms who must bow to her.

Simply put, according to a PLA General, China claims they have they have the right to demand that any actions undertaken in any country which affect how China is viewed, are "matters affecting China," and are therefore subject to Chinese sovereignty.

According to China's official position, China's "sovereignty" extends to include any actions, words, and even thoughts of any individual anywhere on the globe that might affect China. Ridiculous? Hey, I didn't say it. It came from a Chinese officer. This article goes on to cite additional examples of the double-standard I spoke of in Yang Mifen's work, such as presuming to tell other countries what those countries' intentions are while getting offended and indignant when any nation dared question China's intentions, scolding other nations for not showing China what they deemed the "proper respect," and proceeding from a default assumption that any nation there that had ever done anything China disapproved of was required to do what?
You guessed it.
Debase themselves before China, confess to whatever intent Beijing wished to claim that country's motivations had been, and apologize. Curiously, however, no mention was made by China of apologizing for their invasion of Vietnam or Korea, their annexation of islands belonging to nine other countries.

Gee, I can't imagine why.

Footnotes

(1) The term once referred only to the Han ethnic group, as referenced in Sun Zhongshan's writing circa 1911 and earlier. It was later adapted by Sun Zhongshan to include all ethnic groups whose ancestral home lies predominantly within the 1911 borders of the Republic of China as part of the "Zhonghua minzu" philosophy

(2) The more common name is "Middle Kingdom," a nickname still used by China which finds its origins from the Sinocentric theory. However, all credible modern translations render the character of " 中 (Zhōng)" to mean "central" when used as an adjective, and "middle" only when used as a noun. The character "国 (guó)," regarded as "kingdom" in that context, is used in modern translations to refer to nations that are not kingdoms, such as "法国 (Fà guó)" meaning France, " 德国 (Dé guó)" meaning Germany, and of course one example that has never been monarchial: "美国 (Měi guó)," the United States. Hence, it is then inferred that a more accurate translation of 中国 in context is, in fact, "Central Nation."

(3) Latin: "In the Year of the Lord"

Works Cited

Books

Cao Dawei & Sun Yanjing. China's History. Trans. Xiao Ying, Li Li & He Yunzhao. China Intercontinental Press. Beijing. 2010.
ISBN 978-7-5085-1302-7

Yang Mifen. Opinion of China: Insight into International Hotspot Issues. Beijing: China Renmin University Press, 2016.
(ISBN 978-7-300-24623-9)

From the Web

"China: Events of 2015." World Report 2016. Human Rights Watch. 2016. Web. 18 Feb 2018.
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2016/country-chapters/china-and-tibet

"The Chinese Superiority Complex." Historum. 4 Nov. 2015. Web. 16 Feb. 2018.
http://historum.com/blogs/guaporense/31358-chinese-superiority-complex.html

Cole, J. Michael. "Why America Should Beware a Resurgent China." National Interest. 8 Dec. 2017. Web. 20 Feb. 2018.
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-america-should-beware-resurgent-china-23578?page=3

Ford, Christopher. "Sinocentrism for the New Age: Comments on the 4th Xiangshan Forum." New Paradigms Forum. 13 Jan. 2013. Web. 16 Feb 2018
http://www.newparadigmsforum.com/NPFtestsite/?p=1498

Kotkin, Joel. "Rise of the Hans: Why a Dominant China Could Spark Tribal Warfare." Foreign Policy. 17 Jan. 2011. Web. 15 Feb 2018.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/01/17/rise-of-the-hans/

Phillipis, Tom & Kassam, Ashifa. "Chinese minister vents anger when Canadian reporter asks about human rights." The Guardian. 2 Jun 2016. Web. 20 Feb 2018
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/jun/02/chinese-foreign-minister-canada-angry-human-rights-question

Yu Sui. "What does Major-Country Diplomacy for the New Era Really Mean?" China / U.S. Focus. 13 Feb 2018. Web. 14 Feb 2018.
https://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/what-does-major-country-diplomacy-with-chinese-characteristics-for-the-new-era-really-mean?

Government Documents

People's Republic of China. Communist Party of China's Central Office. Central Committee. Communiqué on the Current State of the Ideological Sphere. 22 Apr. 2013. Web. 19 Feb. 2013.
http://www.chinafile.com/document-9-chinafile-translation