It actually is. There’s about 50M Chinese people worldwide who AREN’T from China. That’s a pretty significant number. Even moreso online, since the majority of people in China have no access to social media like this. In my part of the world, citizens of China are referred to as ‘Mainland Chinese’ or ‘Chinese nationals’. Chinese in itself is an ethnicity, and it would be nice if we could get that distinction more widely recognised so the CCP would stop using us as political pieces.
I get how colloquially “Chinese” may refer to those being ethnically Chinese. However, for ppl who aren’t from the Asian region, “Chinese” means “Mainland Chinese”. Imagine if Barack Obama said “I’m African”. He’s ethnically African, who is American, which is called “African American”, (which is specific to descendents of slaves, as their exact point of origin in Africa was lost unfortunately).
Anyways, the point is, perhaps referring to urself as “ethnically Chinese” when communicating with the international community would avoid a lot of confusion.
perhaps referring to urself as “ethnically Chinese” when communicating with the international community would avoid a lot of confusion.
I do make the distinction when it’s relevant, as I did in this case. The original point was to point out the difference between anti-Chinese and anti-China. That’s a pretty significant difference, similar to anti-Israel vs anti-Semitic. Particularly in this case, where the source itself is from an ethnically-Chinese newspaper.
Yes, its totally unreasonable for people to conclude that a person who self-identifies as “Chinese” is from China.
It actually is. There’s about 50M Chinese people worldwide who AREN’T from China. That’s a pretty significant number. Even moreso online, since the majority of people in China have no access to social media like this. In my part of the world, citizens of China are referred to as ‘Mainland Chinese’ or ‘Chinese nationals’. Chinese in itself is an ethnicity, and it would be nice if we could get that distinction more widely recognised so the CCP would stop using us as political pieces.
I get how colloquially “Chinese” may refer to those being ethnically Chinese. However, for ppl who aren’t from the Asian region, “Chinese” means “Mainland Chinese”. Imagine if Barack Obama said “I’m African”. He’s ethnically African, who is American, which is called “African American”, (which is specific to descendents of slaves, as their exact point of origin in Africa was lost unfortunately).
Anyways, the point is, perhaps referring to urself as “ethnically Chinese” when communicating with the international community would avoid a lot of confusion.
I do make the distinction when it’s relevant, as I did in this case. The original point was to point out the difference between anti-Chinese and anti-China. That’s a pretty significant difference, similar to anti-Israel vs anti-Semitic. Particularly in this case, where the source itself is from an ethnically-Chinese newspaper.
Ahh… Sorry, if I missed that. Just a lil tired today…