Have you guys been following the discussion on fuckyeahchinesefashion? One of the mods just posted an essay on their opinions regarding cultural appropriation, and it feels like they're essentially shitting on diaspora chinese and saying that since we aren't "chinese-chinese" we have no true understanding of the culture and thus no voice in the conversation. Or is it just me... :/
so mod n and mod e and i were debating among ourselves for a long time over if we should answer or how we should answer, but we feel like this is something that merits serious discussion, especially in terms of how we conceive of chinese identity and chineseness. i’m going to put this under a cut, though, because it’s gonna get really long. just a heads up.
i have mentioned so, so many times since i started modding this blog about how incredibly frustrated i have been with people being obsessed with policing authenticity and placing criterias on chineseness – you have to do x y and z before you can be considered properly chinese, you have to think this, that, and the other before your voice as someone of chinese heritage or of chinese ancestry truly counts and this is something that has actually been bugging me about fuckyeahchinesefashion for a while. the way they have chosen to define “true chineseness” as only those people who align themselves exclusively with a chinese identity (and nothing else) is not only incredibly ignorant of the long history of chinese diasporas not only in the west, but also in other east asian and southeast asian nations as well. i find it essentialist and a simplistic, unnuanced understanding of what ‘chinese’ is or what it means to be ‘chinese.’
even in china, culture is something that is very multifaceted – speaking as a northern chinese, our culture is incredibly different from south china – we have definitely been more influenced by mongol and manchu rule than south chinese have been, we eat different foods, we celebrate major holidays differently (i didn’t even know people used oranges to celebrate new year until i came to america) – so what makes someone who is northern chinese more of an authority on what is or is not ~chinese~ than someone who is, for example, peranakan, and who, even while their customs have become integrated into indigenous customs, still preserve aspects of ming dynasty chinese culture that have been lost in north china due to three hundred years of qing rule? we live in different social contexts, within china and out of it, and the way we adapt our customs to the culture around us does not make us less chinese, does not give us less of a claim to chineseness than people who “identifies with chinese culture as their sole relegation.“ (especially when there is no singular ‘chinese culture.’ a cantonese person can claim authoritatively that all chinese people celebrate chinese new year by buying pussy willows and mandarin trees, but that doesn’t make it true for me, a northern chinese, who was born where it’s too cold for plants to grow during new year’s.)
culture is not stagnant and unchanging – the social liberalism of the tang dynasty turned into the stauch neoconfucian moralism & social code of the qing dynasty, and the same country that imported buddhism from india a thousand years ago was the one that destroyed effigies of buddha during the cultural revolution. to claim that there is one ‘more legitimate’ strand of chinesness is, to me, very strange, and honestly, coming from someone who does not have a hyphenated identity, something of a slap in the face because they honestly just have no way of understanding the way we experience chinese culture living in diaspora where we are a) marginalised and b) encouraged to assimilate. to be told by someone who is likely han chinese, with all the social and institutional backing that that comes with, with all the political power that being part of the majority holds, that diaspora chinese, living overseas with none of those trappings (except in cases like singapore), have no claim on the identity that we have to daily defend, is adding insult to injury, and moreover, their very exclusive definition of chinese as being ‘born and raised in the prc’ does not leave room for the more complex aspects of identity, and implies that diaspora, as chinese people who are not born and raised in the prc, have no right to engage with our own culture, because we have a ‘less legitimate’ claim on it. as if hyphenated identities automatically mean we are half as knowledgeable.
moreover, appropriation of chinese culture rarely happens in a chinese context (i mean this primarily in terms of han chinese culture; tokenism and appropriation does occur by the han majority towards ethnic minorities, particularly in the performing arts and tourism industries); rather, it is the result of an orientalist gaze that manifests itself primarily in nonchinese spaces (and primarily in the west). if we cannot comment on chinese culture because we are not ‘chinese enough,’ who are they to dictate the reactions of diaspora chinese who live in the west towards western interpretations of chinese culture?
in some ways, as a chinese person who was born in china and who did hold chinese citizenship until a few years ago and who does still identify very strongly with mainland chineseness, i can see where they’re coming from, or what they’re trying to say. the original post (and source of conflict) was a post about a giorgio armani collection that uses chinese motifs, such as 水墨 and bamboo, but i think their framing is completely wrong. it was presented (to my understanding) as “chinese fashion designers try too hard to amp up their chineseness, look how subtly a western designer is able to manipulate chinese themes and not make it garish” – which, i can understand that interpretation, but – and i’ve posted on my personal blog about this – this is imo more a manifestation of white supremacy & orientalism more than anything else. unless chinese designers (like lawrence xu, guo pei, ne tiger, and shanghai tang, which it must be said i love all of them, but the criticism is valid) play up this kitschy, overblown, orientalist version of chineseness that a lot of their works perform, it is hard for them to get recognition as a chinese designer in the west, whereas it is easier for established western brands like giorgio armani to get away with subtle manipulations of chinese culture and still get acclaim for having ‘tapped into’ chineseness.
and i do understand their frustrations regarding the occasional ignorance of diaspora; i’ve definitely been frustrated by other diaspora chinese claiming things about chinese culture that are absolutely inaccurate myself. a while back, someone was trying to pass the plot of lady general hua mulan around as the actual story of the True Historic Hua Mulan (whose existence is still debated, even though imo it doesn’t really matter if the figure was real or not because her influence was real). i’ve seen diaspora chinese people say some really wild things about chinese culture that i know for a fact to be absolutely false. and yeah, this is annoying and frustrating and it spreads information, but at the same time, the dynamic is completely different. a diaspora chinese person telling a nondiaspora chinese person misinformation regarding china is one false voice in a crowd of people who know better. a nondiaspora chinese person telling a diaspora chinese person that their claim to their culture is less legitimate is one more voice amongst an entire crowd of people who are telling them the same.
tl;dr i understand where they’re coming from with some of their complaints, but i disagree and i think they are being very simplistic and unnuanced about it and i think the way they are framing it is wrong and is a result of having grown up the majority with institutionalized power backing their sense of self, and, to be honest, i am quite annoyed at having to once again have to address authenticity politics because of it.
The Chinese Scottish tartan was originally created to signify the special relationship that exists between Scotland and China and between the Scots and the Chinese community in Scotland. The inspiration for this tartan came from Madam Guo Guifang, Chinese Consul General, who once spoke of the unique Scottish tartan as one of the major tourist attractions for the Chinese and suggested the idea of creating a specific tartan for the Chinese people. 'Designed by Heather Yellowley of the Strathmore Woollen Company of Forfar and facilitated by Angus Council and the Scottish Tartans Authority, the tartan incorporates the colours of the Scottish Saltire together with the red and yellow of the Chinese flag. These are interwoven with green bands to symbolise the great co-operation between Scottish and Chinese botanists in the Botanic Gardens of Edinburgh - home to the world's largest collection of Chinese plants outside China itself. The yellow crosses the red in five places which signifies the five stars of the Chinese Flag, the biggest and brightest being represented by the yellow cross in the middle of the red. The tartan was presented to Madam Guo on 6th April 2006 as part of the Tartan Day Celebrations which took place in the Scottish county of Angus'
