Editing Ethnic minorities in China (section)

===Early history===
[[File:Dinastia tang, shanxi, straniero dal volto velato, 600-750 ca.JPG|thumb|250px|An 8th-century [[Tang dynasty]] [[Chinese ceramics|Chinese clay figurine]] of a [[Sogdia]]n man (an [[Eastern Iranian languages|Eastern Iranian person]]) wearing a distinctive cap and face veil, possibly a camel rider or even a [[Zoroastrian]] priest engaging in a ritual at a [[fire temple]], since face veils were used to avoid contaminating the holy fire with breath or saliva; [[Museum of Oriental Art (Turin)]], Italy.<ref>Lee Lawrence. (3 September 2011). [https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111904332804576540533071105892 "A Mysterious Stranger in China"]. ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]''. Retrieved 31 August 2016.</ref>]]

Throughout much of recorded [[History of China|Chinese history]], there was little attempt by Chinese authors to separate the concepts of nationality, culture, and ethnicity.<ref>{{cite book |last=Harrell |first=Stephan |title=Cultural encounters on China's ethnic frontiers |location=Seattle |publisher=[[University of Washington Press]] |year=1996 |isbn=978-0-295-97380-7}}</ref> Those outside of the reach of imperial control and dominant patterns of Chinese culture were thought of as separate groups of people regardless of whether they would today be considered as a separate ethnicity. The self-conceptualization of [[Han Chinese|Han]] largely revolved around this center-periphery cultural divide. Thus, the process of Sinicization throughout history had as much to do with the spreading of imperial rule and culture as it did with actual ethnic migration.{{Citation needed|date=June 2021}}

This understanding persisted (with some changes during the [[Qing dynasty]] due to the importation of Western ideas) until the [[Chinese Communist Revolution|Communists seized power in 1949]]. Their understanding of minorities had been heavily influenced by the policies of the Soviet leader [[Joseph Stalin]] and his [[Marxism and the National Question|1913 pamphlet on the subject]]—and they also influenced the Communist regimes in the neighbouring countries of [[Vietnam]] and [[Laos]]<ref>Michaud J., 2009 Handling Mountain Minorities in China, Vietnam and Laos : From History to Current Issues. Asian Ethnicity 10(1): 25–49.</ref>—but the Soviet definition of minorities did not cleanly map onto the Chinese people's historical definition of minorities. Soviet thinking about minorities was based on the belief that a nation consisted of people who spoke and wrote a common language, people whose culture was historic, and historic territory. Therefore, The people who inhabited each nation had the theoretical right to secede from a proposed federated government.<ref>{{cite book |last=Blaut |first=J. M. |chapter=The Theory of National Minorities |title=The National Question: Decolonizing the Theory of Nationalism |location=London |publisher=Zed Books |year=1987 |isbn=978-0-86232-439-1}}</ref> This differed from the previous way of thinking mainly in that instead of defining all those under imperial rule as Chinese, the nation (as defined as a space upon which power is projected) and ethnicity (the identity of the governed) were now separate; being under central rule no longer automatically meant being defined as Chinese. The Soviet model as applied to China gave rise to the autonomous regions in China; these areas were thought to be their own nations that had theoretical autonomy from the central government.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Ma |first=Rong |title=The Soviet Model's Influence and the Current Debate on Ethnic Relations |journal=Global Asia |date=June 2010}}</ref>

During [[World War II]], the American Asiatic Association published an entry in the 40th volume of their academic journal, ''Asia'', concerning the problem of whether [[Islam in China|Chinese Muslim]]s were Chinese or a separate 'ethnic minority', and the factors which led to either classification.<ref name=":3" /> It tackled the question of why Muslims who were Chinese were considered a different race from other Chinese, and the separate question of whether all Muslims in China were united into one race. The first problem was posed with a comparison to Chinese Buddhists, who were not considered a separate race.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gIBCAAAAYAAJ|title=The Moslem World, Volumes 31–34|author=Hartford Seminary Foundation|year=1941|publisher=Hartford Seminary Foundation|page=182|access-date=8 May 2011}}</ref> It concluded that the reason Chinese Muslims were considered separate was because of different factors like religion, culture, military feudalism, and that considering them a "racial minority" was wrong. It also came to the conclusion that the Japanese military spokesman was the only person who was propagating the false assertion that Chinese Muslims had "[[racial unity]]", which was disproved by the fact that Muslims in China were composed of multitudes of different races, separate from each other as were the "Germans and English", such as the Mongol Hui of Hezhou, Salar Hui of Qinghai, and Chan Tou Hui of Turkistan. The Japanese were trying to spread the lie that Chinese Muslims were one race, in order to propagate the claim that they should be separated from China into an "independent political organization."<ref name=":3">{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CKc5AQAAIAAJ|title=Asia: journal of the American Asiatic Association, Volume 40|author=American Asiatic Association|year=1940|publisher=Asia Pub. Co.|page=660|access-date=8 May 2011}}</ref>