Organizer: Ann Maxwell Hill, Dickinson College
Chair: Nicola Tannenbaum, Lehigh University
Discussant: Jonathan N. Lipman, Mount Holyoke College
The discussion in Part Two of this back-to-back panel centers directly on the implications of state policies and state representations of minorities for identity formation. They all ask the question: how has participation in states, over time and in changing polities, affected constructions of the kind of people that "we" are, in terms of our culture, our livelihood, and our political/ethnic affiliations? The answers are specific historical constructions of ethnic identity that demonstrate the mutability of identity. But the answers, in the larger comparative frame set out in Part One (session 147), also highlight contrasts between the Chinese and Thai polities, at the same time as demonstrating commonalities: the power of origin myths as paradigms for identity, the potential of states to reify or "canonize" particular ethnic traditions, and the changes wrought by the rise of nation-states. All presenters are anthropologists engaged in on-going fieldwork in China and Thailand. The discussant, Jonathan Lipman, a historian specializing in Muslims in China, is familiar with issues relating to nationalism, an important factor in our discussion of states and ethnic identity formation.
Nicola Tannenbaum, Lehigh University
While "Thai Yai," "Shan," and "Tai Long" ostensibly refer to the same group of people, each term reflects a different political identity. Thai Yai and Shan are terms outsiders use while Tai Long is how they refer to themselves. Thai Yai is the Thai term while Shan is used in Burma and Western academic writing. In this paper, I examine the political religious structures of Shan communities and groups of communities in the recent past and go on to explore how these structures have changed through interaction with the British colonial state, the current Burmese regime, and the modern Thai state. I then discuss the ways these different regimes have affected how Shan see themselves as political actors and as a kind of "people" in these multi-ethnic states.
Wugashinuimo Louwu (Wu Ga), University of Michigan
Since the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, the definition and classification of nationalities has often been a highly charged political and emotional process. In the case of the Yi, during the 1950s state policy emphasized ethnic identity. Using language as a criterion, the Yi along with 18 other nationalities and two groups of Denren, Moso were classified in the Tibeto-Burman language family. Later the use of Bimo, books, kushi-new year celebration, father-son genealogy and the fire torch festival became important elements which defined the Yi. By the early 1960s nationality was de-emphasized. Nationality was considered a constructed and historical process which would disappear. Subsequently, socialist content and national form theory focused on caste and class as defining traits of the Yi. Connections among geographically dispersed Yi were de-emphasized, and Bimo books and other symbols of Yi identity, including the written language, were banned. Bimos were arrested, criticized and humiliated and their books were burned.
Since 1972, the state council has issued new nationality policies. The first Yi Bimo classic translation project was funded by the state council. The project invited elderly Bimo from four provinces to Beijing, to translate more than 300 Bimo books in different libraries as well as books from four provinces. All these books mentioned Apudumo as the earliest ancestor of the Yi nation. Apudumo’s descendants—the six brothers—were described as the founders of different Yi societies in Sichuan, Guizhou, Yunnan, and Guangxi. For the first time since the 1950s, the six-ancestor myth united the Yi and influenced Yi identity. After 1982, this new identity influenced a new generation of Yi writers. I will also raise some issues with scholars who have studied upland Southeast Asian groups to examine related customs. My primary aim is to point out the way states inadvertently create pan-ethnic unity through their patronage/or canonization of particular texts and cultural practices.
Hjorleifur Jonsson, Cornell University.
Drawing on the case of Yao/Mien, I examine the impact of lowland states on highlander identities. One of the origin accounts of the Yao people is the myth of Pien Hung (Phan Hu), which tells of a dragon-dog at the Emperor’s court who won a princess in marriage in return for a particular favor for the Emperor. This story gets treated as "pure mythology" in many accounts, but I argue that has had historical resonance for highlander identity. The historical truth of the account is encoded in its sociological content, that of establishing social categories, relations of tribute and trade, and particular ethnic identities. I draw on parallels in mainland Southeast Asia to show a common pattern of a mapping of agricultural practices, social identities, and political affiliations, emanating from the state’s civilizing project. I discuss how the state-inspired identities had differential impact within highlander societies, and then, from the case of Yao/Mien in northern Thailand, how the framework of nation-states has realigned agricultural practices, social relations, ethnic identities, and internal differentiation in highland societies.