Contents

1. Abstract

2. Introduction

3. Name and Identity: Hmong or Miao?

4. Roles of the State

5. Role of Place

6. Transnational Ties

7. ​Nation or Nationality?

8. Conclusion

9. References

10. Footnotes

​

Abstract​​​

What constitutes a nationality? What is ethnic identity at the personal, group, national and global levels? What does this mean for the Hmong/Miao around the world? These are difficult questions for the Miao/Hmong in China and those in the diaspora. The problem is that there are a number of distinct groups subsumed under this name, groups that share similar cultures but do not speak the same languages or dialects. On what basis should nationality, then, be determined?

​

This presentation will explore these difficult questions, by looking at different elements of a nationality. As extension to this issue, the paper will also discuss what constitutes ethnic identity at the personal, group, national and global levels, and what this all means for the Hmong/Miao around the world. It is argued that although nationality and identity are perceived differently at the personal and group level, the Miao/Hmong share the same dimensions of nationality at the global level through their identification with a common ethnic identity and a broad vision on what is this transnational group image through the sharing of a common history and traumatized culture.

 

Key words: Miao/Hmong identities, identity formation, nation and nationality

​​

Introduction​

This paper aims to look at the concepts of “nation” and “nationality”, and how they affect the Miao/Hmong identity formation.

 

The Miao/Hmong form one of the many tribal minorities which are scattered in the border regions of China, Vietnam, Laos and Thailand. The total number of Miao population in China in 2000 is estimated at 9.2 million with 3.1 million being Hmong. The figure for the latter increases to 4.5 million world-wide if we add the following: 787,000 in Vietnam; 460,000 in Laos; 140,000 in Thailand; 2,000-3,000 in Myanmar; 200,000 in the USA; 15,000 in France; 2,000 in Australia; 1,400 in Canada; 300 to Argentina; and 110 in Germany (Lemoine, 2005).

 

Those classified as belonging to what Schein (2004: 274) calls “the cumbersome umbrella” term ‘Miao’ in China include:

 

• the "Qhao Xiong" in Western Hunan;

• the "Hmub", "Gha Ne" or "Hmu" for a group speaking the same dialect in South eastern Kweichow;

• the "A Hmao" in Northwest Kweichow and Northeast Yunnan; and

• the "Hmong" in South Szechwan, West Kweichow and South Yunnan.

 

The separate ethnic names also refer to the language spoken by each group concerned. These different dialects and languages belong to the Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao) branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family. The Hmong/Miao’s social organization is based on the clan system through the sharing of specific clan or surnames similar to those of the Chinese.

 

Let us now explore the various issues associated with the Hmong to see if they are a nation or a nationality, and how this has affected their attempts at identity formation and nation-building. It is hoped that in the process, some of the key questions posed in the theme for this panel of the conference may also be answered.​

​

Name and Identity: Hmong or Miao?​​

The identity of a person or group is often associated with the name used for that person or group. How a person or group is perceived and treated often depends on the name given to them and its shades of meaning. In normal situations, each person or group only has one name, so that identification is clear-cut. For the Miao/Hmong, however, this is not the case. This has become controversial enough that it is discussed at length in scholarly writings (Lee, 1996 and 2007; and Thao and Yang, 2004).

 

From the many names used and their scattered demographic distribution, it is not surprising that finding a common identity for the Hmong-Miao is a problem, not only within themselves as a group but also in relation to other peoples and nations they live under. The nomenclature used for them is originally imposed from outside – by the conquering Chinese who called any non-Han groups they encountered early in their history as “Miao”. Subsequently, other countries to which the Hmong have migrated, also adopted the original name given them by the Chinese, or variations of it such as “Meo” or “Meau” (Bernatzik,1970). These multiple names and layers of identity have made it confusing not only for outsiders but also for the Miao/Hmong themselves to be able to form a single true ethnic identity as enjoyed by so many other peoples.

 

According to Enwall (1992:256), the term "Miao" was used in pre-Quin China to refer to non-Chinese people of Southern China, often in combination such as "Miao Min" (the Miao people), "Yu Miao" (the Miao) and "San Miao" (the three groups of Miao). Later, during the Tang and Sung dynasties, the term "Nan Man" (Southern Barbarians) was used, and it was not until 862 A.D. that the word "Miao" appeared again in Fan Chuo's book _Manshu on the Man Tribes. During the Ming and Quing dynasties, both the terms "Man" and "Miao" were used. The Ming dynasty (1368-1644 A.D.) finally saw the term used for the Hmong in today's China where they are now referred to as "Miao-Tseu" with the more positive meaning of “rice seedlings” or “people of the soil”. Currently, the term "Miao" does not seem to have negative meanings, so that the various sub-groups classified under this official name readily accept being known as Miao for the Chinese, while they reserve the more specific ethnonyms such as A Hmao, Hmong or Hmu for intra-ethnic identification between themselves. In fact, members of the Nuosu and A Hmao minorities actively campaigned for the umbrella term "Miao" to be used for them after the change in political regime in China in 1949 because of the advantage of its familiarity and long association with China’s ancient history (Cheung, 2004: 237-272).

​

Until 1970, therefore, the international literature, following Chinese usage, usually refers to the Hmong as "Miao" or "Meo", although this is not the term the Hmong outside China use or want to refer to themselves. This is because, the Hmong in Laos and Thailand have found that with a slight change in accent, the word "Meo" in Lao and Thai can be pronounced to mean "cat". It is most offensive for people in Asia to be compared to an animal, a lower form of beings in their views. For this reason, the Hmong have taken exception to being known as "Meo". The Lao government has tried to address the problem by referring to them as "Lao Sung" or "Lao of the mountain tops", a term which also includes the I-Mien or Yao people. The Thai government continues to call the Hmong “Meo” in official documents on the ground that it would be too confusing to change. Outsiders in Laos and Thailand, refer to the Hmong as "Hmong" when political correctness calls for it, although sometimes "Meo" continue to be used (Dommen, 2001).

 

Today, the term "Hmong" has come to be used internationally, largely through the advocacy of the Hmong in Laos and through the pioneering work of Dr. Yang Dao (1974 and 1993), who first suggested that the word "Hmong" means "free man". Leaders of a messianic movement based in the former refugee camps in Thailand believe that the term "Peb Hmoob" (Us Hmong) derives from the word "Peb Hmoov", meaning "the Tree Fortunes" (interview with Lis Txais, June 1977). The word "peb" can mean either "us" or "three". Hmong messianic legend has it that the Hmong were once delivered from the Chinese by a set of three brothers called "Peb Hmoov" (the Three Fortunes). Before 

this, the Hmong are said to call themselves "Keeb" (Quing or Ch'ing) or "originators". Over time, the term “Peb Hmoov” has changed to "Peb Hmoob" or just “Hmoob” (Hmong).

 

Regardless of the origin or meaning of the name “Hmong”, it has been used as an inclusive term embracing all sub-groups of people known as Hmong (for White Hmong) or Mong (for the Blue Mong who use the term without the nasal “h” sound). In 2004, a debate erupted among the Hmong in the United States of America where Blue Mong leaders argued that “Hmong” only included White Hmong (who use the term) but not the Blue Mong who were different in language and culture (Thao and Yang, 2004). In their view, members of the Blue Mong feel excluded and are disadvantaged when the term “Hmong” is used as it shows political hegemony by the more powerful White Hmong majority. The issue remains unresolved and is still controversial enough so that some people prefer to use the cumbersome term “Hmong/Mong” for the group as a whole [1].

 

Whatever the future, one thing is certain: the term “Hmong” has become so widely known for all Hmong groups during the last fifty years that the name “Meo” or “Miao” is now rarely mentioned when referring to the Hmong outside of China (Lee and Tapp, 2004). No longer are the Miao/Hmong treated and seen as a lower form of humans, as “barbarians” or “cats”, at least in official terminology, but as a “free people”, especially when reinforced by academic writings on them [2]. By extension, the term “Hmong” has also been used to interchange with the term “Miao” when Hmong from America visit their Miao fellow people in China and call themselves Miao, or when Miao visitors go to America and call themselves Hmong. As Schein (2004: 285) puts it, this “realignment in Miao conceptualization of belonging” has given them the opportunity for “identity exchange” and “identity production” with each other across space. These transnational contacts have led to the development of a global Hmong identity, a reposition of ethnic affiliation which is often communicated on the Internet. This has thus created a trend towards the interchangeability of the terms "Hmong" and "Miao”, allowing for an identity switch based not on a common culture and language, but on a “general notion of fraternity as well as more particularized bonds of kinship and marriage alliance”, as well as mutual obligations (Schein 2004: 278).

​

In a transnational context, then, Hmong can be Miao and Miao can be Hmong. There is no question of identity conflict, even if the people doing the identity exchange cannot speak with each other. What seems to be important is that they agree to identify with each other as belonging to the same classification, the same ethnic nationality. Miao/Hmong identity is thus profoundly confounded by these historical incidents, exchanges, debates and discourses. The name “Hmong” has become further complicated by migration to other countries, by the need to adapt to new cultures and new appellations under different government policies and the reactions of local citizens towards the Hmong as a minority group.

 

I will now look at the influences of government policies in the various countries where the Hmong live to see how they have helped to determine Miao/Hmong identity formation.

​​

Roles of the State​

What are the roles and practices of different states in constructing and administering the Miao/Hmong as citizens, immigrants, minorities? How do contemporary policies of inclusion and of multicultural national identity play out in these different nations? What forms of discrimination and exclusion exist in these respective cases?

 

This section will examine these questions in relation to the Hmong in Australia.

 

The first refugees from Laos to resettle in Australia arrived in 1976 after the communist victory in Laos at the end of the Vietnam War. They were asylum seekers who fought on the side of the American-backed Royal Lao Government. The Australian government was very selective and preferred small young families with some knowledge of English and work skills. It also preferred refugees with relatives or contacts who were already in the country so as to have someone to give the necessary support, especially after 1982 when many Hmong were accepted under the Family Reunion Scheme of the Australian Department of Immigration. For these reasons, the number was very small, only 2000, compared to the more liberal policy of the US government that accepted more than 200,000 Hmong.

​

The Hmong were part of the larger Lao refugee intake and were not accepted into Australia on account of their role in the so-called “secret war” in Laos but on the more humane ground of being homeless after the war. They went to Australia at a time when the country was in full swing implementing the most liberal policy that encouraged ethnic minorities to integrate and to maintain their culture while making contribution to the nation. Assimilation was no longer enforced.

 

During the early 1980’s and 1990’s, Australia’s major policy towards ethnic minorities is known as Multiculturalism where the cultures of migrants and refugees were encouraged to exist side by side as mutually enriching elements of Australian society. An Institute of Multicultural Affairs was established to research the best way to implement the government’s multicultural policy and to disseminate information. State governments introduced Ethnic Affairs Policy Statement (EAPS) that each state department had to develop and implement across its work areas. The overall objective was to ensure access and equity in government services to all citizens, regardless of their ethnic backgrounds. Funding, from both Federal and State governments, was made available to pay for the teaching of ethnic languages through the Ethnic Schools program, so that the languages and cultures of minorities could be taught and maintained.

 

Thanks to the presence of young Hmong leaders who were well informed of these government initiatives in Australia, the Hmong quickly seized on these opportunities. They had escaped from Laos where they used to be called “cat” (Meo) and treated as unkempt backward hill tribe peasants, where any government benefit and service had to be fought or paid for with corruption money. Now in Australia, they were seen as citizens with equal rights and unhindered access to government services. They quickly formed their own mutual help association, the Hmong Australia Society (HAS), in 1978 and started to teach members about life in the new country, and to find jobs and housing for them. They obtained government funding to run Hmong language and culture courses for young children, and to teach interested young men about Hmong religion and rituals. Special allowance was made by the Immigration Department to accept Hmong ritual specialists from the refugee camps in Thailand to help serve the needs of those already living in Australia. Some of these activities are still maintained even today, by various HAS branches in different states, especially the teaching of ritual performances.     

​

Unlike the United States with its many Hmong refugees sponsored by Christian church organisations, the resettlement of Hmong in Australia was done through the sponsorship of their own relatives and by the government with minimal church participation. For this reason, hardly any Hmong families there have converted to Christianity, except for 16 families who were converted from Laos or Thai refugee camps. With the support of government multicultural policies and the separation of religion from the state that does not force people to practice any particular set of beliefs, the Hmong have been given the freedom to practice their traditional animism and ancestor worship.

 

Although these Hmong traditions have been practiced only within their own community, most Hmong feel that at least they have been given the chance to maintain their culture and to form a separate ethnic identity as one of more than 160 minorities that call Australia home. There are restrictions as to what elements of their culture can be openly displayed such as the killing and sacrificing of animals during funerals or shamanic rituals that go against local law or public tastes. But at least their cultural and ethnic identity has been allowed to flourish. Museum exhibitions have been mounted on their colourful costumes and traditional lifestyles. Newspaper reports and articles have been written about them as one of the ethnic groups that form the nation of Australia [3].   

 

They are included in important cultural events, whether local or national. In Melbourne, where there is a large Hmong community, they have run their own Hmong radio program for many years. The Hmong Australia Society also publishes its own newsletter to keep members informed of government policies and other relevant activities. These media forums have made it possible for the Hmong of Australia to express themselves and to manifest their identity as a minority and a culture living in harmony with other groups. They are called “Hmong” and are no longer referred to as “Meo”, a very important victory in the Hmong’s struggle for equal rights and social acceptance. The only area that may be said have issues is in the workplace where the majority of Hmong still linger in unskilled and low-paid jobs, largely due to their lack of education and training when they were still in Laos.

 

However, many members of the younger generation have been able to succeed in higher education and obtain well-paid white-collar positions in private businesses or in government agencies. Identity, like culture, is constantly changing. It remains to be seen in what form and direction the Hmong will take on their ethnic identity in the future. Much will depend on what kind of identity they want to have: Hmong, Australian Hmong, or simply Australian.   

​​

Role of Place​

A common conception of identity and culture is to associate a person or group with a particular place, village, landscape or country. Space gives not only a sense of identity but also power (Gupta and Ferguson, 2001). When we think of a Chinese person, for example, we immediately think of someone living in China or with a background linking him or her to China. However, this does not seem to apply always to the Miao/Hmong people who do not at present have such “a place” to call their own, as they only live under other more powerful people. This has given rise to two political movements within the Hmong in the USA to work towards getting the Hmong a country or ”physical space” (teb chaws) of their own. They are: the Hmoob Teb Chaws (Hmong Country), and the Keeb Thawj Xeeb Xyooj (a splinter from the first group). They have their own Hmong dresses (black clothing with blue borders with a black hat top) as emblems for the movement. The first group has been working since the early 2000’s through UNPO (Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization) whose aims are to “support silenced voices, build solidarity between communities, and defend the right to self-determination as a foundation for peace, justice, and inclusive governance” (see UNPO in Wikipedia). This group joined UNPO on 2 February 2007 under the name of “Congress of World Hmong People”. In 2022, the KEEB THAWJ XEEB XYOOJ organization states that they aim to “Tsa Haiv” or mobilise the Hmong to the level where they would have their own country and government. They conduct regular broadcasts of their activities on YouTube. Whether these political dreams will become reality or not is another issue, but it clearly shows that having a country or “physical space” of their own is an additional important index for people for them to see themselves as an ethnic entity.

 

Today with roads and telecommunications linking every area dominated by the Hmong, it is no longer possible to move villages every few years, due to political pressure for governments to have better control of its citizens. Many of the more isolated villages in Laos, for example, have been moved by government officials to settle permanently close to arterial roads linking them more readily to official administrative centres.

​

This is in contrast to the situation of more than 50 years ago when few of these Hmong mountain settlements were linked by road. In that early period in Thailand, for instance, the Hmong are reported to be a group that "changed their localities more than any other hill people" (Young, 1974: 46). They are also seen as mountain dwellers, "highlanders", "a hill tribe", a tourist curiosity. More commonly, they are seen as “migrants of the mountains” or people often on the move [4]. Until 30 years ago in Laos and Thailand, they are said to migrate every ten years or so to a different village after they have slashed and burned the forest around the old settlement for agriculture. They were not permanent settlers like wet rice farmers. This is said to have led them to move freely across boundaries between neighboring countries. Hence, they are found in a large area across country borders between southern China, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand and Burma.

 

In Laos, the Hmong used to be officially named "Lao Soung" or "Lao of the mountain tops", an appellation that is no longer adopted today. In the early periods of their history, their frequent migration and preference for mountain living, and their geographical isolation are said to have made it difficult to integrate into the mainstream nation. Thus, Young states that they could not be "absorbed easily by the Thai people or other tribes. They continue to have very strong bonds of solidarity and tight clans." With increased population pressure and changes in government policy for more sedentary settlements, we can no longer say that the Hmong are still a mountain tribe who migrate regularly. It is true that many Hmong of the older generation dreaded going to the lowlands, as many died from malaria and other diseases they caught during these trips. There are many tragic tales of drowning, sickness and death following visits to "chaw qis" or "the lowlands." They are also afraid to live near rivers for fear of drowning or being "swallowed by river dragons." The fear of water means that few Hmong know how to swim. Does this mean that in the old days, they used to live only in the confines of their mountains, isolated from the lowlands, from modern urban life?

 

In Vietnam, Laos and Thailand, Hmong are known to live in the lowlands, working for the government, carrying on commerce or permanent irrigated rice farming. Many of us at this conference are the product of this lowland life, for only in the lowlands could we pursue higher education. The same pattern of settlement can be said about the Hmong in China. Ling and Ruey (1947: 54-72) stated that although swidden was still prevalent in the late 1940's in Western Hunan, wet rice terraces were also found along riverbanks and in valleys irrigated by water wheels. In Kweichow, according to De Beauclair (1970: 50), the Miao were "expert fish breeders" and cultivated terraced fields supported by stone walls and irrigated with water from bamboo pipes. In Northwestern Kweichow, wet rice fields, fish breeding and the construction of houses on stilts (instead of the traditional earthen floor) have been adopted as a result of influences by the T'ung minority, their neighbours.

 

The Hmong of Southeast Asia seem to have a well-developed sense of identity and culture based on spatial concepts (Tomforde, 2004).

However, this does not indicate that not all Hmong are migratory swidden farmers living in hill areas, or are adverse to living in the lowlands and along riverbanks. Hmong in China and Vietnam have now lived willingly amid their dominant neighbours in urban or semi- rural areas. Some do farming, others trade or work for wages. Thus, the Hmong appear to be adaptable to both lowland and highland settlement and are not confined to living on mountain tops. In fact, the Miao of Guizhou have a myth that says their ancestors originally came from the East where “the earth and waters were as one, the shining waves billowed up to the blue sky: everything was as flat as a bamboo mat, like the river flats where grain is dried” (Bender, 2006: 170).

 

Despite this mixed settlement pattern, space is till seen as being most important to the identity formation of Miao/Hmong people. Having a place to call their own appears crucial to their survival. Being confined spatially to a specific geographical area or territory gives a person or group its distinctive cultural difference and identity, such as whether one is a rural farmer or a city worker. A place or geographical origin conveys an additional dimension to the image we have of the person or group involved.

 

The ancient “Five Pairs of Parents” of the Miao might have “lived in the east along a seashore” in China and later moved west “because of poverty and overcrowding” (Bender, 2006: 191).  There is no doubt, however, that much of Miao/Hmong migration in later periods occurred due to Chinese empire building and occupation of their lands during the Qing Dynasty (1644–1911). Ch’eh (1947) clearly documents the gradual shrinkage of Miao territories in Hunan over different periods of history, as a result of Chinese conquest and land confiscation from native residents.  Those who used to live in the lowlands were forced to flee to the mountains and isolated areas to escape Chinese troops. Many Miao had to adopt the language and culture of neighboring tribes in order not to be hunted down and exterminate by Chinese soldiers. Many Hmong fled China to neighboring countries and were able to keep their language and culture while those who stayed behind in China had to become sinicized and to speak the Chinese language. In the process, their identity changed and is no longer one showing genuine Miao/Hmong origin.

​

Space and the struggle for spatial occupation are thus crucial identity determinants. This is manifested by the fact that many elderly leaders and members of the Hmong diaspora in America still long for the homeland of Laos and China, still want to come and visit. Others have established political movements in the hope to recapture the old country of Laos by force. They believe that having a country of their own is the only way that will free the Hmong from the domination of other people, will give them true independence and freedom to run their own affairs, to get away from the discrimination and injustice they suffer in the hands of other groups. This, of course, does not mean that other Hmong share the same feeling about the importance of having a country, about space ownership.

 

Transnational Ties​

Beyond the national context, what are at the transnational ties that Miao/Hmong are creating at the present time? What kinds of exchanges and relations are being developed that cross state borders and produce new forms of collectivity?

 

Many Hmong in Western countries today make visits to their relatives and Miao/Hmong brethrens in Asia. Each year, thousands of them go to Laos, Thailand, Vietnam and China to attend the Hmong New Year celebrations, to see old friends or to tour areas where other Hmong can be found. Some also travel to do business with other Hmong entrepreneurs, to take back goods they can market to the Hmong in the diaspora.

​

Others go to the homeland to find wives and husbands for themselves or for their children. These visits have allowed the Hmong in different parts of the world to get to know each other, to forge international ties that create a global Hmong consciousness, an identity across oceans and physical boundaries.

 

This Miao/Hmong global consciousness has also been reinforced by the Internet and the Hmong American media. The Internet has been extensively used by Hmong in different countries to connect to each other, to chat and exchange information or ideas, to express their concerns and creativity. Many have used it to do business, and to disseminate Hmong music and culture. Others use the Internet to share news and information about Hmong in their countries, so that what happens in one place becomes quickly known to Hmong in other regions of the world. Thus, the Internet has been a great source of communication and information to help Hmong maintain contact with each other and to create a global identity between them.

Many Hmong magazines and newspapers – some online- have also been published to spread news and information, but these tend to be local in their distribution and are not as effective as the many Hmong websites on the Internet.

 

For the majority of elderly and illiterate Hmong, however, the best source of information and cultural exchanges have been Hmong radio stations and video products, especially those available in the USA. Again, thanks to the Internet, many Hmong radio stations can be heard broadcasting news, advice and commentaries to other Hmong. Some radio stations also offer to send messages from listeners to relatives and friends in other countries. Radio is thus the most popular media that shapes Hmong international consciousness and global identity. It helps to make Hmong people know that there are other Hmong in other countries and to be aware of important events that take place among them. It links Hmong together across the air waves. It is instantaneous and live so people can get a sense of urgency and of being there.

 

This is all the more so, when video products are also produced in great quantity each year for Hmong consumption around the world. These videos give viewers graphic images of Hmong people living different lifestyles in different countries, making them feel as if they were there sharing things together (Lee, 2006). Through radio and the use of Hmong videos, old elements of Hmong culture are seen and maintained while new ones are invented and disseminated, especially in the areas of music and entertainment like movie-making and traditional singing. In this way, there seems to be a lot of borrowing from different Hmong groups and from other cultures.

​

For the Hmong in the diaspora and the Miao in China, this attempt at “identity production” arises out of social, economic and political expediency, carved from “not only linguistic and cultural dimensions, but also political and economic strategies…a multidimensional and potent transnationality that is constructed precisely out of the entangling of the cultural with the economic and the political.” (Schein 2004: 274). More importantly,

​

“.... the coalescence of interests that impels the Hmong/Miao forging of transnationality has permitted the elaboration of common identity despite communication barriers and cultural disjunctions. As minorities in all of the states in which they reside, the choice to travel what Appadurai (1993) has called the "postnational," translocal route seems one of their best hopes. An identification forged out of cultural production and what I have called identity exchanges could be for both Hmong and Miao a means not only to reconnect but simultaneously to circumvent marginalization within their respective states.” (Schein 2004: 286).

​​​

Nation or Nationality?​

According to the Dictionary.com:

a). A nation is (1) a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own; (2) the territory or country itself; (3) an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages.

b). Nationality is (1) the status of belonging to a particular nation by origin, birth, or naturalization, or (2) people having common origins or traditions.

​

From these definitions, it is obvious that a nationality (people with common origins and traditions) can also be a nation (an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages). However, in general, nationality is a homogenous group (people with similar looks, language and traditions) while a nation often consists of many different groups with diverse cultures and languages.

 

If we go by this definition, then, the Hmong would be a nationality while the Miao with the Hmu, Hmong, Qhao Xiong and A Hmao as nationality members can be seen as a nation by virtue of it having more than one minority group affiliated with it. In China, the Miao nation can be said to occupy a territory with physical borders in which its member nationalities are found such as Hupei, Hunan, Guizhou, Seichuan, and Yunnan. Beyond China, their original homeland, the global Miao/Hmong community today can be said to be a nation without a territory, despite being a nationality or minority group within the borders of the countries many of them now live in. Members of the nationalities constituting it as the Miao nation exist across and beyond territorial boundaries and physical space. No borders can stop them from reaching out to members of their global nation. If we accept this proposal, then we should have little or no problem being classified into a number of subgroups with their own ethno-names such as Hmong, Hmu, Qhao Xiong, and A Hmao. Under this scheme, the four groups are part of the Miao nation, but they form four distinct nationalities or minorities. A Hmong or Hmu person is Miao, but is not a Qhao Xiong or A Hmao, and vice versa.

 

Of course, such proposition is always open to question, and it can be argued that a Hmu can be seen as being a Hmong as well by virtue of them belonging to the Miao nation, as well as being a Chinese, American, French, Australian citizen. It all depends on what perspective we come from, our own feelings and perception about ourselves 

and our fellow Miao people, and above all our loyalty to the country we have adopted as our own.

 

If this view is accepted, we can further claim Miao history as our own, as belonging to all four member groups without the need or concern to distinguish which group was really the subject mentioned in Chinese history. After all, Chinese    historical records never mention Hmu or Hmong, but only Miao or San Miao. As Lee (2007) states in another context,

 

The recognition that the [Hmong] originated only in China and the search for this origin through the inclusive “Miao” designation .... lend credibility to their political voice when backed up by 9.2 million Miao around the globe, compared to much smaller populations if they are divided into more distinctive ethnic groups with their own origins. Which would the Hmong prefer, being known as Miao and having a long history stretching back to Chi Yu time in 2,700 BC in Chinese antiquity with a large current global population, or possessing only a sketchy history going back to the 19th century AD when they first converted to Christianity and became known as Hmong, with only 4.5 million members world-wide?  

 

The Chinese Miao have recognized the potential of having an ancient history and being the fifth largest nationality in China. They have struggled for this identity over many years and joined hands as one single people with one ethno-name, as this gives them the strength and support, as well as the recognition and respect they need. They refuse to be known only as “hill tribes”, “little brothers” and a people without history. This issue, however, has not even begun to enter the thinking of the 200,000 Hmong in the diaspora, except that they do not want to be known as Miao because of its negative connotation of earlier times.”  

​

The acceptance of a common Miao nation with a common origin in southern China would make our national identity become clearer. We are the Hmong, Hmu, Qhao Xiong and A Hmao minorities, but we belong to the Miao/Hmong nation. Those who object to being called Miao will thus be spared of the challenge, while those who wish to identify themselves as Miao can do so with freedom and no concern for negativity.

​

Conclusion​

Names, space and government policies are crucial in identity formation. The Hmong in China are today reported to readily accept being called "Miao". Enwall (op.cit.: 258) also contends that the Hmong in China have voiced no concern about the term, and it is impossible to write "Hmong" in Chinese characters (with a nasal 'h'). Regardless of this, the reference to the Hmong as "Miao-tseu" carries shades of ambiguity since it can be defined as either "rice sprouts" or "sons of the soil". The Chinese Hmong may have raised no objection because they have not been ridiculed by the use of such a name unlike their brothers and sisters in Thailand or Laos. Thus, among themselves, the Hmong outside China prefer to be called "Hmong" (in the White Hmong dialect) or "Mong" (in Blue Hmong or Moob Lees). Those in China use such terms to designate themselves as "Ghao Xiong", "Hmub", "Gha Ne" or "Hme", "A Hmao" and "Hmong”.

 

Despite this diversity in their ethnonyms, the Hmong in China accept the Chinese term "Miao" for their identification based political convenience and through forces of history rather than any meanings of the word. The non-Chinese aboriginals of southern China consist of many different ethno-linguistic groups. After many centuries of Chinese control, some might have adopted the name "Miao" without realising how many other groups have had it used for them. Hence, the acceptance of the name by such a large number of culturally and linguistically diverse people, many of whom cannot even communicate with each other, except in Chinese. There is thus a clear case of these member groups under the umbrella name “Miao” being more appropriately seen as a nation rather than a nationality or minority. A nation consists of many different groups with their own name, language and culture – as is the case for the Miao. If this is accepted, then, all four minorities which are currently members of the Miao nation can equally benefit from the claim to Miao history as their very own history with a common identity.​

​

References

Bender, M. 2006. Butterfly Mother: Miao (Hmong) Creation Epics from Guizhou, China. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.

Bernatzik, H.A. 1970. Akha and Meau. New Haven: Human Relations Area File Press.

Best, S. 1995. The Politics of Historical Vision: Marx, Foucault, Habermas. New York: Guildford Press.

Chan, S. 1994. Hmong Means Free: Life in Laos and America. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Ch’eh, Tsu-Ying. 1947. The Miao Frontier in Hunan: a Historical Study. M.A. Thesis, Far Eastern Department, University of Washington.

Cheung Siu-Woo. 2004. " Miao Identity in Western Guizhou: China during the Republican Period”, in Tapp,N., Michaud,J., Culas, C.and Lee, G. Y. eds. Hmong/Miao in Asia. Chiangmai: Silkworm Books, pp.237-240.

de Beauclair I. 1970. Tribal Cultures of Southwest China. Taipei: China Cultural Service.

Dommen, A. J. 2001. The Indochinese Experience of the French and the Americans: Nationalism and Communism in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Enwall J. 1992. "Miao or Hmong?", Thai-Yunnan Project Newsletter, No 17, June 1992.

Geddes, W.R. 1976. Migrants of the Mountains. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Gupta, A. and Ferguson, J. eds. Culture, Power, Place. Durham: Duke University Press.

Hall, S. 1989. "Cultural Identity and Cinematic Representation." Framework, 36, pp. 68-81

________ 1996. “Introduction: Who Needs 'Identity?” in Hall, S. and du Gay, P. (eds.) Questions of Cultural Identity (London: Sage Publications), pp. 1-17.

Lee, G. Y. 1996. “Cultural Identity In Post-Modern Society:

Reflections on What is a Hmong”, Hmong Studies Journal, Vol.1, No.1.

_______   1988. “Hmong.”  In Jupp, J., ed. The Australian People: an Encyclopedia of the Nation, its People and their Origins. Sydney: Angus and Robertson.

_______   2001.  “Hmong.”  In Jupp, J., ed. The Australian People: an Encyclopedia of the Nation, its People and their Origins. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Second edition.

_______ 2006. “Dreaming Across the Oceans: Media, Globalization and Cultural Reinvention in the Hmong Diaspora”, Hmong Studies Journal, Vol. 7.

______  2007. “Diaspora and the Predicament of Origins: Interrogating Hmong Postcolonial History and Identity”, Hmong Studies Journal, Volume 8, 2007

______ and Tapp, N. 2005. "Current Hmong Issues: 12-point Statement” in www.garyyialee.com

Lemoine, J. 2005. “What is the Actual Number of the (H)mong in the World?”, Hmong Studies Journal, Vol. 6.

Ling S.S. and Ruey Y.F. 1947. The Miao Tribe of Western Hunan. Taipei: Academia Sinica.

Schein, L. 2004 “Hmong/Miao transnationality: Identity beyond Culture”, in Tapp,N., Michaud,J., Culas, C.and Lee, G. Y. eds. Hmong/Miao in Asia. Chiangmai: Silkworm Books, pp. 273-290.

Tapp, N. and Lee, G. eds. 2004. The Hmong People of Australia: Culture and Diaspora. Canberra: Pandanus Books, 2004

Thao, Paoze and Yang, Chimeng. 2004. "The Mong and the Hmong". Mong Journal, Vol. 1, June.

Tomforde, M. 2006. The Hmong Mountains: Cultural Spatiality of the Hmong in Northern Thailand. Hamburg: Lit Verlag.

Yang Dao, 1975. Les Hmong du Laos Face au Developement. Vientiane: Editions Siaosavath.

Yang Dao, 1993. Hmong At the Turning Point. Minneapolis: WorldBridge Associates. See footnote 1, p. xvi.

Young, G. 1974. The Hill Tribes of Northern Thailand. Bangkok: Siam Society.​

​​

Footnotes​

1. See Wikipedia, “Hmong People”, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hmong_people.

2. For example, Hmong Means Free by Sucheng Chan (1994).

3. See Lee (1998 and 2001). Also Lee and Tapp (2004).

4. See Geddes W.R. (1976).​

​