Did the Chinese government fund research into whether Han are human?

May 18, 2007 7:10 AM

I once read a claim that the Chinese government had funded "research" whose aim was to prove that Han Chinese are a different species to other humans. It was a physical book, not online. What might it have been? And incidentally, is the claim true?
posted by hoverboards don't work on water to Law & Government (14 answers total)

Well, I can answer the last part. No, it isn't true.
posted by anansi at 7:16 AM on May 18, 2007

I should make it clear that when I ask whether it's true, I mean is it true that the research existed, not whether the Han really are a different species, which is obviously loony.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 7:22 AM on May 18, 2007

The usual biological definition of species is, basically, that set of organisms that could interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Plenty of hot little lithe Chinese-Hyphen chicks prove that the Han are not a separate species, woo-hoo. (I guess that half-Han men exist too, but I don't swing that way.)
posted by orthogonality at 7:27 AM on May 18, 2007

Oddly enough, I've heard of that supposed study too.

I don't believe it, however. At least, I certainly don't believe that it existed as a serious scientific project. I suppose it's possible that during the Gang of Four era someone decided it was a good way to siphon off some cash.

But even then, I still don't think the project ever actually existed, even as a scam.
posted by aramaic at 7:32 AM on May 18, 2007

Of course it's not true. What criteria differentiates one species from another? Be sure to pick one that doesn't say I'm of a different species than my sister is.

That's not to say that there's not a book that claims it. Every culture tries to claim they're the center of the world and that people over the horizon are fundamentally different.
posted by cmiller at 7:34 AM on May 18, 2007

cmiller, I think that China has always set a precedent in the we are a unique and special society different from all others area. And I think that when Peking man was found they did publicly speculate that they were the result of a separate offshoot from the main human branch, but obviously DNA testing has since negated that argument. But keep in mind that this is a society that still has a very active cloud seeding program going so they are perhaps more willing to accept shall we say imaginative sciences.
posted by BobbyDigital at 7:59 AM on May 18, 2007

We explored the Han identity and Chinese nationalism in my East Asian Politics course two semester ago and I recall reading about these sorts of studies. As a Han myself, I find the idea of being a different species a rather amusingly dumb idea, but I do understand the reasons that the government would want to fund something like this.

I'll try and see if I can dig up any specifics.
posted by roomwithaview at 8:08 AM on May 18, 2007

Forty or fifty years ago, the idea that human beings in different parts of the world had separately and independently evolved from some non-human primate ancestor was fairly respectable; I think the most popular number was five independent origins, and the name I associate with it is C. D. Darlington.

A year or so ago I thought I saw a reference to someone trying to revive this in some form, but I couldn't run it down for this answer.
posted by jamjam at 12:01 PM on May 18, 2007

Polyregionalism did have some currency a couple of decades back. However, its always been loony and it is based more on ethnocentric perceptions than on good science.
posted by anansi at 12:10 PM on May 18, 2007

funded "research" whose aim was to prove that Han Chinese are a different species to other humans.

Not different but "superior". Guess what, the Germans tried to prove this too 60 years ago...

Even today the believe in cultural and/or racial supremacy runs deep in a lot of cultures. Not seldom combined with a slight inferiority complex.

But you know how it is. There can be only one.. ;-)
posted by yoyo_nyc at 3:10 PM on May 18, 2007

Thank you roomwithaview, that would be awesome.

Not different but "superior". Guess what, the Germans tried to prove this too 60 years ago...

I guess it probably was their aim to demonstrate superiority, but the study as cited was specifically about Han being not just better than, but altogether biologically different from, the rest of humanity.

Polyregionalism may be what it's all about, but I'm specifically interested in the Chinese interpretation of it, or at least I want to know which book it was that I read that originally claimed there was such an interpretation!
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 3:32 PM on May 18, 2007

I study China and the history surrounding Han-ness is complex. I would recommend that you look at Frank Dikotter's work on Race and Eugenics in China. A google search should get you what you're looking for.
posted by B-squared at 4:39 PM on May 18, 2007

I seem to recall there were serious contentions made that Peking Man provided a separate origin for homo erectus in Asia, rather than the out-of-Africa theory.
A quick search brings up stories like this: 中科院称中国人祖先未必完全来自非洲 ("[Scholars at] the Chinese Academy of Sciences say the ancestors of the Chinese didn't necessarily come from Africa") Searches on the pinyin of the placename 周口店 get you references like this. Could that be what you were thinking of?
posted by Abiezer at 9:49 PM on May 18, 2007

Bit more in English here. Seems it's the polyregionalism anansi is referring to.
posted by Abiezer at 9:52 PM on May 18, 2007