Nation, Country & State

[Ian_Lee]

In English, nation, country and state can be distinguished to a certain extent.

But in Chinese, these three terms are all translated into 國家

So amidst the cross-strait rivalry in the 1990s, Taiwan proposed a kind of link with Mainland under "One Nation Two States".

But most Chinese press back then didn't know how to translate this term properly (I recalled that even Taiwan officially could not offer a Chinese translation for such term).

Can anyone think of better Chinese equivalence for these western terms?

[ala]

No, nation is not 国家.

Land　土地

Nation　国民

State　統治機構 (Japanese only)

Country/State 国家

The only ambiguity in Chinese is between country and state (both are translated as 国家). Nation has been 国民 for a long time; nation-state = 国民国家. I don't understand why Taiwan ("Nationalists"!!!) and the Mainland couldn't find a proper translation in the 1990's for nation, when 国民 seems to work very well and has been used for more than a century. KMT 国民党 was translated as the Nationalist Party for a reason.

Like in Chinese, Japanese also mixes 国家 for country/state even though it has a more specialized and somewhat awkward term 統治機構 for state.

[Ian_Lee]

I guess nation should not be translated as 国民 in Chinese.

During the '30s, Hitler's slogan was "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer" (One people, one nation, one leader). Nation should encompass the country but more then the country itself. I guess that was the rationale behind Taiwan's "One Nation Two States".

Later, the book "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" was translated into Chinese as the "Rise and Fall of the Third Empire".

[ala]

nation was originally translated as 民族. But 民族 has been directed more towards ethnicity. To me, 国民 is an okay term for nation (especially a multicultural nation like China and the United States). But you are right, there is something unsatisfying about it, it suggests too much of people, and too little of the country. 国民 in Chinese might be better translated as "People." If that's the case, then you are right, there's no adequate translations for nation, country, state. But I still feel 国民 for nation is better than either 国家 or 民族. One can say: 一个中华国民，两个国家。 But if we used 民族： 一个中华民族，两个国家, this implies one Chinese people (race), two countries/states (this is unacceptable to the Mainland Chinese since any ethnic Chinese in Chinatown can be 中华民族). Or maybe all we need is a new term for state. We could just use 国家 for nation. But this will limit the "people/ethnic" connotations of nation, and make the term nation more political than it actually connotates. It will be hard to distinguish from Hong Kong's "One country two systems," and so will probably be unacceptable to the Taiwanese. From this perspective then, 国民 isn't that bad of a term for nation, at least compared to 民族 and 国家.

The translation for Reich as 帝国 in the "Third Reich" was a Japanese initiative, as many aspects of the Reich was quite similar to the Japanese empire.

[Zhende ma?]

I don't know exactly what the "One Nation Two States" translation is but the "One Country Two Systems" for HK and Aomen (Macau) is 一国两制

[bathrobe]

Third Reich:

The name given by the Nazis to their government in Germany; Reich is German for “empire.” Adolf Hitler, their leader, believed that he was creating a third German empire, a successor to the Holy Roman Empire and the German empire formed by Chancellor Bismarck in the nineteenth century.

From http://www.bartleby.com/59/10/thirdreich.html

[nnt]

The ambiguity was in the concept of Guo2 (Quốc 國 国) itself.

How do China history fans translate Zhan4 Guo2 戰國, San1 Guo2 (tam quốc 三國)? Shi2 Liu4 Guo2 (thập lục quốc 十六國?

China considered herself as "the world" tian1 xia4 (thiên hạ 天下) comprising many:

- states (as administrative divisions): in divided periods such as 三國

- nations, if you include ... the rest of the world. (CHinese official history books always included a brief part about foreign nations 外國)

That was no problem in older days, but now that "the world" is a multipolar world (as the French used recently hinting at the USA...) and English is an "international" language, the usage of the word 國 is highly sensitive in Taiwan context, because it would mean a declaration of independence (and a war).

Japan also had her warring "states"( or "state" ?) period 战国时代 (15th-16th century) which ended only around 1600.

Concerning Vietnam, its declaration of independence vis-à-vis China was included in a single verse: Nan2 guo2 shan1 he2 Nan2 di4 ju1:

南國山河南帝居

through its Vietnamese Pinyin:

Nam Quốc sơn hà Nam đế cư...

(On the Land of the South, the emperor of the South shall reign...)

Nan2 Guo2 (Nam Quốc 南國) as an opposition to Bei3 Guo2 (Bắc Quốc 北國) : Northern country/nation/state) referring to China as another nation/country/state, and đế (di4 帝) meaning emperor, implying no recognitition of any other superior power.

During the 1954-1975 period, North and South Vietnam were considered by the Vietnamese as regions (miền) with two regimes/administrations (chính quyền 政权).

[bathrobe]

Japan also had her warring "states"( or "state" ?) period 战国时代 (15th-16th century)

I think this naming was copied from the original Chinese warring states period. (Similarly for 南北朝, which is found in both Chinese and Japanese history.)

states (as administrative divisions): in divided periods such as 三国

I suspect this is a retrospective kind of thing. It is a political concept which seeks to deny such states permanent status, regarding them as temporary, non-fundamental divisions that are just thirsting to be united. Those with a desire to take 天下 would have a vested interest in denying the right of such states to their own identity, integrity, or independence.

As to what the real situation was at the time, I defer to the judgement of those members of the forum who are more familiar with the ins and outs of Chinese history.

[nnt]

I think this naming was copied from the original Chinese warring states period

Of course: Japanese knew/know their Chinese classics (and chengyus ) all too well...

I suspect this is a retrospective kind of thing

That was not . (Just re-read any Chinese classic book.)

The head of a guo 國 was a gong 公 under the Zhou king 周王. When they no longer recognize the Zhou king theoretical power, they all proclaimed themselves kings 王. Then came the first emperor 帝, even superior to kings 王, etc...

[bathrobe]

I suspect this is a retrospective kind of thing

That was not

I stand corrected. So, the question is, why did the Chinese equate 'states (as administrative divisions)' with 'nations' in the rest of the world?

[nnt]

why did the Chinese equate 'states (as administrative divisions)' with 'nations' in the rest of the world

Because the other known nations were China's neighbours , which were independent nations, but diplomatically recognized China's emperor 帝 authority, the head of these states/nations being kings 王(Similar to king/queen and Prime Ministers in British Commonwealth nowadays). In that context, proclaiming oneself 帝 is to challenge that imperial authority.

As you progress in chronology, the official history books would include more and more nations (European nations were mentioned in Ming's official history). That China-centric vision of the world is comparable to the Roman or European-centric vision of the world in the West.

[bathrobe]

That China-centric vision of the world is comparable to the Roman or European-centric vision of the world in the West.

Is it quite right to equate the two in such cavalier terms? Did the Eurocentric vision of the world recognise outer nations which were independent nations but diplomatically recognized Rome's emperor's 帝 authority? And did the Eurocentric version regard the head of these outer states/nations as kings 王? Unless by the Roman emperor (帝) you mean the Pope....

[nnt]

Bathrobe:

Please don't take these comparisions too litterally...

Perhaps, I should have written Roman-centric only (as the known world to the Romans were the countries around the Mediterranean Sea).

The known world to the Europeans before the discovery of America was already politically complex enough...

[39degN]

wasn't the state translated as 邦 or 联邦?

the concept should be 一国两邦

[ala]

联邦 is a federation (of many states). So 邦 can be reasoned as a state.

[Ian_Lee]

Confederacy is translated as 邦联.

Because the other known nations were China's neighbours , which were independent nations, but diplomatically recognized China's emperor 帝 authority, the head of these states/nations being kings 王

I seriously doubt if the Mandate of Heaven considered the other neighbors which paid tribute under the Confucian Hierarchy as independent nations.

Under the system, the palace of the king in these neighbors could not be taller than the Emperor's Palace in Beijing (In fact, no buildings could be taller than the palace in the Forbidden City anywhere in China.) The hats of those officials in these tributaries must be smaller than those in dynastic China.

If you visit Kyungbok Palace in Seoul and look at the costumes of the Yongban, you can tell the difference. Probably it is the same with Hue.

Of course, dynastic China knew the existence of foreign nations like Japan, Russia and Portugal. But all of them had only minimal contact with dynastic China.

Before 1870s, dynastic China had only Li Fan Yuan -- administering Barbarian/Dependency Department -- that handled relationship with her neighbors. Chinese Foreign Office -- Tsungli Yamen -- was only established after Empress Dowager reigned.

When McCartney of Britain was granted to meet Emperor Qian Long on 1792, the Qing Mandarins didn't know how to accord him -- official from tributaries (need to kowtow) or foreign nations.

The compromising solution was McCartney knelt on one foot and bowed 3 times.

[nnt]

I seriously doubt if the Mandate of Heaven considered the other neighbors which paid tribute under the Confucian Hierarchy as independent nations

The Southern Song 南宋 paid tribute to the Jin 金, and still Jin and Song were two separate states, weren't they?

Diplomatic words shouldn't be taken litterally, too.

[Ian_Lee]

Nnt:

I am talking about a stable Confucian Hierarchy which a Mandate of Heaven is firmly established.

Throuhgout Song Dynasty, that was not the case. Liao-Song, Qin-Song. Xia-Song and Mongol-Song relationships were fluid with war and temporary peace (characterized by humiliating treaties) interwined.

Moreover, leaders on both sides considered themselves as Son of Heaven and the Confucian Order was not established.

In stable typical tributary relationship like those existed between Ming and Yi Chosun, only peace and trade flourished.

[nnt]

Moreover, leaders on both sides considered themselves as Son of Heaven and the Confucian Order was not established.

Well, that was all the meaning of

南國山河南帝居 (see above)

concerning a more Southern emperor, too (Law and Order may not reign simultaneously across borders, and may not even be the same Law and Order, either)

[bathrobe]

a stable Confucian Hierarchy which a Mandate of Heaven is firmly established

This is an idealised state. Chinese history is a never-ending battle to reconcile the way things actually are with the way they 'should be' (just my personal view!).