为什么中国（大部分）都是汉族人呢？ [美国媒体]

I have read various sources that seem to say there were other ethnic groups across most of China and that Han Chinese emerged in northern China. My question is what happened to everyone else? Apparently across China the genetics indicate a shared ethnic group, how? In Europe most people from Ireland to turkey are descended from the people living there 3000+ years ago. Why not in China?

我看过各种消息来源，似乎都说以前中国大部分地区都有其他族裔的群体，而汉族人则发迹于中国的北方。我的问题是其他族裔的人都去哪儿了呢？现在在中国，很显然地是，遗传基因显示了他们来自一个共同的族群，怎么会这样呢？ 在欧洲，从爱尔兰到土耳其的大多数人都是3000多年前居住在那里的人们的后裔。为什么在中国不是这样呢？

[–]OrderingOlaf 8 * 
I really am no expert and can not give a lengthy explanation but I recall it was the Han just being really politically dominant for a long time that did it. They were able to create their own dynasty very early on. Since then I guess they never truly lost their political dominance even when not being the ruling dynasty. That prominence and their position around the coast and big rivers probably helped them grow larger then other ethnic groups like for instance the Tibetans in the mountains or the nomadic people on the Chinese steppes/deserts.

评论1：我真的不是这方面的专家，也不能给出一个冗长的解释，但我记得的是，汉族在政治上长期处于统治地位，他们很早就建立自己的王朝了。从那以后，我猜他们即使不是执政王朝，也从未真正失去过政治支配地位。居住在海岸和大河附近的突出地位和优越的地理位置可以帮助他们的族群成长得比其他民族群体更大，例如和山上的藏族人或中国草原/沙漠上的游牧民族相比。

[–]saltandvinegarrr 9 
Genetics are not what determines ethnicity. For example, Greeks and Turks are indistinguishable at the genetic level. The numbers of Han ethnicity is a bit of a statistical trick that uses the relative lack of ethnic nationalism to impose an idea of greater homogeneity. It includes hundreds of millions of people who speak languages unintelligible to each other. Functionally, it's closer to "American" than it is to a specific group like Flemish.

评论2：遗传基因并不决定种族。例如，希腊人和土耳其人在基因层面其实很难区分。汉族的数量是一种统计手段，它使用相对缺乏种族民族主义的观点来强化更大的同质性。它包括成千上万的讲不同语言的人。在功能上，它更接近于“美国人”的用法，而不是指像佛兰德人这样的特定群体。

[–]Mysterious-Whiskers 0 
There are multiple things which can make up an ethnicity, genetics aren't the only determiner, but they definitely play a role. Greeks and Turks are indistinguishable at a genetic level. Turkish people are descended from a mix of the indigenous Anatolians and Turkic groups from the steppes to the East who migrated. Greeks are descended from peoples that originated in Europe and the Mediterranean. I don't see how they could possibly be genetically indistinguishable, considering their different origins. You can tell differences even between the French and English when you look at their genetics, in terms of haplogroups.

有很多东西可以构成一个种族，遗传基因并不是唯一的决定因素，但它们肯定会起一定的作用。希腊人和土耳其人在基因层面上就很难以区分 。土耳其人是土着安纳托利亚人和突厥人族群的混血后裔，突厥人一直生活在从草原到东方这片区域，并不断迁徙。希腊人则是起源于欧洲和地中海的人种的后裔。考虑到他们不同的起源，我不明白你为什么说他们在遗传学上难以区分。就单倍组而言，当你仔细研究他们的遗传基因时，你甚至可以分辨法国人和英国人之间的差异。

[–]Bazzinga88 2 
In ancient times, greek was more a cultural term than a ethnic one (there was no social darwinism back then). They assimilated people like macedonians, egyptians and west asians. They even got themselves assimilated into roman empire.

在古代，希腊人更多的是一个文化名词而不是民族名词（当时没有社会达尔文主义）。 他们同化了像马其顿人，埃及人和西亚人这样的人。他们甚至将自己同化进了罗马帝国。

[–]leviathonlx 0 * 
A lot of it depends on location. A Greek from the Peloponnese is going to be a bit less Turk than Greek living on Cyprus but they are pretty similar (though not indistinguishable). Most nomadic or migrating groups were vastly outnumbered by the group that already lived there so usually they just assimilated into the native population though there would still be some small differences. Being a 'Turk' also just meant being a citizen (Muslim) of Turkey/the Ottoman Empire so a lot of the 'Turks' in Turkey today are actually just descended from Greeks and Armenians that converted. For example a Turkish Cypriot is genetically the same as a Greek Cypriot.

这很大程度上取决于地理位置。来自伯罗奔尼撒半岛的希腊人会比居住在塞浦路斯的希腊人更不像土耳其人，但他们非常相似（但不是难以区分）。大多数游牧或移民群体的人数远远超过那些已经居住在那里的群体，所以他们通常只是把自己同化到当地人口中，尽管这些人仍然会有一些小的差异。作为一个'土耳其人'也意味着成为土耳其/奥斯曼帝国的公民（穆斯林），所以今天在土耳其的很多'土耳其人'实际上只是从希腊人和亚美尼亚人的后裔转变而来。例如，土族塞人与希族塞人在遗传学上来说是一样的。

[–]saltandvinegarrr 4 
Turkish people are descended from Anatolians, who were/include Greeks. They are also descended from migrating Central Asians, but to a smaller degree than native Anatolians. They are not literally indistinguishable. But it happens that the differences in average distribution of haplogroups between two ethnic groups with an extremely divisive history is about the same as that of people from two halves of Germany. That's not getting into the personal genetics, where it's more than likely that a random Greek or Turk shares the same haplogroup, and for many people, the difference between being Turkish or Greek was just the result of a distant ancestor converting to a different religion.

土耳其人是安纳托利亚人的后裔，他们包括希腊人。他们也是迁徙的中亚人的后裔，但其程度比来自土着的安纳托利亚人的部分要小，它们字面上并不难以区分的。但是，发生在具有极端分裂历史的两个种族群体之间的单倍群平均分布差异差不多与东西德之间的人群差异大致相同。这并不涉及个人遗传学，因为那很可能是一个随机的希腊人或土耳其人共享着相同的单倍群，而对于很多人来说，土耳其人和希腊人之间的差异只是他们的祖先信仰不同的宗教的结果。

[–]kesascarfman 1 
The genetic markers for nomadic turks in todays Turkish gene pool is laughably small.

在今天的土耳其人的基因库中，游牧突厥人的遗传标记占比小得可笑。

[–]ConventionalizedPool 21 * 
The concept of "Han" Chinese derives from the Han Dynasty period of China following unification of China by Qin dynasty. Also despite its name or appearance, it is not a singular cultural group either. As a dynasty which enjoyed great height of power and prestige, the name and concept of Han Chinese was adopted to differentiate themselves from other ethnicity of Chinese they deemed as less culturally developed or other foreign groups of people. In the beginning, being "Han Chinese" was a rather limited membership focused around group of people in central area of China referred as Zhongyuan. However, as time passed and growing sinification of people previously not considered Han Chinese made them largely indistinguishable, the membership of being "Han Chinese" grew as well. Groups such as Gan, Hakka, Jin and countless others became part of "Han Chinese" while some Han Chinese were actually expelled from the concept due to adoption of foreign culture like the Hui. 

评论3：“汉族”的概念源于秦朝统一中国后的中国汉代。尽管它的名字叫汉族，但它也不是一个单一的文化群体。汉朝作为一个权威高贵的王朝，人们用“汉”的名称和概念来区别于其他文化不发达的中国人或其他外国人族群。一开始，只是中国中部地区（或称中原地区）的一群人被称为“汉族”，其成员组成相当有限。然而，随着时间的推移和汉化的推进，以前不被认为是汉族的人们和汉族人日益同化，使得他们在很大程度上难以区分，“汉族”的成员身份也随之增长。赣人，客家人，晋人等无数族群都渐渐成为“汉族”的一部分，而一些汉族人由于采用了像回族这样的异族文化而被实际驱逐出这个概念。

As per "descendant" thing, I believe you are largely mistaken. There were significant population migration which did not live in same place for thousands of years. For example, Ireland's celtiscization was due to arrival in immigration and invasion waves of Celts during the Iron age. In the island right next over, where Celts settled down as well, the Germanic tribes invaded and established the "Anglo-Saxon" dominance. In example of Turkey, the establishment of Seljurk Turk was done by group of nomads living in what is now Kazhakstan. There's very few groups in antiquity which lived in the very same areas their ancestors lived in thousands of years ago.

如果按照“后裔”的说法，我相信你的评论在很大程度上是错误的。数千年来，人口大量迁移，人们并不会一直生活在同一个地方。例如，爱尔兰的凯尔特化是由于铁器时代凯尔特人的移民和入侵浪潮的抵达。在紧临着凯尔特人居住的岛的旁边，日耳曼部落也入侵进来并确立了“盎格鲁撒克逊”的统治地位。在土耳其的例子中，塞尔柱突厥的建立是由一群生活在现在的哈萨克斯坦附近的游牧民族完成的。很少有古代人居住在几千年前他们的祖先居住的地区。

[–]kesascarfman 1 
Not to be to nit-picky but hakkas and gan are genetically more zhong yuan and are not likely sinicized southern natives.

不是在挑剔你，但是客家人和赣人在基因上更加倾向中原人，并且不太可能是南方土着人。

[–]a_mons_at_a_glans 9 
Painting with a broad brush, the Han could be described like a broad ethnic/cultural group like Germanic, Slav, Romance, etc. i.e. Russians, Ukrainians, and the Polish are slavs, but they are quite different from each other. There are 56 official ethnic groups in China, and some are very close to the Han, and some are very distinct like the Uzbeks, Uyghur, Mongols, etc. These groups never disappeared, but they got more or less assimilated by the dominant Han culture. It's a bit like why the Irish, Scottish and Welsh speak English.

评论4：粗略的描述，汉族人就像一个广泛的民族/文化群体，像日耳曼人，斯拉夫人，罗马人等等，例如俄罗斯人，乌克兰人和波兰人都属于是斯拉夫人，但他们彼此之间很不相同。中国有56个官方民族，有的民族与汉族非常接近，而有的像乌兹别克族，维吾尔族，蒙古族等则和汉族有很大不同。这些民族从未消失，但他们或多或少被占统治地位的汉族文化所吸收和同化。这有点像是爱尔兰人，苏格兰人和威尔士人现在说着英语的原因。

[–]Uschnej 6 
Ethnical identities are not based on biological fact. There are no underlying races, even if that notion is defining for ethnics. The han Chinese identity has ca complex part, but the homogeneity over china is due to being united under one empire for most of its history. Imperial synergy causing a sharing of culture over the area controlled. Note how many European languages are ultimate derived from vulgate latin, yet there was no genocide of one population, being replaced by romans.There have been plenty of migration in europé the last 3000 years, btw.

评论5：种族认同并非是基于生物学事实。没有潜在的种族，即使这个概念是为人种学而定义的。汉族身份具有复杂的组成部分，但其在中国的同质性是由于它的大部分历史都是在一个帝国的统一之下。 帝国的协同作用导致在受帝国控制的区域内的文化共享。请注意一下，有多少种欧洲语言最终起源于拉丁语呢？但他们中没有一个灭绝后被罗马人所取代。顺便说一句，在过去的3000年里，欧洲一直都有大量的移民涌现。

[–]Bazzinga88 3 
Han chinese have assimilated multiple ethnic groups. The term itself indicate culture, not necessarily ethnic groups. The term could be considered like roman or greek.

评论6：汉族吸收同化了很多个民族。 “汉族”这个词本身表示的是一种文化，不一定是必需用来表示“民族”。 这个词可以被认为是像罗马人或希腊人那样的词。

[–]ohea 3 
The simplest answer is that we generally divide ethnicities by language, and although many forms of Chinese are mutually unintelligible in their spoken form, the fact that they're highly intelligible in the written form makes division hard to justify. They also have a long history of political unity that has prevented very sharp divergences from happening. For comparison, imagine if the Roman Empire had survived down to today and although French, Italians, Portuguese and others all spoke differently, they still had a standardized form of writing they all shared. In that case I think we'd lonely see all these nations as regional variations of a single Roman ethnicity.

评论7：最简单的答案是，我们通常用语言来划分种族，尽管很多种类的汉语以口语的形成是难以理解的，但事实上，在书面汉语的形式上，它们是高度可理解的，这使得对汉族的划分很难证明其合理性。他们还拥有悠久的政治统一的历史，有效地防止了非常尖锐的分歧的发生。作为比较，想象一下如果罗马帝国在今天还存在着，那么虽然法国人，意大利人，葡萄牙人和其他一些人，他们说的话各不相同，但他们仍然共享着一个标准化的书写形式。在那种情况下，我认为我们很可能会将所有这些国家都视为单一的罗马民族分布的不同地区。

[–]sparky_sparky_boom 1 
That seems like an overly wide way of defining an ethnicity. Ancient Koreans, Japanese, and Vietnamese used Classical Chinese writing to communicate as well. Classical Chinese was a nonregional lingua franca between many states and peoples in East Asia.

这一种定义种族的方式，似乎过于宽泛，因为古代朝鲜人，日本人和越南人也都使用古典汉语来交流。古典汉语是东亚许多国家和人民之间都使用的非地区性的通用语言。

[–]ohea 1 
That's a separate issue- Classical Chinese was an acquired language even for native Chinese speakers, understood only by the educated even if read out loud. In the same way medi monks didn't become ethnic Romans when they learned to read Latin.

这是一个单独的问题 - 古典汉语即使对于母语为汉语的人来说，也是一种后天习得性的语言，也只能被受过教育的人理解，没受过教育的人，即使你读得再大声，他也听不懂。同样，中世纪的僧侣在学会读拉丁文后也没有变成罗马人。

[–]sparky_sparky_boom 1 * 
My point is that language and writing system is too broad for defining what the Han ethnicity is. Also, all the forms of Chinese were only intelligible in written form if written in a way that has many mismatches with the spoken language, resulting in the written form being a whole other language that has to be learned. In the past that was Classical Chinese, today it's Mandarin.

我的观点是，语言和文字系统对于定义汉族是什么而言太宽泛了。而且，所有形式的中文都只能以书面形式理解，如果以和口语有很多不匹配的方式书写，那么会导致书面形式的汉语成为一种必须学习的完全的另一种语言，在过去它的代表是古典汉语，而今天则是普通话。