Lhasa, The Tibetan Ethnic Identity

This article addresses itself to the multi-dimensional identity of Tibetan Hui. It is tended to elaborate each of the following points. Firstly, how have Hui Muslims maintained their Hui status in local society? Starting from each of the two distinct social contexts in two time periods marked by the peaceful liberation of Tibet in the early 1950s, it focuses on the distinguishing measures taken by Tibetan government and their place in local society, and illustrate how these social arrangements confirmed their Hui status. Secondly, based on the above-mentioned points, the author attempts to analyze: which aspect constitutes the key factor in Hui ethnic maintenance and persistence, cultural or social factors? Thirdly, there has been a shift of their ethnic identity from Hui in history to Tibetan at present, during the process of "tibetanalization". They are both Hui and Tibetan. What deserves attention is how these two choices of ethnic identity come about? What underlie these choices in the political and economical sense? In what kinds of situations do they maintain Hui or Tibetan status? At last, theoretical issues which this investigation raises would be discussed on the basis of contemporary theory of ethnic identity. By referring to their niche or place in Tibetan society and social stratification which confirmed Muslim culture, the author points out that, ethnic groups, as discrete groups of people, are by no means culture-bearing units or identified by objective cultures. Ethnic distinction is basically a political and economical phenomenon which their cultures embrace. Ethnic is not primordial, and primordial sentiments is situation-negotiable.By discussing the discretionary measures aimed for Hui group by Tibetan government and its role in constructing Hui status, the author points out that: firstly, the Tibetan government has recognized and confirmed Hui ethnic status long before the socialist nationalityidentification program. It follows that ethnic identification not only takes place in modern nation-states, but also in pre-modern Tibet. Secondly, there exists similarity in the forms between the managerial measures adopted by Dalai Lama's regime and the nationality identification program around the 1950s, i.e. in both of the two practices this group of people was identified as Hui ethnic or Chinese Muslim by the same standards, i.e. they hailed from the Chinese land and spoke Chinese. However, these two arrangements differed in their essence. Tibetan Hui was situated in a subordinate position before the liberation, while they were bestowed equal status and rights with the Tibetans in the nationality identification program. Finally, ethnic identification by the state or the objective recognition is not to wholly replace people's subjective resistance which has its roots in the socio-political context.