This article was downloaded by:[Chang, Wen-Chin]On: 1 June 2008Access Details: [subscription number 793534546]Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Asia Pacific Journal ofAnthropologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713689832
The Interstitial Subjectivities of the Yunnanese Chinesein ThailandWen-Chin Chang
Online Publication Date: 01 June 2008
To cite this Article: Chang, Wen-Chin (2008) 'The Interstitial Subjectivities of theYunnanese Chinese in Thailand ', The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology, 9:2,97 — 122
To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/14442210802023632URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14442210802023632
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will becomplete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Cha
ng, W
en-C
hin]
At:
04:3
6 1
June
200
8
The Interstitial Subjectivities of theYunnanese Chinese in Thailand1
Wen-Chin Chang
In contrast with the high visibility of the ethnic Chinese in Thailand who originate from
the coastal provinces of southeastern China, the migrant Yunnanese Chinese are a later
group arriving in the country by land via Burma, mostly after the 1950s. Their migration
history and process of resettlement are intertwined with complex political, economic and
social factors. Feelings of anxiety, uncertainty and ambivalence regarding who they are
are often expressed in the speech of different generations. Although many studies tend to
determine a group’s identity (identities), the inquiry into the indeterminate aspect of
ethnicity in individual members is often overlooked. The present paper examines the
interstitial subjectivities of this particular migrant group to disclose an ongoing
negotiation of their inner self with the external social world across time and space in
connection with their twofold affiliations with Han Chineseness and a Yunnanese
overland trading ethos.
Keywords: Subjectivity; Interstitial; Liminality; Centre and periphery; Overland
Yunnanese
From ethnicity to subjectivity
Ever since Leach’s master work Political Systems of Highland Burma (1954/1993) was
published, many Southeast Asianists have been intrigued by the subject of interacting
social systems, especially between highland and lowland societies. Scholars have
identified different forms of group interactions, including symbiotic and confronta-
tional, and have broken the oversimplified dichotomy of highlanders versus
lowlanders in terms of contrasting fixed religious beliefs, modes of subsistence,
political systems and kinship structures. (e.g. Lehman 1967; Keyes 1979; Woodward &
Russell 1989; Tannenbaum & Kammerer 1996). With respect to ethnic studies,
researchers have commonly pointed out the fluidity and ambiguity of a group’s
Correspondence to: Wen-Chin Chang, Assistant Research Fellow, Center for Asia-Pacific Area Studies, RCHSS,
Academia Sinica, Nankang, Taipei 115, Taiwan. Email: [email protected]
ISSN 1444-2213 (print)/ISSN 1740-9314 (online)/08/020097-26
# 2008 The Australian National University
DOI: 10.1080/14442210802023632
The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology
Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2008, pp. 97�122
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Cha
ng, W
en-C
hin]
At:
04:3
6 1
June
200
8
identity in response to changes in circumstances (e.g. Moerman 1965; Kunstadter
1967; Lehman 1967; Keyes 1979; Anonymous 1987; Wijeyewardene 1990; Toyota
2003). Their findings are largely in accordance with ethnic studies in other parts of
the world, especially those pursuing a situational or instrumental interpretation. In
this direction, ethnicity is apprehended in the light of group contact and
interrelations (Eriksen 1993, p. 9), and ethnic boundaries are considered social
rather than cultural (Barth 1969). This approach leads to a focus on identity-as-
construction as against the primordial approach that emphasises identity-as-essence.
Linking ethnic studies with the development of world politics, group relations have
been investigated in particular from the angle of hierarchical opposition between
majorities and minorities within the framework of modern nation-states, especially in
the past three decades (e.g. Keyes 1981; Anderson 1983; Harrell 1995; Gladney 1998).
Researchers of ethnic politics direct their attention to how the state agency, with its
hegemony, determines the structural differentiation between the ruled and the ruling.
By probing into issues of cultural politics and power relations, they analyse the ethnic
discourses that are drawn up by the state for confirmation of its national unity and
the dominance and superiority of the ruling group, its objectification of minorities
and the latter’s appropriation of and resistance to representations of otherness. In
short, identity is deemed a relation of difference, which distinguishes Self from Other
by means of inclusion versus exclusion (e.g. Comaroff & Comaroff 1992; Hsieh 1995;
Gupta & Ferguson 1997; Blum 2001; Wang 2003).
Closely related to the present study, Hill’s Merchants and Migrants: Ethnicity and
Trade Among the Yunnanese Chinese in Southeast Asia (1998) adopts a research
emphasis on social boundaries and makes another contribution to Leach’s legacy. In
sharp contrast with the high visibility of the Teochiu (Chaozhou), Hakka, Hainanese,
Hokkien (Fujianese) and Cantonese in Thailand, the Yunnanese Chinese, a later
Chinese migrant group who arrived in the country mostly after the 1950s as a result
of the Communist takeover in China (and, later, the chaotic sociopolitical situation
in Burma), have so far drawn limited academic attention.2 Hill’s book is the first
ethnographic monograph to give a more complete picture of recent Yunnanese
migration in relation to the persistence of Yunnanese mobility throughout history,
especially through the long-distance caravan trade in upper mainland Southeast
Asia.3 Based on Leach’s approach, Hill probes into the interaction between Yunnanese
identities and the changing circumstances in the larger social world through a
historical analysis of the interplay between trade and politics. Rather than resorting to
the typical cultural explanations, she provides enlivening historical contextualisations
and insights into both the Yunnanese periphery position from China proper and their
relationship with this powerful central state when interacting with local polities.
Historically, the Yunnanese were referred to as Ho/Haw in upper mainland
Southeast Asia and were known for their specialty in long-distance trade and political
mediation (Hill 1998, pp. 68�73). Hill argues that this identity dynamism and
ambiguity is continued in the present day ethnicity of the migrant Yunnanese in
northern Thailand. It is seen, on the one hand, in their appropriation of many
98 W.-C. Chang
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Cha
ng, W
en-C
hin]
At:
04:3
6 1
June
200
8
Chinese customs, in particular the funeral rituals used as an upward strategy for
demonstrating their Chinese identity and merging themselves with their ‘overseas’
counterparts in the public eye, and on the other in their close intragroup affiliation
and self-assertion of the Yunnanese entrepreneurial penchant for risk taking.
Furthermore, the case of the Yunnanese distinguishes itself from that of many
ethnic minorities in the region in two ways. First, prior to out-migration, the
Yunnanese Chinese belonged to the great majority group (the Han) of the powerful
Chinese state; those residing in urban areas in Yunnan often enjoyed cultural,
political and economic positions superior to those of autochthonous ethnic
minorities (Giersch 2006, pp. 193, 203).4 Second, they are a ‘civilised’ people with
a written history. Therefore, as far as historical analysis is concerned, Hill has the
advantage of access to historical documents to trace the movement of the Yunnanese.
This is very different from researchers working among tribal groups without a written
culture, who are dependent totally on the collective memory and oral history of the
people and some piecemeal evidence recorded by lowland groups. As Leach himself
acknowledges, the presentation of highlanders’ ethnohistory is often speculative
(1954/1993, p. 238).
Hill’s interpretation from a long historical perspective is insightful. Nevertheless,
there is a major deficiency in her ethnographic analysis. Since launching field research
among the migrant Yunnanese in the second half of the 1970s, her research site has
been limited primarily to Chiang Mai (the capital of Chiang Mai province in
Thailand), despite the fact that a far larger Yunnanese population resides in more
than 70 border villages, mainly in Chiang Rai and Chiang Mai provinces with a few in
Mae Hongson province. This constraint on her fieldwork was due to the
inaccessibility of most Yunnanese villages before 1990, related to their direct or
indirect connection with two Chinese Nationalist (Kuomintang; KMT) armies, the
Third and Fifth Armies, composed primarily of Yunnanese Chinese.
The KMT armies were based on remnant troops that withdrew from Yunnan to
Burma after the Communist takeover of 1949. They organised themselves as guerrilla
fighters in Burma during the 1950s. In 1961, the guerrilla organisation was disbanded
under international pressure, but a major part of the Third and Fifth Armies
(totalling approximately 3,200) was able to retreat to northern Thailand with tacit
permission from the Thai government. From the 1950s to the 1980s, these two KMT
forces played an important role in facilitating the resettlement of a large number of
Yunnanese refugees in the country (see Kanjana 1995; Chang 1999, 2001, 2002,
2006a).5 The KMT forces functioned as patrons for their fellow Yunnanese,
negotiating their entry with the Thai government. Moreover, the KMT forces fought
for the nation in several important battles against the communist forces along Thai
borders and inside the country in the early 1970s and early 1980s. Their bravery
assisted them and many civilian Yunnanese refugees in obtaining legal status. Yet,
both their military entrenchment and involvement in contraband border trade caused
great controversies in Thai society and the international media, and this still
overshadows the public perception of the Yunnanese in Thailand today.
The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 99
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Cha
ng, W
en-C
hin]
At:
04:3
6 1
June
200
8
During the period when the KMT troops were stationed in a series of posts along
the northern border between the 1960s and 1980s, most Yunnanese villages were
under their supervision. Outsiders were generally not allowed to enter the villages.
Under such circumstances, long-term ethnographic research was simply not possible.
This factor has resulted in either overlooking the role of the KMT forces in the
migration history of the Yunnanese refugees and the process of their resettlement, or
a misrepresentation of the armies in nearly all existing studies. In Hill’s case, the
omission results in a failure to examine the intertwining relationships between
the KMT forces and the Yunnanese migrants when discussing the issues of identity,
trade and politics. Nevertheless, her early studies of the migrant Yunnanese have
considerable significance, and her analytical insights have, indeed, laid a good
foundation for later researchers.
Over the past 13 years, I have been to 25 Yunnanese villages along the Thai border
and have also conducted research among the urban Yunnanese in Chiang Mai,
Chiang Rai and Bangkok.6 At the beginning of the research, the subject of ethnic
identification was a major concern. I recognised that their shifting identities as
Yunnanese (Yunnan ren ) or Chinese (zhongguo ren ) or Han (hanren
) in different contexts that corresponded to many other ethnic studies stressing
ethnic fluidity. However, after getting to know the people better, learning not just
what they say, but also how they think, feel and do things, I came to see that the
assertion of multiple identities does not sufficiently articulate who the migrant
Yunnanese are. It is not just what they identify with, but also what they do not
identify with and their constant feelings of liminality centred on their repeated
experiences of displacement. The emotions of anxiety, uncertainty and ambivalence
regarding who they are came across in their speech of different generations7 more and
more clearly after I had gained their trust enough that they would tell me their stories
and allow me to wander around the village and family spaces to observe their
everyday life. I came to see their narrations and practices as disclosing an ongoing
negotiation of their inner self with the external social world across time and space
that encompasses both primordial and instrumental elements in their identity.
Cultural expressions are not always appropriated for ethnic demarcation, as claimed
by Hill.
Looking into the research trend of ethnic interrelations, scholars have endeavoured
to reconstruct and deconstruct the communal memories of ethnic communities, and
to illustrate the formation and development of ethnic categories and interaction
patterns. However, the voices of individual subjects are insufficiently heard; the
dimension of their inwardness is often overlooked. Many studies tend to determine a
group’s or community’s identity (identities), but the inquiry into the indeterminate
aspect of ethnicity in individual members is often ignored. In contrast, the case of the
Yunnanese leads me to go beyond the knowable and verbalised domain and to look
into the realm of subjectivity, meaning ‘the inner feeling self [and] its relationship to
emotional experience in the world’ (Ellis & Flaherty 1992, p. 2), in order to learn how
individuals seek to survive in everyday experiences in relation to ethnic others; in
100 W.-C. Chang
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Cha
ng, W
en-C
hin]
At:
04:3
6 1
June
200
8
what manner they negotiate with, give in to or resist the social matrixes they are
enmeshed in. Consequently, this research orientation enables me to look at many
delicate feelings, such as loss, pain, desire, wish, alienation, anxiety and ambivalence.
I have tried not only to look at the strategies they apply, but also to delve into the
multiple subject-positions involved in the process of shaping and reshaping the
strategies, and to perceive the constraints as well as agency in response to the external
contexts (Smith 1988; Hall 1990). This approach is accordingly consistent with
Belsey’s viewpoint on aspects of both liminality and agency in one’s subjectivity; as
she puts it:
The subject is . . . the site of contradiction, and is consequently perpetually in theprocess of construction, thrown into crisis by alterations in language and in socialformation, capable of change. And in the fact that the subject is a process lies thepossibility of transformation.
In addition, the displacement of subjectivity across a range of discourses implies arange of positions from which the subject grasps itself and its relations with thereal, and these positions may be incompatible or contradictory. It is theseincompatibilities and contradictions within what is taken for granted which exerta pressure on concrete individuals to seek new, non-contradictory subject-positions. (Belsey 1991, p. 597)
In another paper (Chang 2006a), I have explored the migrant Yunnanese
subjectivity with respect to their diasporic consciousness tied to their repeated
movement on the one hand and their social memory about their Han ancestors’
migratory practices on the other. That paper looks into the Yunnanese migrants’
conceptualisations of home and the intertwining of their various migration patterns
as refugees, military men, traders and labourers. The feeling of ‘dwelling in
displacement’ underscores the fundamental basis of their narrated stories and
constructs particular discourses on ‘home away from home’. By probing the physical
and cognitive aspects of their migration that links up with the longue duree of
Yunnanese migration culture and trading tradition, I accentuate the different layers of
their perceptions of time and place and illuminate their interplay. The findings point
to the Yunnanese ‘multiple positioning’, connected to their self-questioning of where
their home is (homes are), and disclose the underlying interstitial state of their
diasporic consciousness.
In the present paper, I look further into the subjective ambivalence of the
Yunnanese with respect to their identification. Although mindful of liminality, my
investigation does not deny the fact of ethnicity or deride ethnic theories. In fact, the
question of intergroup relations has to be considered in order to work through and
work out8 the realm of subjectivity and the external life-world. In the following
sections, I examine the identity discourses of the Yunnanese contained in varied
forms of narratives*oral, written and performative*that concern the rhetoric of
Han Chineseness underlining their genealogy books, their adherence to a Yunnanese
lifestyle demonstrated in their funeral rituals par excellence, the informants’ self-
The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 101
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Cha
ng, W
en-C
hin]
At:
04:3
6 1
June
200
8
ascriptions (in relation to other communities) and public perceptions of the
Yunnanese drawn from Thai academic studies, media reports and my conversations
with ordinary Thai people. Ethnographic data point to the significance of the military
background of the Yunnanese and a Yunnanese trading ethos, which interact with the
ethnocentric thinking of Han identity. On the one hand, their appropriation of
different identities allows each individual to position himself/herself differently in
response to specific circumstances and opens up the possibilities for change. On the
other, their acknowledgement of the unresolved tensions embedded in these different
identities reveals a deep sense of loss*loss of who they are. It is an ongoing process of
identification and de-identification that situates the Yunnanese in a constant state of
liminality or a realm of interstitiality, embracing both forces of agency and
constraints.
Refugee�Warrior Community
In contrast with many other cases of dispersed refugees, a large proportion of the
Yunnanese refugees in Thailand acted in organised groups under the direction of the
KMT troops. They were united by the same fate and constituted what Zolberg,
Suhrke and Aguayo (1986) call a ‘refugee�warrior community’. Throughout the 1950s
to the 1980s, the KMT armies played a leading role in facilitating a large number of
helpless Yunnanese refugees in their resettlement, providing protection from the
assaults of other military forces, and finally gaining legal status in Thailand.
Moreover, the KMT armies organised cross-border trade in the form of mule
caravans and assisted civilian traders in the engagement of the same. Nevertheless,
the troops were also a source of exploitation; abuse of military power occurred from
time to time in the recruitment of new members or in the forcible taking of women.
Looking back to their life experiences, the old generation has sad memories of
sufferings in repeated flights and wars. While relating past history, a sense of
uprooting and displacement underlies their stories. For the ex-soldiers, their lives
were occupied by fighting in various places. Many elderly informants reported joining
the military in order to survive*the army provided sustenance and a way to fight
back so that they could regain their homeland. They launched attacks in Yunnan from
time to time and frequently had military conflicts with the Burmese army. They regret
the fact that they spent a large part of their lives in the army. Some of them fought
against the Japanese during the Second World War. After the Japanese came the
Chinese Communists, who were then followed by the Burmese, the Miao and the
Thai Communists. Many lament that they have not achieved any personal success and
feel like failures.
While narrating former military experiences in Burma, informants often referred
to the unstable situation that compelled the troops to move frequently. They
frequently had to walk through heavy rain and brave the relentless heat. The
fluctuating weather conditions caused various illnesses; malaria was a terrible threat
to the troops. In addition, the soldiers encountered shortages of essential goods. ‘You
102 W.-C. Chang
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Cha
ng, W
en-C
hin]
At:
04:3
6 1
June
200
8
had to eat anything you could find,’ said a dadie9 (first generation in Burma and then
Thailand) of Patang village (Wiang Kaen district, Chiang Rai province). He was born
in 1935 and fled Yunnan when he was 16 years old. He joined the KMT later in
Burma and recalled the living conditions:
It happened from time to time that we didn’t have food. The troops had to findwild vegetables, but sometimes other troops would have passed the place before us.In that case we could hardly find any wild vegetables . . . Some plants made you sickafter eating, but when your stomach is empty, you just eat. Once we did not haverice for 7 days. We could only get a kind of water plant along a river . . . There wasno salt either. After eating the plants for 7 days, we became very feeble and couldnot see things clearly. We finally received a telegram saying that rice had beendelivered at a certain place. We had to walk for another 3 days to reach that place.
As far as the civilian refugees were concerned, they too experienced great pain in
flight. Many came to Burma a few years after the troops had arrived there. Although
many refugees gathered around the KMT bases in order to seek protection, frequent
warfare affected their living conditions and forced them to move frequently. A
dama10 (first generation in Burma and then Thailand) of Huo Fei village (Fang
district, Chiang Mai province) narrated her flight experience:
I got so tired from walking and carrying my child on my back . . . I gasped. [On theway, there were] big holes [on the] muddy ground. People fell into a big ditch.Mules, adults and children all fell. Some people were too tired to carry theirchildren. They abandoned them on the way. Some of them were eaten by wildanimals. I carried my child. I didn’t leave him on the way. I continued to carry himeven though I often felt I would be unable to do so.
After retreating to Thailand in 1961, General Li and General Duan, the
commanders of the Third and Fifth KMT Armies, gained a foothold along the
northern border by establishing a series of military posts. Most of the troops’
dependents remained in Burma in the 1960s; movements of Yunnanese civilian
refugees to Thailand took place only after 1964 when the sociopolitical conditions in
Burma became increasingly unstable. General Li and General Duan sent their troops
to Burma in the second half of the 1960s and 1970s. They escorted a great number of
dependents and fellow refugees to Thailand. Luo dama (first generation in Burma
and then Thailand) of Ban Mai Nongbua related her family’s entry into Thailand:
My family came with [a troop of the Third Army] in [1973]. There were about 120families on that trip. We first arrived in a mountain village near the Burmese�Thaiborder, but could not enter Thailand without a permit . . . General Li had tonegotiate with the Thai government and, about a year later, we were finally allowedto enter the country. We were divided into several groups and assigned to different[KMT] villages.
Despite destitute living conditions at the beginning, migrant Yunnanese slowly
reconstructed their familial and communal lives. The most illustrative phenomenon
The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 103
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Cha
ng, W
en-C
hin]
At:
04:3
6 1
June
200
8
relating to community life in the Yunnanese villages is shown in their cultural
organisation of the village landscape. In the course of my visit to many Yunnanese
villages, I realised that the villages have a distinct structure irrespective of size.
Regardless of the continuous influx of new arrivals, the houses are arranged in a
certain order. In the initial stages, the village was divided into wards. The early
migrants built their houses along the two sides of the main road. By and by, new lanes
appeared that were connected to the main road, thus forming an organic whole. The
later migrants settled around the earlier migrants.
Many of the KMT villages began to hold Chinese lessons immediately after their
arrival.11 Gradually, other public facilities, such as the Guanyin temple, the cemetery,
shrines for Yunnanese/Chinese gods and the marketplace, were set up. Moreover, each
village established a self-governing committee responsible for implementing the
orders of its patron, the KMT army.12 The committee also maintained contact with
local Thai authorities, took care of village matters and organised public ceremonies.
Simply put, in Burma first and later on in Thailand, the Yunnanese refugees made
an effort to follow in the steps of their predecessors by pursuing a familiar lifestyle.
This was done by engaging in long-distance caravan trade that took them away from
the villages and maintaining Yunnanese tradition in everyday life, especially through
food processing, ritual observance and the cultural organisation of the village
landscape. Thus, the Yunnanese refugees created a link between the past and
the present. Some of them became aware in the 1960s, and others in the 1970s, that
the dream of ‘fighting back to Yunnan’ would remain a dream. In this situation, it
was the village settlement that helped them plan for the future and establish a sense of
continuity even on foreign soil. By relocation of the familiar cultural sites mentioned
above, the Yunnanese refugees were able to transform a ‘non-subject-position of
space’ into ‘the subject-position of place’ in a meaningful manner (Hirsch 1995, p. 9).
It was a process of emplacement and home-making. Each Yunnanese village mirrored
a small Chinese society and became the new home of the villagers. This helped bring
about a sense of belonging in the wake of a transient status. These efforts were the
result of a longing for their old homes. However, the Yunnanese refugees continued
to be haunted by the uprooting they had undergone. Thus, there is a paradox in their
diasporic subjectivity that is characterised by displacement and emplacement.
Han Ancestry
While narrating their migration history, many informants did not limit themselves to
their own experiences of flight. They often mentioned their ancestors’ immigration to
Yunnan in the form of organised armies led by generals during the Yuan (1271�1368
CE) or Ming (1368�1644 CE) periods. In Home Away From Home (Chang 2006a),
I have analysed Yunnanese migrants’ appropriation of genealogy books or oral
narration about the history of their founding ancestors’ movement to Yunnan to
make claims for their Han descent. Although this popular social memory may
overwhelm the reality, the underlying significance is connected to their subjectivity.
104 W.-C. Chang
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Cha
ng, W
en-C
hin]
At:
04:3
6 1
June
200
8
On the one hand, such reference connects the Yunnanese migrants’ military
background in a foreign land with their ancestors’ heroic conquests in frontiers
perceived as ‘barbarous’ at that time; on the other, it accentuates their orthodox Han
genealogy and points to the differentiation of their Han allochthonous position from
that of non-Han autochthonous others in Yunnan. Consequently, distant ancestral
localities prior to their ancestors’ migration to Yunnan continue to serve as
meaningful tropes for the present-day identification of the Yunnanese migrants.
Apart from genealogy books and oral narrations, Yunnanese migrants’ religious
practices, especially in daily ancestor worship, death rituals and celebration of
traditional festivals, constitute another means that emphatically indicates their Han
Chinese identity. These performances express the Yunnanese cosmology, which is
centred on communications between human beings and the supernatural. The latter
includes deities, ancestors and ghosts that exist in invisible realms and are believed to
possess the power to protect or harm/punish humans. This belief leads the people
to hold rituals in a discreet manner so as not to offend supernatural beings and to
entreat them to bestow health, prosperity, harmony and so on.
However, I am not suggesting a fixed Yunnanese way of ritual observance. Local
influences and adaptations are evident. In this respect, the eclectic nature of popular
Chinese religion (Yang 1994) helps the integration of new elements in ritual
performance, such as the use of modern forms of paper money and worship items, or
inviting Thai monks to chant sutras at funerals. Such adaptations are invested with
proper meanings conforming to their pre-existing tradition and are deemed
Yunnanese Chinese rather than Thai. Take the invitation of Thai monks as an
example. Back in Yunnan, people were accustomed to hiring Buddhist monks.
Although the Buddhist monks in Thailand follow Theravada Buddhism, and those
(among the Yunnanese Han) in Yunnan follow Mahayana Buddhism, Yunnanese in
Thailand consider invitations to the former as a suitable substitute. They differentiate
between Buddhism in China and that in Thailand only in terms of the manner of
clothing and the monks’ way of living, and not on the basis of any theological
differences. In ritual performances, what differs is the language used; the act of
chanting sutras itself is deemed unchanged and, thus, remains as efficacious as the
traditional one. In other words, the new practice does not contradict their knowledge
of and contact with Buddhism in China (see also Hill 1992, p. 327).13
Such religious practices mark a sociocultural boundary between the Yunnanese
migrants and the Thai people, who do not perform these practices. At funerals, I have
heard elderly informants remark that the non-performance of the rituals will result in
their assimilation. Hill has also treated the Yunnanese organisation of funerals in
Chiang Mai temples as a means of public demonstration of their Chinese ethnicity
(1998, p. 137). However, beyond their ethnic differentiation, I suggest that, more
fundamentally, the ritual performances express the people’s profound attachment to
their origins based on their cosmology between the dead and the living. It is not
uncommon for families with improved financial conditions to seek opportunities to
hold salvational rites for their departed members for whom they were not able to
The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 105
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Cha
ng, W
en-C
hin]
At:
04:3
6 1
June
200
8
organise proper rituals when they died (in Yunnan, Burma, Thailand or other places).
There have also been salvational rites organised for all the clan ancestors. The scale of
such performances is extensive; the performances are presided over by more than 10
Taoist priests and last more than 10 days. The rituals traverse spiritually through
distant time and space, connecting the dead of different periods, those who departed
in varied places and the human world with the spiritual world. Basically, the
performances are an obligation the people owe to their ancestors and other spiritual
beings prior to any consideration of ethnic boundaries.
This central motive of obligation is also articulated in the narration of many ghost
stories and relevant dreams by participants at the xiangbang (mutual assistance )
of funerals.14 Owing to space limitations, I only cite one example here.15 One early
morning when I joined a xiangbang, villagers were circulating a mysterious story
related to the departed grandmother of the bereaved family. The family had
performed the burial rites more than a month before. Many paper models of horses,
horse grooms, cars and electrical appliances had been burned to her at the grave. The
family was going to erect the tomb tablet that day. However, prior to the day, a female
relative dreamed that the grandmother came to tell her that there was a hole in the
neck of one of her horse grooms and thus they could not proceed easily on their
journey. That relative related the message to the bereaved family the next morning.
Villagers were discussing the dream. They said that after the ritual of infusing life into
the offerings, these paper objects become real. The hole in the neck must have been
made accidentally while transferring the offerings to the grave. The family then
decided to burn more paper ingots to the grandmother so that she could use the
money to hire another horse groom.
Parallel to the social memories of Han ancestry, the ritual performances and ghost
stories also disclose how the Yunnanese subjectivity is connected to distant time and
space. Although far away, the relevant time and space are intimately tied to
Yunnanese everyday life. On the one hand, the persistence of ritual performance
reveals the fear and anxiety held by the Yunnanese of incurring spiritual punishment
in the event of failure in observance; on the other, it illustrates consciousness of their
origins and their present existence in a foreign land. Therefore one’s subjectivity is
linked not only to the present time or the human world, but also connects the past
and future with the present, and the human with the spiritual. While illustrating a
strong sense of continuity in Han descent (whether authentic or not) and the
perception of its superiority, fundamentally the ritual observances of the Yunnanese
are supported by their religious beliefs over and above any considerations of ethic
differentiation.
Superior Han Chinese Discourse
The preceding discussion on Han descent and the cultural organisation of the village
landscape among the migrant Yunnanese manifests their forceful Han Chinese
identity. In contrast with interpretations given by mere instrumental or primordial
106 W.-C. Chang
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Cha
ng, W
en-C
hin]
At:
04:3
6 1
June
200
8
approaches, a standpoint that emphasises Yunnanese subjectivity embraces both
elements in relation to ethnic others and to their own ancestors. Although in terms of
Han Chinese identity the case of the migrant Yunnanese seems to correspond to
many general studies on earlier overseas Chinese that delineate a homogeneous
picture of their clinging to ‘Han Chineseness’, the following sections looking into
intergroup relations will discard this homogeneous understanding. The main
question tackled is, how do the overland Yunnanese, with their particular migration
history and distinctive Yunnanese characteristics, separate themselves from different
ethnic groups, as well as their outstanding overseas counterparts (those Teochiu,
Hakka, Hokkien, Hainanese and Cantonese) in Thailand? Rather than coming up
with a unifying position in relation to various communities, we detect their shifting
positions between central and peripheral identities in different contexts and perceive
the ambiguity and tension embedded in their subjectivity.
In Relation to the Thai and Hill Tribes
The discourse of civilising other ethnic groups was often brought up when
informants talked about their resettlement in villages surrounded by hill tribes or
Thai people. This situation not only exists generally in villages where Yunnanese Han
are the majority, but the mentality of regarding Han culture as superior and being
proud of acculturating the ‘less developed’ others also exists in villages where
Yunnanese Han are the minority. The following narrative is given by Peng dadie (first
generation in Burma and then Thailand), who settled in the lowland Thai village
Tathon (Mae Ai district, Chiang Rai province). He said:
We Chinese (zhongguoren ) can endure hardships. We came here, worked
hard and lived in a frugal way. They Thai people (taiguoren ) saw us and
liked us. We worked for them; we did everything. We fertilised farms with cattle
and horse excrement. Thai people didn’t know about fertiliser before. They saw us
use it and learned from us . . . We came to their village. We had to learn their
language, word by word . . . We Chinese have perseverance. We worked for them
for 1 year and saved a little bit. We worked for them for 2 years and saved a little bit
more. Afterwards, we bought our own land.
This kind of pioneering discourse of a superior Han Chinese mentality recurred
frequently when informants recalled their early stages of resettlement. The following
narrative was given by Rao dadie (first generation in Burma and then Thailand) of
Huae Hai village (Wiang Haeng district, Chiang Mai province), where most ex-
soldiers of the Third Army have married women of other nearby ethnic groups
(including Tai, northern Thai and Lahu women). It conveys similar sentiments:
In the beginning we spoke Baiyi hua [the Tai language] with our wives and
gradually taught them Yunnanese. Some are able to speak very fluently; some only
to a certain degree. Though Han people are the minority in this area, we stay
together and our way of living is still primarily Han. Our next generation can also
The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 107
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Cha
ng, W
en-C
hin]
At:
04:3
6 1
June
200
8
speak Chinese [Yunnanese] . . . As we Han people stay together, we don’t have to
speak their languages; we force them to speak our language.
In terms of Harrell’s ethnic interpretation (1995), the above narratives are
underpinned by an ‘ideology of the civilizers’ (Harrell 1995) founded both on the
belief in superior Han descent and origin from a powerful state with a long history.
The ideology was expressed in statements about the people’s proclivity for endurance,
diligence and frugality, their advanced agricultural knowledge and their way of living.
It illuminates a heroic spirit of pioneers that echoes their distant Han ancestors’
exploration in Yunnan.16 Whereas Yunnan was a frontier to their distant ancestors,
the border villages of northern Thailand are a wasteland to the Yunnanese migrants.
To emphasise their cultural superiority, Yunnanese migrants often make con-
temptuous remarks about other ethnic minorities, especially about hill tribes, by
saying that they are sexually immoral and backward in their living. ‘Those minority
people are different from us Han (tamen shaoshou minzu gen women hanren butong
)’ is a common opinion (which implies that everything
Han is superior). The Yunnanese who have married hill tribe women are often teased
by their fellow men and warned to keep a watch over their wives or not to stay in
their wives’ villages because it is believed that these women are likely to run away with
other men. Other general negative comments are that hill tribe people do not wash
themselves often or only wash and change clothes once a year, that they do not work
hard and do not know how to save money. Some villagers even remark on the
children of mixed marriages as ‘offspring of barbarous people (yiren shengde xiaohai
)’.
In comparison with Hill’s research, I differ from her view that the Yunnanese in
northern Thailand ‘do not express the extreme ethnocentricism and unshakable sense
of superiority’ (1998, p. 113). My findings indicate the opposite. Moreover, Hill
claims that the Yunnanese in Thailand always call themselves Chinese (zhongguoren
) (1998, p. 27) and do not use the term Han (hanren ) (1998, p. 14). Based
on the above narratives (and general conversations not quoted here), I found that
informants usually refer to themselves as hanren (Han people) in relation to other
ethnic minorities (shaoshu minzu ) and call themselves zhongguoren (Chinese)
vis-a-vis the taiguoren (the Thai majority ). The term zhongguoren literally
means ‘people of the Central Kingdom/State’ and taiguoren means ‘people of the Thai
Kingdom’. The term zhongguoren implies a political message of people and state/
kingdom, whereas hanren stresses the cultural superiority of Han civilisation.17 For
the migrant Yunnanese now staying in Thailand, they see themselves as originally
from China, a much larger and more powerful nation than the host country. With
regard to the hill tribes, the Yunnanese consider the mountain peoples as without a
true nation; thus, the comparative basis for identity centres on the standard of
civilisation. In other words, the Yunnanese alternate between ‘Chinese’ (based on the
criterion of state) and ‘Han’ (based on the criterion of culture) when relating to
different groups; both positions convey superior meanings for them.
108 W.-C. Chang
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Cha
ng, W
en-C
hin]
At:
04:3
6 1
June
200
8
In Relation to Yunnanese Muslims
With respect to group interactions, it is necessary to mention the relationships
between Yunnanese Han and Yunnanese Muslims (the Hui). Like Yunnanese Han, the
Hui are allochthons in Yunnan. The Hui migrated to Yunnan from the Yuan period
onwards for military or commercial purposes from Central Asia or northwestern
China (Yang et al. 1994; Forbes & Henley 1997). Many Yunnanese Muslims are good
at trading. Muslim traders had been engaged in long-distance caravan trade with
Burma, Thailand, Laos and Vietnam possibly from the Yuan period. However,
Yunnanese Han have been a much larger group in engaging in this activity since the
Ming period, following their massive inflow into Yunnan.18 Most Muslim immigrants
married Han women. These Muslim immigrants adhered to their religion, but
absorbed much of the Han culture. Based on physical appearance, Yunnanese
Muslims are quite indistinguishable from the Han people today.
Owing to their religious practices and engagement in trade, historically the
Yunnanese Muslims have tended to stay together in towns and cities. According to
Suthep (1977, p. 48), a small community of Yunnanese Muslims in Chiang Mai has
been visible since the 1890s. Apart from Chiang Mai, where the majority of
Yunnanese Muslims are located, among the 25 Yunnanese villages I have been to, six
have Yunnanese Muslim communities. Although there is no record of the entire
Yunnanese Muslim population in Thailand today, it is certain that they form a small
minority compared with the Yunnanese Han.19 Most of the Yunnanese Muslims also
arrived after the 1950s. They went through the same flight experiences and engaged in
military activities and caravan trade as did the Yunnanese Han, although the young
generation of Yunnanese Muslims (especially those residing in cities) are reluctant to
acknowledge former connections with the KMT.
Despite the similarity in daily practices, a ‘we�they’ social boundary between the
Han and the Hui is maintained, based mainly on the criterion of religion. While
talking about religious beliefs, Yunnanese Han call themselves believers of Buddhism
(xinfojiao ) or of Heaven and Earth (baitiandi ), but in relation to the
Muslims they identify themselves as ‘we believers of Han religion’ (women hanjao
) and the latter as ‘those believers of Islam’ (tamen huijao ). Similarly,
the Muslims refer to themselves as ‘we believers of Islam’ (women huijao ) and
to the Han as ‘those believers of Han religion’ (tamen hanjao ).
In their accounts to outsiders, both Yunnanese Han and Yunnanese Muslims often
reduce their bilateral differentiation to the consumption or non-consumption of
pork. Yet, Yunnanese Han often add an ethnocentric judgment while pointing out the
difference and comment that the Muslims are a bit demanding and self-centred (ba
) in observance of their religious dictate. The Yunnanese Han explain that when
holding banquets, they have to prepare ‘Muslim banquets’ (huixi ) for the Muslim
guests, but when the Muslims hold banquets they do not show the same
consideration to their Han guests. Moreover, the Han consider the Muslims
untrustworthy by referring to the saying ‘one can eat the meal offered by the
The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 109
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Cha
ng, W
en-C
hin]
At:
04:3
6 1
June
200
8
Muslims, but never listen to the Muslims’ words (huizi de fan keyi chi huizi de hua
bukeyi ting )’. (In contrast, I have not heard
Yunnanese Muslims making any negative remarks about the Han group; however,
this may be due to my own Han status.) Hui informants tend to emphasise that both
Han and Hui are Chinese, and differ only in religion. The Hui also like to stress their
sense of solidarity, especially seen in their religious practices and monetary donations.
Although both Han and Hui attend communal activities organised by the Yunnanese
Association in Chiang Mai, they do not have much interaction in business and
intermarriages rarely occur. In short, the Han regard themselves as superior to the
Muslims, in terms of descent and culture, whereas the Hui distinguish themselves by
their religious devotion and group solidarity.
Peripheral Inferiority
Kolo Versus Jin-ho
Among the Thai people, the Yunnanese further distinguish the northern Thai from
the central Thai. By resorting to the ideology of civilisers, the migrant Yunnanese
place themselves in the centre vis-a-vis the ethnic others in the periphery. Although
being a minority themselves, they demean the autochthonous northern Thai with a
pejorative image of barbarity and underdevelopment, treating them as a subgroup of
the Thai people. This derogatory perception is implied in the appellation of Kolo for
the people. The origin of the term is uncertain; it is actually not used by the northern
Thai themselves. Based on my interviews, only the rural Thai people living around
the Yunnanese villages are aware of this appellation and are annoyed by it. A
stereotyped story repeated widely among the elderly Yunnanese shows their scornful
perception of the northern Thai. They said that the Kolo were still very wild (yeman
) and poor when they arrived in Thailand. They dared not leave their villages
alone for fear of being robbed or killed by the Kolo. They stressed that the Kolo were
especially in favour of robbing the Yunnanese because they knew that every
Yunnanese carried a pen, a watch and 30 or 40 baht (Thai currency) with him.
It is true that before the 1980s northern Thailand was not very developed and
public security was weak in remote areas. Mote mentioned that more than 20
villagers from Ban Yang were killed by armed Kolo gangsters during the first 10 years
after the village was founded (1967, p. 512). Informants also described some incidents
of robbery and murder committed by local Thai. However, Kolo gangsters were not
the only bandits; there were bands of Yunnanese robbers as well, who particularly
selected their prey from fellow Yunnanese (Mote, 1967, p. 493). The pejorative
connotations ascribed to Kolo are stigmatised perceptions applied by the Yunnanese.
Actually, most Yunnanese refugees were even poorer than local Thais when they
arrived. In order to make a living, some people had to work for nearby Thai farmers.
The pen, watch and cash mentioned above symbolise civilisation and development. It
may be true that some Yunnanese refugees had these objects with them, but certainly
110 W.-C. Chang
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Cha
ng, W
en-C
hin]
At:
04:3
6 1
June
200
8
not all of them did. Today, the term taiguoren (Thai people) is applied more
commonly by the Yunnanese; however, in comparison with the ‘diligent’, ‘trust-
worthy’ and ‘civilised’ Chinese, the Thai in general are regarded as ‘lazy’,
‘untrustworthy’ and ‘superficial’. Such stereotypical perceptions exist not only among
members of the older generation, but also among the younger generation.
Interestingly, the narration about ‘Kolo’ parallels that about the term ‘Jin-ho’ (or
Ciin-haw) used by Thai people when referring to the Yunnanese migrants. Deviating
from the historical connotations of ‘Ho’, which see the Yunnanese Chinese as traders
or political intermediaries in upper mainland southeast Asia, the term has changed to
a derogatory name category in Thailand, often suffixed with another word ‘Jin’.
Etymologically, ‘Jin’ is the standard term for ‘Chinese’ in the Thai language, but the
origin of ‘Ho’ is no longer certain.20 Today, the compound term ‘Jin-ho’ particularly
refers to migrant Yunnanese connected with KMT forces.21 Instead of being civilised
Han Chinese, the Yunnanese are perceived as a backward and violent hill tribe,
specialising in contraband border trade, especially drug trafficking. For the general
Thai public, the entrenchment of the KMT armies along the border was a threat to
their national sovereignty and the illicit trade was unacceptable. Critical reports
projected the KMT as a serious problem (especially in the 1970s). The following
excerpts from local newspapers illustrate this view.
The KMT is notorious for its dealings in the opium trade. Their activities are
shrouded in mystery and it is next to impossible for a stranger to penetrate their
camps. No person[s] other than military officials [are] allowed to go up to the
KMT camps in Chiang Rai or Chiang Mai [provinces]. Press interviews with KMT
leaders such as Lao [D]uan and Lao L[i] [the two leaders of the KMT troops in
Thailand] are denied and doubts linger as to their intent. (Thanit 1973)
Throughout our history Thailand has . . . claimed that it has never been a victim of
colonization. But the presence, actions, and arrogant behavior of the CIF22 General
Li and [D]uan . . . have abused our welcome and so taken advantage of their
hosts . . . constitute a colonial presence in our country . . . Li and [D]uan have
exercised authority in challenging the legitimate passage of Thai police and customs
officials . . . We can only hope that our Government will wake up to the true nature
and objective of their insidious and dangerous guests and begin soon to take
whatever measures are necessary to regain sovereignty in the northern border areas.
(Theh 1974)
These [Chinese Ho] were considered ‘illegal’ since the residents were paying no
taxes to the government and had been engaging in illegal activity. Some of them,
despite having been granted Thai citizenship, did not speak Thai and were far from
having developed a Thai identity. (Pongsak 1984)
Behind these hostile remarks lay a ‘xenophobic fervor of nationalism’ (Hanks 1964,
p. 12). The framework of nation-state was embedded in the formation of Thai
identity. The Jin-ho who retained their distinctive traditions and community life were
perceived as unassimilated and their loyalty to Thailand was questioned.23 Their
The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 111
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Cha
ng, W
en-C
hin]
At:
04:3
6 1
June
200
8
military organisation and engagement in the narcotics trade were the central points of
criticism. However, the deeper layers of regional politics linked to inter-state
animosity, power struggles between local groups and central states and official
corruption were not discussed in these reports.
In writings released by the Thai government, as well as in those of Thai academics,
similar criticisms of the Jin-ho are found. By reviewing a few titles, we will
understand the situation: Problems of Security along the Thai-Burmese Border in
Northern Thailand (Saiyud 1982); The Invisible Refugees and Related Problems (Kraisri
1982); Problems of Minority Groups and the National Security: A Case Study of Chinese
Ho (former KMT Military Refugees) (Anan 1990); Hill Tribes and Minority Groups in
Northern Region and National Security (Somphong 1990); A Minority Group in
Thailand: A Case Study of the Policy to Resolve the Kuomintang Problem (Nittha 1993).
All these writings deal with the migrant Yunnanese (and some also with hill tribes)
and refer to them as Ho. The works are based primarily on official data and media
reports, but not on in-depth interviews with Yunnanese migrants. The Ho are
sometimes mistakenly categorised as a hill tribe24 and are associated with illicit entry,
underground trade, threats to national security and deforestation, as well as being
seen as a hindrance to Thai�Burmese relations. Similar remarks have been made by
most Thai people I have interviewed or talked to casually (including academics) in
neighbouring areas of some Yunnanese villages, Chiang Mai and Bangkok.
The involvement of the Yunnanese in the drug trade was real. There were clashes
between Yunnanese traders and the Thai Border Patrol Police; the government also
launched military actions to target the drug trade a few times in some Yunnanese
villages.25 In short, the migrant Yunnanese are perceived as problematic. However,
their participation in fighting against the Communist forces in Thailand is not
appreciated or remembered. The cultural aspects of their life are also ignored, owing
to limited mutual contact. All the criticisms of the migrant Yunnanese are founded
on a nationalised or moralised framework and lack a deeper analysis of
contextualisation.
Juxtaposition of the narratives of Han descent presented by the Yunnanese with
those of the Thai reports and academic writings on the Ho shows a chasm between
the discourse of Han Chinese superiority and that of vicious Jin-ho. In reality, a sense
of superiority and inferiority coexists in Yunnanese subjectivity itself with respect to
who they are. Although deriving strength from a heroic social memory of Yunnanese
migration history, Yunnanese migrants tend to hide their Yunnanese identity from
the general Thai public. Many informants belonging to different generations confide
that this feeling of awkwardness arises especially when they have to go through the
Thai bureaucracy to apply for citizenship or other documents. Teacher Li (first
generation in Burma and then Thailand), who has been settled in Chiang Mai for
nearly 30 years, complained: ‘It takes endless efforts to get a Thai ID (fei jiuniu erhu
zhili ), and it costs you much money [for bribery]’. Yunhua (second
generation in Thailand), a university student I interviewed in 1995 and 1996, moved
112 W.-C. Chang
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Cha
ng, W
en-C
hin]
At:
04:3
6 1
June
200
8
to Chiang Mai with her family from Ban Mai Nongbour in the early 1990s. She told
of her experiences:
I feel bad every time I have to tell a government officer which village I was from. As
I am a university student, I am treated decently, but I still feel anxious about
revealing my Yunnanese identity. I know fellow villagers are easily discriminated
against when they go to government offices. They don’t speak Thai well. It seems
that the Thai authorities see the infamous past related to the illegal trade imprinted
on their faces. They don’t speak Thai well.
Meixiang (second generation in Thailand), also a university student in 2002,
related similar feelings:
I feel uncomfortable when classmates playfully call me Jin-ho. I’m from doi
[mountain] Mae Salong. To them, Jin-ho means a hill tribe from mountains. They
don’t know we are Han people from Yunnan . . . Sometimes I correct them with the
term ‘Jin-Yunnan’.
Bound by different discursive forces, affiliations and contextual constraints, most
urban Yunnanese are conscious of the need to cover up their Jin-ho identity from the
outsiders, but still maintain their intragroup association. Two Lin sisters (first
generation in Burma and in-between generation in Thailand), who have worked in
Bangkok for over 20 years, are successful business women. They first worked at a
Teochiu company for many years and then opened their own import�export
company. The capital flow per month is over a billion baht. Their hectic life only
allows them to go home for a few days during the Chinese New Year. Their parents
still live in a Yunnanese village and their married eldest sister lives in another village
nearby. The married sister told me that her parents are not used to the busy lifestyle
in Bangkok. Moreover, they feel uncomfortable about confining themselves in their
daughters’ apartment. Lin dajie noted:
My sisters demand that my parents do not speak with the neighbours. They are
afraid they would reveal their Yunnanese background . . . Over the years, they have
kept their Yunnanese identity a secret. I cannot blame them. I was in Bangkok
before. I know how people think of us Yunnanese. But I feel sad for my sisters; deep
in their minds, especially of the youngest one, lies a strong sense of inferiority.
The informants’ words above disclose deep anguish and distress at their social
location. Stepping outside the Yunnanese villages, they also step out of the central
position of their self-perception. To sustain their Han Chinese superiority, they learn
to appropriate the identity of the overseas Chinese originating from southeastern
China. However, in relation to these counterparts who came by sea, the Yunnanese
are also situated in a marginal position, as analysed in the following.
The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 113
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Cha
ng, W
en-C
hin]
At:
04:3
6 1
June
200
8
In Relation to the ‘Overseas’ Chinese
The descendants of earlier Chinese immigrants from the southeastern coastal
provinces of China have successfully integrated with Thai society and have become
the most outstanding ethnic group in Thailand on account of their eminence in
economic, political and academic fields (Skinner 1957, p. 1958; Cushman 1989). They
are mostly located in urban and central Thailand. Their successes have not only been
socially recognised, but also socially accepted by the general Thai public. In relation
to these Teochiu, Hakka, Hokkien, Hainanese and Cantonese, the Yunnanese are
conscious of their peripheral status, seen from both social and cultural standards.
Despite the claim of Han descent, their home province in Yunnan is a remote frontier.
Historically, it was seen as a barbarous land, full of poisonous vapour and diseases.
Criminals and punished officials were exiled there. It is still considered one of the
least-developed provinces in China. Its distinctiveness lies in the ethnic cultures of the
non-Han minorities. Likewise, the northern borderland of Thailand where most
Yunnanese migrants are settled is seen as a remote region. It was once a buffer zone
for various ethnic militias and considered an unlawful area. Its attraction for tourists
today depends largely on its natural landscape and hill tribe cultures. Accordingly,
both Yunnan and northern Thailand convey images of wildness, original beauty and
exotic ethnicities to outsiders. Thus, the Yunnanese, with their military background,
are wrongly seen as one of the hill tribes. Even their overseas counterparts are
unaware of their Han descent and look down on them as a result of the
contemptuous meaning ascribed to the ‘Ho’. Consequently, when moving to cities,
the Yunnanese conceal their overland background and try to merge into the group of
overseas Chinese.
Vis-a-vis the overseas Chinese, the Yunnanese tend to highlight their differentia-
tion in terms of their penchant for risk taking in economic ventures. This, in turn, is
attributed to the ‘wild’ physiography of Yunnan, which demanded such a
temperament. Huang dadie (first generation in Burma and then Thailand) says:
We Yunnanese have a kind of daring spirit (maoxian fannan de jingshen
) and tough personality. This is mainly due to the mountainous
environment in Yunnan. The land is not fertile for agriculture. Yunnanese simply
have to leave their homeland to make a living. Our ancestors had been engaged in
the caravan trade for hundreds of years.
Ah Song dage (first generation in Burma and in-between generation in Thailand)
makes a similar remark: ‘We Yunnanese love gambling on big trade . . . [We] have a
sort of wild temper (sanba piqi ). When stationed in mountains [during the
period of the KMT armies], [those military Yunnanese] talked with guns’. In contrast,
the ethnic Chinese who arrived by sea are considered conservative. Ah Song dage
further characterises the differentiation: ‘Those Teochiu are good at business.26 They
are willing to earn 1 baht, 2 baht [yikuai liangkuai douzhuan meaning
114 W.-C. Chang
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Cha
ng, W
en-C
hin]
At:
04:3
6 1
June
200
8
making small profits]. We Yunnanese only aim at big profits [douzhi zuo dade
]’.
Yunnanese audacity seems to be the primary factor in their economic undertaking;
nevertheless, in addition to a daring disposition, the organisation of long-distance
trade requires strict observance of discipline, division of labour and the observance of
taboos (Zheng 1982; Wang and Zhang 1993). Leadership and hierarchy in particular
were two distinctive features demanded in the armed caravan trade, as I have analysed
in another paper (Chang 2002). In addition, informants comment that shrewd
traders are keen to observe changing circumstances to control their investment. The
ethnic enterprise of the jade trade among the Yunnanese illustrates this trading ethos
(Chang 2003, 2004, 2006b). It is therefore the combination of audacity, shrewdness
and discipline in implementation that determines the success of long-distance
economic undertaking. In comparison with the discourse of civilised Han Chinese-
ness, this image of an audacious and shrewd temperament highlights a contrasting
dimension. Being migrant Yunnanese in Thailand, they carry on their Yunnanese
traditions, which bring with them rich sociocultural resources for application in trade
and everyday life; however, the traditions cast a shadow on their identity in relation to
the majority Thai, as well as their overseas counterparts.
Conclusion: Unresolved Tension
Accordingly, Yunnanese subjectivities are linked to varied discursive affiliations; the
articulation of each identity is based on a certain discourse or ideology and
simultaneously conceals the others. On the one hand, we may say that their shifting
between these different affiliations facilitates the better accommodation of migrant
Yunnanese in the host country and their continuing movement. It provides them a
psychological space to fall back on and respond to different communities in different
contexts. However, conversely, the oscillation points to their ambivalence in a
culturally mixed position*neither convincingly Han nor genuine Yunnanese. More
specifically, they are not considered as equally Han as the overseas ethnic Chinese and
their clinging to a Han origin excludes them from a Yunnanese autochthonous
footing, despite their emphasis on a Yunnanese trading ethos. Hence, their identity
narratives reveal an interstitiality*what Bhabha has called ‘feelings of overlap and
displacement of domains of differences’ (1994, p. 2), embodying unresolved tension
and uncertainty in their subjectivities. The equivocal situation is especially seen in
their acknowledgement of their somewhat ‘wild’ nature, but at the same time their
dissatisfaction with the Thai public’s perception of them as a lawless and backward
‘tribe’ involved in smuggling activities.
Among the migrant Yunnanese, the first generation has experienced the most
traumatic hardships on account of repeated warfare, displacement and resettlement in
destitute conditions. Many dadie have survived from one battle to another, and from
one retreat to another. Their memories are haunted by fear, blood, death, hunger and
diseases. Many dama, although not direct participants in the fighting, lived under
The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 115
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Cha
ng, W
en-C
hin]
At:
04:3
6 1
June
200
8
great stress caused by poverty, worries about their husbands’ safety, children’s
illnesses, fear of each new environment they arrived in and so on (Chang 2005).
Although strongly attached to Yunnanese tradition and nostalgia for Yunnan, the old
generation sees this native province as a changed homeland. When going back, they
discover that their original villages or towns have changed a lot and many old relatives
and friends have passed away. Yunnan, to them, is a place for visits but not for
permanent return. Having built up their second homes in Thailand with their bare
hands, they identify these border villages as their ‘final home’ where they will pass
away. Different from earlier Chinese immigrants in southeast Asia, they have no wish
to be buried in their homeland. Although grateful to Thailand as a fertile and tolerant
country, they do not trust local Thais and feel distanced from the Thai government.
For most of the younger generation, going to cities for their personal advancement
has become an unavoidable trajectory. More and more Yunnanese youth go to Thai
schools for higher education and engage in a variety of different professions.
Although having direct contacts with Thai society, most Yunnanese still maintain
their intragroup associations. They may behave as the Thai do in the public domain,
or even partly adapt to the Thai lifestyle at home, yet the present study’s analysis of
their inner self opposes any superficial interpretation of a trend towards assimilation.
As long as the demeaning perception of them as Ho continues, the demarcation
between the Yunnanese and Thai people is likely to remain.
In conclusion, the migration history and process of resettlement of the Yunnanese
Chinese in Thailand is complex and the complexity is related not only to
contemporary contexts, but also connects to different discursive forces developed
throughout history. The present study has tried to probe into these intricate threads
and shed light on the different facets of the people’s subjectivities. It is a realm that is
neither an ontological given nor a fixed state of being, but something in the process of
formation. Metaphorically, this is a realm that resembles borderlands that ‘thematize
problems of boundary’ (Johnson & Michaelsen 1997, p. 2), suture both limitation
and potentiality and traverse in a process of constant negotiation between inclusion
and exclusion. The special Yunnanese military background and the twofold
affiliations with Han Chineseness and a Yunnanese overland ethos have distinguished
them from the general picture of overseas Chinese in Thailand. Although the two
identity resources provide sociocultural enrichment, the Yunnanese also have to
reconcile any tension arising between the two aspects.
Notes
[1] I conducted intensive fieldwork among migrant Yunnanese in northern Thailand from
November 1994 until August 1996. Subsequently, short-term fieldwork ranging from 1 to 3
months was undertaken in 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004�2005, 2006 and 2007 in northern
Thailand, as well as in upper Burma (totalling 12 months). I am indebted to the anonymous
reviewers for their invaluable comments, and especially grateful to one reviewer for his help
in language editing. In addition, I thank Sun Laichen for discussion of the term Hanren while
I was revising the paper, Michael Herzfeld for advice on publication and to the Harvard-
116 W.-C. Chang
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Cha
ng, W
en-C
hin]
At:
04:3
6 1
June
200
8
Yenching Institute, Harvard University, which is hosting me for the academic year 2007�2008. Any remaining errors are my responsibility.
[2] The term ‘Yunnanese Chinese’ generally refers to the Han Chinese group in Yunnan but, in a
broader sense, it also covers the Muslim group (see Hill 1998, pp. 106�7). In the present
paper, the focus is on the Yunnanese Han who have migrated to Thailand; they are also called
Yunnanese, following their self-reference as Yunnanren. In terms of migration route, the early
Chinese migrants who came from the coastal provinces of southeastern China by sea to
Thailand, and their descendants, are classified as ‘overseas’ Chinese in the present paper. This
group includes the Teochiu (Chaozhou), Hakka, Hainanese, Hokkien (Fujianese) and
Cantonese. Conversely, the Yunnanese came to Thailand by land and are referred to as
‘overland’ Yunnanese (Chang 2006a). Skinner’s Chinese Society in Thailand: An Analytical
History (1957) and Leadership and Power in the Chinese Community of Thailand (1958) are
regarded as early classics for studies on the ‘overseas’ Chinese; later, this group is also referred
to as ‘Sino-Thai’ or ‘ethnic Chinese’ by other authors (see Cushman 1989).
[3] Other ethnographic studies include Mote (1967), Suthep (1977), Imanaga (1990), Forbes
and Henley (1997), Wang (2006), and Huang (2007). Mote’s article is the first publication
dealing with contemporary Yunnanese migrants in Thailand based on a 1-week visit in two
villages. Huang’s recent work treats the issue of ethnic identity of the Yunnanese Chinese in a
border village in northern Thailand by adopting a perspective of shifting identities in relation
to external contexts. The rest of the studies are focused on Yunnanese Muslims.
[4] There are exceptional cases where the Han are a minority to adjacent non-Han groups; for
example, see Shih (2003).
[5] The number of Yunnanese refugees in Thailand in the 1950s was still small. Three
Yunnanese villages were founded during this period with the help of KMT troops. Most
Yunnanese refugees have arrived since the 1960s. Based on my field data and relevant
records, there were at least 44 Yunnanese refugee villages in 1974. Among them, 29 can be
classified as KMT villages (i.e. those under the protection and supervision of the KMT
forces). A rough estimate of the population of the KMT Yunnanese in the mid-1970s was
approximately 25,000 people and Yunnanese refugees as a whole numbered approximately
30,000. The continuous inflow of Yunnanese refugees from Burma has ensured a steady
increase in the Yunnanese population in Thailand. According to 1994 data released by The
Free China Relief Association, a semi-official organisation in Taiwan that established
The Service Corps for Refugees in Northern Thailand in 1982, there were 77 villages
inhabited by Yunnanese refugees. The total population in these villages was 89,018. The
Han Chinese accounted for approximately 60 per cent (approximately 54,000); the rest was
accounted for by other ethnic groups, mostly hill tribes.
[6] Ban Mai Nongbua (Chaiprakan district, Chiang Mai province) was my major research site
for intensive participant observation during my doctoral field research. For basic data
regarding the 25 villages, see Chang (1999, pp. 102�4).
[7] For classifying generations, see Chang (2006a), where I integrate the factors of place and time
in categorising the generations.
[8] The term ‘to work through and work out’ is derived from Bhabha’s writing on in-between
culture (1996, p. 59).
[9] While referring to former officers, the Yunnanese still use the previous military ranks; for the
rest, the Yunnanese address each other with affiliated terms based on the kinship principle.
In the present paper, I adopt this custom to address my informants as I did during the course
of my fieldwork. Dadie ( ), senior uncle, is an address for male adults who are older than
one’s father.
[10] Dama , senior aunt, is an address for female adults whose husbands are older than
one’s father.
The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 117
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Cha
ng, W
en-C
hin]
At:
04:3
6 1
June
200
8
[11] The textbooks were brought in from Taiwan; for an analysis of Chinese education in the
Yunnanese villages and the people’s relationships with Taiwan, see Chang (2006a).
[12] Generally speaking, the Yunnanese villages of the Chiang Mai and Mae Hongson provinces
were under the domain of influence of the Third Army, whereas those of the Chiang Rai
province were under the domain of influence of the Fifth Army.
[13] Invitations to Yunnanese Taoist priests still prevail in ritual affairs. Some of the priests travel
between the Shan state of Burma and northern Thailand. Their profession has become a
transnational business.
[14] Xiangbang is the most illustrative form of reciprocal exchanges among Yunnanese, especially
at weddings and funerals. On such an occasion, villagers lay aside their work and go to the
family undertaking the event to give whatever help is necessary. In effect, this serves as a
significant impetus to Yunnanese communal life and is a prominent performative narrative
revealing Yunnanese intragroup associations.
[15] For more stories, see Chang (1999, p. 242�3).
[16] The positive impact of the migrant Yunnanese on nearby ethnic groups in agriculture has
also been noted by Mote (1967, p. 506) and Hanks and Hanks (1987, p 137�8) in their earlier
studies.
[17] The self-reference of hanren in relation to ethnic minorities as non-Han is also a prevailing
phenomenon among the Yunnanese Chinese in Burma. According to elderly informants, this
differentiation in address has been passed on for generations, since the days in Yunnan.
Whereas hanzu (the Han nationality) is a modern creation of the early twentieth century,
hanren is an old term in Chinese history (see Jia 2003, pp. 169�84). I suspect that Hill’s
informants used zhongguoren rather than hanren while speaking to her because Hill is
American. In the context of the Chinese language, it makes more sense for the people to
express their ‘Chinese’ identity to Hill, a Westerner, when talking about their relations with
the majority Thai and also the minority hill tribes. In addition, the field site where Hill
conducted her research was basically in Chiang Mai (not the border areas), where the
number of hill tribes was very small at the time of her research. Hence, the chances of urban
Yunnanese remarking on tribal minorities were small.
[18] Based on my own field research in northern Thailand, the Muslim population constitutes less
than 10 per cent among the migrant Yunnanese. Informants (both Han and Muslims)
consistently stress that the Han is the largest group in Thai�Burmese transborder trade.
Thus, the finding contradicts many earlier Western travelogues and colonial surveys, which
maintained that the Yunnanese Muslim traders were the major group (e.g. Sladen 1870;
Anderson 1876/1972; Colquhoun 1900). Several later academic studies followed this view
(e.g. Yegar 1966; Suthep 1977; Forbe & Henley 1997). My interpretation is that the Muslims
traders could have been more noticeable in some parts of the borderlands, especially during
the time when the Muslim revolt took place (1856�1873 CE); the Muslim traders controlled a
major part of the Yunnanese border trade (see Wang 1968; Huang 1976). However, the Han
Chinese have been the primary trading group in history. Sun (2000), investigating the issue
of Chinese�southeast Asian overland interactions from the fourteenth to seventeenth
centuries by using historical sources in Chinese, Tai and Burmese, indicates the
predominance of Yunnanese Han over Yunnanese Muslims in long-distance trade (p. 223).
Giersch (2006), working on the transformation of the Yunnan frontier between the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, also presents similar findings.
[19] The five villages with Yunnanese Muslims are Ban Yang (Fang district of Chiang Mai
province), Huo Fei (Fang district of Chiang Mai province), Tathon (Mae Ai district of
Chiang Mai province), Mae Salong (Mae Faluang district of Chiang Rai province), Ban
Tham (Mae Sai district of Chiang Rai province) and Wawii (Mae Suae district of Chiang Rai
province). The ratio of the number of Muslim families to that of Han families in these
118 W.-C. Chang
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Cha
ng, W
en-C
hin]
At:
04:3
6 1
June
200
8
villages in 1995�6 was 70:400 in Ban Yang; 20:130 in Huo Fei; 20:40 in Tathon; 25:730 in Mae
Salong; 10:150 in Ban Tham; and 30:286 in Wawii.
[20] Li Fuyi (1976, p. 31�4), a Chinese scholar on Tai studies, says that the term ‘Ho’ was used by
the Baiyi (a Tai-speaking people) to refer to the rulers of the Nanzhao Kingdom (738�902
CE) and their descendants in Yunnan. ‘Ho’ means ‘grand’ or ‘heaven’ in the Baiyi language.
The capital of Nanzhao was referred to as ‘Tai-ho’ (grand town) and Nanzhao was called
‘Meng-ho’ (the grand kingdom). However, with the great influx of Han Chinese into Yunnan
at the beginning of the fourteenth century and the concomitant process of Sinicisation, the
term ‘Ho’ was used by the Tai people with reference to Yunnanese Chinese both in Yunnan
and neighbouring countries. Giersch also mentions that Han Chinese are called Ho by the
Tai in Yunnan (2006, pp. 14, 36, 84).
[21] The Yunnanese Muslims in Thailand are referred to as Ho Islam or simply also as Ho by the
Thai people.
[22] The Chinese Independent Forces (CIF) is an official name given by the Thai authorities to
the KMT.
[23] This suspicious attitude was also directed towards tribal minorities.
[24] The same treatment is found in the categorising system of the library of Chulalongkorn
University.
[25] For example, in 1982, a powerful military operation was launched in Ban Hin Taek (Mae Fa
Luang district of Chiang Rai province), the headquarters of the infamous drug warlord Khun
Sa. More than 200 people died in this operation. In 1984, another action was undertaken by a
special Thai military unit, The Black Panthers, in Ban Piang Luang (Wiang Haeng district of
Chiang Mai province). It lasted 18 days; more than 30 villagers were arrested and killed
without trial. The Thai government’s reaction to drug trafficking varied from time to time,
depending on who was in power at any given moment and on the varying degrees of pressure
exerted by the US Drug Enforcement Administration. There were also connections between
high-ranking Thai officers and the KMT troops and other drug warlords; for a description of
the complex interrelations, see McCoy (1991).
[26] The Teochiu are the most prominent group in terms of numbers and economic success
among the ethnic Chinese in Thailand. The Yunnanese often refer to them as representative
of all the ethnic Chinese who came by sea to Thailand.
References
Anan B. (1990) Panha chon klum noi kap khwam mankhong haeng chat sueksa chapho korani chin ho
(phu opphayop adit thahan chin khana chat) [Problems of minority groups and national
security: a case study of Chinese Ho (Former KMT Refugees)], National Defense College,
Bangkok.
Anderson, B. R. O’G. (1983) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism, Verso, London.
Anderson, J. (1972) Mandalay to Momien, a Narrative of the Two Expeditions to Western China of
1886 and 1874 Under Colonel Edward B. Sladen and Colonel Horace Browne, Ch’eng Wen,
Taipei. (Original work published 1876)
Anonymous. (ed.) (1987) Southeast Asian Tribal Groups and Ethnic Minorities: Prospects for the
Eighties and Beyond. Cultural Survival, Cambridge, MA.
Barth, F. (1969) ‘Introduction’, in Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture
Difference, ed. F. Barth, Allen & Unwin, London, pp. 9�38.
Belsey, C. (1991) ‘Constructing the subject, deconstructing the text’, in Feminisms: An Anthology of
Literary Theory and Criticism, eds R. Warhol & D. P. Herndl, Rutgers University Press, New
Brunswick, NJ, pp. 657�73.
Bhabha, H. K. (1994) The Location of Culture, Routledge, London.
The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 119
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Cha
ng, W
en-C
hin]
At:
04:3
6 1
June
200
8
Bhabha, H. K. (1996) ‘Culture’s in-between’, in Questions of Cultural Identity, eds S. Hall & P. du
Gay, Sage Publications, London.
Blum, S. D. (2001) Portraits of ‘Primitives’: Ordering Human Kinds in the Chinese Nation,
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham.
Chang, W. C. (1999) Beyond the Military: The Complex Migration and Resettlement of the KMT
Yunnanese Chinese in Northern Thailand, PhD Thesis, Department of Anthropology, K. U.
Leuven, Belgium.
Chang, W. C. (2001) ‘From war refugees to immigrants: the case of the KMT Yunnanese Chinese in
northern Thailand’, International Migration Review, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 1086�105.
Chang, W. C. (2002) ‘Identification of leadership among the KMT Yunnanese Chinese in northern
Thailand’ Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 123�46.
Chang, W. C. (2003) ‘Three Yunnanese jade traders from Tengchong’, Kolor: Journal on Moving
Communities, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 15�34.
Chang, W. C. (2004) ‘Guanxi and regulation in networks: the Yunnanese jade trade between Burma
and Thailand, 1962�88’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 479�501.
Chang, W. C. (2005) ‘Invisible warriors: the migrant Yunnanese women in northern Thailand’,
Kolor: Journal on Moving Communities, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 49�70.
Chang, W. C. (2006a) ‘Home away from home: migrant Yunnanese Chinese in northern Thailand’,
International Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 49�76.
Chang, W. C. (2006b) ‘The trading culture of jade stones among the Yunnanese in Burma and
Thailand, 1962�88’, Journal of Chinese Overseas, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 107�31.
Colquhoun, A. R. (1900) Overland to China, Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York.
Comaroff, J. & Comaroff, J. (1992) Ethnography and the Historical Imagination, Westview, Boulder,
CO.
Cushman, J. W. (1989) ‘The Chinese in Thailand’, in The Ethnic Chinese in the Asian States,
Bibliographical Essays, ed. S. Leo, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, pp. 221�59.
Ellis, C. & Flaherty, M. G. (1992) ‘An agenda for the interpretation of lived experience’, in
Investigating Subjectivity: Research on Lived Experience, eds C. Ellis & M. G. Flaherty, Sage
Publications, Newbury Park, pp. 1�13.
Eriksen, T. H. (1993) Ethnicity and Nationalism, Pluto Press, London.
Forbes, A. & Henley, D. (1997) The Haw: Traders of the Golden Triangle. Teak House, Chiang Mai.
Freedman, M. (1971) Chinese Lineage and Society: Fukien and Kwangtung, Athlone Press, London.
Giersch, C. P. (2006) Asian Borderlands: The Transformation of Qing China’s Yunnan Frontier,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Gladney, D. C. (ed.) (1998) Making Majorities: Constituting the Nation in Japan, Korea, China,
Malaysia, Fifi, Turkey and the United States, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Gupta, A. & Ferguson, J. (1997) ‘Culture, power, place: ethnography at the end of an era’, in Culture,
Power, Place: Explorations in Critical Anthropology, eds A. Gupta & J. Ferguson, Duke
University Press, Durham, pp. 1�29.
Hall, S. (1990) ‘Cultural identity and diaspora’, in Identity: Community, Culture, Difference, ed. J.
Rutherford, Lawrence and Wishart, London, pp. 222�37.
Hanks, J. R. & Hanks, L. M. (1987) ‘Settling the Lisu in Thailand’, in Southeast Asian Tribal Groups
and Ethnic Minorities: Prospects for the Eighties and Beyond, Cultural Survival, Cambridge,
MA, pp. 135�138.
Hanks, J. R. (1964) National Security in Northern Thailand, unpublished monograph.
Harrell, S. (ed.) (1995) Cultural Encounters on China’s Ethnic Frontiers, University of Washington
Press, Seattle.
Hill, A. M. (1992) ‘Chinese funerals and Chinese ethnicity in Chiang Mai, Thailand’, Ethnology, vol.
31, no. 4, pp. 315�30.
Hill, A. M. (1998) Merchants and Migrants: Ethnicity and Trade among Yunnanese Chinese in
Southeast Asia, Yale Southeast Asia Studies, New Haven.
120 W.-C. Chang
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Cha
ng, W
en-C
hin]
At:
04:3
6 1
June
200
8
Hirsch, E. (1995) ‘Landscape: between place and space’, in The Anthropology of Landscape, eds E.
Hirsch & M. O’Hanlon, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 1�30.
Hsieh, S. C. (1995) ‘On the dynamics of Tai/Dai-Lue ethnicity: an ethnohistorical analysis’, in
Cultural Encounters on China’s Ethnic Frontiers, ed. S. Harrell, University of Washington
Press, Seattle, pp. 301�28.
Huang, C. M. (1976) Dianxi huimin zhengquan de lianyin waijiao [British Relations with the
Panthay Regime of Western Yunnan 1868�1874], Monograph Series no. 37, Institute of
Modern History, Academia Sinica, Taipei.
Huang, S. M. (2007) ‘A Chinese diasporic community in northern Thailand: contested political
loyalty and shifting ethnicity’, in Chinese Transnational Networks, ed. C. B. Tan, Routledge,
London, pp. 172�90.
Imanaga, S. (1990) The Research of the Chinese Muslim Society in Northern Thailand, Hiroshima
University in Association with Keisui-sha Hiroshima, Hiroshima.
Jia, J. Y. (2003) ‘Hanren kao’ [A textual research of the term Han], in Zhonghua minzu duoyuan yiti
geju [The pattern of diversity in unity of the Chinese nation], ed. X. Fei, Zhongyang Minzu
Daxue Chubanshe, Beijing, pp. 169�84.
Johnson, D. E. & Michaelsen, S. (1997) ‘Border secrets: an introduction’, in Border Theory: The
Limits of Cultural Politics, eds S. Michaelsen & D. E. Johnson, University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis, pp. 1�39.
Kanjana P. (1995) Kongphon kaosipsam thahan jin khanachat bon doi phatang [The 93rd division in
Mt. Phatang], Siam Rat Publishing, Chiang Mai.
Keyes, C. F. (ed.) (1979) Ethnic Adaptation: The Karen on the Thai Frontier with Burma, Institute for
the Study of Human Issues, Philadelphia.
Keyes, C. F. (1981) Ethnic Change, University of Washington, Seattle.
Kraisri N. (1982) ‘The invisible refugees and related problems’, Ratthasat parithat: chon klum noi nai
phak nuea [Political science review: ethnic minorities in the northern Region], no. 3, pp. 11�18.
Kunstadter, P. (ed) (1967) Southeast Asian Tribes, Minorities and Nations, Princeton University
Press, Princeton.
Leach, E. R. (1993) Political Systems of Highland Burma: A Study of Kachin Social Structure. The
Athlone Press, London. (Original work published 1954)
Lehman, F. K. (1967) ‘Ethnic categories in Burma and the theory of social systems’, in Southeast
Asian Tribes, Minorities and Nations, ed. P. Kunstadter, Princeton University Press, Princeton,
pp. 93�124.
Li, F. (1976) ‘Jianghong zaji: Ho zu yu Yunnan ren’ [The Ho ethnic group and the Yunnanese],
Yunnan wenxian, no. 6, pp. 31�4.
McCoy, A. W. (1991) The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, Lawrence Hill
Books, Brooklyn, NY.
Moerman, M. (1965) ‘Ethnic identification in a complex civilization: Who are the Lue?’ American
Anthropologist, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 1215�25.
Mote, F. W. (1967) ‘The rural ‘Haw’, (Yunnanese Chinese) of northern Thailand’, in Southeast Asian
Tribes, Minorities and Nations, vol. 2, ed. P. Kunstadter, Princeton University Press, Princeton,
pp. 487�524.
Nittha S. (1993) ‘Chon klum noi nai prathet thai: sueksa chapho korani nayobai kan kaekhai panha
adit thahan chin khana chat’ [Minority groups in Thailand: a case study of the policy to
resolve the problems of the former KMT refugees], MA Thesis, Institute of Social Technology,
Krirk University, Bangkok.
Pongsak S. (1984) ‘Threat from Khun Da still haunts ex-KMTs’, The Nation, 25 Jul., p. 5.
Saiyud K. (1982) ‘Problems of security along the Thai�Burmese border in northern Thailand’,
Ratthasat parithat: chon klum noi nai phak nuea [Political Science Review: Ethnic Minorities
in the Northern Region], no. 3.
The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 121
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Cha
ng, W
en-C
hin]
At:
04:3
6 1
June
200
8
Shih, C. K. (2003) ‘A minority among the minorities: the Han Chinese in a multiethnic community
in southwest China’, in State, Market and Ethnic Groups Contextualized, eds B. Chinag & T. P.
Ho, Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica, Taipei, pp. 205�50.
Skinner, G. W. (1957) Chinese Society in Thailand: An Analytical History, Cornell University Press,
Ithaca, NY.
Skinner, G. W. (1958) Leadership and Power in the Chinese Community of Thailand, Cornell
University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Sladen, E. B. (1870) Official Narrative of the Expedition to Explore the Trade Routes to China via
Bhamo, under the Guidance of Major E. B. Sladen, Office of Superintendent of Government
Printing, Calcutta.
Smith, P. (1988) Discerning the Subject, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Somphong I. (1990) ‘Chaokhao lae chon klum noi nai khet phak nuea kap khwam mankhong khong
chat’ [Hill tribes and minority groups in northern region and national security], Witthayalai
Kan Thap Bok, Sathaban Wichakan Thahan Bok Chan Sung [Institute of Army Academics,
Ministry of Defense], Bangkok.
Sun, L. C. (2000) Ming�Southeast Asian Overland Interactions, 1368�1644, PhD Thesis, Department
of History, The University of Michigan.
Suthep S. (1977) ‘Islamic Identity in Chiengmai City: A Historical and Structural Comparison of
Two Communities’, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
Tannenbaum, N. & Kammerer, C. A. (1996) ‘Introduction’, in Merit and Blessing in Mainland
Southeast Asia in Comparative Perspective, monograph 45, eds C. A. Kammerer & N.
Tannenbaum, Yale Southeast Asia Studies, New Haven, pp. 1�19.
Thanit T. (1973) ‘Lamphun, Lampang, Chiang Rai: Northern beauty’, The Bangkok Post, 19 Aug.
Theh C. (1974) ‘Arrogant ‘‘lords’’ of the north’, The Bangkok Post, 23 Jul., p. 8.
Toyota, M. (2003) ‘Contested Chinese identities among ethnic minorities in the China, Burma and
Thai borderlands’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 301�20.
Wang, L. L. (2006) ‘Hui Yunnanese migratory history in relation to the Han Yunnanese and ethnic
resurgence’, Southeast Asian Studies, vol. 44, no. 33, pp. 337�58.
Wang, M. D. & Zhang, X. L. (1993). Mabang wenhua [Culture of caravan trade], Yunnan Renmin
Chubanshe, Kunming.
Wang, M. K. (2003) Qiang zai hanzang zhijian: yige huaxia lishi bianyuan de lishi renleixue yanjiu
[The Qiang between the Han and Zang: a study of historical anthropology on the Chinese
peripheral history], Lianjing, Taipei.
Wang, S. H. (1968) Xiantong Yunnan huimin shibian [The event of Yunnanese Muslim revolt],
Monograph Series no. 23, Institute of Modern History, Academia Sinica, Taipei.
Wijeyewardene, G. (ed.) (1990) Ethnic Groups across National Boundaries in Mainland Southeast
Asia, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore.
Woodward, M. R. & Russell, S. D. (1989) ‘Introduction: transformations in ritual and economy in
upland and lowland southeast Asia’, in Ritual, Power, and Economy: Upland�Lowland
Contrasts in Mainland Southeast Asia, Monograph Series on Southeast Asia, Occasional Paper
No. 14, ed S. D. Russell, Northern Illinois University, Center for Southeast Asian Studies,
Dekalb, IL, pp. 1�26.
Yang, C. K. (1994) Religion in Chinese Society: A Study of Contemporary Social Functions of Religion
and Some of Their Historical Factors, SMC Publishing, Taipei. (Original work published 1961)
Yang, Z. et al. (eds) (1994) Yunnan huizushi [History of the Yunnanese Muslims], Yunnan Renmin
Chubanshe, Kunming.
Yegar, M. (1966) ‘The Panthay (Chinese Muslims) of Burma and Yunnan’, Journal of Southeast Asian
History, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 73�85.
Zheng, Y. (1982) ‘Yunnan mabang [Yunnanese caravan trade]’, Yunnan wenxian, no. 12, pp. 110�17.
Zolberg, A. R., Suhrke, A. & Aguayo, S. (1986) ‘International factors in the formation of refugee
movements’, International Migration Review, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 151�69.
122 W.-C. Chang