Pre-modern Chinese categories did not separate bodily difference from cultural practice

Evidence

Attitudes towards outgroups in imperial China have often been described as “culturalist”: lack of adherence to the cultural norms and ritual practices of Confucianism were the principal markers distinguishing outsiders, often referred to as “barbarians,” from insiders. In an assimilationist vision, however, barbarians could be culturally absorbed - laihua, “come and be transformed,” or hanhua, “become Chinese.” The Chunqiu, a chronological history of the Spring and Autumn period (722-481BCE) traditionally attributed to Confucius, hinged on the idea of cultural assimilation. In his commentary on the Gongyangy He Xiu (129-182CE) later distinguished between the zhuxia, the “various people of Xia [the first Chinese empire],” and the Yi and Di barbarians, living outside the scope of the Chinese cultural sphere. In the Age of Great Peace, an allegorical concept similar to the Golden Age in the West, the barbarians would flow in and be transformed: the world would be one. Some researchers have questioned the “culturalist” thesis by drawing attention to passages from the classics of Confucianism which are apparently incompatible with the concept of cultural universalism. Most quoted is the Zuozhuan (fourth century BCE), a feudal chronicle: “If he is not of our race, he is sure to have a different mind” (fei wo zulei, qi xin biyi). This sentence seems to support the allegation that at least some degree of “racial discrimination” existed during the early stages of Chinese civilization. Both interpretations, however, have in common the adoption of a modern conceptual framework that distinguishes sharply between “culture” and “race,” a distinction which was not clearly expressed before the advent of modernity. In China and in many other parts of the globe, physical markers and cultural characteristics were rarely separated, nor were perceived bodily differences rationalized into a coherent system which might confer legitimacy to exclusionary practices. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 3307