The category Chinese functions like Victorian Anglo-Saxon as unified race-language-culture

Evidence

The term “Chinese,” whether referring restrictively only to the Han or more inclusively to the people of China, is a generic category comparable to the Victorian notion of “Anglo-Saxon”: it is assumed to be a race, a language, and a culture, even when its members are dispersed across the globe. Symptomatic of this phenomenon is the inclusion of Taiwan in most discussions of China, despite the radically different history, politics, cultures, and languages of the island nation: it would be roughly comparable to a contemporary textbook on England which expatiated on Australia and the United States. Not only is it assumed that “Chinese” is a language shared by most inhabitants of “Greater China,” despite ample evidence to the contrary, but also that all the “Chinese” are linked by virtue of descent. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 3357 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: The culture-versus-race debate misreads pre-modern China’s fused categories; Pre-modern Chinese categories did not separate bodily difference from cultural practice — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 3307; Chinese diaspora identity is being redefined in racial rather than civic terms — Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the…, 458 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• The category ‘Chinese’ conflates race, language, culture, and descent across the diaspora. #expands (0.95) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 3357