Talk:Chinese Indonesians/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Chinese Indonesians. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

CHINESE INDONESIANS ARE NOT THE JEWS OF THE ORIENT

the comparison with jews is eroneous on several counts.

first, the jews in europe were a marginalised minority who by dint of hard work managed to secure an economically powerful position. the chinese, in contrast, were favoured by the dutch. the supposed "discrimination" against the chinese during the colonial era was more a case of racial segregation than of racism. the same segregation applied to people of arab and, indeed, european descent. one colonial rule, for example, prohibited anyone from wearing clothes belonging to another race. so, a chinese or an arab could not use western clothes, and vice versa. so, it would be more correct to see the chinese as a dispossesed ruling or favoured race, than as a marginalised minority with a history of continuous opression. in this, the chinese indonesians have a lot more in common with the anglo-irish ascendancy of ireland, the christian minorities of the arab world and the white minority in africa, than with jews. unlike any of these ethnic groups, the jews of europe were NEVER a favoured race.

secondly, the chinese in indonesia considered themselves racially superior to native indonesians. and china had been historically a more powerful country than any of the old pre-colonial kingdoms of indonesia. indeed, an ancient javanese law stipulated that a chinese soul was worth two javanese souls: this meant that if, for example, a javanese killed a chinese, two javanese had to be executed as a result (see ong hok ham et al). the same couldn't be said of the jews during the middle ages as they did not have a homeland. and in roman times, judea was NEVER a powerful political force. this is in contrast to china which, indeed, had some degree of sovereignty over some south-east asian countries. thailand, burma and vietnam, for instance, were tributary states of the ming and qing dynasties.

thirdly, ethnic chinese or people of chinese descent constituted a significant portion of the native ruling classes of south-east asia and indonesia. the founding sultan of demak, for example, was chinese. and many of the nine apostles of islam were similarly chinese. and in thailand, the founder of the present bangkok period of thai history, king thaksin, was again chinese. indeed, most thai aristocratic families trace their lineage to late eighteenth-century chinese merchant-mandarins. there is no such parallel with the jewish diaspora of europe.

so, the likening of the chinese of southeast asia to jews is a profoundly incorrect comparison. it would be better to compare chinese indonesians to the anglo-irish, christian arabs and the whites of africa. true, chinese indonesians are a generally hated and discriminated minority. but, historically, it would be more correct to see their discrimination in light of their previous history as colonial favourites, like the three ethnic groups just mentioned.

A QUESTION OF NOMENCLATURE

and i think a clarification is required here about the various types of chinese in indonesia. the term 'totok' is used to refer to chinese and dutch who have just recently immigrated to the netherlands east indies or indonesia. there is, HISTORICALLY, no racist connotation to the term. it was used by the totok chinese and dutch themselves - with pride. the term, however, is used by the westernised peranakan upper-class, or the qiao shengs, in a condescending manner. some totoks who have suffered from such use of the term can, therefore, find it insulting. but it is not originally an insulting term. and it was, and still is, used to refer to recent immigrants of non-chinese origin. (see blusse, tan-loa et al)

peranakan and baba, moreover, are interchangeable terms. all peranakans and babas have malay, javanese, sundanese or other southeast asian blood in varying degrees, either through intermarriage with natives or with older-established peranakans who are already of part-southeast asian descent. their culture is a mix of both chinese and southeast asian influences. both terms should NOT be used to refer to a Chinese Indonesian's degree of assimilation as peranakans or babas are a DISTINCT ethnic group. the child of a present-day chinese who married a native is not, strictly speaking, a peranakan or baba. peranakans or babas are the descendants of chinese who came to indonesia between the 17th and 19th century. (again, see blusse and tan-loa et al)

also, the distinction between qiao sheng and baba or peranakan is misleading. qiao shengs are basically upper-class baba or peranakan families who have been westernised; but they are as peranakan or baba as middle and lower-class pernakans who are not as westernised as they are. qiao sheng, then, refers to a peranakan's or a baba's degree of westernisation, and therefore is not an ethnic distinction, but rather a class one.

Reason:

Indonesian Chinese means Chinese of Indonesian descent or Chinese-born Indonesia, i.e. Chinese (PRC or ROC depending on your POV) citizen.

This article describes Indonesian of Chinese descent, or similarly, Indonesian-born Chinese. Ultimately, Indonesian citizen. Therefore, it should be Chinese Indonesia with Chinese acting as an adjective and Indonesian as a noun.

Hence, this article should be moved to Chinese Indonesian. __earth (Talk) 14:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. They are indeed Indonesians of Chinese descent. So this is the new page.

From [Overseas Chinese] "Various sub-ethnic groups include: Chinese American, American-born Chinese, Chinese Argentines, Chinese Australians, Chinese Brazilian, Bruneian Chinese, Chinese New Zealander, Chinese Vietnamese, Chinese British, Burmese Chinese, Chinese Canadian, Chinese Cayman Islander, Chinese Cuban, Chinese Filipino, Indonesian Chinese, Irish Chinese, Israeli Chinese, Chinese Malaysian, Chinese Mauritian, Mongolian Chinese, Chinese Mozambican, Chinese Peruvian, Chinese Puerto Rican, Chinese Singaporean, Chinese South African, and Chinese Thai."

The majority speaks of "Chinese X". So it would be advisable to use the term "Chinese Indonesians"

84.193.199.32 03:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC) 84.193.199.32 03:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

After some thought and consideration, I created an Indonesia-related topics notice board, along the same lines as other regional notice boards (such as those for Malaysia and Africa). This was established to coordinate efforts to improve Indonesia-related Wikipedia entries. If you've made contributions to Indonesia-related articles in the past, or would like to, please take some time to visit, introduce yourself, and sign the roster.

Can I have citation / sources on Souw Ben Kong, please? I don't think that it accurately reflect the actual history.

hmm, i ever read a book about this souw ben kong [china indonesia history], but forget what the book name i have been borrowed this book by guest from my workplace [shop] and need a week to finish read it, this book very very thick.Daimond 13:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

NOTE:

the kong-guan, or the council of chinese officers, maintained archives dating back to the eighteenth century. Amongst these, there is a lenthy book, again, dating back to the eighteenth century, which recounts the history of the chinese captaincy and majoroyalty of batavia. souw ben kong, or bencon as he is called in seventeenth-century dutch documents, features prominently in this book as banten's last kapitan cina and batavia's first kapitein der chinezen. this book, together with the rest of the kong-guan archives, now rests at the university of leiden in the netherlands.

this book, however, appears to be the source of numerous other historical books about the batavian captaincy and majoroyalty, such as the one written in old malay by a certain Mr Phoa in the 1960s.

The "list of famous ...." is not very informative, and is full of empty links. If there are no objections I will delete the list and replace it with a more verbose description of the persons whom I can contribute some information about. Please help out in this effort! Julius.kusuma 15:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The page The Indonesian Ethnic Chinese and the view of nationhood contains either original, POV research, or facts that can greatly enhance Indonesian Chinese. I propose that the former is merged onto the latter. Please help out in this effort! Julius.kusuma 15:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed to the merger.

Agreed, and delete the former one with the ridiculously long title. M1ss1ontomars2k4 06:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.. Kunderemp 01:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Benny Benjamin 15:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. *drew 07:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Aggred. So like, Dude, how do we get this merge thing going? I suppose some copy-editing is required; how 'bout... putting the whole "Indonesian Ethnic Chinese..." article under a level 2 heading? At least for a start, later on we'll let the wisdom of crowds take its course. If its okay I'd be happy to attempt the merge. (And on a sidenote I also agree that this page should be retitled "Chinese Indonesian," especially in accordance to standard Wikipedia naming convention) --Lemi4 03:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Finally an update: I copied all of The Indonesian Ethnic Chinese and the view of nationhood over to this page. I decided to use tags <begin add> and <end add> to denote all the different parts. I tried to make the subsections align. Would be great to get some help with finishing up the merge. We also desperately need citation marks everywhere! I will put in a Request for Deletion. Thanks. Julius.kusuma 19:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• • I've put that The Indonesian Ethnic Chinese and the view of nationhood page up for deletion. The contents have been merged to Chinese Indonesian. Please add your vote here. Thanks. Julius.kusuma 19:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Awesome merge, Julius. Now let's see what we can do about the layout... --Lemi4 15:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the headings, and I've made all the historical sub-heads level three. It kinda works, I think. Anyway, the article got a 32kb warning so more copyediting will be needed. --Lemi4 15:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that some texts are lost from The Indonesian Ethnic Chinese and the view of nationhood, most notably about Jusuf Kalla's provocative quotes from this article.

Well the use of Chinese characters was never officially banned, it was just 'discouraged'. This is corroborated the fact that there existed several Indonesian-Chinese papers in the New Order.

Harian indonesia are the only newspaper in new order, own and control it by indonesia people, not the china indonesia even they worker are few a china people. There are indonesia army sit inside this newspaper to let it be control and monitor by indonesia goverment.Daimond 14:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It must also be stated here however that many Indonesian-Chinese complained that related writing systems such as Japanese and Korean were allowed to be used freely in public. Meursault2004 08:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Chinese characters are banned and their use require special permit. There is exactly one newspaper in Indonesia that has such permit (i.e. the "Harian Indonesia") and it is closely monitored by the government. The ban was official in Resolution of the Provisional People's Consultative Assembly no. 32, 1966 (TAP MPRS No. 32/1966). Special permit was issued for teaching Mandarin in 1968 (see Sardjono Sigit, Asimilasi Pendidikan: Pokok-Pokok Riwayat dan Permasalahannya). But later these schools were officially banned in 1974. Robbyjo 05:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, Chinese schools were "nationalized" and the facilities converted into public schools. So Mersault is perhaps correct in that the use of Chinese language was not banned, but rather severely restricted and controlled by the government. Julius.kusuma 09:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the word "ban" means "to prohibit especially by legal means" [1] and TAP MPRS No. 32/1966 clearly shows as such. The "special permit" clause is the usual "catch-all" clause in a law when some exceptions may be granted. In reality, exceptions are rarely granted. To draw an analogy, let's say, "the US bans the use of narcotics, except for medical reasons". Does the usage of the word "ban" in that sentence semantically imprecise? Or are we arguing about the semantics of "severe restriction / control" and "banning"? Thus, I believe that the phrase "severely discourage" is an inaccurate euphemism. Even the US report on Human Rights [2] use the word "ban" as in the following quote: "Senior officials previously have shown reluctance to relax the ban on Chinese-language publications, citing concerns that such an action could promote interracial tensions." Robbyjo 18:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a late response, but having reviewed the wording of the legal code I believe that the usage of the term "ban" is appropriate here. Julius.kusuma 14:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That true they ever be ban but people in traditional china medicine fight and battle it into high court cause if they be ban complety they could not open prescpriction to the patients. This one must be credit to I.N.I (ikatan naturopatis indonesia) who fight it into the high court room (makhamah agung) and juga pada jaksa agung indonesia in that times who finnaly made the permit( there not written but oral so historian you must dig these story from living witness or these story would fade away cause few of them already died but there few still live, happy hunting i already give direction to look for start) and made our ethnic promised to this court room that our ethnic never would be rebelious and overthrow to indonesia goverment( the promis later show in may 98, in that mascara our people not show any force cause we never gathering or rise force to rebel or overthrow goverment so our people be slain smoothly. Even suharto not know this, so when suharto used last tactic use china indonesian people as the black goat sacrifced to gain back the the power, are fails) . So we could use this china character in restricted area like this prescription by senshe (sinshe = china traditional dokter). a few of this honoroed person still life today and hidden to our community for more detail you could ask I.N.I who are the member and officer in that time. well i would let it be to our china community to speak this story to our younger generation. Daimond 13:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This articel not acurate, there no mention about yellow sultan (sultan kuning) and there not mention about indonesia mascara. and there no mention about nine sunan who spread muslim in indonesia. and there no mention about spesific area (pancoran)we must live in order and law by Voc. not to mention devide et impera politic run by voc to our ethnic. and dress code they must wear who made we are call baba and totok.Daimond 14:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• thank you to writer and all editor who aded mascara 1740 Daimond 07:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Believe me when I say I know very much about Indonesian Chinese, and many things in this article are not correct, for example: the correct meaning for hua-na is the native or pribumi people that do not have chinese blood, for chinese that have other blood (pribumi, dutch, etc) are called zham-cheng (Hokkian for mixed race) and for chinese that lost their own culture (ex: unable to speak chinese language not even one dialect, and or do not respect ancestors and chinese traditions) are called qhiao-seng. Indonesian chinese that are still true to their ethnic culture never call themselves totok because it's pribumi word used mostly to ridicule and discriminate them, instead they call themselves teng-lang (chinese people in Hokkian).

If you strongly believe that the terms were incorrect, why don't you also add the correct ones into the document? I think that the terms used are informative. Thanks. Julius.kusuma 14:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the deleted sentences - but it would be great if Xu3w3nan could expand on it a bit to explain the multiple names for these groups, both the ones used by people of Chinese descent and the important ones used by others. Having a definition of totok is important, though, because it's a pretty widely used term; I've seen it in serious, recent academic literature, for example. CDC (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

侨生 (qiao-sheng in pinyin; kiauw-seng in Hokkien) simply means overseas-born. It does not mean "does not respect chinese traditions". Originally it was used by totoks like my grandparents to name their peranakan counterparts, although later this term was literally inaccurate since the totok family's sons and daughters were also qiao-sheng. Huana simply means "native" in hokkien, it does not imply racial purity.

Growing up, I had neighbors who were Christian "babah" who did not speak Chinese. We called them babah. They, on the other hand, called us Chinese speaking fresh off the boats "totoks". We did not feel it was ridicule and proudly called ourselves so. Here is my understanding: "Babah" is used to refer to those who no longer follow Chinese traditions. Peranakan is those of mixed races, was used mainly in Malaysia or Singapore. Qiao-sheng was first used to refer to Babah and it stuck even though later it was inaccurate. Totok is used to refer to FOB (fresh-of-the-boat) Chinese or their immediate descendants, and sometimes more if the descendants still follow Chinese traditions. I am a 3rd generation (grandfather came to Indonesia in 1930s) and I still consider myself Totok, even though I speak limited Chinese and now live in California. I think the terms are correctly used.

The English grammar and style, however, are horrible.

The writing really is terrible. Note that the current disagreements on which terms to use to address or identify the different sub-ethnic groups stem partially from the ethnic tension in Indonesia. Some Indonesian Chinese prefer to identify themselves as more Chinese than they really are, and some prefer to identify themselves are less Chinese than they really are. Sometimes both, at different times and different context. Different branches of my family identify themselves differently, and it's all just confusing. Regardless, I think that you are right about the terminology, at least correlated to what I used when I was growing up in West Java. As I understand it, Peranakan is often used to denote Indonesian Chinese who are mixed, like me, while in Malaysia the use can be different.

One other potentially sticky point is that given the new Reformasi retraction of anti-Chinese legislations, many Indonesian Chinese are rediscovering their cultural heritage, and this plays into how they prefer to identify themselves, and skews the usage of the terms yet again.

All of this discussion is worthy of a separate article just by itself. At any rate, I believe that "totok" is used to denote Indonesian Chinese who are more "fresh off the boat", whatever that really means many generations later. It at least implies that they can still trace their ancestry with some accuracy, and that some dialect of Chinese is spoken at home, among the elders. - Julius.kusuma 14:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It is best not to use "totok" word in the article as it is now a highly DISCRIMINATIVE word in Indonesia as if to call an african american as "nigger". Those who do not live in Indonesia would NEVER understand this but those who are and lived in the areas where the natives detest Chinese people highly will understand what I mean. No offense but no way one can consider that terms used in Malaysia and Singapore will be the same in usage in Indonesia, it is just plain unlogical, three nations with different languages, even the Chinese dialects are so different in these countries (i.e malayan language used in malaysia and singapore is seems to be similar with indonesian language, many words are alike, for example "budak" can be found in both malayan and indonesia language but for malayan it means "child" while in indonesia it will means "slave", the same apply for Chinese languages in Indonesia, they might have lots of similar word with those in Malaysia and Singapore but don't be so sure they are of the same meaning) , one cannot just assume some thing is right by the rule of thumb. I'm writing all of this as the words that come from the horse's mouth. (xu3w3nan)

By the way this article is about Indonesian Chinese (Chinese people in Indonesia not Malaysia, or Singapore or god damn Timbuktu), I don't care if you are proud when some one in in your country (oh by the way not Indonesia) called you a piece of carcass ('"oh I'm so proud they called me totok, why don't you?"', oh please), it is not the same in Indonesia. You are like many Chinese who think because you are not dicriminated then that Chinese discrimination in Indonesia is just a fluke, never happened, and never exist. Well lucky you, but for many of us are not that lucky and I'm their voice here.(xu3w3nan)

CAREFUL:

It would be great if you were to contribute in a way that you feel is correct, instead of deleting large swaths of the article and making large assertions which I can say is not true. Your claim that all Chinese Indonesian will get upset over the use of "totok" to address them is NOT true, because for one, *I* am not upset nor are members of my extended family who are "totok".

This is tangential, but "budak" in Sundanese means "child" so we use that term all the time and nobody gets upset. So please tone down your rhetoric. The issue here is terminologies, not racism against the Chinese Indonesian, so please don't muddle the discussion by bringing in topics that are not immediately related just to justify your anger.

Let me propose the following: please write out your assertions clearly, and in the proper context. For example, something along the lines of "While Chinese Malaysians use the term totok to mean BLAH BLAH, in many Chinese Indonesian communities this term can be found to be derogatory, because BLAH BLAH."

Finally, please remember that this an encyclopedia, so please keep the writing encyclopedic. I look forward to your contribution, thanks. Julius.kusuma 13:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It might be very demeaning to call us "totok" but "totok" is also used for a WHOLE bunch of other stuff too. Like my parents always used to call one of my friends "totok" because he walked like a duck. At the same time, they admired him for his academic achievements. "Totok" (i suppose it could be different in Medan) simply does not have that stigma as stated by xu3w3nan. More demeaning are commands by the natives to go back to China. M1ss1ontomars2k4 06:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

These are also words from the horse's mouth: Most of us don't get our panties in a bunch over the word "totok". It might be offensive in your particular locality, but you need to convince the rest of us that it's wide spread enough to be worthy of consideration.

For example, "Cina" is not considered offensive in East Kalimantan, but it's usually save to say that "Cina" is considered offensive in most other places. However, if I wanted to protest "Cina" being considered offensive, I am the one that has to convince others that it ("Cina" not being considered offensive) is widespread enough. Benny Benjamin 15:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just read Riwayat Tionghoa Peranakan di Jawa from Ong Hok Ham. In Madura in the past (prior to Dutch colonial): Totok = Chinese immigrant; Tionghoa = Chinese descendant who still observed Chinese culture (with some alteration); Peranakan = Chinese descendant who has already mixed with native (Javanese) and did not observe Chinese culture at all. In the time he was born and until he wrote the article (30s to 60s): Totok = Chinese immigrant; Tionghoa = Peranakan = Chinese descendant. I think the article The Indonesian Ethnic Chinese and the view of nationhood has almost the same idea with the book. Kunderemp 01:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Totok mean pure blood isn't it? In Javanese pure Dutch/European called Londo Totok (from dutch Totok, newly arrived) for newly arrived European born Dutch/European. Is it demeaning for them?Aditthegrat 07:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I opened KBBI (Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia / The Great Dictionary of Indonesian Language) and yup.. You're right. Totok means pure, and more than that, it shouldn't apply to their descendant because the word has another meaning 'newly arrived.. inexperienced'. Kunderemp 02:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed "or (derisively) China totok" from the transliteration list of "Indonesian Chinese". The term Cina totok as has been discussed above has a specific meaning and is not a general term for Chinese Indonesians. Benny Benjamin 15:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

well in right now not many used this term but china totok sometimes in this modern day are means or refer pure blood ( merried with china person and not pollut they blood with marry other than chinese pure blood too. to keep they blue blood pure, well if you look they tree roots family) and conservative way of think and stay in our ancient culture they not try mingled with indonesia culture or other community and have restriced or limite themself with china comunity too (very high class chinese, regulary they have blue blood from royal ancient chinese kingdoom, hey there people with chinese blue blood too in indonesia) , oh other are this totok are stil mandarin and not know written or speak indonesia langguae than chinese language this is very few, i think this now very very very rare. Daimond 16:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting to read the section on "Recent history, post-Reformasi Era" about efforts to repair ethnic relations. I was in Indonesia on business travel and stayed at a home with a Chinese family in Indonesia (i.e., relatives of my Chinese Indonesian colleague in the Seattle area). I know they can't speak for all the Chinese in Indonesia, but they tell me it’s still an uneasy peace among the ethnic Chinese and the "natives" over there. Not to sound cynical, but the efforts at celebrating Chinese culture are still fairly superficial gestures. Lesson: Don't be complacent.

I think we should discuss in this page about the 1998 riot mass rape issue, shouldn't we? Goodcapcay (talk) 07:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There mascara have change the river name. now the river who had fill by china indonesia blood know as Angke river.http://www.nationaalarchief.nl/amh/detail.aspx?page=dafb&lang=en&id=1897#tab0Daimond 14:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The word massacre are right if you look this too in 1740 there, 1740 : massacre des chinois à Batavia .http://www.geotourweb.com/nouvellepage278.htm.Daimond 14:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I never knew about the massacre before. Red River in Indonesia is Kali Merah. I'm not sure about word "Angke". Sounds like "angker" which means spooky or haunted in Indonesian. Maybe angke is a Betawi (Batavian) word. Ario_ManUtd 10:27, 13 MArch 2008 (UTC)

Angke--> ang means red and ke means river, I think in hokkian language. Anyway, I heard that the river was named like that because of the massacre. Like the word Angpao, means red pocket (or some sort) you know, when you celebrate chinese new year.(60.240.37.191 (talk) 10:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC))

Indonesian Chinese means Chinese of Indonesian descent or Chinese-born Indonesia, i.e. Chinese (PRC or ROC depending on your POV) citizen.

This article describes Indonesian of Chinese descent, or similarly, Indonesian-born Chinese. Ultimately, Indonesian citizen. Therefore, it should be Chinese Indonesia with Chinese acting as an adjective and Indonesian as a noun.

Hence, this article should be moved to Chinese Indonesian. __earth ^(Talk) 14:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is not a widely accepted viewpoint, just like your reasoning at Talk:Malaysian Chinese. Even if we accept all your logical premises (which I do not) about how ethnicity is always an adjective modifying a noun referring to citizenship, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a prescriptive agency. It is not our role to complain that some widely-prevailing terms are "illogical" or "ungrammatical" and should be replaced by something which some Wikipedians find more "logical" or "grammatical". Instead, we should be basing our judgments on:

• Terms which the group in question prefers
• Terms which are more widely recognized in the academic community

Don't go around trying to force standardisation onto terminology which are inherently not standardisable. Instead, provide actual usage examples from academic literature. (Based on my search, there are split about half/half between Chinese Indonesian and Indonesian Chinese, possibly slightly in your favour, unlike the case for Malaysian Chinese). cab 03:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with cab, although I would add another source for consideration: government publications. The following is 100% original research, but my understanding is that the Indonesian government uses terms like "Chinese ethnic" or "of Chinese descent". Use of one of those terms would be unambiguous, and we can make both "Chinese Indonesian" and "Indonesian Chinese" redirect there. If anyone wants to create an "Indonesians in China" article, the redirects can be turned into disambiguation. — LazyEditor (talk|contribs) 11:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Black people in america are called African-American, which means an American of Africa origin. So, Chinese indonesian is the correct one, which means an Indonesian of China origin. Goodcapcay (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

cab is correct: the term we use here should be the one that is actually used. Which in this case is Indonesian Chinese. A Google comparison of 'Indonesian Chinese community' v 'Chinese Indonesian community' shows more than 10:1 in favour of the former. And of course it refers to ethnic Chinese in Indonesia since there is not a recognised community of ethnic Indonesians in China.

Moreover by forcing an analogy with terms such as 'African American', contributors such as __earth and Goodcapcay may actually be suppressing valuable information. That some Americans are notated as 'African', 'Chinese' or 'Arab', may reflect a higher valuation of citizenship over race in the United States. Is it for Wikipedians to tell Indonesian Chinese that they should subjugate their loyalty to their race to that to their country?

Finally I note that in Bahasa Indonesian, the term is the equivalent of 'Indonesian Chinese' (although confusingly this is written the other way around, 'Cina Indonesia', in line with the noun-adjective form in that language).

Therefore this article should be renamed Indonesian Chinese.
Earthlyreason (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a clarification:

Hey, since similar debate is happening at the Malaysian page, would guy mind voting on the matter at Talk:Chinese_Malaysian#Vote? Result there might affect this page. __earth ^(Talk) 06:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Lemi4 for initial work on streamlining the article. The history section is now huge, and it may be time to split it into say, History of the Chinese Indonesians or something. If you have thoughts on a more proper page name, let us know. I propose something along the lines of:

* Introduction
* Origins
* Brief history (link to longer "history of ..." page)
* Culture
* blah?

The order is for readability, taking the ordering of interest in mind. I think that Origins is of greater interest than history. Please share your comments here. Julius.kusuma 21:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Should it be noted in the article that 70% of Chinese Indonesians are Christian? As far as I know, there is not a similar example anywhere in the world. 70.133.216.154 08:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's sourced, you can add it. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 22:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

hey buddy, i don't know what are you thinking about....... i'm Chinese-Japanese, but i know that Soeharto is from ur native, yeah he's Chinese or you can't call him mixed blood! like me, mixed of Japanese-Chinese-Turkish-Jewish-Irish, and the result is me! hehehe anyway about Soeharto, he's from Javanese-Chinese descent, but Javanese culture is more strongly than Chinese Culture of himself, the issues(from Japan Times) that Soeharto is foster son of the man who have a initial "Lee", i don't know who is he, but Soeharto is one of Chinese Muslim, like me i'm muslim too....... But about the culture who banished by Soeharto, i think it's because he wanna created national culture, like in Russia, where Jewish people became a real Russian(example: Abramovich, who knows that he is Jewish?).

ok (Goodcapcay (talk) 05:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 16:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter for these two contributors namely user:Merbabu and user:Caniago degrading Chinese in this article, but please be more hypocritical and provided sources to verify. Thanks! Coloane (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What are your specific concerns with this article? Please explain clearly, calmly, and *specifically*. What’s wrong exactly and how do you suggest improving?

Further, what are your specific concerns with myself and User:Caniago? Please provide diffs as evidence. From memory I haven’t edited the section you seemed to be concerned with. Yes, the article has major problems, but I am not responsible for fixing it (or any other wikipedia article). Please stop picking fights on articles that he or I edit. You’ve been warned by admins before about following editors. Please be specific and constructive. Thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that Chinese women and men were massively raped and robbed by INDONESIANS in Indonesia didn't mention.

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6] Coloane (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to: WP:TEND. It states that: Tendentious editing is editing which is partisan, biased, skewed—in other words, it does not conform to the neutral point of view. AND Your citations back some of the facts you are adding, but do not explicitly support your interpretation or the inferences you draw.

The policy on original research expressly forbids novel syntheses of other sources. Coloane (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Please provide diffs (you understand waht a diff is, right?). SHow me where he or I have been involved in tendentious editing? I've barely edited this article, only recently when I add *referenced* and *specific* material. --Merbabu (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much time to provide diffs and I am not obliged to do so. The way you don't provide neutral point of view in the section of criminal activity is obvoius and that is why I added it. I know you are not obliged to do so. This article only gave me a demon image of Chinese, that is terrible indeed. Period! Coloane (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, my suggestion would be for you to go to the history section (most of the article) and start adding some citations yourself. It surely needs them, and would be a much better use of your wikipedia time than trying to pick pointless fights with editors for whom you hold a grudge. If you don’t like it, then please go to an admin or WP:ANI and we can get them to sort it out. Does that sound fair? thanks--Merbabu (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, I am not obliged to do so. Again, it is not a pointless fight. BALANCED point of view didn't provide. But if you try to find an excuse like: I am not responsible for fixing it. Then, me too. I am not responsbile for fixing it. Don't try to mention ANI, I am not afraid so. Coloane (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't launch personal attacks. If you want to improve an article or just provide suggestions that's great. But, if you are too busy or just too lazy to fix them yourself, then the solution is not to blame specific editors who had *nothing* to do with the sections, particularly after you have already instigated bad faith arguments with them in other articles previously. --Merbabu (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is my last comment over here. Again, what you mentioned I have already instigated bad faith argument in other articles is irrelvant. I am talking about this section: Criminal Activity. Coloane (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, your comments on the article are noted. It's dissappointing that you can't spend some time providing the sources for the history section, but like me, you are under no obligation to do so. Your comments on editors, though, are not irrelevant (or accurate) given that you've previously exercised bad faith activity towards them. From where I sit, it's no "irrelevant" coincidence. regards --Merbabu (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your problems seem to concern the Criminal Activity. I've just made my first edit to that section (that I know of) and it was to delete the whole thing as I saw no value in it.[7] Next time please be specific and calm when raising your concerns, you might want to even provide specific suggestions rather than rant at specific editors for imagined wiki crimes. regards --Merbabu (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This [8] Taiwanese government source claimed that the Indonesian Chinese population is over 7.5 million, where as the current articles claimed 1.7 million based on a 2000 survey. Which is more correct?--PCPP (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the correct one is 7.5 million. Flag of Indonesia Indonesia 7,566,200 Well, it is written in han chinese article, english wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese. (Goodcapcay (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC))

The 7.5 million can't possibly be valid. The only way to determine the population is to do a national census. The Indonesian census figure is 1.7 million. (Caniago (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC))

lol, It is already said in the article that The 1.7 million figure is totally UNDERESTIMATE. many of them are reluctant to consider themselves as chinese,BUT, we can ESTIMATE by using other country's agent. It is funny you said it is invalid, There are many chinese in Indonesia, especially Bangka-beitung, Pontianak, Medan, and other places- and certainly more than 1.7 million, 1.7 million probably Jakarta and Bandung alone, lol.(Goodcapcay (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

The 1.7 figure is not an estimate, its a count of how many people in Indonesia said they are Chinese. It's the one and only official figure. Anyone is welcome to make estimates, but there is no reason I can see why the 7.9 million figure has any form of credibility or reliability. An academic source I've seen puts Indonesia's Chinese population at less than 0-2%, which would be in the range of 0.0 - 4.6 million. If you want a more reliable figure you are going to have to wait until the next Indonesian census in 2010. (Caniago (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

!!!!!!!!!!!! (Goodcapcay (talk) 07:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC))

All estimates from reliable sources should be discussed. If the Indonesian census says 1.7 million, that should go in. If scholars, and not just Wikipedians, say the 1.7 million is an undercount and give higher estimates, that fact should be discussed too. Just because a figure is "official", doesn't mean it reflects the truth. Reality is not defined by legislation.

That said, Taiwan's Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission (the source of that 7.5 million estimate) make all sorts of crazy numbers, like 1.4 million Chinese in Peru, 1 million in Russia (when the census said 30 thousand), etc. So I don't know how reliable they are .... 61.18.170.1 (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Should there be some debate about the controversy of these two terms, Indonesian linguists arguing the term 'Cina' is non offensive and directly derived from Dutch and English (as in People's Republic of China) and that Tiongkok and Tionghoa are solely Hokkien dialect (overplaying the importance of a minority and relatively isolated dialect) whereas the the official Chinese Mandarin is Hua Ren and Zongguo Ren. Tionghoa/Tiongkok were very rarely ever used by indigenes and the Dutch never bothered. One must also consider the vast libraries of texts referencing Cina in scholarly terms- such as "Kerajaan Cina"- Chinese Kingdoms. Furthermore, the terms Tiognhoa/Tiongkok have been specifically adopted by politicians to woo the Chinese electorate, starting with Abdurrahman Wahid, then later Megawati (though probably no longer since Kwik Kian Gie defected to Golkar). Many indigenous Indonesians find these terms and the agenda to impose them offensive and reminiscent of Chiense seeking special privileged treatment and outright refuse to use them and often willfully opt for the deliberately derogatory Javanese or Batak terms for Chinese. I think this topic should be at least referenced in passing in this article.Starstylers (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Jamie Mackie, Australian National University, Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, Volume 41, Issue 1 April 2005 , pages 97 - 101: Abstract:" Until the census of 2000, no attempt had been made since the 1930 census to elicit data from Indonesians about their ethnicity. The 2000 census question on the subject was necessarily based on self-identification. However, the very low figure recorded for ethnic Chinese Indonesians implies that large numbers of them CHODE not to identify themselves as such, probably because of fears aroused by outbreaks of anti-Chinese violence in 1998. The 2000 census figure of only 1.8 million Chinese, less than 1% of the total population (or 1.4 % according to a proposed adjustment) seems FAR TOO LOW TO BE CREDIBLE. In 1930 Chinese Indonesians represented about 2% of the total, and they have generally been assumed since then to amount to 2-3% of the population. This note examines the key variables relevant to that assumption, which seems likely to be nearer the truth than the recent census figure.

2000 Census finds the Chinese population to be 0.9%- which would unrealistically indicate a catastrophic drop from 2-3%.

Leo Suryadinata, Evi Nurvidya Arifin, Aris Ananta Indonesia's Population: Ethnicity and Religion in a Changing Political LandscapeISEAS: 2003 194 pages ISBN: 978-981-230-212-0

"the most accurate figure derived from the 2000 census data is around 1.5 per cent. The book also contains an interesting chapter on the religious breakdown of Indonesia's population.

Interestingly, the annual Evangelist Protestant Christian growth rate (2.5 per cent) mainly Chinese followers) is higher than the Muslim (1.9 per cent). 

"As well as providing the most up-to-date statistical information about Indonesian society, the population census of 2000 is particularly important because it is the first census since 1930 to include data on ethnic background. One of the significant features of the 2000 census is that the percentage of ethnic Chinese, at 1.5 per cent of the population, is much lower than previously thought and likely UNREALISTIC the census results of 2000 are an UNDER representation " .

With this in mind- I will amend the Chines population to be 2.5% of 205,000,000- the 200 BPS Census total- with some commentary on the figuresStarstylers (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The correct approach is to list the official census figure with a note explaining that other non-official estimates range up to X% of the population. You could even write a whole paragraph on the topic with the material you cite. Its is certainly not correct to be quoting a specific population number based on one of these estimates as if it is a factual number. I've therefore reverted your changes (Caniago (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

I have amended a lot of the tabloid type rubbish information to reflect the true narrative of events, not just as seen through the emotive, myopic perspective of the hostile alien in question. My edits paint the Chinese as they truly are perceived (and even quotes from Chinese themselves) in Western and Indonesian academic discourse: unwanted, unneeded, unliked and willing greedy agents of their own demise. My edits are the most thoroughly referenced and thus if any further edits are down unto this article- it should be to remove anything aside from what I have included. The Chinese Zheng Ho Wali songo fairytale has been disproven once and for all as a total lie disproven by archeological reality. Chinese did NOT bring Islam- and esepcially not to Gresik. Also removed is poor quality "sob-story" emotive POV- it was unreferenced and unsubstantiated, and in some cases libelous.

• The Christian Chinese minority in Indonesia with special reference to the Gereja Kristen Indonesia: A sociological and theological analysis
• Hoon, Chang Yau (9 January 2009). "A landscape of religious diversity". The Jakarta Post. Retrieved 7 September 2009.
• Sukmana, Damai (January 2009). "Game of chance". Inside Indonesia. 95. Retrieved 7 September 2009.
• US DoJ press release on asylum fraud for Indonesians
• The World Confederation of Institutes and Libraries for Chinese Overseas Studies
• The Australian people - page 439 onwards, section on Indonesians

Arsonal (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference dump commences. Arsonal (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Political thinking of the Indonesian Chinese
• Chronology for Chinese in Indonesia

• Napier, Catherine (9 November 1999). "Wahid aims to bring back the billions". BBC News. Retrieved 8 January 2010.
• Williamson, Lucy (21 April 2008). "Chinese pride burns as Indonesia hosts torch". BBC News. Retrieved 8 January 2010.

• "Indonesia's Mari Pangestu". BusinessWeek. 29 June 1998. Retrieved 8 January 2010.

• Lee, Kuan Yew (23 November 1993). "The Loyalty of Overseas Chinese Belongs Overseas". International Herald Tribune. Retrieved 8 January 2010.
• Mirsky, Jonathan (4 February 1998). "A Problem for Beijing: Should It Stand Up for Overseas Chinese?". International Herald Tribune. Retrieved 8 January 2010.
• Richardson, Michael (11 February 1998). "Singapore and Malaysia Watch With Alarm: Indonesia's Neighbors Fear Wave of Refugees". International Herald Tribune. Retrieved 8 January 2010.
• Richardson, Michael (24 February 1998). "Juwono Sudarsono, Defense Official: Racism in Indonesia Undercuts Unity". International Herald Tribune. Retrieved 8 January 2010.
• Schwarz, Adam (19 June 1998). "In Indonesia, Protect and Integrate the Ethnic Chinese". International Herald Tribune. Retrieved 8 January 2010.
• Fuller, Thomas (13 December 2006). "A golden age for Indonesian Chinese". International Herald Tribune. Retrieved 8 January 2010.

• Goldner, Viva (18 February 2002). "Chinese-Indonesians continue to suffer from discrimination". The Jakarta Post. Retrieved 8 January 2010.

• Mydans, Seth (2 February 1998). "Indonesia Turns Its Chinese Into Scapegoats". The New York Times. p. A6. Retrieved 8 January 2010.
• Landler, Mark (16 May 1999). "Year of Living Dangerously For a Tycoon in Indonesia". The New York Times. p. 31. Retrieved 8 January 2010.

• Richburg, Keith B. (23 December 1998). "Ethnic Chinese: Indonesia's Scapegoats". The Washington Post. Retrieved 8 January 2010.

• Colmey, John (23 February 1998). "The Eternally Blamed". Time. Vol. 151, no. 7. Retrieved 8 January 2010.

Contributors are invited to monitor the progress of a current effort to rewrite this article. If there are any questions, comments, or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Arsonal (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Indonesians currently formed the largest overseas Chinese community in the world?? Certainly not. Malaysian Chinese has 7 million and Singaporean Chinese has 2.7 million, while Indonesian Chinese is only 1.7 million. Or is this figures correct?

Regards Simon Zhuang Indonesian Chinese —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.241.177 (talk) 10:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The article includes no mention of what happened to Chinese Indonesians during the Indonesian_killings_of_1965–66. Were the Chinese Indonesians associated with the PKI at high rates and hence particularly exposed to the massacres? Were they, contrarily, primarily urban residents who were removed from the primarily rural violence? When and how did Suharto's business associations with Chinese Indonesians begin? If anyone has references on these points, it would be useful to incorporate their insights into the article. 209.137.177.15 (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)