As Beijing pushes a Chinese identity for Hong Kong, where do Eurasians fit in?
Stefano Mariani says Hong Kong’s Eurasian population is the natural outcome of a port city in Asia that was a colony for European empire, and this population has made lasting contributions to the city’s history, society and culture. Why, then, does Hong Kong not extend the same recognition to its Eurasian population that Singapore does?
Given their long-standing presence in Hong Kong, and the importance of their contribution to its civic and economic life, it is surprising that there is little in the way of a Eurasian narrative in the discourse of our cultural identity. There is not even a census category for Eurasians. Statistically, one is either “Chinese” or “white”, with no scope for asserting any intermediate identity or of qualifying one choice with the other.
Extending official recognition that Eurasians exist as a discrete ethno-cultural group, overlapping with but distinct from Hong Kong’s East Asian and European populations, would be an important first step. It would honour our past and give thousands of young Hongkongers a sense of place and purpose in their city's future.
Implicit in that exercise is the rejection of Hong Kong identity as equated with the construct of Chineseness. Here, Singapore again leads the way in balancing the pivotal role of its various Sinic groups, which constitute most of the population, with the affirmation that these are subordinate to an overarching and culturally transversal Singaporean identity.
The argument that the Chinese historical experience is incompatible with the recognition of multiple and overlapping affiliations is patently false. Two of the most successful dynastic rulers of what is now China, the Tang and the Yuan, drew much of their administrative and military elite from Central Asia which, then as now, was the crucible in which Western and Eastern Eurasia were fused, both culturally and genetically. The past, as ever, offers instructive parallels with the present.
To that end, I would moot the incorporation of a Eurasian exhibit in the Hong Kong Museum of History, alongside the well-conceived dioramas dedicated to the life and culture of Hong Kong’s principal ethno-linguistic groups.
Self-identification will always be a matter of conscience. Many Eurasians, myself included, may choose not to identify culturally or ethnically as such. That very choice, however, is inherent to the Eurasian experience.
Acknowledging our city’s Eurasian heritage in its manifold and very personal articulations would enable us to evaluate the significance of Eurasian identity in the context of the broader debate on Hong Kong’s post-handover identity: for some it may mean nothing at all, and for others it may be fundamental in understanding the place they occupy in Hong Kong society.
If nothing else, it will ensure that this distinctly Hong Kong phenomenon has a role to play in our understanding of this city’s past and our vision for its future.
Stefano Mariani is a tax lawyer. The views expressed in the article are solely those of the author