Xiexie ni, Lao Maozi. I've added another angle to the writing reform story and added Muninn to my slowly expanding blogroll.

Thanks for the mention. Also thanks Joel for adding more on this from the New Yorker article. I updated the article to include the links and will be reading you!

The Ch'iang were a major factor as far back as the Shang dynasty and figure, mostly as enemies, in early inscriptions. In the Book of History some Ch'iang were allies of the Chou when they overthrew Shang, and I believe that the Chou dynasty was intermarried with them.

In the West Scythian, Turk, and Hun were used more or less interchangeably, with archaic forms often used for sake of good literary style.

Chinese are still referred to as Kitai (= Cathay) in Russian and after the non-Chinese founders of the Liao dynasaty (ca. 900-1100 AD). For centuries China was referred to as Taugast or Tabgatch after the non-Chinese founders of the Toba Northern Wei dynasty (ended ca 600 AD).

zizka / John Emerson wrote:
Chinese are still referred to as Kitai (= Cathay) in Russian and after the non-Chinese founders of the Liao dynasaty (ca. 900-1100 AD).

That is probably off topic, but the usual commercial translation of Cathay in Chinese (many companies and brands other than Cathay Pacific use it) is a beautiful example of a successfully seductive and suggestive fake etymology through phonetical similarity: Guotai 國泰, as in the sentence you find carved and written (on lamps, pilars, steles, etc.) in every taoist (or even buddhist) temple: Guotai min'an 國泰民安 (lousy tr. "peace of the country and serenity of the people").
Somehow, Guotai hangkong 航空 (Cathay Pacific=Peaceful Country airlines) sounds and looks better than Qidan 契丹 (Khitan or Khitai) hangkong.

That's great! And I urge everyone to rid themselves of the idea that comment threads here are supposed to be "on topic." Anarchy rules here at LH: if it's interesting and/or funny, post it. I can always post a new entry if a sufficiently popular theme emerges.

Interesting bit about the Qiang. I'm not sure I'm getting the nuances -- did the Qiang define themselves as the "otherwise unclassifiable other" or was that classification thrust upon them?

It also makes me wonder how the concept of Qiang differs from the "none of the above" category in the Indian subcontinent, the "tribals"? (For some ripping yarns about life among several tribal groups before Hindu assimilation spoiled things -- essentially, before they had to wear clothes and keep up a pretense of premarital chastity -- see The Tribal World of Verrier Elwin.)

I think the idea is that qiang was a catchall term for 'Western barbarians' until they were eventually "defined down" to a small enough remnant group that it coalesced into an actual ethnic unit, which was then projected back in time so that people said "The Qiang have existed since..."

I visited a hotel in Jiuzhaigou in late 2003. In the evening there was a magnificent musical and visual extravaganza put on by the local Qiang, who are great singers and dancers. I was told that they wrote the show themselves. (I don't think the comment was patronising).

However, I was also told by the manager of the project of which the hotel was part that "the Qiang are close to being finished as an ethnic group" - the young people are rapidly being assimilated by Han culture.