The
Unrecognized Identity of the Mong Indigenous People
& Nation: A People Erased from History and Societies
Issues of Classification, Erasure, and The Right to
Self-Determination
Paper
prepared for Mass Atrocities, Environmental Degradation, and Communities Rights 2026 Conference
******************************************************************************************
The Unrecognized Identity of the Mong Indigenous People & Nation:
A People Erased from History and Societies
Issues of Classification, Erasure, and The Right to
Self-Determination
Introduction
Across contemporary national and international systems, ethnic and national
identities play a critical role in shaping access to rights, cultural
preservation, and historical recognition. Yet, not all groups are afforded
equal acknowledgment. The Mong nation and people
represent one such community whose distinct identity remains largely suppressed
and unrecognized. This paper examines the historical, political, and social
factors contributing to the marginalization, suppression, and cultural erasure on
the Mong, highlighting the consequences of
classification issues and advocating for Mong
recognition as a fundamental human right grounded in the international laws.
Historical
Background
The Mong is an ancient people with deep
historical roots across Northern and Eastern Asia, including regions that are
now the Northern Steppes and Northern China. For centuries, Mong
contributed to the cultural, historical, and political development of these
regions. Mong ancestors played significant roles in
the formation and administration of various kingdoms.
Historical sources confirm the presence and participation of Mong peoples in governance and state structures associated
with the Tuam Tshoj country (大朝国), Yuan, Song, and Tang dynasties, as well as
other polities referenced in classical records (Song, Volumes 17; Zhen,
Southern Song; Gong, Southern Song; Liu, Later Jin; Cha, 2025). For
examples, Sui Dynasty was known as the Mong Guo (蒙国 Mong Country); the
Old Tang Book refers to the Tang sovereignty as the Mong
Country and Tang elites were Mong; the northern
capital region of Liao was known as Mong Country; the
Song Dynasty was also known as the Mong Country and
the government was known to be Mong; older
literatures recorded that Genghis Khan s people were Mong
and their country was Tuam Tshoj ; and the Yuan
official records refer to the people of the lower Yellow River Basin as Mong (Liu, Later Jin; Historical Record of Liao;
Historical Record of Song; Gong, Southern Song; Song, 1369-1370; Historical
Record of Yuan). These records support a longstanding of Mong nation and historical presence that extends beyond
contemporary classifications.
Following the establishment of the People s Republic of China (PRC),
diverse ethnic groups were systematically categorized into official
classifications for administrative and political purposes (Mullaney, 2011).
Fifty-six national groups were defined and Mong was
excluded as one of the national groups. Among the approved classifications, Mong populations in various regions were reclassified with
other communities into several national groups, including Han, Miao, Mongolian,
Tu (Turkic), and others (Cha, 2025: Ch. 2, 460-466).
In southwestern China, Mong also established
communities and are the descendants from Mong
refugees who hid in the mountains and canyons after the fall of Mong Yuan Dynasty. As an example of issues of
classification, many Mong of
this region were subsumed with the Hmong/Miao Man communities into the official
category of Miaozu (Cha, 2025: 460-466). The misclassification, misrecognition, or
misrepresentation of these Mong into Hmong/Miao were
then accepted into the Southeast Asia and the West administrative systems
according to the narrative approved by the PRC government.
Over time, some Mong groups (蒙/盟)
were misrecognized under Hmong (苗) due
to their inclusion within the broader Hmong/Miao category. Mong
national history and heritage are not acknowledged while Hmong Miao history and
cultural identity were documented and recognized as a whole. These systems,
though administratively efficient, have contributed to the blurring and in some
cases, erasure of distinct ethnic identities (Gladney, 1994). While these
classifications served state organizational needs, it also initiated a process
of reinterpretation and redefinition of historical literatures for the approved
national groups leading to the diminishing of Mong
history and people.
The Mong contributions and Mong
states or countries are often absent in modern historical narratives,
particularly where they do not align with prevailing nations their defined
national histories and national ethnic frameworks. This has led to no dedicated
academic study or research focused specifically on the Mong
history and identity. The result is not only the marginalization of
Mong people in the present but also a gradual erasure
of Mong presence from the past history itself.
Distinguishing
Mong and Hmong Identities
Historical records reflect different written characters for the Mong name (蒙/盟) and Hmong name (苗/蛮夷).
Both have separate origins and unique cultural developments. These names are
not merely linguistic variations or different spellings; they represent
distinct historical narratives, cultural lineages, and identities.
Mong （蒙/盟）
The Mong people
historically inhabited the Northern Steppes and the Yellow River Basin (YRB) long before the 2200 B.C. to the 14th century A.D.,
and are recorded under the characters 盟 and
later 蒙. As outlined in the Historical
Background section, the Mong established and
governed multiple kingdoms, supported by distinct historical accounts. During
these periods, Mong ancestors are described as having
authority over various groups, including the Huayi (majority Han), the Miao
Manyi, and others (Liu,
Later Jin).
State government structures and state laws
were established during the Mong kingdoms. One of the
well-known laws that Mong enforced throughout the
multiple kingdoms was the marriage law. Social customs strictly prohibit
marriage within the same family name, a rule that was rigorously enforced
during the Mong kingdoms.
The Mong laso built metropolitan cities and traditionally lived in
ground-level, foundation-based homes. Among communities outside major urban
centers Mong way of life centered on animal
husbandry, including raising horses, cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs, alongside
with seasonal farming. This lifestyle often involved groups relocating
periodically in search of suitable land and resources.
Mong
spiritual traditions center on the worship of the Universal God, often understood
as the Blue-Sky God, as well as the Thunder God. We honor our ancestral and
historical figures such as the Great Hao, Faajtim,
Modu, the Great Zhen Chao (aka Temozhen or Tiemuzhen), the Mongal Princess,
and others. In our beliefs and rituals, Mong guide
the deceased spiritually to reunite with Faajtim as
our ancestral origin. Mong invoke Faajtim
and the Great Zhen Chao for protection and blessing.
Mong
symbolic imagery reflects our cosmology and environment, including heaven and
earth, the sun and moon, the blue sky, the mountains, thunder (often
represented as a lord or lightning dragon), as well as other symbolic icons
such as eagle and horse. Horsemanship has long been a part of the Mong way of life.
Traditional Mong
clothing includes women wearing wax-batik and embroidered dresses or skirts
with leggings, long coats with turbans or head scarves; men wear loose baggy
pants with sashes, long embroidered coats, and turbans or hats. Both would wear
curled-toe shoes or boots. These traditional attires are closely associated
with historical periods such as the Mong Xiongnu, Mong Tuam Tshoj, Mong Yuan eras, and other
northern sovereignties.
Hmong (苗/蛮夷)
Hmong Miaozu
history and heritage existed in the Central and Southern China since the last
4,000 years. They lived along the Yangtze River, Hunan, Guangxi, and the
Southwest. Their historical accounts are predominantly documented under the
characters 苗族 and 蛮夷 (Wu. 1997; Zong, 2007) which Miaozu is the same as Hmong in Western contexts (Tapp,
2001).
The Hmong people were historically identified
as the Manyi of Jiuli and later referred to as San
Miao, the Miao Min, Miao Man, Nanman, Man Wuling, Man
Changsha, Man Panhu, and Dongyi in various records.
Hmong communities honor their ancestral figure Chiyou,
calling upon him for strength and guidance. Within their spiritual traditions,
they also revere their paternal ancestor known as the Eastern Red Demonic Dongshan and their maternal ancestor referred to as the
Southern White Demonic-faced Nanshan, both of whom are invoked for protection.
In addition, figures such as the Panhu Dog, Xiong Yi,
and Xiang Yu are regarded within their broader ancestral and cultural heritage.
Traditionally, the Hmong lineage has been closely connected to lowland
environments near water sources, where rice paddy cultivation has long been a
central and sustaining aspect of their way of life. Their ancient living
arrangement and environment reflect their symbolic icons of the oxen, oxen
horns, snake, snake-dragon; and traditionally lived in stilt homes (Wu, 1997;
Zong, 2007) occasionally keeping their livestock underneath.
The marriage custom among the same family
names were more relaxed in the past, and it is still the same among their
communities in China which aligns with the Huayi Donyi culture. However, since
the last couple centuries, many Hmong Miaozu who
lived among the Mong assimilated with the Mong marriage-customary law.
Hmong women traditionally wear [cropped]
pants same as those wore by Zhuang, Buyi, and Huayi and occasionally wear plain
skirts. They were part of the Ming society and culture of the Manyi and Huayi
which Ming government supported them (Zhang, Qing period). Their men also wore
plain white skirts during that time and switched to wearing cropped pants
during Qing period.
It is clear that Mong and Hmong are
distinctively different. These differences are highly visible among those in
China. Their histories, ancestors, cultural customs and rituals are not the
same. The Mong and Hmong languages are different, and
one is not a subgroup of the other (Thao, 2024).
Equating Mong identity with Hmong
oversimplifies complex histories and undermines the integrity of both
communities. Subsuming Mong under Hmong while
excluding the Mong ancestral history and culture has
led to suppression and ethnic conversion under the name of inclusion.
Misrecognizing the Mong culture, custom, and other
elements as belonging to Hmong violates the cultural protection right of the Mong. Teaching Hmong culture, history, and language to the Mong as belonging to them is inappropriate. The result is
ethnic oppression, forced assimilation, and cultural erasure. This is clearly a
violation of human right and ethnocide.
While there may be
instances of historical interaction or assimilation among the groups that led
to similarity in language and culture, such complexities should not be used to
justify the reclassification or absorption of one identity into another. The solution
does not lie in redefining one group as the other, but in recognizing both. The
Hmong individuals who rightfully identify with their San Miao heritage have the
right to assert and protect their Hmong Miao identity. Respecting this
self-identification is essential which Hmong Miao is globally being recognized.
Likewise, this right and recognition must extend equally to the Mong Indigenous people.
Lack
of Formal Recognition on the Mong Indigenous People and Nation
Mong people and historical culture are not
formally recognized as distinct within national or international systems. This
absence directly contradicts international legal principles affirming the right
to self-identification and cultural existence (UNDRIP, Article 33). The lacking
of recognition or issues of classification has led to multiple challenges and
consequences.
1.
Cultural and Historical Erasure on the Mong
The omission or misrepresentation of Mong people in education and public discourse constitutes a
form of cultural erasure. Under UNDRIP Article 8, such processes may be
understood as forms of forced assimilation when they systematically undermine a
group s identity.
Mong unique
cultural practices are being defined as belonging to others under the
circumstances of ethnic classification issues and ethnic misrepresentation.
This led to the elimination of Mong historical
identity and culture.
2.
Mong
faced Systemic Reclassification
Mong
individuals are required to identify under other ethnic categories to access
essential services such as education, healthcare, and legal protections. This
conflicts with protections outlined in the ICCPR (Article 27) and ICESCR (Article 1), which affirm the rights of minorities
to maintain their own identity and cultural practices.
This systemic reclassification, while
administrative in intent, accelerates the erosion of [Mong]
identity both within countries of origin and across diaspora communities
(Gladney, 2004).
3.
Restrictions on Mong
Cultural and Identity Expression
In many contexts, public discussion or
teaching of Mong identity is limited and discouraged,
particularly when it falls outside officially recognized national ethnic
frameworks. Educational systems often exclude Mong
specific content or reinterpret it through dominant classifications. These
types of treatments restrict opportunities for cultural preservation (Tapp,
2001).
Limitations on teaching, expressing, or
preserving Mong cultural identity hinder the exercise
of cultural rights protected under both the UDHR (Article 27) and UNESCO
cultural heritage conventions.
4.
Digital Misrepresentation on The Mong
In the digital age, misrepresentation on the Mong persists across online platforms. Search engines and
databases frequently categorize Mong identity under
other national groups. For instance, the name Mong is
also associate with Mongol , further complicating
efforts to preserve and communicate the Mong s
authentic identity. In Baidu search engine, Mong
people is either nonexistent or associate with the Mongolians. This undermines
the integrity of both identities.
Since
the establishment of Mongolia as a sovereign country in 1921, its national
people have been officially referred to as Mongol or Mongolian
. This naming convention is historically entangled with the term
Mongoloid, introduced by Langdon Down in 1866 to classify individuals as idiots
which is currently known as Down syndrome. Such usage contributed to the
evolution of Mongol and Mong into derogatory slurs in
the English language. It is offensive and harmful, perpetuating stigma and
causing emotional distress to both the Mong and
Mongols.
Stem from the term Mongoloid, Mong is also used in derogatory contexts in the English
language resulting in censorship in various digital platforms on the internet. Though many modern English dictionaries label
Mong as an outdated offensive term, it continues to
exist in contemporary usage as a [British] slang referring to intellectual
disability, clumsiness, or foolishness (Oxford University Press, 2023;
Cambridge University Press, 2023) and is derogatory for being stupid or
retarded. This persistence highlights how stigmatizing language can remain
embedded in everyday discourse despite formal acknowledgment of its
offensiveness. The result has caused significant harm to the Mong people, including emotional distress, lowered
self-esteem, internalized racism, and a diminished sense of belonging.
In another example in Google search engine,
it does not recognize Mong people or Mong Ethnic , instead, Google
misrepresents Mong people for being a subgroup under
Hmong Miao people and also defines Mong as a
derogatory meaning. This misrepresentation just not harms the Mong, it makes it difficult for [Mong]
communities to protect elements such as their history, traditional clothing,
and heritage practices (Anderson, 2006). Accurate representation is a cultural
right.
5.
Absence of Demographic Data on The Mong
Without formal recognition, there is no
reliable census or demographic data documenting Mong
populations globally. Mong communities are not being
counted, studied, or supported in policy frameworks. This absence creates
structural exclusion, undermining participation in social, economic, and
cultural life. This makes Mong invisible and not part
of society. Without data, the community effectively does not exist in policy
and research contexts (United Nations, 2007).
Legal
and Human Rights Frameworks
International law provides a strong foundation for recognizing the
rights of distinct cultural and ethnic groups, including those not formally
acknowledged. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
establishes that all individuals are entitled to dignity, identity, and
cultural participation without discrimination (United Nations, 1948, Articles
1, 2, and 27).
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) further
affirms in Article 27 that persons belonging to ethnic, religious, or
linguistic minorities shall not be denied the rights to enjoy their own
culture, to profess and practice their own religion (ancestral faith), or to
use their own language (United Nations, 1966).
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) reinforces these protections by recognizing the
right of all peoples to self-determination and cultural development (United
Nations, 1966, Article 1).
Most significantly, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) explicitly affirms:
* The right to self-identification as Indigenous peoples (Article 33).
* The right to maintain and strengthen distinct cultural institutions
(Article 5).
* The right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of
culture (Article 8).
Similarly, the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible
Cultural Heritage (2003) emphasizes the responsibility of states and
international communities to protect cultural diversity and ensure the
transmission of intangible heritage across generations. These frameworks collectively establish that recognition is not merely
symbolic it is a legal and moral obligation tied to fundamental human rights. These frameworks collectively establish that recognition is not merely
symbolic it is a legal and moral obligation tied to fundamental human rights.
The
Right to Self-Determination and Recognition
Currently, Mong people across several
countries including democratic nations have not been granted the right to
self-determination. As a result, the Mong true
identity remains unrecognized. Mong need the right to
self-determination and recognition.
International law is clear: self-identification is a protected right,
and cultural diversity is a global value that must be preserved. Recognition of
the Mong identity aligns directly with the
international human rights and principles for the protection of cultural
diversity and the inclusion of marginalized communities. United Nations
frameworks, including the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
affirm the rights of communities to self-identification and cultural
preservation (United Nations, 2007).
Recognition would pave the way for Mong
history and cultural identity to be taught in public education so the Mong can be counted, studied, and supported in policy
frameworks. Such inclusion would not only affirm and validate Mong identity, but also play a vital role in preserving Mong cultural heritage, safeguarding historical knowledge,
and upholding the dignity of the community.
Conclusion
The Mong is a distinct people. Issues of
classification and misrepresentation violate the Mong
s civil and human rights, distorting Mong culture and
history, and inflicting lasting harms to those who remain committed to the Mong heritage. We
plea upon the United Kingdom and the international community to addressing
the atrocities and harms done to the Mong people taking action to completely eliminate the
derogatory usage of the name Mong and to formally
recognize Mong as a distinct people in English
dictionaries, literatures, academic digital platforms, and the internet.
The call for recognition of the Mong nation
and its people is clear and measured. It
s not a challenge to the dominance of any contemporary nations or
groups, but a plea for self-determination. What is needed is inclusion based on
the Mong history and cultural identity, and a
commitment from entities such as CNS, universities, and national systems along
with the international communities to recognize the Mong
to ensure that no people are marginalized or erased.
With official recognition,
the Mong Indigenous People can be properly
acknowledged within societies, included in academic research, supported through
policy frameworks, and empowered to strengthen their participation in social,
economic, and cultural life. Recognition would further uphold the principles of
the United Nations and international conventions that affirm the rights of all
distinct peoples to be recognized and protected.
_______________________________________
References
Anderson,
B. (2006) Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and
spread of nationalism. Rev. edn. London: Verso.
Cambridge University Press (2023) Cambridge Dictionary. Entry for Mong . Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Cha,
T. (2025) Mong
China history and heritage preservation. Updated electronic
version from hardcopy (2013). Fresno, California: China Gold Printing Group.
ISBN 978-0-9888518-2-5, pp. 85 86, 212 228, 231, 243, 245 254, 260 263, 275,
287 317, 338, 460 466.
Gladney, D.C. (1994) Representing nationality in China:
Refiguring majority/minority identities , The Journal of Asian Studies,
53(1), pp. 92 123.
Gladney,
D.C. (2004) Dislocating China: Muslims, minorities, and other
subaltern subjects. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gong,
Z. (Southern Song period) Mong Tataar Records [《蒙鞑备录》], Vol.
3. Referenced in Cha (2025), pp. 294 299.
Historical
Record of Liao (compiled during Yuan period) [《辽史》]
Vol. 37, Treatise 7: Geography I [地理志一]. Referenced in Cha (2025), p. 275.
Historical
Record of Song [《宋史》] Vol.
293: Biographies 52 and Biography 249 [卷二百九十三 列传第五十二
& 列传第二百四十九].
Referenced in Cha (2025), pp. 307 314.
Historical
Record of Yuan [《元史》] Vol.
65: Rivers and Canals (2) [卷六十五: 河渠二]. Beijing: Beijing Guoxue Shidai Cultural
Communication Co., Ltd.
Liu,
X. (Later Jin period) Old Tang Book [《旧唐书》],
Vol. 1: Annals I; Vol. 144 (Part II): Biography and Turks (Part II) [本纪第一; 列传第一百四十四下].
Referenced in Cha (2025), pp. 224 228, 231, 243, 245 254, 260 263, 287 317.
Mullaney,
T.S. (2011) Coming to terms with the nation: Ethnic
classification in modern China. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Oxford University Press (2023) Oxford English Dictionary. Entry for Mong .
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Song,
L. (1369 1370) Yuan Historical Record [《元史》], Vol.
17 (Part I): Water Canals (2) [志第十七上: 河渠二].
Tapp,
N. (2001) The Hmong of China: Context, agency, and the
imaginary. Leiden: Brill.
Thao,
P. and Yang, C. (2024) The Mong and
the Hmong ,
Mong Journal, 1, pp. 13 14.
United
Nations (1948) Universal declaration of human rights.
New York: United Nations.
United
Nations (1966a) International
covenant on civil and political rights. New York: United Nations.
United
Nations (1966b) International
covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. New York: United Nations.
United
Nations (2007) United Nations declaration on the rights
of indigenous peoples. New York: United Nations.
UNESCO
(2003) Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible
cultural heritage. Paris: UNESCO.
Wu, R., et al. (1997) Haiv
Hmoob Liv Xwm [Hmong
national history]. Lub Koom Haum Txuj Hmoob. Printed in Makati, Philippines: SSP Makati, pp. 44 46, 55 56, 60 62, 82 86, 198 200, 425,
429 432, 487, 553 554.
Zhen,
D. (Southern Song period) Pleading for donations to aid Xinzhou s drought devastation [《乞施行饶信州旱伤》],
dated September dispatch [〈九月日发〉].
Referenced in Cha (2025), pp. 307 309.
Zong,
Z. et al. (2007) Hmong [Miaozu]
national comprehensive history [《苗族通史》].
Vol. 1. Beijing: Renmin Chubanshe [People s Publishing House], pp. 1 17, 25 27.
Zhang,
T. (Qing period) Historical record of Ming [《明史》],
Treatises Vol. 16: Geography I; Treatise Vol. 75: Manyi Officials [志第十六 地理一: 志第七十五 蛮夷长官].