Due to the simultaneous translation of both "nation" and "ethnicity" as minzu "民族", conceptual issues have arisen. This problem is primarily related to the different historical origins of the concepts of "nation" and "ethnicity" in the West. The meaning of minzu as "nation" originates from the 19th-century German concept of the ethnic nation (Volk in German), referring to people with a common ancestry, territory, language, and culture. This meaning was later influenced by Soviet-era usage, where "nationalities" referred to the peoples of smaller states with a specific territory. In contrast, the meaning of minzu as "ethnicity" emerged after World War II when the term "race" (种族) was largely replaced by "ethnicity" in the West. "Ethnicity" refers to people with a common ancestry, language, and culture, without the concept of territory, which is the main difference between "nation" and "ethnicity." (Race is a scientific biological concept that does not include culture and language and is associated with Eurocentric racial discrimination.)
In translation, a certain error clearly occurred, as "nation" was equated with "ethnicity" when translated as minzu. Due to this confusion, minzu refers both to "nation," built according to the 19th-century German model, and to China's fifty-six ethnic groups (including the Han), though the former usage is now considered outdated in academic circles. Some Chinese scholars prefer to use zuqun "族群" to correctly translate "ethnic group" and distinguish it from minzu as "nation." Another related issue with the term minzu is that the Chinese language does not distinguish between singular and plural forms. Does minzu refer to 56 ethnic identities (plural ethnic groups) or to the Han (a singular ethnic group)? The result of conflating the two is that the former is often simplified into the latter.
Because of the reasons mentioned above, the term minzu inherently carries unavoidable ambiguity, as it simultaneously means both ethnic group and nation. Furthermore, there is a distinction between national identity and nationalism as a political ideology. However, the usage in Chinese is not very clear, as minzu is often used without specifying whether it refers to national identity (民族身份) or nationalism (民族主义). The colloquial usage of minzu tends to lean toward the meaning of nationalism, and many people interpret minzu as nationalism. Nevertheless, the term still retains an inescapable ambiguity. For example, anthropologists and ethnomusicologists still insist that minzu refers to the 56 ethnic groups and remain distant from Han chauvinism. From this perspective, what is meant is a civic national identity of 56 ethnic groups, not a (singular) ethnic nation in the German sense. Village musicians are more likely to be interested in Han Chinese or minority ethnic identity rather than the global hegemonic mindset in Chinese nationalism.
The academic usage of minzu encompasses even more meanings. In 1989, Chinese anthropologist Fei Xiaotong proposed the widely recognized "pluralistic unity" theory, explaining the integration and differentiation between the Han and minority ethnic groups over three thousand years, thus placing the two concepts of "nation" and "ethnicity" in a dialectical relationship, expressed through his often-quoted phrase, "You are in me, and I am in you." Adding to the confusion, minzu is also used in the term "ethnomusicology" minzu yinyue xue. However, in the context of Western ethnomusicology, the "minzu" in "ethnomusicology" is interpreted as "people" (ethnos) rather than "ethnic group." (See Aga Zuoshi, “The ‘Minzu’ Conjecture: Anthropological Study of Ethnicity in Post-Mao China,” cArgo: Revue internationale d’anthropologie culturelle & sociale, no. 8 (2018): 83–108.)
Chinese scholars using the term minzu should reconsider what exactly they wish to convey.
由于“nation”和“ethnicity”同时被翻译为”民族”，这导致了概念上的问题。这个问题首先与“nation”和“ethnicity”两个概念在欧美不同历史时期的来源有关。“民族”作为 “nation”的含义，源自19世纪德国“民族国家”的概念（德文Volk），意指具有共同血统、领土、语言和文化的人民，这个意义后来也受到了苏联时期用法的影响，当时苏联的“少数民族”其实是联邦小国的人民，因此这些少数民族经常有具体的领土观念。而“民族”作为“ethnicity”的含义，则源自二战后“种族”（race）一词在欧美被“ethnicity”取代的普及，ethnicity意指具有共同血统、语言和文化的人民，不附有领土概念，这是nation和ethnicity之间最大的差别。（Race是科学生物概念，不包含文化和语言，附有欧洲中心主义中的种族歧视。）
在翻译过程中，显然出现了某种误差，因为nation在翻译为”民族”时被等同于ethnicity。由于这种混淆，民族一词既指根据19世纪德国模式构建的“民族国家”nation/Volk，也指中国的五十六个族群（包括汉族），但前一种用法现在在学术界被视为过时。一些中国学者更倾向于使用“族群”来正确翻译“ethnic group”，以区分“民族”为nation。“民族”一词的另一个相关问题是中文词汇单复数形式并无区分，“民族”指的是56个族群身份（plural ethnic groups)，还是1个汉族(singular ethnic group)？将二者混为一谈的结果是前者被简化为后者。
由于上述原因，“民族”一词在使用时总存在不可避免的模糊性，因为它同时意味着族群和“民族国家”nation。此外，民族认同与作为政治意识形态的民族主义之间也存在区别。然而，中文用法并不十分清晰，因为”民族”常常单独使用，而未说明具体指的是共同民族身份还是民族主义。“民族”一词的口语化用法倾向于民族主义的含义，许多人将“民族”理解为民族主义。然而，这个词仍然存在不可消除的模糊性。例如，人类学家和音乐学家仍然坚持“民族”指的是56个族群，并与大汉主义保持距离；从这个角度理解，“民族国家”指的是56民族的“公民国家”(civic nation)，不是德文中的（单一）民族国家（ethnic nation)。村庄音乐家则更可能对族群身份感兴趣，而不是民族主义中的中国全球霸权思维。
“民族”在学界的使用还有更多的含义。1989年，中国人类学家费孝通提出了一个在国内外广泛认可的“多元一体”理论，解释了汉族与少数民族在三千多年中的融合与区别，从而将“民族”的两个概念（nation， ethnicity）置于一个辩证的关系中，并通过他那句常被引用的话”你中有我，我中有你”来表达。更令人困惑的是，“民族”还用于“民族音乐学”一词中。但“民族音乐学”的“民族”在欧美民族音乐学语境中被解释为“人民”（ethnos）而不是“族群”（ethnic group)。(See Aga Zuoshi, “The ‘Minzu’ Conjecture: Anthropological Study of Ethnicity in Post-Mao China,” cArgo: Revue internationale d’anthropologie culturelle & sociale, no. 8 (2018): 83–108.)
使用“民族”的中国学者应该重新审视他们究竟想表达什么。
