As anthropologist Thomas Eriksen notes, nationalism and ethnicity are kindred concepts, with the majority of nationalisms being ethnic in character. What sets apart nationalism from ethnicity, is merely the fact that an ethnic ideology demands a state on behalf of the ethnic group. Early attempts by Chinese intellectuals followed this model, as they constructed a nationalistic narrative in which the Han Chinese were the main agent in the formation of the nation. When the communist party found that the nationalist paradigm did not include the multitude of minorities within its borders, they adjusted the narrative to include these groups as well.

The influence of this latter version of China's ethnic nationalism can also be seen in the academic discourse that emerged from 2002 on ancient Northeast Asian history, where states and peoples such as Koguryeo/Gaogouli are included into Chinese history for the sole reason that their perceived descendants are inhabitants within China's contemporary territory. By 2003, South Korean intellectuals also became aware of these Chinese claims and launched a campaign to fight against it.

With the Korean Chinese being in an uncomfortable middle and neglected position, I would like to look at the reactions of Korean Chinese in academia to Chinese and Korean historians' claims and how they have positioned themselves in this narrative. I would like to show how the controversy effected the identity of the Korean Chinese minority and how it shifted their views away from nationalistic narratives to a more transnational outlook.