A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Discussions on the Cantonese language.
Sum Won

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby Sum Won » Thu Jan 02, 2003 4:51 am

I was aware that 走狗 (running dogs), meant people who were working for the conquering faction. However, the fact that this term was used, with 滿清 (Man[chu]-Qing) represents that there were racial tensions, and that someone working for the conquering race. In turn, the use of "Manchu" represents that there were tensions, because as you said, any race worked for the Qing government, however, they exclusively said "Manchu". Remember, even the original bannermen, consisted not only of Manchus.

2. Well, I'm not the one who added in race, as an additional requirement all of a sudden to be Chinese, in defense against a "non-oritenal-looking" race in becoming Asian. So, it seems equally, if not moreso, important to you as it does to me...
To see how much these people have accepted Chinese culture, you'll have to go there yourself to see. If there are people who don't accept it though, it's not that they don't want to though. If you'd like to know what I mean, you'll have to be in a situation where you are the minority. If you wanted me to write an essay on it, I most likely wouldn't have enough time.


4. In the context of the thread, I find in no way how my race contributes anything. Selfish reasons? If I were Anglo-Saxon, Gaelic, Incan, Aztec, Chinese, Cantonese, Japanese, Russian, Mongolian, Tibetan, etc... who would I try to get recognition from? Don't tell me that "I'm the only one who knows", or that I'm "giving you guessing games". With enough clues, you can make deductions. With nothing in your hands, or method of logic, you're only speculating.
You forget the medium we use to communicate through, is the internet. This is the realm of anonymity, where people aren't as they seem. You say you're Cantonese? Who knows, you could actually be some guy from the Czech Republic, who hacked into the Singaporean system to cover your tracks. Or, you could be a Malay in Singapore, pretending to be Chinese. All are speculations...

5. Did I say all of them that were there were criminals? No. Did all the criminals there accept the aboriginal culture? Zhao Tuo (who was not a criminal) was said to have dressed himself like the aborigines, and did everything the way they did. Unless they were in some Chinese outpost, or some Chinese-style metropolis (assuming if there were any), then "no, these Chinese didn't accept aborigine culture".

ppk

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby ppk » Fri Jan 03, 2003 6:31 pm

2. i have always been in a situation where i am a minority for the past 8 yrs. to me, trying to take up their culture is only when i feel the need, to gain recognition from them. and when i am in a disadvantaged situation, i'll try to use my minority status for defense. i would say that most minority group would try this tactic.

Sum Won

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby Sum Won » Sun Jan 05, 2003 11:09 pm

Actually, your description of minorities oversimplifies their situation. Although this essay is geared towards Asian-Americans, I believe it can be applied to minorities in other countries:
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Teahouse/5678/@!#$2.htm

ppk

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby ppk » Wed Jan 08, 2003 1:50 pm

c'mon sum, if its bcos u see minorities(esp those at macau or hk) get no recognition from local chinese, why not u ask them why are they there in the first place? did the chinese invited the portuguese over or did they came to colonise the orient? this is the result of their actions and u are now blaming the chinese for it. they chinese have to pay for the consequences by giving up canton. heck, think more on cause and effects.

Sum Won

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby Sum Won » Fri Jan 10, 2003 12:44 am

Am I blaming the Chinese for foreigners taking over the regions and colonizing it? No! You don't see the main point here. This isn't something about majority-minority, this is about the hypocrisy in policies you sinocentrics support, depending on who plays them out. If you don't see the similarity between the way the Chinese did things to the aborigines, and the way the Westerners during their colonization period were doing things, then you're just playing yourself.

The reason I even mentioned these minorities was to pinpoint what murky standards you'd bring in for "Cantoneseness", since you said I had no idea what it meant to be Cantonese. I told you that these people who didn't take in Chinese culture, is because there are reasons, and gave you a link, which didn't even come out correct, because the forum software had a censorship program. If you click on my alias, a link should be provided, as long as you copy the link and paste it into the browser (unless they censor my e-mail address as well).

The Chinese have to pay for the consequences of giving up Canton? Well then, that should be the price they receive in killing a culture, and stealing land that didn't belong to them.

hero
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 3:53 pm

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby hero » Sun Jan 12, 2003 10:23 am

hey mr tim sum :

lei pin tou lei ga?
pa hao goum chao geh?
fang hei yak si lah !

HKB

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby HKB » Tue Jan 14, 2003 5:59 am

Sum, the English "killed a culture" in America, they stole a land that didn't belong to them. Should the Americans now give the United States back to the indians? If so, who is there to take it back? Not to mention that today, all people who claim that they have Indian descent consider themselvse to be Americans-just like all Cantonese-speaking people consider themselves to be Chinese.

HKB

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby HKB » Tue Jan 14, 2003 6:25 am

Also, Sum, just a question,
Suppose that I was born in Hong Kong. So were both of my parents. And so were their parents. Then, all of their parents were from Guangzhou. then all of theirs were from TaiShan. Then theirs in turn included some bandits who escaped from Shan Dong and were chased till they rested in TaiShan, 1/4 of whom had Mongolian descent, the other 3/4 say were descendants of Han nobles. and the rest of those in TaiShan included some descendants of say the Kingdom of Chu, and one of the sons born of a Chu dad and a Tibetan mom married a Greek woman, whose children all joined with royals of the Han court again, 50 of these nobles were genetically 1/2 Han and 1/2 canton aboriginees. Then, what would you do with me when you separate Canton from China?

Sum Won

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby Sum Won » Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:01 am

Hero:
唔係!你條女叫我錫妏擸q,點知臭到好似食對榴槤. 吤繨雱A都幾戇 [0下]!


HKB:
1. Correction: Many Native Americans don't consider themselves to be the same as the descendants of the white colonists. In fact, even many young Native-Americans who are about to college, don't even accept the federal government's scholarships. The conditions of the Native-Americans isn't even that good in America. So, land returning to the Native-Americans would be a good thing.

2. A person from Chu person marry a Grecian? Even though LingNam was a prosperous port area, filled with international trade, and cultural contact, I'd like to see evidence of Grecian ships reaching the ports of Chu (if they had any), I do know however, that Arabic ships did reach this region, during, the Sui dynasty. Evidence of Tibetan contact with this region would also be very interesting to see...

OK now, this leaves us with the bare "what do we do with the 'mixed breed'?" question...

In this world, there are people with dual citizenships.

HKB

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby HKB » Fri Jan 24, 2003 8:30 pm

Sum Won,
first, to answer your response to the Americans. You claim that it would be "good" that America should be returned to the Indians. The reason you give for doing so is because of your observation that 1. "many" young native-americans don't accept government scholarships. 2. their conditions aren't so good. and 3. "many" native-americans don't consider themselves to be descenants of the white colonists. Now, I claim that your observations do not justify your claim at all. #1, your "observation" that the so-called young indians don't accept scholarship is merely another claim. you did not give any evidence to support that claim (i.e. statistics, sources, research results). by eliciting this statement you're also implying that they don't accept gov. scholarships because they don't consider themselves to be american, this doesn't have to be true. Maybe they want to work for it or they don't want other peers to say that they are more "advantaged". And you are not seeing the whole picture: "many" isn't "all". I could just as well claim that there are just as "many" young people w/ native american descent who do accept gov. scholarships. In fact I have a couple of classmates who do so. #2 "their conditions aren't so good" that's another claim that's not based on any evidence. My two classmates are middle-class or above. I can safely assume that there are many others that are doing well. remember, we are talking about those people who have indian "descent" not pure indians. finally, the "pure" indians such as the Shoshone don't seem to be doing as well as others i.e. whites and chinese but they want it that way (you can do some research yourself on the shoshone's self government and their plight of keeping their traditions.) #3"many" native american don't consider themselves to be descendants of the whilte colonists. black people are't white but if you say that they're then not americans they 'll probably kill you. same as people w/ indian descent: they may not consider themselves to be white but they consider themselves to be "american" at least many many do, I believe.
Lastly, you said that it is "good" to give america back to indians. you can argue the "goodness" of it all you want but is it "practical"? And what is "good" and what is "bad"? not to mention that it's impossible to give america back to the indians because there are practically not much o' them left.

HKB

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby HKB » Fri Jan 24, 2003 8:42 pm

sum won, my argument cont'd:
if you want to argue that there are lots of people left of indian descent (no matter how dilute their descent) as a result of intermarriage, remember, the whites hardly intermarried the indians, they killed them off. You should also see that "giving canton back to the cantonese" is just as impractical. But I will argue that issue next time as I have to go. this message is totally about your claim regarding the Indians. In conclusion, I find that you did not logically validify your claim and that you possess many flaws in your arguments two of these flaws being insufficient evidence and the manipulation of evidence to suit your claim, hence dismissing the rest of the picture.

HKB

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby HKB » Sat Jan 25, 2003 8:52 pm

Sum Won,

Well the Greek example was a bootleg one but I gave it just to let you know the idea. The idea is that the cantonese people of today probably have very diverse ancestry (yes! go head and replace the Greek woman with an Arab one) (and don't forget that people move around-even if not mass migration). All of my Hong Kong friends have different places of ancestry Some from Tai Shan, some Min Nan, some Fu Jian, some Chao Zhou, some Guang-xi, some Su Zhou, Hu Nan, Taiwan, etc. In turn the people from these places could have inherited a variety of ancestry as well, with no absolute way of knowing exactly what these ancestries were (some of them could have been neither Chinese nor Cantones). So, to the present Cantonese speaking people living in Canton, who probably have only little or even NO aboriginal "cantonese" ancestry, what you've been proposing this whole time is irrelevant. It's irrelevant to me definitely and all of my friends too. I'm Cantonese and I'm Chinese. I speak a Chinese language and I am every bit Chinese-cultured. I'm no aboriginal Nan Yue or do I care about any of that hocus pocus thousands of years ago, I care about China now. So do all my friends and probably all cantonese people, who are Chinese people living in a province named Canton. Your proposition is bogus. I totally agree with ppk that you need to consider the interest of the cantonese people themselves (once again they're just Chinese people living in Canton, just like Chinese people living in Beijing), not your own. Hell, I don't think any of them would even listen to you.

creating dual nationalities is impractical. And the example I gave was much more than a"dual" nationality. if my mom is an elf from middle earth and my dad Chinese, and middle earth was destroyed 5000 years ago, what good would my dual nationality do, huh?

HKB

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby HKB » Sat Jan 25, 2003 9:01 pm

correction of my previous message first paragraph line six: the people from those places could have all Chinese ancestry.

To Memhaw Daigheil,

please don't attack other people's race, ethnicity, and religious beliefs in this forum, would you please? That was REALLY offensive.

HKB

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby HKB » Sat Jan 25, 2003 9:27 pm

To Hokkian (memhaw daigheil)person:

Darn, you sent a message to every thread? Look, if you really dislike this guy Campbell you should probably attack him in a gentlemenly and reasonable way so that you can efficiently elicit his whatever flaws to the public, hence, convincing it. What you wrote was not only not commendable but ultimately creates a counter effect, let alone the fact that I had no idea what you were talking about and that you've probably offended many people (me one of them).

Sum Won

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby Sum Won » Mon Jan 27, 2003 12:43 am

First of all, my use of "many", is no worse than the statistics you've given.
For one thing, I don't usually trust statistics that much, especially after taking Statistics class, because there are many ways you can twist the data, if not affect how people think, not just from the data, but also how the interviewer asks the questions.
"A few classmates"? I'll assume they're Native-American, and that you're not providing a vagueness to their ethnicity as some ploy to prove your point in any way... How many more do you know? Just because there are a few, they don't necessarily represent the whole population. If the Native Americans are doing well as a whole, why are they the only ethnicity with the highest alcoholic percentage? If they're doing so great, why do they have to try to grow hemp?*

As usual, I must clarify, when I mentioned that trial involving the TRIBE of Native-Americans, who only had 1/16th Native-American blood: IT WAS ONLY ONE TRIBE! Of course, many other tribes got slaughtered! In fact, the ones that didn't get slaughtered, were put in concentration camps (or "reservations" as people would prefer to call them)!
"manipulating evidence", you say? In a debate, you always bring out one side more than the other, in order to prove your point. Tell me: other than the sinocentric view that all of you have brought in, have you ever taken into account any evidence not based on the sinocentric view?

Of course the Native-Americans argue that they're "Americans", because the term "Native-American", means that they're the ones who are REALLY NATIVE to the land everyone recognizes as "America".

Scarcity of population might not necessarily matter... Since you and all other sinocentrics favor conquer and asssimilation, let me tell you this: There is evidence of minorities taking over a majority, and instituting their rules upon them.**

*Hemp is illegal to grow in the US. Even though the federal government recognizes the Native-American territories as seperate from that of the US, the US still has its FBI invade upon their lands, and arrest people for doing such things. You may research on this, if you like, because there are many other similar incidences happening.

**Look at the Taylor's hypothesis (from the book "The Birth of VietNam") on how the deep southern tribes became known as the Yue, and check out the example he takes his model theory from.
=====================================================
China doesn't have one dynasty, it has many. Hence, the people who've been through these changing times, have had a form of dual citizenship. They still have a connection to the past dynasty. Likewise, the Republic, is just another form of Dynasty (A period of change).

Your statements of not caring for the "hocus pokus", is exactly what I meant by hiding in a shell, and not wanting to face the past...


Return to “Cantonese language forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest