A Separate Cantonese Republic???

[ppk]

xiong was the surname of the chu royals.

sum, nobody says u are 'wrong' for being obsessed with that idea, its just that we are not interested in a new cantonese nation. some probably would like to know more about their ancestors but that's about it.

[KP]

I looked it up from the book, and the author relates the Hung Kings to the Kingdom of Chou, as in Zhou? not sure about that. He claims the Hung Kings seem to have begun and end around the same period of the Chou Kingdom. Also, there were 18 generations of Chou Kings, similar to Hung.

[ppk]

the surname of the zhou royals was 'ji', and they are somewhere near xi'an area. the chu(pronouced as chor in teochew and cantonese) kindom was nearer to the viets, at he'nan province.

[HKB]

To Sum Won,

The last thing I ever want to see again is the further separation of the Chinese people. We're all drifting apart from one another. The Mandarin speakers calling the Cantonese not authentic Chinese, the Cantonese calling the Mandarin 'Hun and Manchu mixes', Hong Kong people calling mainland folk Ah Tsaan. Foreigners don't know what we are. After 5,000 years or more we are still a pot of loose sand, yat poon saan sa. Have you, Sum Won, forgotten what Sun Jong-San, a cantonese, did for China? Have you forgotten about the great Soong Sisters? The ancient general Yuen Song Wun of Canton province? And many others? They were all and still are the grandest and most honorable figures of our nation and they are Cantonese. Great were the things they have done, for China! They were all "tong tong jing jing geh Jong-Gwok ho hon!" ...maybe not the Sisters
Anyways, they've put their sweat and blood into helping China, changing China. Cantonese blood and Cantonese sweat. The cantonese did more for China than even the Mandarin did. Our blood are forever mingled with China and It will never wipe away our legacy. How can you say that we should separate from China? (I hear Sun Jong San cussing in his grave.)

Perhaps once some of us were of a different race but that, after thousands of years, doesn't matter anymore. Let us for once leave the petty differences of our ancient past behind and worry about the future of China. We're all "Long de Chuan Ren" and are Children of Huangdi. When will we ever see the greatness and beauty of what China once was again if we keep denying each other?

p.s. I know I sound a bit romantic and melodramatic but such is my feelings toward China. But...I would like CHina to get rid of it's communist regime...it's not...working...exceptionally well. No comment on the current Taiwan/People's Rep. of China situation.

[Sum Won]

First of all, as I've said many times over, the Cantonese Republic isn't about seperation "just because" Cantonese have different ancestry, it's to send a message that assimilation can be dealt with, and the oppression of other cultures will not be tolerated.

So, let me ask you this: "why can't the world come together, in one world nation?"
Humans are all the same species, as they have been, before cultures formed, but we're not all coming together.

The complex you describe with Mandarins and the rest of the Chinese, isn't very true. In fact, those who do that, fall out of mainstream Chinese ideals. The "Hong Kong vs. Mainland" example is true, but maybe, "The Cantonese in the Mainland, and Hong Kong people can come together as Cantonese", but of course you and I know this is not going to happen, because my ideas fall outside of mainstream Chinese thoughts. Most often, such words are said, to vent anger --illegal immigrants, or the fact that China's economy is doing better than Hong Kong's-- or can't accept something outside the norm (par se, the rural accents the Mainlanders tend to carry).
In fact, even the leader of China designates "types of Chinese" as well, for example, when asked about Lee, Wen-Ho's alleged theft nuclear secrets from Los Alamos, and Roger Mudd labeled him "Chinese", Jiang ZeMin said, "...Not 'Chinese'; 'Overseas Chinese'!" (In other words, "Overseas Chinese aren't Chinese").

[PPK]

imo when cultures assimilate it doesnt meant the destruction of any of them. when couples get married it doesnt mean that any one of them is destroyed. it fact they come together and formed a new unit, a family. they preserved their identity but at the same time they share the background and specials features of the other party. it seems to u that assimilation only brings about erosion of cultures but i would say that it brings more improvements than destruction. it gives them a chance to compare and decide which part of their own (and others') culture to preserve or give up.

[sfboy]

Sum Won:

who told you that the complex HKB described with Mandarins and the rest of the Chinese isn't very true? Just because it falls out of mainstream Chinese ideals doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In fact, it is very deeply rooted between Northerners and Southerners, partly because of misunderstanding or maybe some people are just obnoxious and they spread their tainted ideas to people who don't know better. Those Chinese that tell you that this complex doesn't exist are either:
(1) naive and misinformed
(2) trying to sound politically correct
(3) trying to establish a false sense of unity between north/south

It's akin to yanks who criticize the people from the deep south and vice versa

[PPK]

overseas chinese carry a foreign passport and so they are not considered chinese citizens(or 'a citizen of mainland china'). jiang is just referring to his citizenship, ie the moral behind is not to taint china's image with every wrong thing ethnic chinese did. what do u think when roger mudd means when he specifically referred lee as a 'chinese'? his nationality or his ethnicity? its obvious that he referred lee as a 'chinese'(citizen of mainland china) to mislead others into believing china is behind all these scandals. therefore in this context roger mudd made a mistake.

[Sum Won]

ppk:
Nice sugar-coating of assimilation. However, when a country attacks another and imposes it's culture upon others, it's not marriage; it's rape.

[Sum Won]

in reply to ppk's message here --> (http://www.chineselanguage.org/forum/re ... 1951&t=400):

Obviously, you still don't understand how naming things and giving things nomenclatures work. You are correct, that history is looking at something that "had" happened. The purpose of creating this thread in
was to justify rectification.