Cantonese originally not Chinese???
-
ppk
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
if europeans can go to a foreign land and take away that land from the local population and aborigins, or buy and sell the lands that dont originally belonged to them in the past 400yrs, still called these people their citizens or subjects, and recognised internationally, i dont see why cantonese with almost 100% chinese blood should be classified as 'non-chinese' when they were ruled by chinese govts for more than 2000 years. same thing applies to the tibetian, mongols and ulghirs, although their history under the chinese govts are shorter compared to the cantonese, it would be much more than the history of usa ruling over red indians.
-
Sum Won
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
OK, back to the political discussions...
Now, on the Cantonese right for independance; you're right that we do have nearly 100% Chinese blood, but that doesn't necessarily make you Chinese by blood. Politically, you could have American citizenship, yet so many Chinese who were born in America still make their distinction between themselves and the rest of Americans (though not all do). You would also have to remember that policial institutions are able to fall down or change.
In terms of who has the right to their own country, you should look at "Wilson's 14 Points" for the Legue of Nations, which heavily influenced the charter for the United Nations. So according to the United Nations, the Cantonese would still have an arguement for their own country.
In terms of the individual, let's give a scenario:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some guy breaks into your home, rapes your wife, stays there for several years, and bears several children with her. Sound impossible? With the judiciary systems in place. "No, this is an outrageous scenario", In fact, "The guy wouldn't have a chance to stay in that home at all!" --Once again, thanks to the judiciary systems we have in place.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, let's just say that the "guy" represents the Chinese, that "wife" is the Bach Viet people. Now, where's the judiciary system to help them out with justice? So conquest of a country and/or her people can't be justified.
How do we fix the mess with the Cantonese issue?
Now, on the Cantonese right for independance; you're right that we do have nearly 100% Chinese blood, but that doesn't necessarily make you Chinese by blood. Politically, you could have American citizenship, yet so many Chinese who were born in America still make their distinction between themselves and the rest of Americans (though not all do). You would also have to remember that policial institutions are able to fall down or change.
In terms of who has the right to their own country, you should look at "Wilson's 14 Points" for the Legue of Nations, which heavily influenced the charter for the United Nations. So according to the United Nations, the Cantonese would still have an arguement for their own country.
In terms of the individual, let's give a scenario:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some guy breaks into your home, rapes your wife, stays there for several years, and bears several children with her. Sound impossible? With the judiciary systems in place. "No, this is an outrageous scenario", In fact, "The guy wouldn't have a chance to stay in that home at all!" --Once again, thanks to the judiciary systems we have in place.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, let's just say that the "guy" represents the Chinese, that "wife" is the Bach Viet people. Now, where's the judiciary system to help them out with justice? So conquest of a country and/or her people can't be justified.
How do we fix the mess with the Cantonese issue?
-
Sum Won
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
I'm not sure if we can find an answer to that question, but the least we could do for the culture that was wiped out (bach viet), would be to do research on our part, as Cantonese (who, although have almost 100% Chinese blood, still have a taint of Bach Viet blood). If you choose to boast the Bach Viet culture alongside with Chinese culture, or if you would like to shut out one culture, would be of your own accord.
Now, setting the political issues aside...
Let's make another note that he "Bach Viet" was only a label given to the people of the south by the Chinese. The Chinese didn't bother trying to make a record of their languages, making my job very hard. The criteria they made in seperating the differences, were only by the appearances of the way they dressed (colors, and how they dressed), whether or not they had tattoos, and sometimes whether a tribe shared the same tattoo to identify themselves. So, you can see that without language, the data they gathered was pretty inaccurrate.
We can't really call them the Bach Viet, because during the Spring-Fall period, that also included regions of modern-day FuJian, YunNan, GuangDong, and GuangXi. Before that, the Bach Viet regions even included regions north of those areas. The people of my main concern, is the people who speak the "Yue" language. However, this tends to get us mixed up with the rest of the Bach Viet. So, for I'd like to call them the "proto-Cantonese"
What about the rituals they had?
Some of these ancient practices may have lingered in some remote areas. To add to the difficulty, the Communists' "Cultural Revolution" stamped out religions. So, from this region, the practices may have been lost. However, don't forget that many Cantonese alongside with Hakkas, Hoklos, and other southerners, moved to Indo-China, where they would have carried on.
Even in America, I found out this one Cantonese from HaiPhong, Vietnam, guy was holding some wierd ritual for his ailing mother. It was like nothing I've ever seen before. People gathering around a fire, and chanting very loudly. They had bells ringing in deep tones, in long intervals, and a horn that they blew, giving also low tones. I wouldn't know if this were a Chinese cultural thing, but I sure as hell didn't see a Daoist, or Buddhist Monk there either. To add to the mystique, they were all wearing shrouds.
So how did some Cantonese guy from HaiPhong, VietNam, manage to pull this off in America? Well, during the VietNam War, many people in Southern China who'd fled to Indo-China (as stated earlier), were also part of the very large number of refugees of war.
How did he know about the religion? I'm not sure, but I asked my mom, and she said that she's seen this type of stuff go on, in rural areas only. So maybe they could be the remnants of the old culture that was present before the Chinese invaded.
Now, setting the political issues aside...
Let's make another note that he "Bach Viet" was only a label given to the people of the south by the Chinese. The Chinese didn't bother trying to make a record of their languages, making my job very hard. The criteria they made in seperating the differences, were only by the appearances of the way they dressed (colors, and how they dressed), whether or not they had tattoos, and sometimes whether a tribe shared the same tattoo to identify themselves. So, you can see that without language, the data they gathered was pretty inaccurrate.
We can't really call them the Bach Viet, because during the Spring-Fall period, that also included regions of modern-day FuJian, YunNan, GuangDong, and GuangXi. Before that, the Bach Viet regions even included regions north of those areas. The people of my main concern, is the people who speak the "Yue" language. However, this tends to get us mixed up with the rest of the Bach Viet. So, for I'd like to call them the "proto-Cantonese"
What about the rituals they had?
Some of these ancient practices may have lingered in some remote areas. To add to the difficulty, the Communists' "Cultural Revolution" stamped out religions. So, from this region, the practices may have been lost. However, don't forget that many Cantonese alongside with Hakkas, Hoklos, and other southerners, moved to Indo-China, where they would have carried on.
Even in America, I found out this one Cantonese from HaiPhong, Vietnam, guy was holding some wierd ritual for his ailing mother. It was like nothing I've ever seen before. People gathering around a fire, and chanting very loudly. They had bells ringing in deep tones, in long intervals, and a horn that they blew, giving also low tones. I wouldn't know if this were a Chinese cultural thing, but I sure as hell didn't see a Daoist, or Buddhist Monk there either. To add to the mystique, they were all wearing shrouds.
So how did some Cantonese guy from HaiPhong, VietNam, manage to pull this off in America? Well, during the VietNam War, many people in Southern China who'd fled to Indo-China (as stated earlier), were also part of the very large number of refugees of war.
How did he know about the religion? I'm not sure, but I asked my mom, and she said that she's seen this type of stuff go on, in rural areas only. So maybe they could be the remnants of the old culture that was present before the Chinese invaded.
-
RedSultan
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
PPK, they are called NATIVE AMERICANS, not "Red Indians"!!!!! It should be known that NATIVE AMERICANS do not like being called "redskins" because it is a very derrogatory and downright racist term!
The Americans did NOT purchase California from Spain. California was annexed into the Union as a large amount of Americans held high offices and owned much land in the republic of California. The people of Mexico broke way from Spain, thus liberating California from Spain.
The Americans did NOT purchase California from Spain. California was annexed into the Union as a large amount of Americans held high offices and owned much land in the republic of California. The people of Mexico broke way from Spain, thus liberating California from Spain.
-
ppk
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
red sultan, sorry for using the wrong term. i didnt mean to discriminate the natives. but i dun think u answer my enquiries.
sum won, nearly 100% chinese makes one chinese by race and staying under the chinese govt(esp. for 2000 yrs) naturally makes u a chinese citizen, please state clearly u meant chinese by race or chinese by citizenship, dun mix thing up. cos 'chinese by citizenship' doesnt say anything about a person's race. he can be a zhuang minority or a korean minority or a miao minority, by race. like 'americans' or 'british' doesnt mean a person must be a white man. he can be an american citizen of african ancestry or a british citizen of german ancestry.
as for whether the cantonese accepted the chinese rule or not, there werent much revolt going on in canton area thruout history, except when times are bad(out of poverty but not bcos of different race or political ideas). so i guess its quite obviously they accepted chinese govt. besides, the example u gave is a criminal offense but the situation at bach viet is a war. in a crime scene there is clearly a victim and a criminal, in war, both bach viet and chinese had attacked each other in history, and the line is not clearly drawn. both side tends to say bad things about each other, and who attacked first is not clear. but the outcome is the chinese won. its a matter of survival, and winner takes it all, just too bad. anyway, why not let the americans of european descendence go back to europe and let the native americans have their land back in this case? or let japanese go back to japan and leave okinawa alone? seems that nobody is answering these. any suggestions?
the cantonese can call for independence, of course. but there is no reasons for that. if the chinese govt had policies that specifically discriminate against canton(like wad happened to the americans, when the brits had laws that hurt them and pushed them to independence), then the ppl should have the right to say something. but is the chinese govt doing that? i dun think so. is the govt imposing heavier tax on canton? doubtful. is there a racial, political, cultural discrimination against cantonese? not that i heard of. is there a racial, cultural, language or religious difference that they need to go independence like india and pakistan? dun think so. does cantonese enjoy less rights than other chinese? not true. there is no reason to call for independence. ppl of different race can come under 1 country. racial difference is not the only reason for creating a new country.
the religion i am talking about are ancient religion, examples like shaman religion or animism that believe there is spirits in eveything. not about present religion and has nothing to do with the communists. the present religion are mostly chinese based. i am talking about live sacrifice of human beings(how they kill the sacrifices), head hunting(and how they treat the heads with medication), how they bury the dead(with or without coffins, wad kind of coffins). legends say ppl of some tribes likes red colour, so when tombs are found filled with some iron oxide powder which is red in colour, around the body, and pots and bowls that has red paintings that are similar in designs, we can be quite sure they are of the same origin.
the culture of bach viet wasnt wipe out, they became the vietnamese ppl. and chinese has no obligations to keep track of their records. even the vietnamese govt is not keen in restoring the bach viet culture, so way should u think the chinese have to do that? the culture in canton area, is already chinese culture and there is no such things as 'reviving the canton culture'. in ancient times canton region was called bach viet. fujian was min-yue, yunnan was dian-yue. hakkas are ppl of central china(he'nan) and moved to canton beginning from 300ad, so they are northerners initially and they are chinese. hoklos are also from the north and they are chinese. in cantonese, 'lou' is a way to describe 'a foreigner'. therefore hoklos are not natives in canton. they speak either hakka or fujian. i am a hoklo and my family records traced my ancestors back to northern china, 800yrs ago. u should get ur facts right
i think u are using modern ideology to measure ancient ppl, and i think its not appropriate. there is no democracy at that time, and it is common to discriminate against other races. in ancient times there is no idea of 'rights', and the conquerer's word is the law. we may not like it when we read about it, but thats the way it was. learning history is not about getting things even, not about an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth. its about learning from the past and not making the same mistakes in the future. that's why we cannot ask the white americans to go back to europe, and we cannot simply go to the european museums and take back all the relics and treasures they took away from china. commoners like u and i, we talk about how, why, when incidents happened, and the causes and effects. we are not there to make a value judgement who is good or bad, right or wrong, when looking at history. only politicians do that, to meet their own advantages.
sum won, nearly 100% chinese makes one chinese by race and staying under the chinese govt(esp. for 2000 yrs) naturally makes u a chinese citizen, please state clearly u meant chinese by race or chinese by citizenship, dun mix thing up. cos 'chinese by citizenship' doesnt say anything about a person's race. he can be a zhuang minority or a korean minority or a miao minority, by race. like 'americans' or 'british' doesnt mean a person must be a white man. he can be an american citizen of african ancestry or a british citizen of german ancestry.
as for whether the cantonese accepted the chinese rule or not, there werent much revolt going on in canton area thruout history, except when times are bad(out of poverty but not bcos of different race or political ideas). so i guess its quite obviously they accepted chinese govt. besides, the example u gave is a criminal offense but the situation at bach viet is a war. in a crime scene there is clearly a victim and a criminal, in war, both bach viet and chinese had attacked each other in history, and the line is not clearly drawn. both side tends to say bad things about each other, and who attacked first is not clear. but the outcome is the chinese won. its a matter of survival, and winner takes it all, just too bad. anyway, why not let the americans of european descendence go back to europe and let the native americans have their land back in this case? or let japanese go back to japan and leave okinawa alone? seems that nobody is answering these. any suggestions?
the cantonese can call for independence, of course. but there is no reasons for that. if the chinese govt had policies that specifically discriminate against canton(like wad happened to the americans, when the brits had laws that hurt them and pushed them to independence), then the ppl should have the right to say something. but is the chinese govt doing that? i dun think so. is the govt imposing heavier tax on canton? doubtful. is there a racial, political, cultural discrimination against cantonese? not that i heard of. is there a racial, cultural, language or religious difference that they need to go independence like india and pakistan? dun think so. does cantonese enjoy less rights than other chinese? not true. there is no reason to call for independence. ppl of different race can come under 1 country. racial difference is not the only reason for creating a new country.
the religion i am talking about are ancient religion, examples like shaman religion or animism that believe there is spirits in eveything. not about present religion and has nothing to do with the communists. the present religion are mostly chinese based. i am talking about live sacrifice of human beings(how they kill the sacrifices), head hunting(and how they treat the heads with medication), how they bury the dead(with or without coffins, wad kind of coffins). legends say ppl of some tribes likes red colour, so when tombs are found filled with some iron oxide powder which is red in colour, around the body, and pots and bowls that has red paintings that are similar in designs, we can be quite sure they are of the same origin.
the culture of bach viet wasnt wipe out, they became the vietnamese ppl. and chinese has no obligations to keep track of their records. even the vietnamese govt is not keen in restoring the bach viet culture, so way should u think the chinese have to do that? the culture in canton area, is already chinese culture and there is no such things as 'reviving the canton culture'. in ancient times canton region was called bach viet. fujian was min-yue, yunnan was dian-yue. hakkas are ppl of central china(he'nan) and moved to canton beginning from 300ad, so they are northerners initially and they are chinese. hoklos are also from the north and they are chinese. in cantonese, 'lou' is a way to describe 'a foreigner'. therefore hoklos are not natives in canton. they speak either hakka or fujian. i am a hoklo and my family records traced my ancestors back to northern china, 800yrs ago. u should get ur facts right
i think u are using modern ideology to measure ancient ppl, and i think its not appropriate. there is no democracy at that time, and it is common to discriminate against other races. in ancient times there is no idea of 'rights', and the conquerer's word is the law. we may not like it when we read about it, but thats the way it was. learning history is not about getting things even, not about an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth. its about learning from the past and not making the same mistakes in the future. that's why we cannot ask the white americans to go back to europe, and we cannot simply go to the european museums and take back all the relics and treasures they took away from china. commoners like u and i, we talk about how, why, when incidents happened, and the causes and effects. we are not there to make a value judgement who is good or bad, right or wrong, when looking at history. only politicians do that, to meet their own advantages.
-
Sum Won
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
ppk, you are the one who must clarify whether you mean Chinese by race or citizenship. You use race, when you say that the Cantonese have NEARLY 100%, but let me re-emphasize the NEARLY, which means they aren't quite Chinese. Then, you say that they been under the Chinese jurisdiction for thousands of years. No one is denying this fact, however, this also means that they became Chinese citizens. However, as you and I already know, citizenship doesn't necessarily mean much.
Once again, when it comes to revolts, there were many tiny revolts throughout the LingNam regions. The only problem is finding your sources (once again, I refer to "Vermillion Bird: T'ang Images of the South"). Also, you make it seem as if they JUST accepted it like nothing. This acceptance of Chinese rule actually took a course of many centuries to fully subde the "proto-Cantonese" people.
Wars are used to commit criminal offenses on a bigger scale (i.e. Hitler and the burning of Jews). Or to something that pertains to the subject: the killing of a culture.For more on this, read
http://www.chinalanguage.com/forum/read ... 1180&t=400
I mentioned a little about language and humanity. You can also apply this to culture as well. After reading it, you'll realize that it wasn't a matter of survival. Now to answer your questions of pushing the white people back to Europe, and the Japanese back to Mainland Japan and out of Okinawa. Those are all nice suggestions. While we're at that, let's also kick out the Chinese that stole the land from the GaoShan people in TaiWan, and don't forget returning Inner Mongolia to the Mongolians, or giving Tibet it's own country again, and letting the Zhuang have their own country like they did with their "Da Li" country, and let's kick out the Chinese in Manchuria too, and let's not get away with only regions of China, so how about the Palestinians and their land, or letting the Kurds set up Kudistan? Yes, we should to all those things.
Now, your idea of everyone coming under one country sounds very nice --Very one-minded and unified. That's why the UN even proposed a One-World Country. Funny thing is, not even China or the United States, nor many other nations agreed to this proposal. So "no", not everyone can come together. We can however try to understand each other, and promote better understanding between each other, rather than waging useless wars and killing cultures.
The Religion you and I talked about are the same --shamanistic/animistic. Read my previous messages more carefully please. I was only telling you how this shamanistic ritual was wiped out in some area, but was kept in some place where no one would have thought it to appear in.
Yes, we can say that artifacts with similar designs/color schemes/shapes/size, and etc... come from the same origin. However, you forget trade as a possibility. One group of people may have liked red, and used it in their many items. Don't forget that other people may have liked it and started trading for them as well --even coffins too.
Can you really be sure that the Vietnamese aren't a nomenclature given by the Chinese? Remember, the Chinese called the people of the South the Man (Barbarians), and the term was very general. This could have also been mixed with the term Bach Viet. Before I propose the theory of how the VietNamese got their nomenclature, we have to keep the following in mind:
-Cantonese people (Ming Dynasty and up) still carry "Bach Viet" (another term I believe to be a nomenclature) blood in them.
-Languages have already changed, and Mandarin is still coming about, but nonetheless significantly different than Cantonese and most of the Southern dialects.
-VietNam has had their independance from China several times.
--------------------------------------------
Now, here's the theory of how they got their nomenclature:
When the Chinese retook VietNam, they noticed how similar it was to Cantonese. So, they thought they were related. Simple as that.
--------------------------------------------
So to sum up the whole "VietNamese as a nomenclature" thing, would mean that the VietNamese aren't necessarily Bach Viet. Now, I'm not saying the VietNamese or Chinese government should keep a record of Bach Viet culture, becaue they have political and administrative problems to worry about. Now, the Historians, and anthropologists, on both sides should keep the records of what they have on what they call the Bach Viet, for the Cantonese to research their lost culture. Because it is the obligation of the Historians and the anthropologists to search for the truth about history.
Now, about the Hoklos&Hakkas: I never denied the fact that they were from the north. The fact that they are in the south now, I called them southerners. If you do your research, you'll find that a significant number of them moved to VietNam from the early 1900's 'till the Communist take over in 1949-1950. So maybe you should do more research, rather than tell me to get my facts straight.
You're right however, when you say I'm using modern ideology to measure ancient people. Sure, it's not right in some aspects, but it's not necessarily a wrong thing either. The whole thing about parenting is so that the next generation will be better. The same with history, in that we learn in to avoid the mistakes of the past. As time moves on, we at least try to better ourselves as humans. We criticize the past, to make sure we don't commit these same mistakes in the future. So saying something is right or wrong isn't just a "politician's thing", it's part of being human.
Once again, when it comes to revolts, there were many tiny revolts throughout the LingNam regions. The only problem is finding your sources (once again, I refer to "Vermillion Bird: T'ang Images of the South"). Also, you make it seem as if they JUST accepted it like nothing. This acceptance of Chinese rule actually took a course of many centuries to fully subde the "proto-Cantonese" people.
Wars are used to commit criminal offenses on a bigger scale (i.e. Hitler and the burning of Jews). Or to something that pertains to the subject: the killing of a culture.For more on this, read
http://www.chinalanguage.com/forum/read ... 1180&t=400
I mentioned a little about language and humanity. You can also apply this to culture as well. After reading it, you'll realize that it wasn't a matter of survival. Now to answer your questions of pushing the white people back to Europe, and the Japanese back to Mainland Japan and out of Okinawa. Those are all nice suggestions. While we're at that, let's also kick out the Chinese that stole the land from the GaoShan people in TaiWan, and don't forget returning Inner Mongolia to the Mongolians, or giving Tibet it's own country again, and letting the Zhuang have their own country like they did with their "Da Li" country, and let's kick out the Chinese in Manchuria too, and let's not get away with only regions of China, so how about the Palestinians and their land, or letting the Kurds set up Kudistan? Yes, we should to all those things.
Now, your idea of everyone coming under one country sounds very nice --Very one-minded and unified. That's why the UN even proposed a One-World Country. Funny thing is, not even China or the United States, nor many other nations agreed to this proposal. So "no", not everyone can come together. We can however try to understand each other, and promote better understanding between each other, rather than waging useless wars and killing cultures.
The Religion you and I talked about are the same --shamanistic/animistic. Read my previous messages more carefully please. I was only telling you how this shamanistic ritual was wiped out in some area, but was kept in some place where no one would have thought it to appear in.
Yes, we can say that artifacts with similar designs/color schemes/shapes/size, and etc... come from the same origin. However, you forget trade as a possibility. One group of people may have liked red, and used it in their many items. Don't forget that other people may have liked it and started trading for them as well --even coffins too.
Can you really be sure that the Vietnamese aren't a nomenclature given by the Chinese? Remember, the Chinese called the people of the South the Man (Barbarians), and the term was very general. This could have also been mixed with the term Bach Viet. Before I propose the theory of how the VietNamese got their nomenclature, we have to keep the following in mind:
-Cantonese people (Ming Dynasty and up) still carry "Bach Viet" (another term I believe to be a nomenclature) blood in them.
-Languages have already changed, and Mandarin is still coming about, but nonetheless significantly different than Cantonese and most of the Southern dialects.
-VietNam has had their independance from China several times.
--------------------------------------------
Now, here's the theory of how they got their nomenclature:
When the Chinese retook VietNam, they noticed how similar it was to Cantonese. So, they thought they were related. Simple as that.
--------------------------------------------
So to sum up the whole "VietNamese as a nomenclature" thing, would mean that the VietNamese aren't necessarily Bach Viet. Now, I'm not saying the VietNamese or Chinese government should keep a record of Bach Viet culture, becaue they have political and administrative problems to worry about. Now, the Historians, and anthropologists, on both sides should keep the records of what they have on what they call the Bach Viet, for the Cantonese to research their lost culture. Because it is the obligation of the Historians and the anthropologists to search for the truth about history.
Now, about the Hoklos&Hakkas: I never denied the fact that they were from the north. The fact that they are in the south now, I called them southerners. If you do your research, you'll find that a significant number of them moved to VietNam from the early 1900's 'till the Communist take over in 1949-1950. So maybe you should do more research, rather than tell me to get my facts straight.
You're right however, when you say I'm using modern ideology to measure ancient people. Sure, it's not right in some aspects, but it's not necessarily a wrong thing either. The whole thing about parenting is so that the next generation will be better. The same with history, in that we learn in to avoid the mistakes of the past. As time moves on, we at least try to better ourselves as humans. We criticize the past, to make sure we don't commit these same mistakes in the future. So saying something is right or wrong isn't just a "politician's thing", it's part of being human.
-
ppk
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
i have already stated, 'chinese' in race suggested nothing of racial origin, cos 'chinese' since the very beginning is a mixture of races, like the word 'americans'. so it is meaningless to say cantonese are not chinese cos cantonese is included in 'chinese'. cantonese is a only geographical distinction of ppl living in the province of canton in china. something like a new yorker or a californian. only the defination of chinese as citizenship is useful, and i am sticking to that. and then again, mainland-borned cantonese are chinese citizen since 2000 yrs ago. so it is not accurate to say that cantonese are not chinese citizen.
nearly 100% cantonese are chinese cos i'm sure some has married foreign citizens and give birth to mix-blooded offsprings. and i bet not all cantonese are chinese citizen(some had acquired foreign citizenship thou they are living or working in china). care to tell me why citizenship dont mean much to u? ur citizenship decide whether u get the same treatment in your country with the rest of the ppl. without citizenship, u enjoy no welfare and is not protected by the law and constituition, anyone can rob u, hurt u, kill u and the police wont give a damn, cos u have no rights if u are not a citizen(of any country),and u have no say in the govt and in politics. 'citizenship dont mean much' is the funniest saying i have seen so far in this forum.
ur description of 'tiny revolts' is a good guage that majority of the cantonese ppl are okay with chinese govt. only a small number of them are not happy. we get to see some dessidents thruout history in every country, so thats normal. even america had local terrorist, isnt it? anyway, all the revolts that involved or started in canton, big or small, thruout chinese history, didnt aimed to overthrow chinese ruling and set up a cantonese country apart from other chinese territories. the aim of the rebels is to take over the then present monarchs and make themselves the new monarchs of china, controlling territories including canton. they considered canton as part of china, and cantonese are chinese, so thats why they have the right to rule over china.
war is one of the ways to resolve disagreements and definitely not a good way. war might not always lead to crimial offense, and criminal offense doesnt necessarily have anything to do with war. war and criminal offense are 2 different things or else we need not have armed forces and police at the same time. i am surprised u cannot differentiate this. hitler and the japs invasion are very special cases here, cos in the past, wars are fought to conquer, to punish or to defend against an enemy state, the fighting usually stops after 1 side surrendered and the fightings usually dont involve systematic mass killing of civilians, esp. for the ancient chinese. but the reason for nazi's killing of jews is that 'they are an inferior race so they should be eliminated' and things like that which is totally crap and inhumane. for the japs, they plundered and killed unarmed civilians, pows, wounded personnels in a planned, systematic manner and that makes them war criminals. wad they did was very different from the wars before and after ww2. they are very special and independent cases in the previous century, and should not be used to represent all ancient wars.
yes, tibet, taiwan and mongol. just expecting u to mention this sooner or later. u have reversed the argument. i was saying, 'why and how can the other countries asked china to let go of chinese land, while they clinged on to wad they took from others'. not 'why is china asking the others to return their invaded territories while china clinged on to tibet, taiwan and mongol'. for the record, china never interfered with the territories other countries had, and they dont expect others to interfere with them too. and by jove, you have answered your own questioning. bcos white americans will not go back to europe, japan will not give up okinawa or hokkaido, britain will not give up scotland, neither will china give up tibet, taiwan and mongol. isnt that obvious? giving up state territory is treason, no politician or political party will risk trying that. and i have to tell u that the aborigins in taiwan went to the island from mainland china too. they shared the same ancestors as mainland chinese.
i meant 1 country as in like america or china or britain, not a global country, in case u misunderstood. america have ppl from more than 200 races if i remembered properly, and i dun see the need for each of them to start a new state or a new country within america.
i am sorry, i dont get u. there is no cantonese before qin dynasty took bachviet. so the nomenclature thing u mention doesnt seems to work. the present vietnam consisted of people from 2 or 3 origins, the viets, the khmer and 1 other(cant remember properly). this is in vietnamese history, not chinese history.
i have to say again for the 3rd time, i dont deny trading but i dont accept it to be the only reason. can u show some open-mindedness that u can argue that trading is a main reason but coming from the same ancestors is a possibility, instead of a sweeping 'no' to other arguments? even with trading the ancient people will not accept other rituals into their religious rites cos they identify themselves as of different decent from others. for most cases, only when they are from the same ancestors they will use the same rites and rituals.
so according to u, hakkas and hoklos are in the south for a long time so therefore they are considered southerners. under the same logic, why cantonese have to be considered non-chinese when they are under chinese govt for 2000 yrs? u are contradicting yourself, and having double standards, my friend.
nearly 100% cantonese are chinese cos i'm sure some has married foreign citizens and give birth to mix-blooded offsprings. and i bet not all cantonese are chinese citizen(some had acquired foreign citizenship thou they are living or working in china). care to tell me why citizenship dont mean much to u? ur citizenship decide whether u get the same treatment in your country with the rest of the ppl. without citizenship, u enjoy no welfare and is not protected by the law and constituition, anyone can rob u, hurt u, kill u and the police wont give a damn, cos u have no rights if u are not a citizen(of any country),and u have no say in the govt and in politics. 'citizenship dont mean much' is the funniest saying i have seen so far in this forum.
ur description of 'tiny revolts' is a good guage that majority of the cantonese ppl are okay with chinese govt. only a small number of them are not happy. we get to see some dessidents thruout history in every country, so thats normal. even america had local terrorist, isnt it? anyway, all the revolts that involved or started in canton, big or small, thruout chinese history, didnt aimed to overthrow chinese ruling and set up a cantonese country apart from other chinese territories. the aim of the rebels is to take over the then present monarchs and make themselves the new monarchs of china, controlling territories including canton. they considered canton as part of china, and cantonese are chinese, so thats why they have the right to rule over china.
war is one of the ways to resolve disagreements and definitely not a good way. war might not always lead to crimial offense, and criminal offense doesnt necessarily have anything to do with war. war and criminal offense are 2 different things or else we need not have armed forces and police at the same time. i am surprised u cannot differentiate this. hitler and the japs invasion are very special cases here, cos in the past, wars are fought to conquer, to punish or to defend against an enemy state, the fighting usually stops after 1 side surrendered and the fightings usually dont involve systematic mass killing of civilians, esp. for the ancient chinese. but the reason for nazi's killing of jews is that 'they are an inferior race so they should be eliminated' and things like that which is totally crap and inhumane. for the japs, they plundered and killed unarmed civilians, pows, wounded personnels in a planned, systematic manner and that makes them war criminals. wad they did was very different from the wars before and after ww2. they are very special and independent cases in the previous century, and should not be used to represent all ancient wars.
yes, tibet, taiwan and mongol. just expecting u to mention this sooner or later. u have reversed the argument. i was saying, 'why and how can the other countries asked china to let go of chinese land, while they clinged on to wad they took from others'. not 'why is china asking the others to return their invaded territories while china clinged on to tibet, taiwan and mongol'. for the record, china never interfered with the territories other countries had, and they dont expect others to interfere with them too. and by jove, you have answered your own questioning. bcos white americans will not go back to europe, japan will not give up okinawa or hokkaido, britain will not give up scotland, neither will china give up tibet, taiwan and mongol. isnt that obvious? giving up state territory is treason, no politician or political party will risk trying that. and i have to tell u that the aborigins in taiwan went to the island from mainland china too. they shared the same ancestors as mainland chinese.
i meant 1 country as in like america or china or britain, not a global country, in case u misunderstood. america have ppl from more than 200 races if i remembered properly, and i dun see the need for each of them to start a new state or a new country within america.
i am sorry, i dont get u. there is no cantonese before qin dynasty took bachviet. so the nomenclature thing u mention doesnt seems to work. the present vietnam consisted of people from 2 or 3 origins, the viets, the khmer and 1 other(cant remember properly). this is in vietnamese history, not chinese history.
i have to say again for the 3rd time, i dont deny trading but i dont accept it to be the only reason. can u show some open-mindedness that u can argue that trading is a main reason but coming from the same ancestors is a possibility, instead of a sweeping 'no' to other arguments? even with trading the ancient people will not accept other rituals into their religious rites cos they identify themselves as of different decent from others. for most cases, only when they are from the same ancestors they will use the same rites and rituals.
so according to u, hakkas and hoklos are in the south for a long time so therefore they are considered southerners. under the same logic, why cantonese have to be considered non-chinese when they are under chinese govt for 2000 yrs? u are contradicting yourself, and having double standards, my friend.
-
Sum Won
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
You're right in the fact that the Chinese are just a mixture of different races. I admit to that. Did I say that Cantonese aren't Chinese citizens? No, I didn't say that either. I'm just saying that political boundaries of a country shouldn't apply to a culture.
You once again are correct in the fact that MOST rebellions were made by power-hungry people bent on putting themselves up to the highest position of power, but I suppose you still haven't read "Vermillion Bird". Nor have you read any other publications regarding other rebellious incidences, such as a case provided here:
http://mcel.pacificu.edu/aspac/papers/s ... arlow.html
Yes, we all know that when there are only tiny revolts in a country, that it means the majority of the people are satisfied with their government. So why is it the religious fanatics and other rebels tried to overthrow the Manchurian government, even when the Han and Manchus received equal treatment ever since Kang Xi's time? No, that never mattered to the rebels, because to them, they weren't in the same family, and just had to be overthrown no matter what.
The only purpose of war is "to achieve political purposes". People who use excuses such as "wars are fought to conquer, to punish or to defend against an enemy state," justify wars in that sense. However, they all fail to see the fact that wars are criminal offenses. They invade upon an individual's basic right as a human (For more one these "basic rights" read the UN Charter).
You're right. Many other countries are very hypocritical when it comes to condemning others for their actions. The US is one of them. Is that an excuse to justify wrongdoings and to allow them to go on? No.
Also "No", is the statement you've made saying that I've answered my own questions. I only added upon the questions you've brought up. However, I'll answer them now...
The reason that people won't give up land, isn't because it's treason. It's because they love consuming it. If that also means having to take it from other people, then they love it even more, because they get the satisfaction of taking that land from other people with their own bare hands. With the Chinese case however, the whole land dilemna wasn't much an issue until the 1800s. Up until then, the main concern was ruling people, rather than ruling land. This still is not a good policy, because it still destroys cultures.
America is also a unique case. Do you know what it takes to become a citizen of the United States? It means giving up your old country in support of the one you're trying to go into --at least that's how the oath is.
On the issue of "coming together". You constantly advocate people coming together in packs of countries. So, why not take this even further and combine these small countries into one world-country? Then, none of us would have to worry about a separatist Cantonese government, because everyone's covered in the world-country. Then, the political issue is set aside, and we can all concentrate on the cultural issue. However, because people are stubborn beings, this won't be executed for quite some time, or even at all, for that matter of fact.
Regarding the Hakkas and Hoklos, sorry for using the nomenclatures. If you preferred, I would've went on to the specifics, and identified every faction that moved to VietNam (Cantonese, Hakkas, Hoklos, Teo Cheows, and any other group living in Southern China that moved to VietNam). Now, whether or not I was contradicting myself --"no". I didn't say that they were original inhabitants of the land. I merely identified them as "Southerners", because they were living in the south at the setting when the Cantonese, Hakkas, Hoklos, Teo Cheows, and any other group living in Southern China that moved to VietNam. I'm sorry for not telling you earlier, but the Cantonese, Hakkas, Hoklos, Teo Cheows, and any other group living in the South that moved to VietNam began making their way there during the Japanese attack on China up until the communist takeover of the south. If you don't know the motives for these people moving, let me list them for you:
-Because China's economy was down, they had to move to VietNam (which was a part of the Vichy government, and had a self-supportive economy
-To escape the atrocities of the Japanese (Even when the Vichy government handed VietNam over to the Japanese, the Japanese didn't do much atrocities and administrative activities around the region, and only used it as a base of operations to attack the rest of South-East Asia)
-After the Japanese lost the war, the KuoMinTang were losing the war badly, so many who couldn't escape to TaiWan during Chiang Kai Shek's "inward advance", fled to VietNam.
Does this clear up the dilemna? If not, just tell me what confuses you.
Now, last but not least, the issue of open-mindedness. If I did agree with you on the Cantonese being originally Chinese, then there would be no use for this debate, and no one would look into the truth. They would just let it wither away.
You once again are correct in the fact that MOST rebellions were made by power-hungry people bent on putting themselves up to the highest position of power, but I suppose you still haven't read "Vermillion Bird". Nor have you read any other publications regarding other rebellious incidences, such as a case provided here:
http://mcel.pacificu.edu/aspac/papers/s ... arlow.html
Yes, we all know that when there are only tiny revolts in a country, that it means the majority of the people are satisfied with their government. So why is it the religious fanatics and other rebels tried to overthrow the Manchurian government, even when the Han and Manchus received equal treatment ever since Kang Xi's time? No, that never mattered to the rebels, because to them, they weren't in the same family, and just had to be overthrown no matter what.
The only purpose of war is "to achieve political purposes". People who use excuses such as "wars are fought to conquer, to punish or to defend against an enemy state," justify wars in that sense. However, they all fail to see the fact that wars are criminal offenses. They invade upon an individual's basic right as a human (For more one these "basic rights" read the UN Charter).
You're right. Many other countries are very hypocritical when it comes to condemning others for their actions. The US is one of them. Is that an excuse to justify wrongdoings and to allow them to go on? No.
Also "No", is the statement you've made saying that I've answered my own questions. I only added upon the questions you've brought up. However, I'll answer them now...
The reason that people won't give up land, isn't because it's treason. It's because they love consuming it. If that also means having to take it from other people, then they love it even more, because they get the satisfaction of taking that land from other people with their own bare hands. With the Chinese case however, the whole land dilemna wasn't much an issue until the 1800s. Up until then, the main concern was ruling people, rather than ruling land. This still is not a good policy, because it still destroys cultures.
America is also a unique case. Do you know what it takes to become a citizen of the United States? It means giving up your old country in support of the one you're trying to go into --at least that's how the oath is.
On the issue of "coming together". You constantly advocate people coming together in packs of countries. So, why not take this even further and combine these small countries into one world-country? Then, none of us would have to worry about a separatist Cantonese government, because everyone's covered in the world-country. Then, the political issue is set aside, and we can all concentrate on the cultural issue. However, because people are stubborn beings, this won't be executed for quite some time, or even at all, for that matter of fact.
Regarding the Hakkas and Hoklos, sorry for using the nomenclatures. If you preferred, I would've went on to the specifics, and identified every faction that moved to VietNam (Cantonese, Hakkas, Hoklos, Teo Cheows, and any other group living in Southern China that moved to VietNam). Now, whether or not I was contradicting myself --"no". I didn't say that they were original inhabitants of the land. I merely identified them as "Southerners", because they were living in the south at the setting when the Cantonese, Hakkas, Hoklos, Teo Cheows, and any other group living in Southern China that moved to VietNam. I'm sorry for not telling you earlier, but the Cantonese, Hakkas, Hoklos, Teo Cheows, and any other group living in the South that moved to VietNam began making their way there during the Japanese attack on China up until the communist takeover of the south. If you don't know the motives for these people moving, let me list them for you:
-Because China's economy was down, they had to move to VietNam (which was a part of the Vichy government, and had a self-supportive economy
-To escape the atrocities of the Japanese (Even when the Vichy government handed VietNam over to the Japanese, the Japanese didn't do much atrocities and administrative activities around the region, and only used it as a base of operations to attack the rest of South-East Asia)
-After the Japanese lost the war, the KuoMinTang were losing the war badly, so many who couldn't escape to TaiWan during Chiang Kai Shek's "inward advance", fled to VietNam.
Does this clear up the dilemna? If not, just tell me what confuses you.
Now, last but not least, the issue of open-mindedness. If I did agree with you on the Cantonese being originally Chinese, then there would be no use for this debate, and no one would look into the truth. They would just let it wither away.
-
RedSultan
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
On the topic of revolts, there could be another, and very significant reason, why revolts did not occur. Populations were repressed with fear. If there was an enormous military garrison in the "Cantonese" regions, then that would have been a deterrence. Since most people in the region we call "China" thought that China was the "Middle Kingdom" and therefore the most powerful empire in the world, people would not even try to risk everything and rebel. But that does not mean that they are "satisfied" with their government. While they are reluctant to revolt, they still may have some animosity towards their rulers. Fanatics and extremists, of course would revolt no matter what circumstances.
The Chinese, like practically every ancient culture, were extremely brutal in their conquests. They did commit massacres and they did plunder. As a matter of fact, according to a documentary, an ancient culture that once resided in the city of Chongqing in the Sichuan (Sezhuan) province, was annhialated because of many wars. What remained of the people of Chongqing were assimilated by the Chinese from the regions around Shanghai when the emperor ordered a mass immigration to strengthen Chinese soveriegnty and expand Chinese interests in Chongqing. The original peoples of Chongqing were not like the "Han" people and this was apparent in the cliff carvings of fierce war gods, which were highly unlike any of the "Chinese" gods, on the cliffsides of the city. Warfare throughout the history of Ancient China destroyed numerous cultures. Warfare and conquest throughout the history of the world has destroyed numerous cultures. And that is a fact. Examples would include the destruction of the Carthaginians, the destruction of the ancient peoples of Chongqing, and the destruction of various Native American cultures.
By the way, PPK, if you are profficient in English, then please type properly. Your arguements tend to make little sense and are very unintelligible as they are difficult to read.
The Chinese, like practically every ancient culture, were extremely brutal in their conquests. They did commit massacres and they did plunder. As a matter of fact, according to a documentary, an ancient culture that once resided in the city of Chongqing in the Sichuan (Sezhuan) province, was annhialated because of many wars. What remained of the people of Chongqing were assimilated by the Chinese from the regions around Shanghai when the emperor ordered a mass immigration to strengthen Chinese soveriegnty and expand Chinese interests in Chongqing. The original peoples of Chongqing were not like the "Han" people and this was apparent in the cliff carvings of fierce war gods, which were highly unlike any of the "Chinese" gods, on the cliffsides of the city. Warfare throughout the history of Ancient China destroyed numerous cultures. Warfare and conquest throughout the history of the world has destroyed numerous cultures. And that is a fact. Examples would include the destruction of the Carthaginians, the destruction of the ancient peoples of Chongqing, and the destruction of various Native American cultures.
By the way, PPK, if you are profficient in English, then please type properly. Your arguements tend to make little sense and are very unintelligible as they are difficult to read.
-
ppk
Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???
red sultan,
sorry, but i am a proud member of the 'please type ploper singlish(singapore english, that is)' campaign. alright, jokes aside. i try to type properly, fair enough?
we only see large number of troops garrisoned in canton before the han dynasty. in my impression, canton area had maintained troops in the same proportion as other state/county/prefecture/province in china, except during times of war, of course.
i am not sure of which sichuan tribe you are talking about, but here are some clues. for the people of the states of 'ba' and 'shu'(present sichuan), they were attacked and conquered by the state of qin in between the spring and fall era and warring states era, which is before the first unification of china, and the 'han' people are still nowhere to be found. i totally agree with u that ancient warfare destroyed a lot of cultures, and i have to say that it is definitely not in the head of the conquerers to maintain records of conquered cultures, that would mean a threat to their control over the conquered land.
sorry, but i am a proud member of the 'please type ploper singlish(singapore english, that is)' campaign. alright, jokes aside. i try to type properly, fair enough?
we only see large number of troops garrisoned in canton before the han dynasty. in my impression, canton area had maintained troops in the same proportion as other state/county/prefecture/province in china, except during times of war, of course.
i am not sure of which sichuan tribe you are talking about, but here are some clues. for the people of the states of 'ba' and 'shu'(present sichuan), they were attacked and conquered by the state of qin in between the spring and fall era and warring states era, which is before the first unification of china, and the 'han' people are still nowhere to be found. i totally agree with u that ancient warfare destroyed a lot of cultures, and i have to say that it is definitely not in the head of the conquerers to maintain records of conquered cultures, that would mean a threat to their control over the conquered land.