A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Discussions on the Cantonese language.
ppk

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby ppk » Sun Dec 15, 2002 1:36 am

sugar coating? then why not u suggest vietnam return the land of champa back to the descendents of the champs then? can u still find them? would the vietnamese govt be willing to do so? a separate country for the champs, who was 'raped', as u suggested, by the vietnamese 600yrs back?

and nomenclatures? isnt 'proto cantonese' a nomenclature of yours? the chinese historians had called them 'ancient viets' literally all the while, never denying that they were the one of the ancestors of present vietnamese. it is u who tried to connect them with the present cantonese, probably(i guessed) hoping to gain sympathy from them. and, if that happens, u would probably announce that even cantonese would agreed with u. too bad, its not happening that way.

and rectification on what? that it is wrong, immoral or its a sin, or maybe from the point of cultural preservation it is undesirable for ancient races/tribes to attack each other? man, if they can understand that during that time, globalisation would take place 2000 yrs back.

Sum Won

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby Sum Won » Sun Dec 15, 2002 10:06 pm

-Yes, you've asked the question already of the VietNamese returning VietNam from modern-day Hue all the way down to the edge of the Viet border, and I'm sure if you sifted somewhere through my responses on either threads, as I've already said: it's not a bad idea.
-You can still find the modern-day Champa, now known as the Khmers.

I never wanted to seek any sympathy from the VietNamese, because they stick with some nomenclature given to them by the Chinese, for some political purpose, which you still fail to see. If you'd like me to dig up a few of my arguements on how the Viet in modern-day "VietNamese" is a nomenclature, or even type them over again, I'd gladly do so.

Amazing, that you actually managed to rephrase my arguements in this thread in a nutshell. Now, you are correct that if people had any empathy for the fellow human being, with any tolerance of any sort for the other, that people would've come together alot more sooner. So, after half a millenia or so of written history, you'd think that someone would at least realize their mistakes and do something to rectify the situation, instead of making some pathetic excuse to justify their wrongs.

KP

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby KP » Mon Dec 16, 2002 12:35 am

Actually Khmers and Champa are different. Khmers are basically Cambodians/Kampucheans. Chams still exist in Vietnam, though only a small population. Also, Chams have Muslim names, Khmers do not.

ppk

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby ppk » Mon Dec 16, 2002 3:06 am

ah ha, got u again, sum, nomenclature techniques, putting champs equals to khmers... and vietnamese? make up ur mind, are u really asking for a separate 'cantonese' republic or is it a 'vietnamese' one? hopefully now u can tell us what's really up ur sleeves...

ppk

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby ppk » Mon Dec 16, 2002 3:25 am

and in this case, *smile*, i would suggest to the chinese govt to take this into consideration after the establishment of a 'republic of champa'. how about that?

ppk

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby ppk » Mon Dec 16, 2002 3:50 am

maybe i should quote my source,

1, http://www.limsi.fr/Recherche/CIG/echampa.htm

It is an ancient kingdom of Indochina known in the past as "Lâm Â'p" ( or Lin Yi ), then Chiêm Thành ( or Tchan-Tcheng in Chinese) and located in what is now central Vietnam between Dà Nang and Phan Thiê't. The amazing Cham towers in red bricks and sandstone found in Dà Nang and Phan Thiê't are the sole silent witnesses of a civilization vanished in the turbulence of history.

The Chams were no doubts of _Indonesian_ origin and occupied the coasts of central and south Vietnam. In 2nd century, this people of sailors adopted Hinduism on contact with Indian merchants, which gave birth to the kingdom of Champa.

A Chinese traveller of 4th century described them with a particular typical physique: Big straight nose, black and curly hair, practicing a funeral ritual that consists of cremation at the sound of the drum. (ppk: which makes some speculated that they are indians, or at least, the royals are indians)

The Chàms were not only excellent sailors but also formidable builders and ingenious farmers. The Chàms arrived at achieving the unity of the country at the beginning of 5th century after having resisted several rounds of Chinese domination attempt. Their capital was located at Indrapura ( Trà Kiê?u ), near Dà Nang ( former Tourane of the French) from 7th to 9th century.

Thanks to the silk, spices, and ivory trade between China on one hand and India and the Muslim world on the other, this kingdom experienced a period of prosperity that was troubled first by the conquest of the Khmers in 1145-1147 then next by the policy of expansion of Kubilai Khan's Mongols. To face this domination, the Chàms sought alliance with Vietnam, which allowed the Chàms and the Vietnamese to come out victorious during this confrontation.

To seal this union, a Vietnamese princess of the name Huyê`n Trân of the Tran dynasty, sister of king Trâ`n Anh Tôn was proposed to become in 1306 the wife of the Champa king Chê' Mâ~n (Jaya Simhavarman) in exchange for the two Cham territories Châu Ô and Châu Ri', located at the Hai Vân Pass. These are no other than the two northern provinces Quang Tri. and Thu*`a Thiên of presently Vietnam (Huê'). This union was of short term. The Vietnamese continued to claim more land toward the South and the death of king Che Man a year after his marriage without an heir was only an additional pretext in the conquest of Champa. The king of Vietnam set up a plot by sending his general Trâ`n Kha('c Chung to rescue his sister, who had to be sacrificed according to the Cham tradition, at the funeral of her husband. The provinces of Châu Ô and Châu Ri' became then the subject of discord between Champa and Vietnam. The Chams had a burst of energy with king Chê' Bô`ng Nga ( Binasuor ) who struck the Vietnamese several times by ransacking the capital Thang Long in 1372 and 1377. But he was assassinated in 1389 during a new invasion of Vietnam and his death marked the decline of the Chams. The Vietnamese annexed this kingdom around 1470 under the Lê dynasty with king Lê Tha'nh Tôn.

2, http://www.asiatour.com/vietnam/e-01land/ev-lan21.htm

In the 2nd century of Christian reckoning, the kingdom of Champa establishes itself in the area modern-day Danang. It is founded by the people of the Chams, who are _ethnically not related to the Vietnamese_ but probably have _immigrated from an area today belonging to Indonesia_. While the kingdom of Funan to the South of Champa was hardly influenced by China, the kingdom of Champa, during the 1,600 years of its history, repeatedly suffers Chinese overlordship.

Apart from that, Champa has to balance between two immediate neighbours stronger in numbers of population and in military terms: Vietnam to the North and the realm of the Khmer (Cambodians) to the South. Like Funan, the kingdom of Champa principally is a seafaring merchant power ruling over only a small land area.

In 1471 the armies of the Vietnamese Le Dynasty conquer the kingdom of Champa. About 60,000 Champa soldiers are slain, another 60,000 are abducted into Vietnamese slavery. The kingdom of Champa is reduced to a small area around the present-day Vietnamese city of Nha Trang.

When in 1720 a new attack by Vietnamese armies threatens the kingdom of Champa, the entire nation of the Cham emigrates to the Southwest, into an area north of lake Tonle Sap in present-day Cambodia.

During the Cambodian Khmer Rouge reign of terror from 1975 to 1979, some 100,000 of 250,000 Chams die or are killed.

3, http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/students/vb/CHAm.htm

While probably the strongest single cultural influence in Vietnam was China , the Cham civilization offers a startling contrast to many of Vietnam's Mandarin conventions. The Cham derive their cultural influences almost exclusively from India . Instead of the Confucianism and Taoism of other peoples in Vietnam, the _Cham were almost exclusively Hindu_(ppk: reasons stated above). This divergence in religion had substantial impacts in both social organization and world view.

The Cham existed from the second to the sixteenth century throughout the central highlands of Vietnam. The strongholds of Cham influence and power were centered in the Dong Nai Basin and Deo Ngang province. It is generally agreed that the kingdom was separated into five regions: Northern area, Amravati area, Vijaya Area, Kauthara Area, and Panduranga area. Even though this is a considerable portion of Vietnam, the severity of weather and limited area for agriculture limited the size of the population to about two and a half million at its height. The Cham were separated into two clans: Narikel Vamsa (Coconut Clan) and Kramuk Vamsa (Betelnut Clan). The Narikel Vamsa primarily ruled the Northern regions of the kingdom, the Kramuk Vamsa centered in the South.

Much like the Brahman cultures that flourish in India , the Cham culture utilized a caste system. The strict rigor of this system benefited the privileged Brahmans and Kshatriyas, and served to relegate untouchables to the periphery of organized life. Marriages tended to occur within the same caste with little deviation. Bodies were also cremated in a funeral pyre, called a Ghat, instead of being buried in a family grave. A striking difference from some of the older animist beliefs that already existed in Vietnam. Unlike India , however, the position of women seems to be more central to the government power structure. Chinese historians note that women held considerable power in both matters of family and marriage. At the same time the ritual of Sati was also practiced. The Cham people also adopted the Hindu practice of not eating beef -- a practice still observed in some areas of Vietnam today.

The Cham worshipped the Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh. In addition to this powerful trio, the Cham also paid reverence to their consorts and offspring. Shiva is the central figure of worship for most of the civilization of Champa. He is worshipped as both a figure of a man and his symbolic form, the linga. The Linga is often found in the art and architecture of the Cham people.

While the majority of the Cham people were Hindu, there is a significant minority of the population that were also Mahayana Buddhist and Islamic.

*much of the information presented in this section was obtained from the research conducted by J.C. Sharma in his text "Temples of Champa in Vietnam".

Sum Won

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby Sum Won » Tue Dec 17, 2002 5:12 am

ppk:
I'll admit to the mistake of putting the khmers and the Champs together. However, I never clumped the VietNamese with the proto-Cantonese, though they had similar cultures, one was a major influence over the other one. The VietNamese claim the Dong-Son culture as the beginning of their civilization. Any evidence of Dong-Son presence in what is known as GuangDong in modern times?
Don't tell me to make up my mind, because unlike you, I can at least manage to keep an open mind to other possibilities, rather than sticking 100% to some old books, filled with biased views.


kp:
Chams are also in Cambodia (hence my confusion). Unfortunately, the Chams in Cambodia have been assimilated into Khmer culture.

ppk

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby ppk » Wed Dec 18, 2002 1:57 am

it not about old books, it about how u would accomplish ur goals. so far u show no practical way to decide how to define the demographic, cultural and political contents of a 'cantonese republic' except severing the land of canton from china. u want a cantonese republic, but have u any idea who are the cantonese? what is ur own definition of cantonese and does it apply to all cantonese? does it apply to me? cos i am a cantonese too. it would be convinient for me to say vietnamese are originally chinese and we should have a chinese republic in vietnam, without giving any proof who are the vietnamese or chinese. *just give me that land, will u?*.

''though they had similar cultures, one was a major influence over the other one. The VietNamese claim the Dong-Son culture as the beginning of their civilization. Any evidence of Dong-Son presence in what is known as GuangDong in modern times?''

wad are u talking here? if u say there are no evidence of dongson culture in guangdong now, wad is the relation of cantonese culture and vietnamese culture? ur 'cantonese republic' dont stand at all.

KP

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby KP » Wed Dec 18, 2002 6:18 am

Their is evidence of DongSon culture in China, hence the debate of which country has found the oldest bronze drums. Just my geography, I assume the bronze drums found in China are more likely found in the most Southeastern part of China, I'm not sure if any DongSon culture artifacts were found in "Canton" though.

How far south would this "Cantonese Republic" go? Are the Chinese at the border of Vietnam cantonese? or something else?

Sum Won

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby Sum Won » Sun Dec 22, 2002 12:34 am

ppk (In reply to http://www.chinalanguage.com/forum/read ... 1973&t=400 & http://www.chinalanguage.com/forum/read ... 974&t=1350):
A correction on both our parts: It's not just about the old books, that's just 50% of it. The other half, is the dogmatism towards the issues (of "proto-Cantonese not being Chinese", and "A Seperate Cantonese Republic") that everyone has. Another misconception of yours, is that the ancient tribes who were in modern-day GuangDong really called themselves "Viet". I must implore you once again to read my posts regarding the subject. If you don't want to sift through all of them, I would be more than happy to type it all up for your again under request by you or anyone else interested. Heck, if I really thought that the Ancient VietNamese and proto-Cantonese were all the same, I would've asked for a "Viet Republic" that encompassed VietNam, GuangXi, and GuangDong.
Of course I have no way of providing any cultural contents of the "Cantonese Republic" the reason for my other thread was to get some questions answered about the origins and culture of the local people. Unfortunately, only a few people were of any help at all. Political contents? Heck, this thread was all about politics. The ultimate goal of the "Cantonese Republic" was already blatantly told, if you haven't seen it, scroll up and try reading everything again. My definition of Cantonese: "Oh, well, I am very sorry" that I can't provide you with a definition of Cantonese people that fits every Cantonese's distinctness, because everyone is an individual. By your definition of Cantonese, I'm not one. You wanted me to give you a definition of Cantonese, but I can't give one to you, however you supposedly know more about the Cantonese than I would, so why don't you give me an example to work off of?
Not everyone chooses to their own country. If every Second-generation (or further) Cantonese person took up American culture, has American citizenship, and barely has any connection to his "Ancestrial Country", yet identifies himself as "Cantonese" rather than American, is he wrong? How about something within one generation: The Japanese the that were left behind in China, who are trying to return back to Japan, who have a Chinese passport,citizenship, and everything else makes them Chinese except for their blood, even the fact that they can't even speak their own language anymore (or barely), is it wrong for them to call themselves Japanese and ask for their compensation?
If you don't see a similarity between the above statement and what you've said, you must be blind. If you don't understand my point, you've missed the point completely.

If you want to keep the Chinese and Cantonese together, don't give me a double standard, and say that the world's nations shouldn't be combined together.

And about the Champa Republic, of course I realized it was a sarcastic remark, but there's still fun for me in agreeing with it, as it does fit what I'm trying to do. If you believe yourself to be so incompetent that you have no way of changing things in the world (directly or indirectly) then you've just set your own limits.

ppk

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby ppk » Sun Dec 22, 2002 4:29 am

yeah, they might not call themselves viets... so they call themselves cantonese? u cant even name them and u wana give them a country. what if i suggest the whole of africa should belong to a race called homo sapiens and we should start a republic, consisting the whole of africa, for them? in fact the early people at the red river delta probably didnt know how to cultivate rice and were of a half nomadic half foraging nature, so how are u gonna define a clear boundary for them? they might not even have the idea of a 'country' like the chinese had. right, u probably can tell me about the old dragon king, but who knows the idea of a 'dragon king' actually came from the chinese?

right, cantonese living in america. a cantonese holding american passport is automatically an american citizen, like it or not. dun identify with it, he can either migrate or there'll be a possibility he'll be called a traitor. u forgot one thing, the idea of a 'cantonese'(or any other dialects) is only applicable in the 'chinese background', meaning, he's of chinese ethnicity(maybe, but not necessarily, a chinese citizen). either u scroll up this thread or look for it in the other thread, i have already said, first u say, 'this guy is a 'chinese'(either citizenship or ethnicity or both) then u further define him according to his dialect group or hometown, 'he's a hokkien / shanghainese / pekinese / cantonese / teochiew, wadever. the idea of a cantonese or any of the dialects already classified this guy under 'a chinese', this speak for itself and need no further explaination. for an american citizen of chinese ethnicity, same case. he's first an american, (then maybe a northerer/ southerner, then city, like l.a., chicago, n.y.) then a chinese american, then further on a chinese american of cantonese ancestry. there is no contradiction in identifying himself both as an american and cantonese, cos one is his citizenship, and the other is his ethnicity+ancestry, there is no conflict at all. i doubt any american born cantonese would not identify themselves as an aerican citizen, cos first of all there is not a cantonese republic for them to identify with. u mixed up ancestry and citizenship.

for the case of japan, wrong story, cos the japanese race is almost homogeneous, the race probably equals citizenship. and japanese left in china after the war is only 2 generations at most(even my grandad still think himself as a chinese citizen, and he refused to learn malay thou he had been in s.e. asia for most of his life), so u are trying to compare 2000 yrs of racial+cultural assimilation with 2 generations. that proved my statement, u have no idea wad is 2000 yrs of history. anyway, if he dun like being a chinese citizen, there are proper procedures for him to migrate to other countries, nothing wrong or right here, just do it. see, again u mixed up ancestry and citizenship.

yes, reasons of a cantonese republic are already told, so are the reasons of not having one, for studies and academic purposes, no need to restore one(or was there any in the first place?), no need to rebuild the roman, mongol or napoleon empire to study them. simple? for nostalgic reasons, want to identify myself as a cantonese citizen, dun think any cantonese thought of that. i think u shouldnt try any further, ur reasons are limited and easily countered.

and i dun understand why u like to use 'wrong' or 'right' or other moral judgements like 'greed', first, ancestry and citizenship dun conflict, u got it mixed up, second, we are not here to judge anyone, just debating whether its a sound and workable idea to start a cantonese republic.

double standards in what? i'd alway like to see the world united into one and identify ourselves as earthlings, a pro globalisation guy here. u are the one who goes for 'separation, a separate republic' all the while. it's not whether i believe i can change anything or not. if u 'believe' in something, u actually dun know anything about it, its a guess(right, do u 'believe' in god?*laugh*). i dont usually make wild guesses, i do wad i can do, and anyway the idea of a cantonese republic isnt sound to me at all.

ppk

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby ppk » Sun Dec 22, 2002 6:37 am

maybe u have a misunderstanding of chinese from different part of china. a cantonese only identify himself as a cantonese when he's with other chinese from different dialect groups, this is only a internal, regionalistic feeling, not some sort of patroitism. this is the same for every dialect group. to foreigners, they are, first of all, a chinese. no hokkien or cantonese or teochew in his right mind will identify himself according to his dialect group then tells u he's a chinese(or citizens of any other country) under normal circumstances.

my defination of cantonese? simple,
1. anyone who speak cantonese, learn cantonese as a mother tongue, and have paternal ancestry that can be traced into regions under the cantonese jurisdiction, say, for 5 generations and above.

2. anyone with the above identity but do not speak cantonese well or do not speak cantonese at all(speak other language/dialects).

3. anyone residing in cantonese regions holding proper residential documents.

4. anyone who lived elsewhere(in china or abroad) but can still trace their ancestry(with solid evidence) to cantonese region.

wad about that?

Sum Won

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby Sum Won » Sun Dec 22, 2002 11:11 pm

ppk:
Did I say that the aborigins in the Cantonese regions called themselves "Cantonese"? No! The fact that you lump both the proto-Cantonese and the Viets, shows that you still don't know what I mean about nomenclatures. The fact that you have to stay in one place to cultivate rice (the southern regions was where rice was first cultivated), shows a sedimentary life by these people. However, if we were to go under your assumptions, that these people don't have a sense of nation, they do have a sense of race and culture. The Mongols were nomads, but they kept their seperate identity from the Chinese, and "Oh look! The Mongolians have a country with boundaries as well!"

I'm not the one who lumps citizenship with race, you are! The native-Cantonese, have distinct lineage from the rest of the people in China, and yet you claim them as 100% Chinese. Then you go around saying that I'm the one who gets confused about citizenship and race?

The Japanese left behind in China were children, not (grand)parents and (grand)children: "children". It may have been two generations ago, but there is only one generation of people left behind. You're right! I am comparing something old to something new, so what's wrong with that? Do you know how much human nature stays the same? Yeah, I said "human nature", why do you think history is categorized under a "social science"? "History repeats itself", have you ever heard of that? We learn about history to avoid the mistakes of the past from happening again.

Too bad the proto-Cantonese didn't have a choice when it came time for them to be forced to learn something native.

What the heck do you mean you aren't here to judge? You've been criticizing my REASONS for having a Cantonese Republic, not whether it's "sound or not"! If you were judging whether it was sound or not, you'd be criticising the way it'd be set up, the political structure, and policies of the Republic (which unfortunately doesn't exist).

I can't believe you don't see a double standard! You're the one proposing it! You believe in China's sovereignty over many places, that don't even belong to it, yet when other people have attacked China, I don't see you defending their sovereignty over China. If you are saing "something I don't know anything about", referring to the subject on the aborigins in the Cantonese regions, you can't necessarily say that your views are correct either. I do believe in something that I have a small amount of knowledge to, but it doesn't mean I don't have enough evidence to prove my point. Robert Broom was right, in contradicting the world, by saying that the earliest hominids were from Africa, and not Asia or Europe.
-------------------------------------------------------
Your definition of Cantonese...
1. "你對你啊媽都幾薄情呀!" What about maternal ancestry? Not only that, but you're worse than the NAZIs you described --to have to include 5(+) generations....

2. Well, at least you have some compassion in this area, for those who don't speak it well...

3. This is pretty funny, because all of the Caucasians in Macau and Hong Kong are still being called by the slur "鬼佬", and the Indians in Hong Kong are still demeaningly called "啊羼" (or something that sounds similar), yet some of their ancestors have been there for quite a while.

4. If you are referring to a lineage book, not even Cantonese in Guangdong and GuangXi have them, so how the heck are the Cantonese around the world going to claim their ancestry? I suppose a "Sorry, don't have any tangible evidence" won't suffice for you, now would it? Some of these lineage books don't even go back until as late as the Qing dynasty, so where the heck were they from before?

ppk

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby ppk » Mon Dec 23, 2002 5:12 am

--Did I say that the aborigins in the Cantonese regions called themselves "Cantonese"? No! The fact that you lump both the proto-Cantonese and the Viets, shows that you still don't know what I mean about nomenclatures. The fact that you have to stay in one place to cultivate rice (the southern regions was where rice was first cultivated), shows a sedimentary life by these people. However, if we were to go under your assumptions, that these people don't have a sense of nation, they do have a sense of race and culture. The Mongols were nomads, but they kept their seperate identity from the Chinese, and "Oh look! The Mongolians have a country with boundaries as well!"

no, u didnt, in fact u said nothing about who they really are, but i clearly remember u did say they are vietnamese in an earlier post. the mongols have no definite boundaries until the qig govt and russian decided on that. to them, the world is a huge grassland and therefore their horses can go wherever they like.

--I'm not the one who lumps citizenship with race, you are! The native-Cantonese, have distinct lineage from the rest of the people in China, and yet you claim them as 100% Chinese. Then you go around saying that I'm the one who gets confused about citizenship and race?

they are 100% chinese citizens, and accepted the chinese cultures, dun u get it? either u forget or u simply reject everything others told u and just going round and round in circles like a dog chasing its tail. scroll up or look in the other thread, i am very sure i have said this before, for someone to be a 'chinese' its whether they accept the mainstream chinese culture or not, racial composition isnt the most important reason. this is one of the fundamental distinction of being a chinese or a foreigner. u want to stress on the racial thing, u wont get any acceptance from chinese, cos 'chinese' itself is already multi-racial. its the culture, language and way of life that bonds them together.

--What the heck do you mean you aren't here to judge? You've been criticizing my REASONS for having a Cantonese Republic, not whether it's "sound or not"! If you were judging whether it was sound or not, you'd be criticising the way it'd be set up, the political structure, and policies of the Republic (which unfortunately doesn't exist).


nope, no judging, just countering. ur reasons of having a cantonese republic and the methods of establishing one are both not sound to me. u cant decide who they really are(at least u cant tell who am i, a recognised cantonese, really is), and dont have a good way to do it, except separating the land.

1. "你對你啊媽都幾薄情呀!" What about maternal ancestry? Not only that, but you're worse than the NAZIs you described --to have to include 5(+) generations....

chinese customs, count the paternal side when it comes to ancestry. i am surprised u dont understand this yet u want to talk about chinese ancestry. nazis did that out of discrimination, i did that out of classification, as demanded by u. besides, thats one of the 4 criteria i proposed, anyone meeting 1 or more of the 4 can be considered a cantonese, not all. dont u see they wll be contradicting each other if a person is to meet all these criteria? its pretty obvious that a cantonese only need to meet one of these, yet u missed it.

3. caucasians, as u have already named them, shared a different racial composition and culture with chinese, the are not cantonese although they might speak the language and understand(not accept) the culture. read my posts properly, 'cantonese' only exist under the 'chinese background' context. first a chinese, then a cantonese. u really makes me feel like a tape recorder...

4. thats ur assumption. i have my linage book up till 1000ad, and i can trace up my ancestors at least 25 generations before, so did many of my friends. maybe this will let u understand what 'history' and 'ancestry' really is.

Sum Won

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby Sum Won » Mon Dec 23, 2002 10:51 pm

For one thing, if you can't read (which might explain the reason for your poor spelling), don't go putting words in other people's mouths. I have also noted for the both of us, while you concentrate on culture, I concentrate on lineage. As gray as my arguements are on lineage, your arguements for culture can't do much better. You are constantly under the assumption that the aborigins willingly accepted the culture, when actually they were held at gunpoint.

Regarding the Mongolians, what makes you think the Mongolians didn't have any sense of fate for themselves, as to have China and Russia decide it for them?
http://www.upenn.edu/museum/Mongolia/section2c.html

You judge something, before you decide to take action upon it. Obviously, you had to have judged my arguements, before you took action to criticize them. Correct?

1. The customs of the aborigins didn't exclude the women. Even the books written by Chinese historians note that women had a better status in society than their counterparts in China did.

"they are 100% chinese citizens, and accepted the chinese cultures, dun u get it? ...i am very sure i have said this before, for someone to be a 'chinese' its whether they accept the mainstream chinese culture or not, racial composition isnt the most important reason. this is one of the fundamental distinction of being a chinese or a foreigner ...cos 'chinese' itself is already multi-racial. its the culture, language and way of life that bonds them together."

3. From the footages I've seen, even these "foreigners" that do accept Chiense culture and practice it, it doesn't seem like they get much acceptance in turn...

4. Yeah, but let me rephrase my question, since leaving out a few words will always allow you to misconstrue things...
"If you are referring to a lineage book, not EVERY Cantonese have them, so how the heck are the Cantonese around the world going to claim their ancestry? I suppose a 'Sorry, don't have any tangible evidence' won't suffice for you, now would it? Some of these lineage books don't even go back until as late as the Qing dynasty (and not all go as far back as the Shang [or Xia] dynasty), so where the heck were they from before?"


Return to “Cantonese language forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 6 guests