A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Discussions on the Cantonese language.
Sum Won

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Post by Sum Won » Sat Jul 20, 2002 10:45 pm

You're not going against globalization of the economy, are you? If we focus on the trading aspect of the economy, the system just means "people leeching off of each other". When you talk about size, input/output, you'd have a point. I hate economics personally (so "yeah, that might explain why I choose 'leeching' for the word, or how about 'symbiotic parasites trying to outwin each other for a better deal'?"). I'm a simple man when it comes to economics, what ever happened to "just make what you need"? Obviously, the human race is always looking for an advantage of some type over the other one (particularly, money in this case).

Your mention of "raw resources" is pretty accurate in the contemporary economic sense. However, don't count out the environmentalists and recycling as an alternative source for resources. Many products formerly made with metal, are now being replaced by some plastic-alloy (which is recyclable), and cars of the future will most likely be made with a plastic-alloy, instead of using something as heavy as metal (lighter weight, equals better milage, and less oil). Cars of the future will not require gasoline to be powered, which might put OPEC in a bind. So, these OPEC countries will have to change their economic strategy. Rather than selling oil off to outher countries to make gasoline, they might make more plastic (which is very easily molded into many other things, and has a different type of molecular bond, so as to let it combine with metals and other substances, to result with something like the previous example of plastic-alloy). Many other things are being recycled, but I won't go into them any further...

Other areas of change will happen. For one, companies that have contracts with governments to make certain weapons and tools for war will not longer be need, because with the Earth itself as a nation, and no contact with any life forms outside our solar system (assuming if there are any), who are we going to fight? So these companies will obviously make something else like better airplanes, or maybe rockets for space exploration. Whatever changes they make, it will affect this economy, by what products they provide.

Now, with the world-economy at present, countries competing with other countries (and in some cases, conglomerates like the EU) is the "prime directive". Why do they compete? To gain more money than the other, obviously. For without currency, there would be no economy whatsoever. Now, without any national boundaries, who are they competing with? They [the country] won't be competing with each other at all. The companies will be the only ones fighting with each other for markets to the point of monopolies in each industry forming, as a result of too much competition to the point of wiping out your competitors. Don't forget government intervention though. How much or how little the government intervenes on business, is unknown to any of us however. Then of course, that's using contemporary methods to solve a problem of the future --not a good idea, as history shows. A new economy means new ways of doing things.

One new thing for the economy would be our currency. When the economy combines into one giant freak-of-nature, that means our level of currency will be the same --no need for exchange rates-- so certain things will be at the same price no matter which country you visit. So, using contemporary measures, companies will try to out beat the other in reducing their prices. People will flock to the place with the lowest price, which means nearly depleting our natural resources (to the point that recycling won't do much), and according to supply and demand, prices will rise dramatically. (I believe this is what you were referring to, right?)

Let's look at this dilemma carefully though. One major resource any human must need is food --without it, we die, so it's something pretty important! The stuff that grows out of the ground (crops) will be sold off, while something else will grow on top of it (part of the crop rotation method). Every plot of crop will take time to grow. During this time, the crop that’s been sold, will obviously be bought by some consumer at some point. With the prices being cut down on the market’s behalf, will it mean that people will be buying as much as they can? Not if they’re smart consumers who know that this crop won’t taste that good if left in the refrigerator too long. Most likely, they’re only going to buy as much as they need for the day(s)/week(s), instead of stockpiling it. So competition will become stagnant when it comes to crops, because a vegetarian can only take so much food a day.
Now the meat we eat comes from killing animals (sorry for not surgar-coating the phrase, but it’s basically true). Steak is pretty expensive, because it’s good in quality and rare in quantity (not cooking method). The steak and other meat are always prepared with a little different variety, which will possibly be the only cause for going to different restaurants in the future. Does this mean everyone will be flocking to restaurants to try the newest twist on their steak or poultry? No, because even though the prices for a “type of food” are the same, there is still variety in the type of meat we buy, and the quality of it, so prices vary accordingly. People might go for the more expensive meat for its quality (but buy less), while some go for the not-so-good quality, but maybe buy more (if the quality is good enough). This also relates to restaurants: High-quality restaurants will go for the previous, while fast-food restaurants will follow the latter. How can fast-food restaurants survive? Easy, with this world going so fast, who has time to cook other than the chefs themselves? Now, demands for crops won’t get out of hand, because demand only reaches to a certain level –in other words, it doesn’t taste as good as meat. How do we stop the demand for meat? Let the market remedy itself. Prices go up, less people buy it. This allows time for farmers to let nature take its course, and as the animals multiply, the meat level will rise again. While the prices are up for meat, how do we get our protein if it drops to a dramatic level? There are always tofu products that are made to taste like some of the meat we’re used to (don’t know if they’re really good though). If not, there are always nuts… These last two products are crops, for my ideas of what happens to them, look at the previous paragraph.

Don’t forget however, everything living is always vulnerable to diseases. Genetics won’t play a role, because that means making exact copies of something that will be resistant to a type of bacteria/virus, while the disease just mutates, or rather “adapts” to its environment, killing off all the copies. Once again, variety in anything is necessary. The selective process will not longer be used, because it means keeping our food.

As a result of more food reaching the markets, our population will skyrocket. Poverty will be solved. What do we do? For starters, the one-child policy will be the first choice. What do we do with a family that breaks this policy? That’s a different issue.
Another solution would be to invest in technologies to allow us to colonize other areas of our solar system, like the moon. Or, develop better technology to make space stations habitable for humans. Both however, will take centuries of time before it actually happens. The only alternative to this is cannibalism –I’m sure none of us here are in favor or that however! (the one-child policy still stands…) Not only that, but we also have to have enough nutrients for our animals, so they can grow up, and give us their meat (or help in the birth process and give us more meat for the future).

Basically, what it all comes down to, is us. Economics in general, means the management of resources. I may have some flaws here, but I know I can always count on all of you to make suggestions.

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Post by ppk » Sun Jul 21, 2002 3:42 am

i am not against globalisation but i think there are more ways to do it than simply merging.

i meant 'raw materials' as in unprocessed materials, opposite of end products. sources not exactly directly from nature, could be recycled ones, and newly invented raw materials is in this category too.

i dun think the world will merge into a big country. even if it does, and we use one currency, prices will still be very different when buying thngs at different places. even within the same country now, we can see that places nearer to the source or have a lower rent or a cheaper crew will have lower prices. in places where only few competitors there might be higher prices, and not all have the means to flock to the cheaper source, if its on a global scale. would u want to fly to the land of japan for a sushi meal, if u can get it at ur neighbourhood, even if they charged 50% higher than in japan? the price of the ticket would made the trip worthless.
Sum Won

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Post by Sum Won » Sun Jul 21, 2002 8:38 am

"No" would be my response to that last question. However, as I pointed, there will be changes in the economy, but surely enough, there will be similarities and things that stay the same.
You don't like globalization of the economy (I don't either, for it's environmental effects, and the ignoring of people's demands on political issues for the sake of corporations), however the one-world nation will be forced to acknowledge the minority people of the world, such as the Native-Americans, Micronesians, and others, who are actually environment-cautious. With this system of balancing nature, our resources (be it recycled or raw), and our needs and wants, they will work out in the end.

Putting the one-world nation aside, back to the "globalization vs. [Cantonese] seperation issue":

If China won't dissolve it's government institute to join the one-world nation, that would mean we have an excuse not to stick with China as a people. Once again, this brings us back to the Cantonese-Chinese-Yue issue. As established in this forum, "Cantonese" [the people] are a mixed race of "Chinese" and "other" (I'll cover this "other" in further detail later). Here's where the split begins....
You define "Chinese" as a mixed race of people. If we see it that way, then "yes" there have justification for keeping the Cantonese with the Chinese.
I define "Chinese" by the sense of location, that they originated from the upper central valley near the Yellow River. So if they weren't originally from the south, they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Now, with the "other" category. I still remain unwaivering on the concept that "Yue" is a nomenclature given to the local inhabitants of LingNan, and prefer to call the "Lac Viet" (Luo Yue) residing within Modern-day GuangDong and eastern section of GuangXi as "proto-Cantonese" (and believing that the "Lac Viet" in modern-day Northern VietNam are Champas who absorbed "proto-Cantonese" and "Xi Ou" culture), while you still "go straight with the books", and still refer to them as the "Yue". To add to this "other" interpretation, the person who goes under the alias of "Yue", refers to these same people as the VietNamese.
If "Yue" is right, then these same people should become a part of the VietName territory. If anyone disagrees to this arrangement, then China might as well annex VietNam and the rest of IndoChina while they're at it. This however, goes against anything the UN stands for, and wouldn't look good for China.

The real debate however, is between the justification between keeping the Cantonese regions as a part of China, and forming a seperate Republic, for which I shall re-present my arguements in advocating a seperate Cantonese government...
1. We aren't fully "Chinese" (in the context of my definitions).
2. If you look at the Confucian texts, you'll notice that Confucious was only worried in the governance of people, not land. Hence, advocacy for assimilation rears it's ugly head. Homogeny, and better communication is a plus for assimilation. Ignorance towards the truth of the past, is a minus for assimlation. Another minus would be the denial to these people for their own development of their own culture.
2-i. A killing of a culture, is a killing of part of humanity. Restoring it means bringing a part of humanity back.
3. Ironically, the advocacy for a seperate has a model, described here:
http://www.chinalanguage.com/forum/read ... 359&t=1350

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Post by ppk » Sun Jul 21, 2002 11:45 am

u are not reading carefully. i meant 'not merging beyond marginal economies', not 'not merging at all'. so your following argument dont stand.

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Post by ppk » Sun Jul 21, 2002 2:15 pm

i think i have to make myself clear, thou i dun really support merging blindly, that doesnt make me automatically a supporter for separation. i am not supportive of any separation, esp on ridiculous reasoning. anyway, u cant say accurately which race u actually belong, so ur call for separation dun stand. if u think that u are not totally chinese, neither are u totally viets, and so ur revival of your ancient culture, whose culture? and i guess u are probably genetically more chinese than viets, and its pretty safe for me to conclude that u should put ur affiliation to chinese culture.

refusing separation doesnt mean that china have to go to the other extreme. i think u are restricting ur choices. things can just remain the way it is for another 1000 yrs and i dont see the problem.

even if u are supportive of yue's idea, he counldnt prove his true racial origins too. who are the vietnamese? for vietnamese is, also racially (at least)a mixture of 54 races, and can he be sure of which race he came from? so his claim of guangdong as a 'vietnamese' land, too, dont stand. cos who are the real people among the (at least)54 existing vietnamese races lived in guangdong before the chinese came, so that we can return the land to them? both of u cannot tell either. may i ask yue why not the vietnamese return the south vietnamese land to the chams, which the vietnamese have annexed since the 15th century? vietnam should set a good example for the chinese to follow, isnt it? i can tell u sum won, that ur racial defination wont stand. u can only take my citizenship defination for whatever '-nese' or '-ians' or '-ans' u are talking about.

and bringing up confucianism is pointless. at present nobody is using confucianism as a guide line for international matters anyway, the standard is not acceptable. why? cos if u really wanna talk confucian, then i can tell u, 'the lands bound by the seas belonged to the emperor and the people under the sun are the subjects of the emperor'(率土之滨,莫非王土,普天之下,莫非王臣), do u accept this confucian doctrine from 'shangshu'? according to this, the whole of indochina will go directly under china without questions. and who said confucianism lay no rules on land?

restoring a culture have no direct relation with merger or separation of land, politics does. do u mean the restoration of the roman culture will have to start with the restoration of the territory of the roman empire? or restoring the mongolian cultural will have to restore the territory of mongolian empire first? in history, different people from different culture backgrounds destroy, assimilate, or adopt other cultures. the restoration of one, with the land to come along, will mean the destruction of another. which one have the priority? in singapore, the city state i lived in, restoration of different cultures doesnt mean that the country have to be split among the 3 major races. i am sure u must have heard of the term 'co-existance'.

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Post by KP » Sun Jul 21, 2002 5:38 pm

Just wondering.........do the Cantonese that ACTUALLY LIVE IN GUANGDONG have this feeling or need to separate themselves from China? If no, then all this discussion is useless no?

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Post by ppk » Mon Jul 22, 2002 1:17 am

that is absolutely correct, kp.

if i remember correctly, bill crosby once said on his tv shows, that when he was young he was prety naughty, and always mess up the house. when his mom comes back home, she'll often say 'oh my jesus christ, wad have u done?'. so he always thought that he is 'that guy', and he always felt floating to the ceiling whenever he went to church and ppl start praising the lord. of course he realised the truth later and switched back to normal, feeling a little sad thou. then during the cultural revolution in china, mao called for the 'little heroes' to come to arms and protect the 'red china'. the chinese kids thought mao was talking to them and was so happy to fight for 'the cause', 'to liberate the other 2/3 of the world suffering under the exploitation of the imperialists and capitalists'. whether the remaining 2/3 thirds of the world are actually suffering or not, they dont care. they just want to 'liberate' them. very romantic, very impractical. in order to do this they have to imagine that those people are suffering, or worst, hope that some will be suffering in the near future so they, these little red guards, can fulfil their mission of rescuing them. they create more plight than happiness in the end.

from all these discussion, we can see the true colours of some 'romantic' separatists, see how they try to fulfil their dreams by imagining some people are actually suffering, facing cultural annihilation and unbearable discrimination in their own country, and how they are going to liberate these ppl. they can use wadever reasoning, cultural, language, racial, twisting of words etc, but they wont stand.
Sum Won

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Post by Sum Won » Fri Sep 06, 2002 5:14 am



I found this in the ShiJing (Poem Canon). If you take the entire poem and read it, you'll realize the section you quoted from is only used as an exaggeration, or hyperbole would be the more accurate word. The poem itself doesn't advocate taking land, it's about the toils of the adminstration. The section you quoted from only describes the vastness of the territory, in order to show how much work they have to do, to keep the administration running. In conclusion, Confucian is a set of moral ethics and codes, hence: The governing of man, not the governing of land.
Now, let's get several other things straight on my part of the arguement:
1. I never said you advocated Seperatism
2. I do not stand with "Yue" on the "VietNamese in GuangDong" idea. I used the term "Lac Viet of GuangDong", because I couldn't recall the terms later used for the aborigines of this area. *NOTE: I still think that the "Lac Viet of VietNam" are either Champas that were influenced by the culture north of them, or they were a seperate tribe with affiliations with the tribes of the Xi Ou and others.
3. I'm not advocating world-unification "for the sake of unification". Unification of the world is proposed so that peace can be made between people, and is a major step towards non-violence to achieve political and other goals. First ppk cited "economic reasons" for not joining. So I explained to ppk, how things would work out.
4. If you think my ideals are ridiculous, and the model I use to justify is even more so, then tell it to the Chinese who used it.

Both the proposal of the Cantonese Republic and the World-nation, would mean a reckoning between the former winners of history, and the losers. Because, before we come together, we'd have to settle all of our differences. Native-Americans, versus the Americans themselves, Palestineans and Israelis, Turkish and the Kurds, Ireland and Britain, Russians and Chechens, Singapore and Malaysia, etc... The only reason why none of you advocate either plans, is because you just want to bury the situation and live your "happy little lives" out. One quote that has lived with me, was a line from the movie "Judgment At Nuremberg", "You must forgive, forgiving is essential; but you must never forget." --It's been a long time, so I might have a few words wrong-- it was during the session when two American Army Officers were talking to each other. He was very true with that statement, because if you forget the ugly parts of history, which tell the horrendous sides of humans, then some guy always comes along doing something, and everyone is horrified, thinking that he's the first one to do such a horrendous act. This is the result of people who follow "forgive and forget". They don't look at themselves and reflect upon what they've done wrong, how to solve the problem, and apologize. Hence, if the world nation proposal could not be accepted, because of petty selfishness, for wanting to live a happy life with disregard for others, I re-proposed the more deadly option:
The Cantonese Republic

As debated earlier, all of you emphasize the Chinese aspect of the Cantonese, while I put more emphasis on the aboriginal side. You use assimilation as a defense, but assimilation is only the acceptance of a political structure, cultural belief, or way of living. People can easily reject it as well. You constantly say that the Cantonese are filled with mainly Chinese blood, but depending on the sources you receive, some say that even up until the Qing dynasty, that lineage percentage was about “60:40” for Aborigine to Han lineage. Some say this was maintained up until an earlier period, but this is the result of inaccuracy in census counts made on behalf of the Chinese. After these people were sinicized, the Han took them into the count, and labeled them with their own people, while they were unable to make accurate counts of the non-assimilated people. To add on top of the confusion, population counts were different from period to period, with constant redistricting. So, if you claim that the Cantonese are mainly Chinese by lineage, you might not necessarily be right. Hence, any movement on behalf of the “Cantonese Independence” would mean reckoning with the policies of China, from the past to the present. Not just with the Cantonese, but also China’s “minorities”.

One thing I was wondering was how you got the count of 54 nations? Are you aware that the system the aborigines had before the Chinese incursions and even long after that time was a clan system? The so-called Xi Ou and Luo Yue, were only a series of clan alliances, with elected heads. This is even more evident in the Alliance between the Xi Ou and Luo Yue itself, when they had an alliance and elected a head, forming the Ou-Luo (Au-Lac) alliance.

*By the way, any replies to this and other topics will be answered two months or so from now, because I’ll be gone during that duration.*

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Post by ppk » Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:53 pm


i meant from 'shangshu', the poem may be from 'shijing' but it was quoted in shangshu with a different meaning.
lac viet dun exist anymore. just like u cant revitalise any babylonian. its not that we just want to live the happy little lives we have. so how are u going to decide who stays and who goes? who is fit enuff, or 'lac viet' enuff to be called the true masters of the cantonese nation? we are too far away from that and racial composition far too complicated to do such examination. besides, there is not much to remember in the first place, not much was written on the situation at that time, be it the chinese or the 'aborigins'. yeah, racial composition might not be correct to prove thatthey are chinese, but might not be wrong too. u cant prove it either. 54 races/groups, not nations. thats from the vietnamese handbook on their demographic composition.

A Separate Cantonese Republic???Most Unlikely...

Post by :-) » Tue Sep 10, 2002 6:09 am

Like TaiWan, XiZang, or XinJiang, 90% of the world members of the United Nations will not recognize GuangDong as a separate nation.

Without international recognition, there is no point in persuing independent statehood unless you have nothing better to do.

Anyway, as a MeiJiHuaRen with ancestry to GuangDong, I and most GuangDongRen don't mind being called Chinese/ZhongGuoRen.


Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Post by sfboy » Tue Sep 10, 2002 6:57 am

hey, I second that. as an immigrant from hong kong living in the bay area, my ancestry stems from the guangdong province. I don't think ANY guangdongren mind being called Chinese. Why? Because we are Chinese, why would anyone mind being called what they are? I have a question for Sum Won though, is he from the Guangdong area? I ask this because he seems so persistent in seeking a separate Cantonese republic... does he have support from his Cantonese brothers and sisters(if he is Cantonese)?

Although I recognize that there are differences between people from the Guangdong region and other parts of China AND it might be nice if we were independent, the most ideal situation would be if the sphere of political influence of China moved to the Guangdong region and the capital of China moved the Guangzhou. That would be sweet... the underlying point in my saying this is that we'd rather be Chinese than not. We've been Chinese for as long as anybody can remember and everyone else in China regards us as Chinese, what's the point in seeking independence?
Red Sultan

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Post by Red Sultan » Fri Sep 13, 2002 12:53 am

We still should not deny our ancient past and we still should make attempts, no matter how miniscule the results may be, to uncover at least a few fragments of what our people once were. It is sad enough that cultures have completely disappeared due to assimilation. Valuable traditions - all vanished. Ancient wisdom - all lost. We must do what we can to re-discover these lost cultures. Betrayal to your roots can be one of the worst things that you could ever do. As a descendant of the people of Guangdong, I am interested to know what my ancestors would have been like before we were assimilated into the Empire. Must you all be so complacent on simply calling yourselves "Chinese" when there could be much more to our people and there could be a whole new possibility? The Native Americans have lost much of their culture, but even they continuously strive to revive what they have lost and rediscover the ways and wisdom of their ancestors.

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Post by ppk » Fri Sep 13, 2002 3:11 am

as if u know that these 'cultures' are 'valuable' and 'wise'. no one is trying to deny, but we dun even know the exact 'ancient past' to start with, how can u be sure that it is a 'betrayal to our roots' in the first place? a dna test? do not accuse others without proof and try to put urself on a high pedestral. the cantonese living in canton could be from the ancient aborigins, but again, could be the northerners too. no one can be 100% sure. they can call for a revival in the ancient aborigin culture, so can they call for a revival in the northern culture. native americans look back to their cultures for different reasons, one of them being some dun give up their lifestyle and they dun follow the mainstream american way of life. do u see this in among cantonese? they followed the lifestyle of ppl all across china.

the cultures of the aborigins are only 'valuable' in the academic perspective, not in the practical sense. it is valuable cos it filled up the blanks in history and anthropology texts on how ppl around the red river delta live at that time, how advanced they are compared to other races, and how they migrate to other parts of s.e.a.. u may like to know how ur ancestors are like during the tang dynasty, but would u want to live like them, under a emperor and a feudal system, with no freedom of speech wadsoever?
Red Sultan

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Post by Red Sultan » Fri Sep 13, 2002 6:39 am

I am not implying that we should completely create a government system completely by traditional standards. What I am saying and what you fail to understand is that re-discovering our ancient past is extremely important. Yes, you are right that we cannot be 100% sure. That is why we must make an effort to delve into the secrets of the ancient past to find the truth. No matter what, the past contains everything that we are and what we were. By simply turning your backs away from the past and stubbornly refusing to uncover the truth or even considering the alternate possibility, you are indeed betraying your ancestors by refusing to learn as much as there could be found about them.

Are you so complacent that you are uninterested in finding the truth? The more you refuse to even attempt to find one sentence of truth, the more it disappears. The truth is like a whisper. Once it is spoken, it may suddenly vanish. Thus must you do what you can to grasp it while its faint sounds still resonate in the air.

The ancient past must not be left forgotten forever. Forgetting can be easily one of the worst crimes anyone could ever commit.

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Post by ppk » Fri Sep 13, 2002 7:25 am

i already said, it is valuable in the academic context. but mnd u, this thread is about a separate cantonese republic based on ancient aborigin culture and race(which no one is sure wad it actually was), so it is another story. ur standpoint is actually against sum won's idea. i think we would all agree that we should look back into our past for, say, academic purposes, fill up the blanks in human history etc, but that doesnt mean we have to agree to creating a government out of that. so ur accusation of us(or me alone) being 'complacent' dont stand. and please refrain from using ur moral values as a standard of evaluation on everyone. different ppl have different sets of moral values, ur meat may be someone else's poison. i am not forgetting about the past and actually doing research on it. but even if i do forget about it, that doesnt amount to the worst crime ever.