A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Discussions on the Cantonese language.

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Post by ppk »

1. u should rephrase, its not me alone. most, if not, all cantonese wont do it. u believe in liberty? thats the choice of the cantonese people, including me. u wanna force ur idea on us?

2. what are u talking? when u apply for citizenship, its up to the host country to decide whether to accept or not, its the same everywhere. they are british subjects in the first place. if britain dun accept them, exiled them, throw their own subjects away, its not the problem of the chinese govt. since when did china became the international refugee camp? does your country 'always' accept outcasts from other countries?

3. up to them to choose, be a brit without a place in britain, go back to their home town, or try for a prc citizenship. if they proved that they do have to stay in hongkong, they will get a resident permit as a foreigner. even a green card in america requires u to stay there for a few yrs.

4. dun change my words, i said they are not chinese citizens nor ethnic chinese, citizenship is only part of it. in fact they dont accept and practice chinese culture as well(yeah, u are talking about 'culture', arent u?). again, just speaking english alone wont make u an englishman. do i have to repeat myself for u everytime?

5. yes, a new one which all cantonese will fit in together with one or more of the previous 4. one-sided? i am a cantonese, is it up to u to decide who i am or up to me to decide? can i decide ur race or ur citizenship for u? u are simply ridiculous. and i 'believe' all cantonese will agree with me, not u.
Sum Won

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Post by Sum Won »

1. You are correct. Am I forcing you? It's your will to read this thread and ever response in it. I surely didn't force you now. However, you nor most others, don't even allow for an opportunity for existence, because you're afraid of the outcome.

Did I say that "Hong Kong was supposed to be a refugee camp"? No!

First, you say that these people have to acquire citizeznship,

My resonse in December 25, 2002:
"Well then, you should show every 'minority' in Hong Kong and Macau how to obtain citizenship, since that's the only thing they're missing in your requirements."
Your immediate response:
"well, its up to them to do so, not me to tell them..."

Before you last response, you gave me the impression, that this was solely their fault for not having citizenship. Now that you've clarified things however, and have noted that it's the government, that decides (which means things are out of their control in obtaining the citizenship) I ask whether or not you consider these people as Cantonese if they'd claim to be, as long as they "attempted" citizenship?

4. Apparently you haven't been to the right parts of Macau or Hong Kong. Why don't you go check it out, so you can stop repeating yourself?

5. It's your decision to give up your free will to someone else. To make a note I'm not the one deciding for you. I'm merely judging your definition of "Being Cantonese", as you have judged me on the same subject (by outrightly saying that I'm not Cantonese).

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Post by ppk »

1. thats a very subjective judgement u are imposing on all cantonese, and some may take it as an insult. everybody has their own reasons. chinese saying, dont swing the pole and sweep everyone into the water, which is, avoid making sweeping statements.

2., 3. thats right. they have to acquire citizenship, if they are not ethnic chinese. how to obtain citizenship can always be learned at the chinese immigration office, its up to the individuals to find out. they cannot claim cantonese without a chinese background.

4. i have been to hong kong and macau multiple times. please be specific which part u are talking about.

5. then i am not giving it up. simple. to me, trying to get away from the chinese background automatically render u a non-cantonese.

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Post by winner »

Yeah, after reading these posts and not saying anything for so long, I just couldn't bear it anymore.

If this Sum Won character is Cantonese, he must have been raised in a foreign country, or he's crazy, otherwise he is definitely NOT cantonese and probably a Vietnamese guy, since he has tendencies to support/defend the Vietnamese. Could be one of those ethnic Cantonese raised in Vietnam too.
Fact is: I don't think he has ever addressed whether he is Cantonese or not. The way I see it, if you are not Cantonese, or at least not Chinese, you have no right to say anything about the definition of a Cantonese or the direction that the Cantonese people as a whole should take. We like to call this self-determination.

ppk said:
5. then i am not giving it up. simple. to me, trying to get away from the chinese background automatically render u a non-cantonese.

Anybody that is Cantonese can understand this simple statement.

I'm not sure about the other "lurkers" reading these messages. Some Cantonese might just be ignoring them, some might be just outright laughing at Sum Won's preposterous statements, and some like me are about to give up. I just feel bad for ppk for having to explain and show these Cantonese ideas over and over again.

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Post by ppk »


there is a difference in defiition here.

in my understanding, to sum, a cantonese shared the same ancestry as a vietnamese, so he can call himself a cantonese all he want. he couldnt come up with a new name for the 'cantonese people' he's describing, or maybe, i guess, purposely not coming up with one so that he can mix them up.

to me, 'cantonese' only came after chinese acquired and named canton as 'canton'. in that case all cantonese are automatically chinese. in the days where borders and a sense of nationality doesnt really counts, the chinese were defined by both racial content and culture. in modern era where the boundaries of nations are more distinctive, they need a citizenship as well.
Sum Won

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Post by Sum Won »

-I don't know if this is some type of epidemic, but the only reason ppk ever needs to repeat himself, is bcause like you "winner", he doesn't read anything carefully. If any of you want to know my "racial background", all you need to do, is read CAREFULLY.
-Whether or not I am or Cantonese is beside the point in what I define as Cantonese. This is a matter of an individual's right to interpretation. I like to call this the right to free speech.

I understand the fifth statement, however, it doesn't mean I can't see the flaws to the reasons supporting it.

If you are sick and tired of this, then you may refer back to what I said in the last post.

1. What I said was very subjective, but I only base it upon the statistics from the replies to my threads.

3. Background? These people have just as much background as anyone else in Macau and Hong Kong. Heck, they were born there, and raised there as well. That's not enough background?

4. Then obviously, you haven't stayed either place too long to find out.

5. This depends on your definition of "Cantonese". For further inquiries on this, I suggest you read every post thoroughly.

Does your definition of Cantonese have to be so narrow to define a people with such a complex history? I don't know what to call the people in the Cantonese regions who have aboriginal lineage? Well, if you still don't acknowledge the fact that the people we now call Cantonese don't have any aboriginal lineage, then apparently, you've been going against earlier facts stated...
Your arguement for race and homogeneity, are still gray. The hegemony of culture, was a result of forced opression, hence, if I must put it in laymens' terms, "wasn't right". You've tried to differentiate yourself from the past, as you are a person of the present. However, as I have said many times over, we learn history for a reason. We don't just learn it, say "that was very interesting", and not think anything of it.
Sum Won


Post by Sum Won »

I find it very amusing that throughout every discussion, it's been China's sovereignty over some territory, yet when it comes to China being the subject of another country, EVERYONE goes into a misfit. Ilove such hypocrisy, because it provides me with tons of fun and entertainment...

"If we'd only give the Mongols just a few more years, we all would be living under Mongol rule. Just think of it: If everyone were all 'one big Mongolian family', we'd all be getting along with each other. Hence, it would justify Orientals as Mongoloids even more!"

How about something more recent, because ppk doesn't like things that're that old:

"If we'd only give the Japanese a few more years, we would've achieved equal rights, just like the African-Americans in the US! The US should've let the Japanese keep every bit of territory they had, so then everyone in those regions would also receive the economic aide, because they'd be apart of the Japanese empire! In fact, if it'd been that way, we'd all be watching anime now! I wouldn't mind my children replacing '我是中國人' with '私は日本人です' In fact, after a thousand years of assimilation into the Japanese way of life, we'd all be Japanese! Yay!!!"

However, the fact that neither of these happened, and that the Chinese are even happy that this didn't happen, makes it the more curious as to why they love assimilation when it happens to other cultures, but when it happens to their own, they fear it as if it were the devil of all things.

Your definition of Cantonese still puzzles me, because here's a question I've been pondering:

1. We have a Caucasian family, who's been in any part of Hong Kong for several generations. Hence, they've been able to speak Cantonese just as well as the native speakers, and as a result of being there for so many generations, they pick up Chinese Buddhism. They celebrate Chinese New Years, and other Chinese festivals (Because for you, ppk, these Cantonese are Chinese). They now identify themselves as Cantonese, instead of Caucasian.

2. We have a Cantonese family, who's been in the United Kingdom/America/Canada/Australia (some "predominantly non-Oriental" country let's just say) for several generations. They've taken up Christianity, and don't even care for Chinese Buddhism, or the traditional "ancestor worship", to add on top of this, their children don't speak Cantonese anymore, nor do they know anything of Chinese culture.

Who's more Cantonese?

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Post by ppk »

1. nah, u cant say things like 'all cantonese are afraid of looking back' based on the answers to this thread. u are challenging their integrity.

2. u must ask them which side they choose to pick in the beginning. if my parents are americans and i am born in malaysia, but i decide to take up, say, american citizenship like my parents, then it would be normal for malaysian govt to think twice about accepting me when american govt cast me out of their country. dun forget, macau was ceded to portuguese(unlike hong kong which was 'leased' for 99yrs) so it was portuguese land, they are portuguese by birth. it was only recently that portuguese decided to give it back to china.

4. straight to the point please. i am not here for a guessing game.

5. my definitions are pretty clear. they apply to all present cantonese. all definition have its limit, eg, a time frame or restricted a certain region. my definition can probably apply for the past 2000yrs(but perhaps not further) but i prefer applying it to present. what u brought up was some very special cases and special cases dont apply to the general chinese/cantonese population.

yeah, forced oppression wasnt right, but thats in our time. in the past, it was the norm. look around the world, its the same everywhere, war, slavery, destruction of culture, europe, middle east, asia. so wad are u gonna do? take a time machine so u can go back and tell them wad to do and wad not to do? sounds to me like u are trying to play god. even if it wasnt right from our point of view, we have to accept it cos that was what made us we are today. by changing history u might not even exist today. we learn history to understand the past, not to change the past. we learn history to know how things happened, not how things 'should' happen. it may help us to shape the future, but definitely not a rigid law to tell others wad to do. everyone has their own interpretation of history, and u cant really tell who's right or wrong. for the indians, asking for independence from britain is being patroitic or nationalistic, but to the brits, its treason and betrayal.



it is normal for chinese to defend china, especially in the gray zones, isnt it? wad do u expect? probably u considered americans admiring and siding other countries or japanese admiring and siding other countries, instead of their own, is a logical action?

too bad, as i have said, ancient chinese identify themselves with the chinese culture, not mongolian. applies to all ancient people too. unless they accept the culture, they are different people. thats why the mongols were driven out after 90+ yrs. the chinese dont identify with them. for the manchus, the noble accepted chinese culture and the chinese in return, accepted them. manchurian emperors usually speaks 3 languages, manchurian, from their fathers, mongolian, from their mothers, and mandarin, from the people they rule. some even speaks tibetian. the mongols forced the chinese to learn mongolian if they were to bcome court officials. unlike mongols who wanted to transform china into a huge grazing ground, the manchus respected the agriculture traditions the chinese have. unlike mongols who tried to destroy the chinese culture, the manchus promotes education based on chinese philosophy. unlike mongols who treated the chinese as the lowest caste in th society, manchurian treated the chinese more fairly, almost equals. chinese can take up the highest post in court, and they speak mandarin in court. imperial laws were announced in both manchurian and mandarin.

for the japanese, its the same. u seem to ignore the fact that the japs are more cruel than any foreign invaders in chinese history. in annexed territories they taught japanese instead of chinese, loyalty to the japanese tenno instead of chinese govt. what were the promises the japs gave? to 'liberate' the people of asia from the hands of western imperialism and respect their own sovernigty and nationality. but in fact? turned out to be a pack of lies. my family need not hide their belongings when westerners ruled our land, my mother and aunties neednt go into hiding when westerners ruled our land. when the japs came, what they looted in a year is more than what the westerners exploited in 10 years. do u think the chinese, or the whole world, would agree to that? their downfall is inevitable. of course the chinese are happy that this(japanese assimilation) didnt happen.

come back to the cantonese problem, u will ask, then why the chinese rejected assimilation but forced the ancient people in canton into it? simple, first, by the end of 19th century, nationalism and concept of a 'country' or a 'nation', are already well established, but in ancient time it wasnt. secondly, in terms of patterns of cultural assimilation, a higher/more advanced culture will usually not agree into assimilation with a relatively lower/backward culture, but it will happen the other way round. japan, mongol, manchus imported much from china, not the other way round. culturally the chinese will not accept them but they will willingly accept the chinese. thirdly, the people with less population will be assimilated into the one with a bigger population. not happy with it? too bad thats how things evolved. its a natural trend and thats what i learned about assimilation in history.

about ur question, i considered it a very special case but still i will answer it in a 'special case' fashion.

1. a family, originally caucasians, living in hk, canton, china for generations, speaks cantonese and accepted chinese cultures, are of course cantonese in the end. under a perfect situation, racially, they would have married chinese(unless they commited incest mong family members) and they will have at least 50% chinese blood in them after a few generations. plus they took up chinese culture and citizenship. in fact, they fit most of my requirements.

2. they are cantonese, cos in the very beginning u already brand them as cantonese. fits at least one of my requirements. unless u are talking about a chinese family living in a non-oriental country, then it would be hard to define whether they are cantonese or other dialects.

conclusion, both cantonese.
Sum Won

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Post by Sum Won »

1. If you like to call it "challenging their integrity", go ahead. If people weren't so nervous about the subject, there wouldn't be so much responses.

2. It wasn't recently, that the protuguese staying behind, even after the "handover", accepted Chinese culture.

4. Is my race really that important to the subject? Or are you just "so very curious"? Either way, don't guess at it: Read.

5. Your definition of "Cantonese as Chinese" doesn't go back to 2000 years, because even the little amount of Chinese that were there (as criminals) accepted aboriginal culture, because China's society treated them like trash. (So, I assume by your definition, these people aren't Chinese).

I'm not the one who wants to go back in time to change history. Because if I did, I'd do as you suggested: use a time machine. If you don't understand what I'm saying, I can't help.
The Indian Independence is a good example, in fact. During the time for India's fight for independence, it was considered treason. However it isn't now, unless you run into some hard-line conservatives, looking back towards Britain's colonial empire.
Laws are made by people. Each set their own rules differently, and so you can't say that history whouldn't be used in legislation, as it apparently works in countries that use them.


You make it sound as if I advocate this. What I was doing was identifying your hypocracy. "Different races, same idea". If you can't understand that, and say that it's too hard to think about what that means, then I can't help you.

In any case, you shouldn't forget again the hyporcrisy I brought up in my "Christmas day" response:

"...when things are going alright under the Qing dynasty, it's '滿漢一家' ('Manchu-Han are a family'), and when the revolution sprouts around, it's '打倒滿清走狗' ('Down with the Manchu-Qing RUNNING DOGS'). If you were really one family, you would've said 'Down with imperialism', but since the revolutionaries put race into the context, rather than government system, the Manchus and Hans weren't a family."

I'd also like you to repeat what you say about "higher and lower/advanced and backwards cultures" to these very same people.

2. To you, if they reject anything Chinese, they're not Cantonese though...

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Post by ppk »

at the time of revolution, the manchus represented the old political system. an 'manqing zougou' isnt manchus, but people who helped the manchus against the revolutionists. they can be han chinese, mongol, manchu or anyone helping the manchus. please check up the meaning of 'zougou' or 'running dogs'. the manchus and conservative chinese finally have to accept the more advanced culture brought about by the revolutionists, dont they?

1. they can be angry, ridiculed, wadever, not necessarily nervous.

2. for one thing, it is u alone who really mind about their ancestry. yes they may have accepted chinese culture to a certain degree, but before the portuguese decided to give back macau to china, did they ever considered themselves as chinese and/or cantonese? if u really cared about them, then please give a detail account of their situation. how much they see themselves as cantonese, what state they are in now, how much they accepted the chinese culture, how keen they are to get a cantonese recognition?

4. yes it is important. wadever it is, u are trying to get some kind of recognition from others. either from the chinese or some other group u are trying to define, to your own needs, without sparing a thought for the group of people u are trying to 'define'.

5. not all chinese that were there are criminals, and not all accepted aboriginal cultures. u are making another sweeping statement.


like u, i have my own grounds and my own point of view. call wadever names u want. there will not be a conclusion for this.