Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Discussions on the Cantonese language.
javis

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby javis » Sat Dec 14, 2002 2:17 pm

you don't know chinese history at all
maybe japanese was from china

ppk

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby ppk » Sat Dec 14, 2002 4:47 pm

sorry sum, no more proto cantonese, and no one responsible for thir culture now. u missed the point totally, i said a loooooong time ago, the term cantonese only appeared long after china aquired canton, not before, so cantonese are already naturally chinese by birth. the chinese might have killed some of the 'proto cantonese', but 'cantonese' is a true blue chinese product, and they dun get themselves killed by chinese, they are a branch of the chinese race. 'proto cantonese' might still exist for a while after that but they either dissappeared or got assimilated into other minority groups, and these new types no longer represent the original proto cantonese. no matter its out of greed or survival, they merge with someone else, so be it. when we look at history, its about how things 'had' happened, not how things 'should' happen. a lot of us might feel that liubei instead of caocao should win in 3 kingdoms, maybe yuefei shoulnt have died, maybe the mongols shouldnt rule china, but that is history, we learn aout it, but we are not here to correct it as the way we like.

Sum Won

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby Sum Won » Sat Dec 14, 2002 11:26 pm

Javis:

I get many remarks like yours, yet unlike ppk, and some of the other sinocentrics in this forum, at least they debate about the topic, so why don't you do the same? Beforehand however, you should read the whole entire thread, unlike some of them...

ppk

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby ppk » Sun Dec 15, 2002 1:59 am

and again, sum, u are looking at the 'proto cantonese' the way u wished they were. u are just speculating that the leaders are greedy and corrupted. greedy about what? the chinese can provide them with wealth and status? what for? if i can conqure a land with troops would i still be bothered to use money to bribe them? would the germans bribe the jews when the they can round the jews up with german troops? on the other hand, if its like what u say, i doubt that the general proto cantonese population couldnt realised the chinese can actually make them richer. how could u be sure there wasnt a poll among the proto cantonese that they finally came to the conclusion that they decided to join the chinese, and those who choose oherwise decided to leave for present vietnam?

looking at numbers, the 3 newly established province at present canton(guangdong) and guangxi area had a population of almost a million in early han dynasty, which was only 4 or 5 decades after the chinese aquired canton. say 50% were ethnic chinese, then that makes half a million proto cantonese. so are u telling me that those who stayed with the chinese were 'officials'? half a million greedy proto cantonese petty officials?

besides, cantonese were not called cantonese in the beginning. until tang dynasty they were called 'ling'nan'(south of the hills) people, ie. people south of fujian separated by the 5 hills between fujian and canton. cantonese is quite a recent term, and proto cantonese robably end up with 'ling'nan' people, who were already chinese at that time.

Sum Won

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby Sum Won » Sun Dec 15, 2002 10:20 pm

If you're a smart person, you'd know that winning over someone with favors, is easier than using brute force to keep them under your control. The Chinese government knew this, and so its policies towards these people, were to incur as little trouble as they could, by pacifying them with whatever material goods they could afford, while still making a profit. Try looking at the Romans and compare them with the Chinese, you'll see similarities in policy of assimilation. The NAZIs --i assume these are the Germans you are referring to, unless you're trying to direct me to the Goths, who would've had some ancient contact with the Jews-- burned the Jews in WWII, because they found a scapegoat for their problems, and hence was the reason for not bribing them. One of the common stereotypes of Jews, are that they're very stingy when it comes to money, so it would be completely unimaginable for a NAZI to bribe a Jew. The Chinese relation to the proto-Cantonese, wasn't because they found a scapegoat to their problem, and that it had to be rid of. It was, more of a "Hey, we're pompous, egotistical, people who think that our culture is better than anyone elses, so let's spread our culture to those inferior barbarians and 'teach' them the correct way. Ooh! Don't forget, they also have fertile land, and very exotic plants and women too!"
[noting the incompatibility of your comparison, I shall move onto your next question...]
The reason why there is no vote by the general population to stay or leave, is because there is no evidence that this happened, compared to the compelling evidence of the fighting that took on.

As I've said many times before, Chinese census counts in the south are rarely trustworthy. You should sift through earlier arguements to see why...

The reason I chose "proto-Cantonese", is because, LingNam also encompasses modern-day Northern VietNam, and their relations to China differ at certain points of history.

ppk

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby ppk » Mon Dec 16, 2002 3:16 am

whether the numbers are trustworthy or not, they are there. what is there to back u up then? speculations? by using ur speculation methods, i can firmly assumed that a polling did actually took place, wad do u say?

yes i referred to the nazis and yes, u are stereotyping the jews.

now u say the chinese are richer, but they bribe the locals, becos they are envious of the rich land and produce the local 'barbarians' (as u say) have, isnt that contradicting?

Sum Won

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby Sum Won » Mon Dec 16, 2002 11:04 pm

So, if someone were to tell you Enron's company was still doing very well, even though it's company filed for chapter 11, would you believe them?

Thankyou for clarifying your reference to "Germans to WWII", and not the Goths. Unfortunately, as you usually do, read something wrong again. I gave you an example of a stereotype that was present among the Germans (and other people) at the time. Go back and read it...

Why don't you read the thread again, and find out just what exactly I said, then apply a little brain power, and there is nothing contradicting to what I said earlier, instead of making false accusations.

ppk

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby ppk » Tue Dec 17, 2002 12:00 am

if someone is gonna tell me that enron is still doing well, then show me the numbers, simple as that. where are ur numbers? in fact, by using enron as an example it shows that u got no idea how accounts in such huge multinational firms are handled.

what exactly u said, is that u 'speculate' the ancient viets resisted joining the chinese, without giving any numbers, what portion, how many of them thnk this way, and only some of their leaders do agree cos they got bribed. and again, with anything to prove ur remark, u simply make a moral judgement on them, that greed makes them did so. may i remind u this is no longer a time where u can simply burn others on the stake by branding them heretics?

what u are trying to prove, is that present cantonese are the descendents of the ancient viets(and therefore they are suppose to built a nation of their own), which is a wrong conclusion. reasons i have given earlier on either in this thread or the other.

maybe i should refresh your memory a bit, that 'cantonese' doesnt constitute to a race, but simply a general, collective, regionalistic description of chinese living in canton(maybe only for now, maybe for a few generations, maybe thruout their family history), speaking cantonese and shared almost identical cultural background with chinese anywhere else.

i maybe a cantonese now, but my ancestors moved from, say, beijing, to canton like 10 generations ago for various reasons. does that makes me a descendent of the ancient viets? the answer is a definite no. again, show me the numbers: u have no idea how large a portion of the present cantonese population are actually immigrants from other parts of china(in fact nobody knew), yet u try to make a sweeping statement(which may even sound insulting to some) that cantonese are vietnamese(which is another layer apart, cos present vietnamese arent exactly the same as the ancient viets, thou they are closely related). hey, maybe u should apologise to some of the canonese people here. i guess u wont be happy if i brand all vietnamese as chinese either.

ppk

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby ppk » Tue Dec 17, 2002 12:45 am

in other words, sum, u have no idea how things can evolve in 2000yrs. to u, it may be a blink of the eye and u see present cantonese equals vietnamese(ehh... nomemclatures?!). but in actual fact, thing does change a lot within 2000yrs. and there is no way one can describe it in a few simple sentences.

KP

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby KP » Tue Dec 17, 2002 12:56 am

Someone told me when the Trung sisters rebelled against China in 40 AD, a few "Chinese" provinces also joined the rebellion. So, apparently, there is limited information available about ancient viets rebelling against expansionist China.

Anyways, with the conquests of China by the nothern barbarians over the past 1000 years, it is safe to say that Vietnamese are now very different than the "Chinese" from Guangdong/Xi and Southeast China. Obviously from the opinions of most Cantonese here, there is on need or want by the "Cantonese" to separate themselves from China.

Sum Won

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby Sum Won » Tue Dec 17, 2002 5:13 am

ppk:
Have things really evolved in the last 2000 years? Just because some mutant gene popped up to make homo sapiens, doesn't mean that the rate of evolution sped up much faster at an exponential rate. Unfortunately, most humans are still the same as they were thousands of years ago. If you want an example, just look at history...

In response to
http://www.chinalanguage.com/forum/read ... 961&t=1350

It wouldn't be bad if the Chinese decided to take into consideration a seperate Champa republic, in opposition with the VietNamese government, because that should mean that they'd allow the Cantonese to have their independance....

ppk

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby ppk » Wed Dec 18, 2002 1:42 am

again, sum, give me the numbers, how large a portion is 'most humans'? and its not only genetic composition we are talking here. if we look no more beyond that, then all humans are at least 98% genetically identical, so why not we have a single nation on earth instead of so many different countries? u see the contradiction? on one hand u say evolution is slow, so homo sapiens remain more or less the same as before, on the other hand, u say we should divide countries based on the little 'differences' of this slow evolving homo sapiens, isnt it ridiculous? if u would agree that vietnamese and chinese had evolved into something distinctively different, then why wouldnt u agree that ancient viets will evolve too? especially when there is a sudden influx of foreign chinese blood. to what extent can u be sure tht present vietnamese is exatly the same with ancient viets living in canton area?

for the case of china, and also most asian countries under the chinese influence, to be 'chinese' or 'vietnamese' or 'thai' or 'singaporean' doesnt rely on genetic differences at all. it is more on cultural recogniton, and in present day, what passport u decide to hold. this is especially true for china. a person can be ethnic mongol or ethnic tibetian, but if he decide to take up chinese culture and a chinese passport, he's a chinese, no matter what race he is. same thing, the people in canton decide to take up a chinese identity, no matter what racial/ethnical background they came from, so they are chinese.

if u dont agree to the above statement, thats bcos again, u missed the point totally. why? cos again, looooong time ago, i already stated that 'chinese' in the political sense isnt a genetic distinction, its not a race, but a collective description of people living in china carrying a chinese passport. like americans, singaporeans, vietnamese, its just about 'nationality', not race. tell me, who can be considered an american in america? the aborigins? white europeans? american chinese? or was it american africans? in fact, they are all americans if they carry an american passport and accepted the american culture and way of life. if u dont understand that, then we are not talking about the same thing and i see no point in further discussion.

if u would like to divide country according to racial/ethnical differences, please show us a standard, on how u would judge who is what race and who isnt what race, in order to validate ur point. u cant simply point ur finger at anyone and say 'he's not a chinese'. i remember during the time of nazi occupation everyone have to provide documentations for at least 3 generations of ancestors to prove that they have no jewish blood, so that they an escape prosecution. so does the 'cantonese' have to do that too? u wanted a 'cantonese' republic, therefore u must hve a definition on cantonese. but dont forget, i am cantonese(in fact quite a lot of people here are) and u are not, ur definitions have to accomodate our distinctive features.

regarding the champa republic, dont u realise it was a sarcastic remark? as if u and i talking here would change the thinking of the vetnamese and chinese govt, as if it is up to us to decide which govt should do what, u must be kidding. even if the govt would agree, do u think that the common vietnamese, chinese and cantonese will agree to that? hey, its not up to some people sitting in front of the computer all day to decide who's what race.

Sum Won

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby Sum Won » Sun Dec 22, 2002 1:17 am

KP:
I do find it strange that there is no Dong Son culture in GuangDong, even though the political structure among the aborigins in VietNam and GuangDong were the same. In "The Birth of Vietnam", and my source on the Zhuang culture (http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/resources/z ... tents.html), what they both tell about clan leaders (Lac Lords), and the political structure does correspond. Another interesting to note, while looking at the weapons used by the Yue, there was a section in the paper, entitled, "THE XI OU AND THE INFLUENCE OF CHU" which said that there were no Chu tomb sites were found in GuangDong, even though Chu was the "Southernmost Chinese nation" during the Warring States period.

KP

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby KP » Mon Dec 23, 2002 12:26 am

SUM WON:

Thanks for the link......seems to be a very informative site.

So how far north did dong son culture exist in China? Wasn't GuangDong controlled by the Bach Viet during the Warring States period? Maybe the Qin destroyed all Chu tombs when they went south?

Sum Won

"VietNamese: The Unknown Nomenclature" & &quo

Postby Sum Won » Tue Dec 24, 2002 12:27 am

Since most of you don’t understand my distinctions between the proto-Cantonese and the VietNamese, and what I mean by “VietNamese being a nomenclature”, and insist upon being spoon-fed, very well...

First, if you look at Keith Weller Taylor’s theories on how the “Yue” of the south got their names: He claims that the tribes known as the “Yue” (right under the central plains, but not as far south as what would become “LingNam”), pushed their way southwards, when the Chinese took their land. In turn, they conquered these people, set up their forms of government, and these people also became known as the “Yue”. (He also provides footnotes to Western examples of such incidences happening, where a small minority of people, attack a majority, winning, and then setting themselves up as the elites of the society…) Hence, his view follows tightly with the view held by Chinese historians, only with a minor twist. Then if you read on, he basically says the “Lac” of “Lac Viet” took on the term “Viet” for themselves, because Lac was something only used by their own people, and wasn’t at all familiar to the Chinese. So, to be recognized in Chinese politics, they took on the nomenclature “Viet”.

Although this isn’t a bad idea, this is my theory on how the nomenclature of "Yue" came about for the proto-Cantonese and the "Yue" north of them...

First of all, if you look at the definition of 越...
"越:Traverse, exceed"
Obviously, the Chinese were very clear on something that was "outside" their boundaries. Now remember, Chinese interaction with these cultures were quite limited (aside from a few trades of goods and whatnots). So what they understood was quite vague, except for the fact that these people had tattoos, and different hairstyles. When the Chinese conquest of the south began, they began to notice more differences between these people, however there were still those "underlying similarities" between these people, that they perceived all to have originated from the same 越 (Yue) culture. Here's the tricky part:
A (what the Chinese believe): The Yue were either sinicized completely, or displaced by the Chinese away from their homeland. Seeing this, the "Yue" began to bundle further south (Hence, that whole "Hundred Yue"["Bach Viet"] idea pops up).

B (What most likely happened)- As the Chinese successfully sinicised the people who were in these regions, they slowly became assimilated, and you begin to see the assimilation in a "trickle down" affect. Granted, there may have been some people who escaped this fate and did as the Chinese claimed, most likely, they weren't displaced, allowing huge waves of "Yue" crowding up space. (Most likely, this "fleeing model", must have been thought to be something universal by the Chinese, since they always seem to do it often, to avoid conflict).

So in other words, without knowing who these people were, they just called them something, and the name stuck.·*

This "fleeing model" is constantly used throughout China's conquest in the south, in belief that these people all shared the same culture, and fled to each other in face of Chinese expansion. If this fleeing model were true, "Where exactly did the 'Yue' in VietNam flee to when the Chinese took their land?" Obviously, these people must have stayed behind, or else they wouldn't have been able to put up vigorous fights against the Chinese government.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well then, how did the VietNamese come about with taking the term 'Viet' (Yue) to identify themselves?"

Now, going back to Keith Weller Taylor, remember that the VietNamese called themselves the "Lac". To which, when heard by the Chinese people, must have remarked "What's a 'Lac'?" So, we can either follow Keith Weller Taylor's model of taking up the nomenclature for political reasons, to be recognized, or we could go back to my "Indian nomenclature model"·*, where the Chinese were dead-sent upon naming these people such, that the name actually grew upon them.


·* Similar to Christopher Colombus landing in America (thinking he'd arrived at India) and calling the Natives, "Indians" --to which this nomenclature still sticks with these people, even among themselves. This term has stuck so strongly with them, that sometimes, they make it "half politically correct", calling themselves, "American Indians", instead of "Native Americans". <--"Indian-nomenclature model"


Return to “Cantonese language forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests