A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Discussions on the Cantonese language.
Sum Won

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby Sum Won » Sat Oct 26, 2002 6:57 pm

Mark:
1. This comes back to the whole sheer numbers, of how many of you tell me to open up my own mind, when most of you fail to see your own hypocracy.

*2. "父債子還" (The same would apply, through countless generations).

3. http://www.housebarra.com/EP/ep04/11difference.html
^ Check out that site, and it's other links --how credible they are depends on how much you trust them...

*This does not mean I put the blame on modern-day Chinese people for killing a culture. For there are some people who can actually learn to appreciate other cultures.



sfboy:
If you look carefully enough at the whole "scratching your head when embarrassed" thing, you'll see that it's present in all. The spitting is usually done by people who're inconsiderate of other people in public, or somehow think it's "sick" to swallow their own phlegm.



KP:
Thanks for the book title. I'll go check it out now...

KP

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby KP » Tue Oct 29, 2002 4:46 pm

sfboy:

Ok man. So we both agree that it can be extremely difficult. But don't you think you may being a bit pessimistic? Always looking for arguments so you do not have to look? Instead, should you be looking for arguments that will help you look?


Sum Won:

The few pages I have read have all be very interesting. The author was able to make connections between old Vietnamese folklore and legends that actually coincide with "Chinese" kingdoms. Like the the mythical "Hung Kings" were related to some Chinese kindoms, cant remember that one off the top of my head. I think he said the Au Lac were these same as a kingdom of Ou. Its also written by a westerner, Vietnam War Vet, which adds a twist.

Sum Won

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby Sum Won » Tue Oct 29, 2002 5:38 pm

KP:
Actually, I stumbled upon a copy of the book at Aiso library, in Monterey, California. I'll try and read it some time, if I have the chance, and thanks for recommending the title

ANTHONY

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby ANTHONY » Fri Nov 15, 2002 4:17 pm

I HAVE READ ALOT OF YUE MESSAGE. IT DON'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
VIETNAMESE ARE CANTONESE. ASK ANY VIETNAMESE PEOPLE ARE YOU CANTONESE? 100% WILL SAY NO. YOU ARE CRAZY I AM VIETNAMESE!

Quentin

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby Quentin » Sat Nov 16, 2002 11:34 am

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Anthony
I HAVE READ ALOT OF YUE MESSAGE. IT DON'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
VIETNAMESE ARE CANTONESE. ASK ANY VIETNAMESE PEOPLE ARE YOU CANTONESE? 100% WILL SAY NO. YOU ARE CRAZY I AM VIETNAMESE!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually up until 1900s the official language of the Kingdom of AnNam was still a Vietnamese Dialect of Chinese. All official documents were written in Han (chinese) scripts but pronounce in Vietnamese Dialect. Vietnamese dialect of Chinese were very similar to Cantonese and Hai Nan dialect.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From KP
The few pages I have read have all be very interesting. The author was able to make connections between old Vietnamese folklore and legends that actually coincide with "Chinese" kingdoms. Like the the mythical "Hung Kings" were related to some Chinese kindoms, cant remember that one off the top of my head. I think he said the Au Lac were these same as a kingdom of Ou. Its also written by a westerner, Vietnam War Vet, which adds a twist.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The mythical Hung Kings were probably related to the ancient Kingdom of Chu. "Hung" is actually Xiong (

ppk

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby ppk » Sun Nov 17, 2002 7:14 am

xiong was the surname of the chu royals.

sum, nobody says u are 'wrong' for being obsessed with that idea, its just that we are not interested in a new cantonese nation. some probably would like to know more about their ancestors but that's about it.

KP

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby KP » Sun Nov 17, 2002 8:00 pm

I looked it up from the book, and the author relates the Hung Kings to the Kingdom of Chou, as in Zhou? not sure about that. He claims the Hung Kings seem to have begun and end around the same period of the Chou Kingdom. Also, there were 18 generations of Chou Kings, similar to Hung.

ppk

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby ppk » Tue Nov 19, 2002 9:31 am

the surname of the zhou royals was 'ji', and they are somewhere near xi'an area. the chu(pronouced as chor in teochew and cantonese) kindom was nearer to the viets, at he'nan province.

HKB

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby HKB » Tue Dec 03, 2002 6:38 am

To Sum Won,

The last thing I ever want to see again is the further separation of the Chinese people. We're all drifting apart from one another. The Mandarin speakers calling the Cantonese not authentic Chinese, the Cantonese calling the Mandarin 'Hun and Manchu mixes', Hong Kong people calling mainland folk Ah Tsaan. Foreigners don't know what we are. After 5,000 years or more we are still a pot of loose sand, yat poon saan sa. Have you, Sum Won, forgotten what Sun Jong-San, a cantonese, did for China? Have you forgotten about the great Soong Sisters? The ancient general Yuen Song Wun of Canton province? And many others? They were all and still are the grandest and most honorable figures of our nation and they are Cantonese. Great were the things they have done, for China! They were all "tong tong jing jing geh Jong-Gwok ho hon!" ...maybe not the Sisters :)
Anyways, they've put their sweat and blood into helping China, changing China. Cantonese blood and Cantonese sweat. The cantonese did more for China than even the Mandarin did. Our blood are forever mingled with China and It will never wipe away our legacy. How can you say that we should separate from China? (I hear Sun Jong San cussing in his grave.)

Perhaps once some of us were of a different race but that, after thousands of years, doesn't matter anymore. Let us for once leave the petty differences of our ancient past behind and worry about the future of China. We're all "Long de Chuan Ren" and are Children of Huangdi. When will we ever see the greatness and beauty of what China once was again if we keep denying each other?

p.s. I know I sound a bit romantic and melodramatic but such is my feelings toward China. But...I would like CHina to get rid of it's communist regime...it's not...working...exceptionally well. No comment on the current Taiwan/People's Rep. of China situation.

Sum Won

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby Sum Won » Thu Dec 05, 2002 2:46 am

First of all, as I've said many times over, the Cantonese Republic isn't about seperation "just because" Cantonese have different ancestry, it's to send a message that assimilation can be dealt with, and the oppression of other cultures will not be tolerated.

So, let me ask you this: "why can't the world come together, in one world nation?"
Humans are all the same species, as they have been, before cultures formed, but we're not all coming together.

The complex you describe with Mandarins and the rest of the Chinese, isn't very true. In fact, those who do that, fall out of mainstream Chinese ideals. The "Hong Kong vs. Mainland" example is true, but maybe, "The Cantonese in the Mainland, and Hong Kong people can come together as Cantonese", but of course you and I know this is not going to happen, because my ideas fall outside of mainstream Chinese thoughts. Most often, such words are said, to vent anger --illegal immigrants, or the fact that China's economy is doing better than Hong Kong's-- or can't accept something outside the norm (par se, the rural accents the Mainlanders tend to carry).
In fact, even the leader of China designates "types of Chinese" as well, for example, when asked about Lee, Wen-Ho's alleged theft nuclear secrets from Los Alamos, and Roger Mudd labeled him "Chinese", Jiang ZeMin said, "...Not 'Chinese'; 'Overseas Chinese'!" (In other words, "Overseas Chinese aren't Chinese").

PPK

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby PPK » Thu Dec 05, 2002 5:14 am

imo when cultures assimilate it doesnt meant the destruction of any of them. when couples get married it doesnt mean that any one of them is destroyed. it fact they come together and formed a new unit, a family. they preserved their identity but at the same time they share the background and specials features of the other party. it seems to u that assimilation only brings about erosion of cultures but i would say that it brings more improvements than destruction. it gives them a chance to compare and decide which part of their own (and others') culture to preserve or give up.

sfboy

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby sfboy » Thu Dec 05, 2002 7:01 pm

Sum Won:

who told you that the complex HKB described with Mandarins and the rest of the Chinese isn't very true? Just because it falls out of mainstream Chinese ideals doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In fact, it is very deeply rooted between Northerners and Southerners, partly because of misunderstanding or maybe some people are just obnoxious and they spread their tainted ideas to people who don't know better. Those Chinese that tell you that this complex doesn't exist are either:
(1) naive and misinformed
(2) trying to sound politically correct
(3) trying to establish a false sense of unity between north/south

It's akin to yanks who criticize the people from the deep south and vice versa

PPK

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby PPK » Fri Dec 06, 2002 4:23 am

overseas chinese carry a foreign passport and so they are not considered chinese citizens(or 'a citizen of mainland china'). jiang is just referring to his citizenship, ie the moral behind is not to taint china's image with every wrong thing ethnic chinese did. what do u think when roger mudd means when he specifically referred lee as a 'chinese'? his nationality or his ethnicity? its obvious that he referred lee as a 'chinese'(citizen of mainland china) to mislead others into believing china is behind all these scandals. therefore in this context roger mudd made a mistake.

Sum Won

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby Sum Won » Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:57 am

ppk:
Nice sugar-coating of assimilation. However, when a country attacks another and imposes it's culture upon others, it's not marriage; it's rape.

Sum Won

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby Sum Won » Sat Dec 14, 2002 11:24 pm

in reply to ppk's message here --> (http://www.chineselanguage.org/forum/re ... 1951&t=400):

Obviously, you still don't understand how naming things and giving things nomenclatures work. You are correct, that history is looking at something that "had" happened. The purpose of creating this thread in
was to justify rectification.


Return to “Cantonese language forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests