A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Discussions on the Cantonese language.
ppk

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby ppk » Tue Dec 24, 2002 9:34 am

1. good point, this makes cantonese distinctively different from the aborigins, they are different, get it? go ask any cantonese whether he counts his ancestry based on his paternal line or maternal line.

3. cos they didnt acquire a chinese citizenship in the first place, understand? they are still, a foreigner. if they arent even chinese, by race or nationality, how are they supposed to be accepted as a cantonese? remember, a cantonese identity only works under a 'chinese background'.

4. meeting any one of the 4 requirements, my friend, any one of the 4. dun have a linage book? he speak cantonese, his father is a cantonese, his grandfather is a cantonese(and automatically his great grandfather is a cantonese), and acknowledged himself as a chinese cantonese, good enuff. anyway, u cant prove anything else too, with or without the linage books. are u telling me without the linage books it makes them automatically 'aborigins'?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--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?

if your ideas of mongolia was based on this website u posted, then u are misinformed. the mongols were nomads divided into multiple factions with no fixed locations until genghis khan united them. the mongols are overlords of the manchus ever since the state of jin(of the jurchens, ancestors of the manchus. manchus were of jurchen origins and called themselves 'later jin') was defeated by the mongols during southern song dynasty. the jin nobles were subdued and they sometimes intermarried the mongolian royals. after ming govt chased the mongols out of china, they are divided into multiple factions, and so are the jin nobles, separated into 3 main groups with numerous 'flags'(factions, some consisted of hundreds while some dozens. nurhaci, the first leader of qing dynasty started with only 30 warriors). as stated by that website, the mongols had around 3 centuries of civil war, between 2 major groups: the oirad and khalkha mongols.

most manchurian royals have mongolian blood in them since 1612ad. every emperor of the qing dynasty(except nurhaci) married the daughters of the strongest(and probably most supportive) mongolian factions and made her queen. concubines can be from other races, but queen is definitely mongolian. on the other hand, ard 50 manch princesses were married to mongolian royals. that website of yours did say the manchus 'officially take over' the halh princedom in 1691, but why? how? well this is the reason. the khalkha mongols, based in present rep. of mongolia, was defeated and somehow recognised the manchurian emperor as their 'cousins', sworn an oath and pledged alliance with the manchus, assisting them in the conquest of other factions. after the qing emperors conquered mongolia the factions are divided into the core factions and external factions(probably why inner and outer mongolia). the core were of majority and were those who supported the manchus. the externals were those who fought against the manchus. some of the oirad mongols moved westwards into kirghiz and kazakh territories during 1620 and became excellent horsemen for the russians. qing govt dd not exercise direct control over mongolia. they still have their own khans.

while qing were busy fighting the oirad mongol, altan khan(1507-83) of the tumed clan gradually grew in power, defeating other oirad clans and extend their influence into tibet and xinjiang. around 1680, the ambitions of altan khan was succeeded by galdan khan(1632-97) of the dzungar region. he tried to unify mongol and take it away from the qing govt. he gradually lead his men into khalkha regions. in 1682 he expanded into kazakh. in 1688, the khalkha mongols complained to qing govt and a war followed. galdan was defeated by a manchu-chinese force and followers fled to xinjiang, which lead to xinjiang being conquered later on when the manchus pursued the 'rebels'. mongolia came under manchurian control. russia and china are now neighbours and had several conflicts in between until 1727. russia and manchu china concluded the treaty of khiakta that year, delimiting the border between china and mongolia that exists in large part today.

after 1911 revolution in china, the mongols felt that they pledged alliance with the manchus, not the han chinese, and therefore wanted an independent state(under russian support) in 1912 or 1913, together with tibet(under british support). from 1922-28 mongolia was actually controlled by russia troops stationed there without consent from the chinese govt. hence there is nothing wrong in saying that the chinese and russians decided the size of their country.

Sum Won

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby Sum Won » Tue Dec 24, 2002 11:24 pm

The Chinese and Russians were major influences in the politics and history of Mongolia. However, the "Treaty of Kyakhta", was established, as an agreement between the Russians and the Manchurians, as to where their borders were. At that time, as you described yourself, the Manchurians were the ones in control.

Sum Won

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby Sum Won » Wed Dec 25, 2002 12:20 am

1. Remember the dual-origins modern Cantonese have. You've constantly been ignoring the aborigin's side. Just because the modern Cantonese accept Chinese culture, doesn't mean there is no way they won't accept aborigin culture.

3. 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.

5. Meeting any 1/4? Well, the minorities in Macau and Hong Kong who meet at least two requirements of yours, aren't even accepted by you, because they don't have citizenship.


One thing about you sinocentrics that never ceases to amuse me, is that you'll always take a statement, like "lineage books aren't trustworthy, and not all Cantonese have them", and add your own little speculations to become something outrageous as "without lineage, these people aren't Cantonese".

ppk

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby ppk » Wed Dec 25, 2002 4:10 am

so it was manchurian in control, so the west had never encountered the chinese, they were just meeting up with manchurians, right? there was no sino-russian war nor sino-japanese war, there was a manchurian-russian war, a manchurian-japanese war, is that what u are saying? so the boxers' revolution was between manchurian and the west, so why the west attacked chinese instead of the manchus? so why was hong kong and macau returned to the chinese instead of manchurian? there is this chinese saying, 'eyes open but talked blindly', i think it fits u quite well.

have u heard of the term 'manchurian and chinese are a family'? this was a policy proposed and implemented by the manchurian emperors of qing dynasty for more than 200yrs. they see themselves as chinese. u still dont get it do u? all regional differences within china are internal affairs, between chinese, not between foreigners and chinese.

1. would u think a group of people will accept a 'culture' that they dont even know about at all, more than 2000yrs back, and are relatively backwards compare to what they have now? and its not just 'modern' cantonese who accepted chinese culture. cantonese practiced chinese culture(but not limited to chinese culture) since the first day they appear on chinese land.

3. well, its up to them to do so, not me to tell them. if they wanna be cantonese, they got to be 'chinese' first. if they cant do it racially(since they are caucasians or other 'minorities' as suggested by u), do it officially, take up a chinese citizenship. look at it from a asian point of view, its not that u speak english, u accept western culture, u automatically becomes an englishman or an american. u need a passport or a green card, isnt that obvious?. i am surprised u keep on arguing on this point.

4. reasons stated above, so resistance is futile. first of all, they are not chinese in anyway, not politically as emphasized by me(no documents) nor ethically as emphsized by u(not ethnical chinese). so no way they can be cantonese since cantonese is a sub group under chinese. please read my post properly, i already said my requirements apply to chinese only. u are not born as an english and u dont carry a uk passport, do u claim urself an englishman just because u speak english? please answer.

its a fact that u cant prove anything either with or without a linage book. and its just a question for u anyway, not a claim or a speculation.

nevermind, for ur sake, i'll add another requirement. this is a fundamental requirement that applies to all cantonese and i believe no cantonese will disagree with it. all cantonese will meet this requirement:

5. cantonese have to be chinese, either, if not both, in race and/or citizenship.

happy now?

Sum Won

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby Sum Won » Wed Dec 25, 2002 9:51 pm

Yeah, 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.

1. This is exactly what "Red Sultan" and I were addressing, in earlier posts. You haven't even given the aborigin culture a chance. No one wants to research it, because they're happy with their own little lives, afraid of their roots, rather than confronting it.
Of course the proto-Cantonese gradually accepted the culture! It was practically enforced upon them at gunpoint.

3. Up to them? Before 1997, tons of Indians and Pakistanis in Hong Kong, were about to be left citizen-less in either China or Hong Kong. The British had to implement plans to give them citizenship. It's not up to them, it's up to the politicians and the representatives in Hong Kong's local parliament to decide the standards for citizenship. Even if these people wanted to apply for Hong Kong citizenship, it'd be hard. Who knows how hard it'd be for these people to even apply for PRC citizenship!

4. If citizenship (a requirement of yours), is all they're missing then why don't you help these poor souls trying to be as Cantonese as they can, get their citizenship? What, you can't stand the idea that a Portuguese in Macau legitimately claiming that he's Cantonese? Or a Briton, Indian, or Pakistani in Hong Kong doing the same?

A new requirement just for my sake? I'm flatterred!

5. You have to be Chinese, in order to be Cantonese? That again is one-sided, because you are again ignoring the fact that modern-day Cantonese have aborigin lineage as well. So race-wise, these people couldn't be 100% Chinese. Hence, they wouldn't fit your category of being Cantonese. Citizenship-wise, you haven't even allowed for a Cantonese Republic to form, and set up its government institutions. So to have to stick with Chinese citizenship only, would be completely unfair, for those who actually do want a Republic set up.

ppk

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby ppk » Thu Dec 26, 2002 4:55 pm

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???

Postby Sum Won » Fri Dec 27, 2002 11:54 pm

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.

3.
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).

ppk

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby ppk » Sat Dec 28, 2002 6:06 am

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.

winner

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby winner » Sat Dec 28, 2002 8:06 pm

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.

ppk

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby ppk » Sun Dec 29, 2002 4:38 am

winner,

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???

Postby Sum Won » Sun Dec 29, 2002 7:05 am

winner:
-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.


ppk:
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

"Cantonese"

Postby Sum Won » Sun Dec 29, 2002 7:44 am

sinocentrics:
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?

ppk

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby ppk » Sun Dec 29, 2002 11:46 am

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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

part2.

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???

Postby Sum Won » Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:43 am

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...

ppk

Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???

Postby ppk » Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:16 pm

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.


Return to “Cantonese language forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 9 guests