Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Discussions on the Cantonese language.
Hung Dao Dai Vuong

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby Hung Dao Dai Vuong » Tue Mar 18, 2003 6:57 am

I don't know how dangerous the Cantonese are but i know for sure they couldn't able to defeat the Mongolians and the Manchurians invaders like the Vietnamese did in 1257, 1284, 1288 and 1789!

hungdaodaivuong

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby hungdaodaivuong » Tue Mar 18, 2003 7:58 am

"What I wonder is how were those aborigines in the Guangzhou/Guangxi area treated compared to those in the North Vietnam region. All were subdued at the same time, but for some reason or another, only those in Northern Vietnam gained independence 1000 years later."

Probably the Vietnamese have a bigger ego than those natives that's why they refuse to become assimilated by the chinese or probably the chinese didn't treat those natives as slaves and oppresses them like they did with the Vietnamese that's why those natives don't bother to put up the long fights against the Chinese like the Vietnamese did.

1000 years is a pretty long time, that's like 30 to 40 generations and the Vietnamese still didn't want to give up and keep fighting to gain independence; that's "persistence"!

Sum

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby Sum » Wed Mar 19, 2003 4:37 am

KP:
About the NanMan (I suppose you mean the ancient term for "southern Barbarian", right? corect me if I'm wrong...) this goes back to that whole nomenclature thing... The Qiang, Mongols, Xiong Nu: I'd have no comment, because I don't know what they call themselves.

Now, YOU'RE the one making a play on words. First of all, I'm not the one saying that the "Cantonese are not dangerous to the Chinese". I only concord with you on the meaning of the term "Yue (Cautious)". Then, I only took the meaning of "[cautious] Yue" to mean, that they had to be "cautious of us", because of...
[http://www.chinalanguage.com/forum/read.php?f=1&i=2317&t=400]
^
| <-Just read the rest of what I'd basically be repeating...

Now, if you read on, and thoroughly through the many sections, you'll have read about the "Yue" as mercenaries. However, since you are trying to finish other books, I won't blame you, by the way, are they books related in some way to this topic, or are they just books at random?

Thieu Khau:
I'm not sure how hard the Mongols had to fight the Cantonese, but if the Cantonese didn't put up much of a fight, then I'm not sure the VietNamese really did much either, rather than letting the malaria kill off Mongolian troops (Kinda' like "Russia" and their "let the idiots freeze their @$$e$ off, for trying to fight us in winter).

KP

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby KP » Wed Mar 19, 2003 5:21 am

When you mention NanMan to Chinese........especially those interested in the 3 kingdoms period....the NanMan are a group of Barbarians that were subdued (sorta) by Zhuge Liang.

I'm not making a play on any words. Using "dangerous" and "cautious" as an adjective means two totally different things......that you can not deny.

I don't understand why you keep pointing me back to this very thread. If you don't want to repeat it, then paste it. Sometimes you like to call people sino-centric to dismiss their arguements....now I do the same to you. ;)

The use of Yue tribes as mercenaries mean absolutely nothing. It only means that it is cheaper to pay those mercinaries to do your fighitng than to use your own army.....thats all.


"I'm not sure how hard the Mongols had to fight the Cantonese, but if the Cantonese didn't put up much of a fight, then I'm not sure the VietNamese really did much either, rather than letting the malaria kill off Mongolian troops (Kinda' like "Russia" and their "let the idiots freeze their @$$e$ off, for trying to fight us in winter)."

Actually, in this instance is when your arguement of Cantonese softening up the "enemy" for the Vietnamese holds strongest. However, you can claim that the Cantonese are more dangerous than the Vietnamese all you want........but you can not deny history. Once the Vietnamese learned to fight on the level of the Chinese, the whole of China and any Cantonese for that matter have not been able to control Vietnam. Southern China and Northern Vietnam share extremely similar terrain...yet we were more successful...and I'm sure by the time the Mongols pacified Southern China and headed for Vietnam, there forces were even larger than when they conquered Southern China. Oh, lets not forget that both the Mongols and the Manchu had 100 years to re-invade Vietnam after their defeats.

quangtrunghoangde

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby quangtrunghoangde » Wed Mar 19, 2003 8:38 pm

When the Mongols invaded Vietnam in 1257 their forces were up to 500,000 and in 1288 their forces were 300,000. Both of those campaigns the Vietnamese only had 200,000 men to fight with them. So to say that the Vietnamese were able to defeat the Mongols due to the resistance of the Cantonese is such stupid nonsense. Just look at the resistance of the Sung and the Jin, their armies outnumbered the Mongols so much but at the end they couldn't do anything to stop the Mongols at all; only the Vietnamese were successfully able to smashed the Mongols!

quangtrunghoangde

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby quangtrunghoangde » Wed Mar 19, 2003 8:43 pm

one more thing, if the chinese didn't take away 1000 years of the Vietnamese civilization, the state of Vietnam wouild have been much much more powerful when they faced the Mongols or any other enemy!

Hung Dao Dai Vuong

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby Hung Dao Dai Vuong » Thu Mar 20, 2003 12:51 am

<<....I'm not sure how hard the Mongols had to fight the Cantonese, but if the Cantonese didn't put up much of a fight, then I'm not sure the VietNamese really did much either, rather than letting the malaria kill off Mongolian troops (Kinda' like "Russia" and their "let the idiots freeze their @$$e$ off, for trying to fight us in winter)......>>

This is the biggest joke that I have ever heard of in my entire life, the Vietnamese were able to defeat the Mongols due to the Cantonese's help ?? If the cantonese didn't take part in ravaging Vietnam and destroying its civilization for 1000 years, that would have been a great help to the Vietnamese when they faced the Mongols!

Quangtrunghoangde,

In 1257 the Mongols forces were 30,000, in 1284 it was 500,000 and in 1288 it was 300,000 :)

Sum Won

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby Sum Won » Thu Mar 27, 2003 7:22 pm

KP:
The funny thing with Chinese is that, it always depends on which author you're going with. Sinologists have a tough time figuring out who is who, and what is what. The Nan Man you refer to, isn't the same as the Nan Man used generally.

Solely, the two words mean two different things, but depending one what context you put them in is the main thing.

To say that mercenaries don't mean anything is completely wrong. Mercenaries are also hired for their better skill, and better knowledge of the terrain around them. Native-American Scouts were always used by the American military for their expansions across East to West.

Now, putting aside, any idea that the Cantonese "softened them up" (This WAS a JOKE)....

The reason why the Cantonese didn't resist, wasn't because they weren't able to, it's because they were disallusioned by the so-called "riches" China had to offer --Sorry to say. Heck, if the VietNamese began to fight "on the level of the Chinese", that sounds like you guys downgraded yourselves.

As to why I direct you back to the old posts, instead of copy and pasting... I just like loopholes more than copies.

quangtrung:
If the Chinese didn't invade anyone else, I'm sure the world would be a less complicated place, with a lot more variety. This, I'll agree with you. However, in the Ming Dynasty, you were once again subdued under Chinese rule, and didn't really obtain independance from the Manchurians and French, until the French pulled out at Dien Bien Phu.
====================================================
====================================================
Now, the question remains, "Why did the Cantonese stay under Chinese rule" --which is basically what we've been debating throughout this thread, and the other one
http://www.chinalanguage.com/forum/read ... 350&t=1350

Running out of time, I'll continue this post later on...

Michael Thigpen

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby Michael Thigpen » Sun Apr 06, 2003 7:10 am

You really really need to define the term "Chinese". Do you man people of the "Han" ethnicity? If you want to look at language as the primary consideration, then maybe the "Chinese" aren't "Chinese" since Cantonese and the Southern dialects are significantly closer to Middle Chinese than Mandarin and the various other Northern dialects.

Clearly the Cantonese were not the ones who united China and forged the empire, but it seems evident that their cultural heritage has had a lasting effect on what it means to be Chinese through the epic history of China.

[%sig%]

quangtrunghoangde

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby quangtrunghoangde » Tue Apr 08, 2003 7:27 pm

" However, in the Ming Dynasty, you were once again subdued under Chinese rule, and didn't really obtain independance from the Manchurians and French, until the French pulled out at Dien Bien Phu."

It took the Ming 800,000 soldiers to fight with the Ho's army of 60,000 to conquer the state of Vietnam in the 15th century! Plus these 60,000 Vietnamese soldiers didn't put up much of a fight against the Chinese because they didn't support the Ho dynasty anyway! About the Manchurians invasion in the 18th century, our national hero Quang Trung Hoang De crushed a 290,000 Chinese army sent by emperor Can Long in just two days; from mid night of the 3rd day of New Year to 4 p.m of the 5th day of New Year the 100,000 Vietnamese army just totally annihilated the Chinese invaded forces. About the French invasion, it also took them almost 40 years to conquer us and yet we fought the French with swords and lances, not with musket!

KP

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby KP » Wed Apr 09, 2003 7:35 pm

" However, in the Ming Dynasty, you were once again subdued under Chinese rule, and didn't really obtain independance from the Manchurians and French, until the French pulled out at Dien Bien Phu."

This is news to me since the Ming invaded in 1406 and were kicked out by Le Loi in 1427.

And independence from the Manchurians? LOL.....we never had to wear queues.

Would you like to mention the Chinese Invasion of 1979? Thats a funny one too.

Sum Won

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby Sum Won » Sat Apr 19, 2003 5:35 pm

KP:
Le Loi still had to maintain a tributary status with China, so I wouldn't say it was all that independent.

QuangTrung:
Kudos to the person whose name you use. As I recall however, he wanted to re-establish the tributary ties again as well. Unfortunately, he died, and the rest of the Tay Son fell along with him.

And yes, I have heard of the 1979 invasion. I'll agree with you, that's pretty hilarious!

I'll continue on this one some other time...

Sum Won

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby Sum Won » Sat Apr 19, 2003 6:14 pm

QuangTrung:
A touch-up on the ACTUAL Quang Trung... After he'd died, Nguyen Anh basically wiped out what was left of the former Tay Son, with French help. The only thing stopping the French, were administrative paperwork, and differences in the French government, as to what to do with VietNam.

Back to the 1979 invasion however, I found something that really made me laugh when I saw it:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/spratly.htm

Take a look on the map they have on the claims for the Spratly Islands! Now THAT's funny!

KP

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby KP » Sat Apr 19, 2003 6:42 pm

'http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/spratly.htm

Take a look on the map they have on the claims for the Spratly Islands! Now THAT's funny!'

Yea it is pretty funny that China would claim such islands. Of course we should not be surprised as the Chinese are known for claiming land wich is not theirs. LOL
I believe China invaded the Spratly Islands in 1975, not 1979.

1979 is when the PLA or maybe I should say the "Cantonese PLA" were pushed back by a bunch of police and militia in Northern Vietnam, while the REAL Vietnamese Army was taking over Cambodia.

Hung Dao Dai Vuong

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Postby Hung Dao Dai Vuong » Tue Apr 22, 2003 6:25 pm

China invaded the Paracel Islands (Hoang Sa) in Jan 19th, 1974 actually. There is a conspiracy theory that the Vietnamese communist leader Pham Van Dong already sold that islands to the Chinese in the secret treaty in 1958! Paracel islands are in full control of china right now!

In 1989 the Chinese once again invaded an island named Johnson Reef from the Vietnamese and they killed like 72 Vietnamese soldiers. Johnson Reef is one of the islands of Spartly islands (Truong Sa)!


Return to “Cantonese language forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests