395 replies to this topic

[nguoiVietchanhtong]

I am not talking about ethnic minorities who reside in southern China today. I am only talking about southern Chinese who consider themselves Hans.

Bottomline is, it's next to impossible to find out every southern Han-Chinese's genetic percentage of Han vs Yue (if such definitions can even be set in the first place as both are genetically diverse groups) and then tally them together and come up with an average. What we know is there have definitely been interbreeding between Han settlers from the north and those who are native to southern China, again, we won't get into the percentage as it's nearly impossible to say.

Point is though:

1.) Modern southern Han-Chinese consider themselves Han because they have northern Han blood as well as that of that natives of southern China.

2.) Modern southern Han-Chinese obviously practice Han culture and use Han language.

So how exactly would one justfiy the claim that modern southern Han-Chinese are Hanized natives, as implying that modern southern Han-Chinese aren't really Han-Chinese. Of course, we're not even getting into the claim that MSHC are Yues and that they should "reunite" with Vietnam...

No such thing as a complete Han Chinese. What do you mean about Han-Culture? In the South, they have Dragon Boat festival as from the NOrth? I don't think so. The some of the Han culture is blending in with the Southern cultures, including Vietnamese.
Please check back with the Han language thing my friend. The written language in the past was different in some ways from nowadays. I believe that the Han language was close to the Yue. The disappearance of the written Yue language was probably due to political control. You sound like the Yue was an empty land and everything was displaced by the Hans from the North.

If the Bai Yue unite together, it's a normal thing and probably won't happen at my age but until the enlightenment age when everyone is realizing the true of Han Chinese.

[urofpersia]

So how exactly would one justfiy the claim that modern southern Han-Chinese are Hanized natives, as implying that modern southern Han-Chinese aren't really Han-Chinese. Of course, we're not even getting into the claim that MSHC are Yues and that they should "reunite" with Vietnam...

First of all as I have stated before on this forum, many people includng myself consider Han as an ethnicity define mainly by culture, rather than 'race'.

So the Yue culture of southern China was displaced by Han culture, with migration of a portion of Northern Chinese to Yue territories, the 2 peoples intermixed as has been shown throughout history in most parts of world especially as DNA study becomes more sophisticated/mature. (Historians of the past tend to favour the 'displaced' theory, that is, invading people displaced earlier peoples rather than integrated)

Since DNA-wise I have yet to see anyone produce conclusive data of what is Yue or Han 'race', isn't any discussion about having more 'Han blood' or 'Yue blood' rather a moot one? Consider as well, even during the Han dynasty, was the population genetically homogeneous? I don't think so either. Certainly areas that came to be part of Imperial China was at one time considered barbarians as well.

So given that 'race' is sketchy at best and ethnicity is defined more by culture, if the Southern Chinese sees themselves as Han, then by definition they are certainly Han. Most of the world agree with them as well. Does it actually matter that some may have more 'Yue blood' than others? (As I am sure there are)

So base on this, I don't necessarily disagree that Southern China was sinified (or Hanified if you prefer) and furthermore such cultural expansion/displacement is not uncommon in other histories of other peoples.

I wanted to add culture is not static nor exclusive. I wonder how much of the 'Han culture' someone from the Han dynasty would recognise from the Han-Chinese of today.

[nguoiVietchanhtong]

I don't know how appropriate the term "nationalist" is here but if you read the whole thread carefully, you'll notice that I'm not the one who came up with it.

I don't know how fluent you are with Chinese/Vietnamese history but before China expanded southwards, all the native tribes who resided in southern China were called the "Bai Yue", which literally means "hundred Yues". The name "Yue" was used to refer to ALL ethnic groups which resided in southern China much like how the term "Asian" is used to refer to all people who live in the continent of Asia, be them Chinese, Indian or Vietnamese.

Fact is, the Bai Yue tribes were as different from each other, both linguistically and culturally, as the various ethnic groups in northeastern Asia. There was never a "united Yue nation". The so-called "Pan-Yue nationalists" think that there is a united Yue identity and that for one reason or another, all "Yues" must unite, in turn breaking up China and its peoples.

I guess you do not understand historical background and setting, especially geography and the people. The did not mean all the people in the South. It meant groups of people who resided in the South on the flat land areas for cultivation (i.e. fishing, growing rice, and domesticating animals). People who lived on the Moutainous areas were not the Yue, for instance, the Hmong and Miao and Tai, etc.... The word Nan Man were implied to non-Han people who were in the South, although its meaning was Southern Savages. The Wu and Shu already had their own kingdoms and civilizations in the South, which could not be referred as Southern Savages, during the three Kingdom period.

I don't mean to persuade all the Yue to unite to overthrow China but to let them the real historical setting of the past, instead of listening to only on the Chinese side. The Bai Yue at that time had several different cultures and languages due the variations among the groups and the influences of neighboring countries. I don't fantasize about nationalism, yet about learning and knowledge. China can be broken up only from its people decision, not my decision. Don't accuse me of promoting Pan Yue nationalist because I am not.

Edited by nguoiVietchanhtong, 22 December 2005 - 03:16 AM.

[qrasy]

Are Nguyen Trong Cam, Metronomad, Thehelp, Nguye^~n, TrueViet, Zhangtaiyou, me and others the "Pan-Yue nationalists"?

Well, why don't you POINTEDLY ask the very person who expressed such view the question rather than muddle the water with this bait?

I did not point to you.
Regards,
qrasy

Obviously they failed. But Jiaozi didn't break off from China during or before Tang though. When it did, Tang was already finished.

How about the Thousand-Springs country?

Bottomline is, it's next to impossible to find out every southern Han-Chinese's genetic percentage of Han vs Yue (if such definitions can even be set in the first place as both are genetically diverse groups) and then tally them together and come up with an average. What we know is there have definitely been interbreeding between Han settlers from the north and those who are native to southern China, again, we won't get into the percentage as it's nearly impossible to say.
Point is though:
1.) Modern southern Han-Chinese consider themselves Han because they have northern Han blood as well as that of that natives of southern China.

Obviously you meant "original Han". But I think it may be risky to take North Chinese = 100% original Han. I don't think we have "original Han" anywhere.

No such thing as a complete Han Chinese. What do you mean about Han-Culture? In the South, they have Dragon Boat festival as from the NOrth? I don't think so. The some of the Han culture is blending in with the Southern cultures, including Vietnamese.

I'm still wondering what is the remaining of Vietnamese culture apart from its language and Chinese influences?

Please check back with the Han language thing my friend. The written language in the past was different in some ways from nowadays. I believe that the Han language was close to the Yue.

I don't even care about the ancient language, but for me classical Chinese does not usually have weird word ordering, just weird vocabulary. But I do notice weird word order of Tibetan.

If the Bai Yue unite together, it's a normal thing and probably won't happen at my age but until the enlightenment age when everyone is realizing the true of Han Chinese.

I think more than half of Chinese would turn into extremists if you say that they are not Chinese.

I guess you do not understand historical background and setting, especially geography and the people. The did not mean all the people in the South. It meant groups of people who resided in the South on the flat land areas for cultivation (i.e. fishing, growing rice, and domesticating animals).

I just think that those people who were similar to (may be truth or just the opinion of the person who coined the term "Bai Yue") those of ancient (Zhou age) Yue countryside people are widely called "Yue".

People who lived on the Moutainous areas were not the Yue, for instance, the Hmong and Miao and Tai, etc....

Pan-Yue-ists usually consider them as Yues.

The word Nan Man were implied to non-Han people who were in the South, although its meaning was Southern Savages.

I suppose those were just names, later turn into bad meaning. Compare to "vandalism", where Vandals was just name of a tribe in South Europe~North Africa.
In Chinese for example sometimes Hu2-Yue4 胡越, Qiang1-Yi2 羌夷 can be translated best into "dangers". (I will come with example later)

The Wu and Shu already had their own kingdoms and civilizations in the South, which could not be referred as Southern Savages, during the three Kingdom period.

Wu and Shu you pointed to are Chinese-led countries. This Shu even inherited the from the Han dynasty.
Wu and Shu in the Spring/Autumn era may be different though.

[thankstoall]

Hi all

Thanks for your positive and constructive responses.

… I agree the term "nationalist" may not be the most suitable here but keep in mind I am not the one who came up with it. You'd realize that if you just read the whole thread... labels exist to help people understand what we're referring to. With that purpose,the label "Pan-Yue nationalist" works just fine.

名不正言不順。言不順道不成。

You see from post #31 on, without relying on the terms so-called “Pan-Yue nationalist”, we can communicate.

The Pan-Yue nationalists on CHF at that time were Like2learn and nguoiVietchanhtong..

Only two persons and random opinions, I think that it is not necessary to coin a new technical term because it is easy to mislead people. Why do not you just use “your opinion”?

Theory, doctrine, notion and school of thought, not any of these vocabularies is suitable to mean the “pro-Yue” idea. It is simple just “opinion” of the “pro-Yue” supporters.

Please check back with the Han language thing my friend. The written language in the past was different in some ways from nowadays. I believe that the Han language was close to the Yue. The disappearance of the written Yue language was probably due to political control. You sound like the Yue was an empty land and everything was displaced by the Hans from the North.

I am sure with you that I will dedicate the rest of my life for researching the Viet roots of Han language in the condition that there were 70% of Southern Chinese had voted to join Vietnam. The merger should be in the guaranty that there would be no social unrest caused by the new population and internal conflict, and our people can enjoy a happy and wealthy life because the endless wars with China are avoidable.

I have Southern Chinese roots. I have Southern Chinese culture influence. However, I found no home or domestic feeling when I worked in Southern China and felt alien with people there. When they called me “Chinese”, I felt uncomfortable and corrected them. Similarly, I think this is also the feeling of the Southern Chinese when they are invited to engage the pro-Yue idea.

I believe that we are descendants of Shen Nong and Bai Yue, but I do not transmit into any realistic action unless it is necessary to response to their offenses on my belief and the academic and cultural sovereignty of Vietnamese. I also do not care whatever they believe. They can believe that all nationals were Chinese descendants. We can also believe that all Chinese are the Yue descendants. Who care? But, both should not try to modify the belief of each other.

Their country is too big, their population is too diverse, their history is too difficult to define, and their society is too complicated, so their future is always in the question of fragmentation and reunification. Even now, while enjoying economic prosperity, they are still being in uncertainty of the war with Taiwan. Would you want to share their troubles? We should not step into their complexity.

I'm still wondering what is the remaining of Vietnamese culture apart from its language and Chinese influences?

If you had lived and participated in Vietnamese society, you would find many differences. Welcome.

How about the Thousand-Springs country?

“Ten-Thousand” would be exact.

Pan-Yue-ists usually consider them as Yues.

I think this is also fine.

Regards,

Thankstoall

Edited by thankstoall, 22 December 2005 - 06:59 AM.

[lobster]

How about the Thousand-Springs country?

What is it? Can you write its name in Chinese?

[Kulong]

No such thing as a complete Han Chinese. What do you mean about Han-Culture? In the South, they have Dragon Boat festival as from the NOrth? I don't think so. The some of the Han culture is blending in with the Southern cultures, including Vietnamese.

That's like saying American culture in Texas has similarities with Mexican culture therefore it's not American culture...

Obviously a culture that spans as large of a territory as China (or the U.S.) will have local varieties, especially if it lasted over thousands of years.

Please check back with the Han language thing my friend. The written language in the past was different in some ways from nowadays. I believe that the Han language was close to the Yue. The disappearance of the written Yue language was probably due to political control. You sound like the Yue was an empty land and everything was displaced by the Hans from the North.

Show me proof that there is a "written Yue language" and I'll believe you. Also, are you claiming that there was a "united written Yue language" used by ALL Bai Yue tribes and ethnic groups? Please be specific.

I never said the Bai Yue region was an empty land, please do not put words into my mouth.

If the Bai Yue unite together, it's a normal thing and probably won't happen at my age but until the enlightenment age when everyone is realizing the true of Han Chinese.

It's a "normal" thing? The Bai Yue ethnic groups uniting is absurd of an idea as the union of say all of Native-American tribes although they are all different and there have never been such an union before.

First of all as I have stated before on this forum, many people includng myself consider Han as an ethnicity define mainly by culture, rather than 'race'.

So the Yue culture of southern China was displaced by Han culture, with migration of a portion of Northern Chinese to Yue territories, the 2 peoples intermixed as has been shown throughout history in most parts of world especially as DNA study becomes more sophisticated/mature. (Historians of the past tend to favour the 'displaced' theory, that is, invading people displaced earlier peoples rather than integrated)

No one said Han is a generally homogenous ethnic group like say Korean or Japanese. But these Pan-Yue nationalists are claiming that modern southern Han-Chinese are YUES who have been Hanized while denying the fact that when Hans expanded southwards, the natives were not only Hanized in culture and language, but also due to intermarriage, their blood have been mixed.

I guess you do not understand historical background and setting, especially geography and the people. The did not mean all the people in the South. It meant groups of people who resided in the South on the flat land areas for cultivation (i.e. fishing, growing rice, and domesticating animals). People who lived on the Moutainous areas were not the Yue, for instance, the Hmong and Miao and Tai, etc.... The word Nan Man were implied to non-Han people who were in the South, although its meaning was Southern Savages. The Wu and Shu already had their own kingdoms and civilizations in the South, which could not be referred as Southern Savages, during the three Kingdom period.

I do not claim I know all. From all the maps and text I've seen, it seems like Bai Yue refers to all of southern China. Please provide evidence to proof otherwise if you can.

I don't mean to persuade all the Yue to unite to overthrow China but to let them the real historical setting of the past, instead of listening to only on the Chinese side. The Bai Yue at that time had several different cultures and languages due the variations among the groups and the influences of neighboring countries. I don't fantasize about nationalism, yet about learning and knowledge. China can be broken up only from its people decision, not my decision. Don't accuse me of promoting Pan Yue nationalist because I am not.

Fact is, you are promoting a union of all of the Bai Yue tribes and ethnic groups and consider it a "normal thing". That's exactly what a Pan-Yue nationalist would do.

[TrueViet]

I missed most of the discussion, for the title of the thread was not attractive to me.

I understand the message of the person who starts the thread, and I agree with him most of the points.
The only point I do not agree with him is the Pan-Yue concept amongst the Vietnamese. I have not heard
of that before, at least amongst the Vietnamese.

I am a new member in a Vietnamese forum, when I get a personal message asking whether I am
nguoiVietchanhTong here. I response that I am not him, and I come here to see the similarity between
NguoiVietChanhTong and me. That is the reason I take the name of TrueViet, that has the same meanings
as NguoiVietChanhTong in Vietnamese. After a while, I realize that his POV is totally different from mine.

I do not know much about History, and I am not interested in History. However, I am interested in finding
my root. I do not bother to look in history books, but I listen to others POV, analyze them, and make my
mind. I see that some Vietnamese who are interested in history, who quote a lot of ideas from books, either
from Vietnamese authors or Chinese authors, (I am not sure whether their quotations are genuine or not),
and raise a debate amongst the Vietnamese. Their POV is similar to the Pan-Yue concept. I think that is the
reason the owner of this thread thinks that the Vietnamese believe in the Pan-Yue theory. In this post, I just
want to say that they are only few persons who are education-limited who attempt to re-write Vietnamese
history book. The reason I see them being education-limited is that they claim to know languages, but
their way of writing, in either Vietnamese or English, is poor, and they seem not to be able to read Chinese
with good understanding.

The Pan-Yue theory by them can be summarized in some points:
Bai-Yue and ancient Vietnamese (Yue) are interchangeable.
Therefore the ancient Vietnamese territory was up to YangZi river.
ZhaoTuo is the first Vietnamese king, and NanYue is the first Vietnam (YueNan) nation.

As you all know that I do not buy their BaiYue theory (not Pan-Yue). I want to say that the Bai-Yue theory
is made up from few persons that can be counted in only one hand (no more than 5 persons). One of them
can make his works posted in BBC (British Broadcasting Company) in Vietnamese, and that event raises
a big issue against the BBC amongst the Vietnamese. To the Vietnamese, BaiYue is the collective name
given by some ancient Chinese rulers, and most of the BaiYue now are Chinese. The Vietnamese do not
want to be BaiYue or from BaiYue.

[Nguyen-Trong Cam]

About Yue writing systems, the Wu Cheng site in Jiangxi, the Shu ethnic writing (believed to be descendants of the ancient Luo Yue), and symbols found on a bronze drum, and plough or dagger axe ("qua" in Vietnamese) in Vietnam which resembles a writing system found by a Japanese researcher in China are potential proof of either completely independent or fairly independent with shared symbols with the Shang writing system.
The Wu Cheng site and Shu writing can be found on the web. The symbols found in Vietnam are found on Nguye^~n Kha('c Ngu+~, Nguo^`n Go^'c Da^n To^.c Vie^.t Nam, 1985, quoting material provided by Ha` Va(n Ta^'n on (a) bronze drum(s), and "qua" found in Thanh Ho'a, Vietnam. These are illustrated on Cung DDi`nh Thanh, Ti`m Ve^` Nguo^`n Go^'c Va(n Minh Vie^.t Nam du+o+'i A'nh Sa'ng Mo+'i cu?a Khoa Ho.c, p. 276.
The similar writing system found in China was quoted on Wayne M. Saymner's The Origin of Writing, where he in turn quoted Shima Kurio in Indyo Bokuji Sorui, 2nd rev. ed. (Tokyo, Kyuko, 1971). This is quoted on Cung DDi`nh Thanh's book above on p. 277.
The system found in Wu Cheng rather qualifies as an advanced one. I am not familiar with the Shu ethnic writing. The other system seems to be a nascent one.

About the ancient word order of Chinese, writing found on steles shows that it to be the same as Vietnamese, Tai, etc... one, with, among other things, adjectives following nouns.

[Kulong]

I understand the message of the person who starts the thread, and I agree with him most of the points.
The only point I do not agree with him is the Pan-Yue concept amongst the Vietnamese. I have not heard
of that before, at least amongst the Vietnamese.

We're not talking about ALL Vietnamese in existance, just those who are here. Among the Vietnamese members here at CHF, several subscribe to this Pan-Yue nationalism, including nguoiVietchanhtong.

I am a new member in a Vietnamese forum, when I get a personal message asking whether I am
nguoiVietchanhTong here. I response that I am not him, and I come here to see the similarity between
NguoiVietChanhTong and me. That is the reason I take the name of TrueViet, that has the same meanings
as NguoiVietChanhTong in Vietnamese. After a while, I realize that his POV is totally different from mine.

Yes, I have noticed that myself. I won't say who's right or wrong but I must say I agree with you MUCH more often than I do with nguoiVietchanhtong...

I do not know much about History, and I am not interested in History. However, I am interested in finding
my root. I do not bother to look in history books, but I listen to others POV, analyze them, and make my
mind. I see that some Vietnamese who are interested in history, who quote a lot of ideas from books, either
from Vietnamese authors or Chinese authors, (I am not sure whether their quotations are genuine or not),
and raise a debate amongst the Vietnamese. Their POV is similar to the Pan-Yue concept. I think that is the
reason the owner of this thread thinks that the Vietnamese believe in the Pan-Yue theory.

No, I don't believe ALL (or even most) Vietnamese subscribe to the Pan-Yue nationalism. I never intended to imply that and I've since "modified" my opening statement accordingly.

The Pan-Yue theory by them can be summarized in some points:
Bai-Yue and ancient Vietnamese (Yue) are interchangeable.
Therefore the ancient Vietnamese territory was up to YangZi river.
ZhaoTuo is the first Vietnamese king, and NanYue is the first Vietnam (YueNan) nation.

As you all know that I do not buy their BaiYue theory (not Pan-Yue). I want to say that the Bai-Yue theory
is made up from few persons that can be counted in only one hand (no more than 5 persons). One of them
can make his works posted in BBC (British Broadcasting Company) in Vietnamese, and that event raises
a big issue against the BBC amongst the Vietnamese. To the Vietnamese, BaiYue is the collective name
given by some ancient Chinese rulers, and most of the BaiYue now are Chinese. The Vietnamese do not
want to be BaiYue or from BaiYue.

We don't know exactly how many people subscribe to the Pan-Yue nationalism/theory, nor do most of us care I assume. However, what most of us DO care about is that there are several Vietnamese members here at CHF that subscribe to such ideal/theory.

BTW, I can't speak for others but I, for one, know you don't subscribe to such a theory.

[Nguyen-Trong Cam]

The Pan-Yue theory by them can be summarized in some points:
Bai-Yue and ancient Vietnamese (Yue) are interchangeable.
Therefore the ancient Vietnamese territory was up to YangZi river.
ZhaoTuo is the first Vietnamese king, and NanYue is the first Vietnam (YueNan) nation.

Hi TrueViet, you probably included me among those holding positions listed above.
Let me do some clarification on my part. First, there is no proof that there was massive immigration to Vietnam from the North, BaiYue or otherwise. There was small numbers of elite refugees from Gu Yue (Co^? Vie^.t), and others from elswhere in China.
The languages and cultures of the Bai Yue, and the Shu and Chu statelets were Austroasiatic and Austronesian. The Vietnamese language is Austroasiatic with Austronesian elements. The Dong Son Culture expanded to Guangxi (Qua?ng Ta^y), and a bit of Guangdong (Qua?ng DDo^ng) and Yunnan (Va^n Nam), where the Zhuang (Tra'ng, the same ethnic as the Nu`ng, Tho^?, Ta`y, Tha'i in Vietnam) lives. The Zhuang are descendants of Luo Yue (La.c Vie^.t) and Xi Ou (Ta^y A^u) ancient ethnics of the Bai Yue. They lived in Hunan (Ho^` nam) and Guizhou (Quy' Cha^u) as well, bordering Ba Shu (Ba Thu.c), and Tong Tinh Hu (DDo^.ng DDi`nh Ho^`).
So, there was only linguistic and cultural similarities between Vietnam and Bai Yue, especially with the Southern branch of Bai Yue. This Southern branch now has the Vietnamese and the Zhuang as descendants of original ethnics. They speak different languages belonging to different families (Tai-Kadai, now classified as an Austronesian language, and Mon-Khmer, an Austroasiatic language, though these families are thought to belong to a super family called Austric).
There has never been a country, let alone a Vietnamese country that extended to the Yangxi (Du+o+ng Tu+?) River; maybe just a Xi Ou territory. There never was a Dong Son country, just a culture.
Wen Lang (Va(n Lang) and Ou Luo (A^u La.c) were pre-Han impact countries in Vietnam, as testified by archeology. And though Zhao To was celebrated by Vietnamese as having adopted local customs, technically he was king of a foreign state who invaded and reduced Ou Luo to a secondary status in his empire. I formerly said I agreed with old history books naming him as one of our kings, but I now concede that he was not, and agree with you. This position should eliminate any suspicion that we possibly claim part of Chinese territory, namely ancient Nan Yue (Nam Vie^.t) proper.
Although, talking about Wen Lang territory, Southeast Guangxi and Hepu in Southwest Guangdong was part of our territory. We are not claiming it, however.

Edited by Nguyen-Trong Cam, 22 December 2005 - 11:38 PM.

[TrueViet]

Hi Nguyen-Trong Cam:

I am not talking about you. Iam not talking about NguiVietChanhTong, either. I am new here, and I need
more time to know people. I am taling about TranDaiSy and TruongThaiDu, for I know them better from
other sources. They are people who are very active in raising the BaiYue issue.

I do not see their motive for building the BaiYue theory. I guess that they admire the Chinese culture
in the bottom of their hearts, and in the meantime, they are jelous of the Chinese without understanding
their hearts. Therefore, they are gathering the facts and evidents from old books and interpreting the
books in the way their hearts desire. They avoid new books, evidents and new technologies, for they
are not familiar with new things. They cannot compose an article well enough for their readers. Therefore
many readers are discouraged to read their articles. Many times I took great courage to read their
articles, but I failed anyway. I have never read through any article written by them. In general, their
articles are very lengthy. I do not see the introduction in the first paragraph of their articles. The following
paragraphs are very confusing, and they are not arranged in a perticular order. There are not a clear
conclusion at the end of any article, either. More than once I talk to TruongThaiDu (ZhangTaiYou in HanYu
PinYin) in my posts in some Vietnamese forums that he need to rewrite his articles in normal way of
composing an essay. Somehow he cannot get my message, and he continues to write his lengthy and
confusing essays.

I see that most of Vietnamese readers do not accept the BaiYue idea, for they do not want to be
from the Chinese or Chinese related. They think that TranDaiSy (ChenDaShi - Great Scholar Chen)
or TruongThaiDu (ZhangTaiYou - The Greatest Traveler Zhang) are promoting Great Chinese theory
in which China is the center of the world, the Vietnamese are the lost Han Chinese, and Vietnam will
untimately "re-united to its root."

I myself do not have the prejudice against the Chinese culture. I am willing to accept the truth, regardless
whether the Vietnamese are Chinese related or not. The more I am listening to discussions, the more I
object the BaiYue theory. I am surprised at the BBC promoting Zhang's article on BaiYue theory, and I
think that BBC is stupid enough in attempt to get their stick into Vietnam-China relation.

[nguoiVietchanhtong]

Kulong, if you don't agree with me, tell me what you disagree with. Is it that you think the Bai Yue included all the ethnics in the South?

If the Yue people already lost to the Han Chinese, there must be a come back but we don't know when and where. There are times the fish eating the ants and ants eat the fish. It's normal that way.

TrueViet, the Northern Chinese do not recognize the Bai Yue. There can be a possible unity but the Han Chinese promote too much on the Wei (Han) dynasty and disregard the Yue culture and people.

Edited by nguoiVietchanhtong, 23 December 2005 - 12:08 AM.

[TrueViet]

I myself do not recognize the BaiYue, either. There is never a Yue culture and people. There is only either
the Cantonese, or the Vietnamese, or the Zhuang, or other minorities in China or Vietnam.

[thankstoall]

Hi Trueviet,

I do not know much about History, and I am not interested in History.
However, I am interested in finding　my root.
I do not bother to look in history books, but I listen to others POV, analyze them, and make my　mind.

This is general speaking. Analyzing without academic ground is thinking.

I see that some Vietnamese who are interested in history, who quote a lot of ideas from books, either　from Vietnamese authors or Chinese authors, (I am not sure whether their quotations are genuine or not),and raise a debate amongst the Vietnamese.

Usually, there is a few numbers of historian and researcher in the whole population.
Like you, I am not sure everything but I want to learn from them.

Their POV is similar to the Pan-Yue concept. I think that is the　reason the owner of this thread thinks that the Vietnamese believe in the Pan-Yue theory.
The Pan-Yue theory by them can be summarized in some points:
Bai-Yue and ancient Vietnamese (Yue) are interchangeable.
Therefore the ancient Vietnamese territory was up to YangZi river.
ZhaoTuo is the first Vietnamese king, and NanYue is the first Vietnam (YueNan) nation.

These are not Pan-Viet theory. There are many researchers and scholars from many disciplines are doing studies in the relationship between Vietnamese and Southern Chinese in terms of history, philosophy, linguistics, phonetics, anthropology, archaeology and other inter-disciplines, but there is no an academically solid conclusion. The opposite studies (counter-Yue theory) are also conducted by many scholars. I am still learning from them and I think that I am not qualified for conclude anything relating to Bai Yue theory.

Usually, before starting a meaningful and qualified argument in an academic and scientific sense, learner must do some basic literature reading.

Here, you search “Kim Dinh”, “Cung Dinh Thanh”, “Ha Van Tan”, “Van Tao”, “Nguyen Xuan Quang” and Wilhelm G. Solheim II. You will find more. The time for reading (in the sense of scholarship) relevant literatures in multi-language are excess you life.

In this post, I just　want to say that they are only few persons who are education-limited who attempt to re-write Vietnamese　history book. The reason I see them being education-limited is that they claim to know languages, but　their way of writing, in either Vietnamese or English, is poor, and they seem not to be able to read Chinese　with good understanding.

I do not think that they are education-limited. Just say you disagree with them! The academic Chinese here, though they disagree but I have not seen they say “education-limited”.

To make a feedback, a comment and an argument in the academic and scholarly sense, it needs at least one week to learn the problem and to learn the writer.

I see that most of Vietnamese readers do not accept the BaiYue idea, for they do not want to be from the Chinese or Chinese related. They think that TranDaiSy (ChenDaShi - Great Scholar Chen) or TruongThaiDu (ZhangTaiYou - The Greatest Traveler Zhang) are promoting Great Chinese theory in which China is the center of the world, the Vietnamese are the lost Han Chinese, and Vietnam will ultimately "re-united to its root."

I think that they did not say this. Could you give me a serious feedback on what you mentioned?

Though I disagree with Nguoivietchanhtong about Han languague, I know from what paper he came to a suggestion on Viet-roots of Han languague. At least.


Regard,

Thanktoall

Edited by thankstoall, 23 December 2005 - 12:49 AM.