Means "We do NOT like being called barbarians" rather than "We feel barbarians", not even "We like being called barbarians".
You read it the reverse way from what it should read.

Some Northerners think that they are free from BaiYue lineage... and some Southerners think that they are free from Mongolian/Manchu lineage.

But if ShuHan didn't feel Southern Chinese being called barbarians he would not call for stopping this label by Northern Chinese.

"They feel that they are barbarians" and "They feel that they are being called barbarians" have different meaning, that is very clear.
If you don't find where in this thread, you might find it perhaps in some other older threads, or maybe other forums.

Another analogy, person A talks to a person B like this: "you only eat banana", then the person B may think that the person A calls him monkey. But he does not feel monkey (but he does feel that he is being called monkey though) so he says "stop calling me a monkey".

Actually HE IS Qlittlelemon. You can view his posts and his PMs to see how the words are even the same.

When I was in North Vietnam, I knew that some Vietnamese did not like the Cantonese (in Vietnam)
and some Cantonese did not like some Vietnamese. However, the Cantonese in Vietnam did have
a good lives with their business and many good Vietnamese frends.

I, personally, love a Cantonese family as my closed relatives. I followed them to the border before
China-Vietnam border war. When I settled in America, I contacted them in GuangDong, and they
gave me the contact information to their kids in California. After few years, they came to the US,
and we visit each other. My parents have already died, and they were like my parents in the US.
Their kids are like my brothers and sisters.

I did not do business with the Cantonese in Vietnam, but the Cantonese parents and my parents
were friends who shared the feelings and emotion under hardship in Vietnam. Only these things
made us relatives, beyound the differencies of ethnic, culture, rel;igions and others. No Vietnamese
have been sharing sadness and sorrow with our family as this Cantonese family. The North Vietnam
government and society drove us 2 families together and became one. We have never built an altar
and made a ceremony to become one family, but our feelings toward one another do it all.

Therefore, I do not like to hear someone saying bad things onto the relationship between the
Vietnaemse and the Cantonese. There are many good things in the world. Why bother to speak
and hear bad things instead?

You,MC420,and a few usernames here and other Asian forums probably point to one one-man operation.

Are you also Lac Chong and Ngoivietcoungthanh with multiple accounts ?

Well,it's nice touching personal story among a few thousand existent ones in a sea of 75 million Viets.But this don't speak for the entire ethnic Viet population or that particular Chinese-Viet family can represent great majority of ethnic Chinese in Vietnam.A fraction of any nationality or race do reach out and befriend other people of different backgrounds.

A few of us might have personal white friends,that doesn't mean America's white Anglo-Saxon population are related to us in race or heritage.

SPEAK for yourself. You accuse Vietnamese people for wanting to be Chinese JUST because some people in THIS FORUM have enough time to do so. Then the last time you accused of me for having inferior complex just because some guys in here think that some Vietnamese are related to Southern Chinese which I don't think so

No I'm Supernovasp in Asiafinest who found out you who had two accounts "like2learn" and "mochichuchu" and Administrators here can check out my IP address to see if i have double accounts here or not now HOW ABOUT YOU

What is your point, ricecake?

That Vietnamese want to be Chinese? None of the Vietnamese people I know certainly wants to be Chinese. I remember a Vietnamese friend of mine once telling me that once she was mistakenly regarded as a Chinese and she yelled "I am no @#$%ing Chinese, I am Vietnamese!" Vietnamese I know are all very proud of their Vietnamese heritage.

That Chinese don't like Vietnamese? Speak for yourself only. Most Chinese don't know much about the Vietnamese, some might not like them because of the border war that started in 1979, but I'd say most of them don't dislike the Vietnamese at all.

DaiViet, could you share with us why some Vietnamese dislike the Chinese? Chinese in Vietnam or Chinese in general? Because of the war or something else?

i would say that war played a major role

Vietnamese and Chinese didn't have a good relationship in the past and now it's still so now. There are some reasons for it.

1. China's occupation of Vietnam over 1000 years (111 BC-939 AD) and in this period, its policy is harsh and Chinese occupants were very cruel.

2. China invaded Vietnam 8 times from 981 onwards. Especially, in the Ming's occupation of 1407-1427, China wanted to re-assimilate Vietnam again by destroying all Vietnam infrastructure including texts, books etc... and it led Le Loi to revolt against the Ming occupation and regained Vietnam's independence. But this terrible memory of this occupation was not only in Vietnam's mind in the past but also in today.

3. Sino-Vietnam war in 1979 is a clear evidence of two-faced China/Chinese. It's a great betrayal of China's govt. to Vietnam through 2000 past years. China also waged a border conflict with Vietnam from 79-88 and still occupied Vietnam land, for example, Laoshan mountain in YunNan province.

4. China has still occupied two Vietnam islands Hoàng Sa (1974) and Trường Sa (1988) by force.

That's some main points which account for Vietnam's hatred for China/Chinese.

Speaking the truth:

Some Vietnamese do not like Chinese, simply because they are not well self-cultivated.

They do not like people in other countries, or people who are not the same ethnic group,
or in other parts of Vietnam other than the place they are living, or in other communities
other than theirs, or people of different genders, or in different age, etc.

Of course, there are always excuses for such kind of people.

You can see some of them in this forum, Vietnamese or Chinese, or someone else.

No need for such childish game! No need to waste time with such prejudice mind; in every ethnic group, there are the goods, the bads, and the uglies ....; you do know which category you belong to!

If the Vietnamese can stop advocating the "Pan-baiyueism" or "Common origin of Vietnamese and Cantonese" theory, Chinese (notably the Cantonese) and Vietnamese can definitely get along fine since we share similar culture ,common confucian belief and family value albeit we have some painful experience in the past.

Personally, i have no ill feeling toward Vietnamese since like I said before, I found most of the vietnamese are very friendly. Most of them do not have the stuck-up attitude like Chinese and Korean. I even think the vietnamese have produced some of the finest military strategist in the world like Tran Hung Dao, Le Loi and Vo Nguyen Gap although the first two were considered the enemy of China but they still gain my respect.

Why are we speaking about Vietnamese people right now? We should get back to the topic!

From the Chinese perspective, it was the Vietnamese who betrayed China by switching over to the Soviet after the Vietnam War and forgot about thousands of Chinese soldiers and millions worth of military supply provided by China to help drove the US troops away.



Are you talking about the Paracel and Spratly Islands in South China Sea? It is still disputable to say Vietnam has sovereignty over the Islands since both China and Vietnam were about the same time to claim those Islands in the early 20 Century. Before that, they were basically unoccupied besides visited by fisherman.

Exactly .... One of our CHF founders had to make clarification on true definition of " Cantonese " were Han Chinese.

There are quite many silent Chinese troubled by this groundless assertion in cyberspace Asian-forums,apparently the work of a handful history-bending Viets.

While rather than correcting these people, all you did was adding more flame

It's clearly an emphasis on the Southern Chinese because they think the Cantonese is plainly made up from the Northern immigrants and nothing else. It probably leads to the denial of all the Hanized features. Tell me that rowing boat festival in the South is from the North. I need to see that argument.

I don't see anything Hanized activities would demote the Cantonese status as Han Chinese. If they want to be Han Chinese, so be it.

To be fair, Southern China was once inhabited by Baiyue tribes which undoubtedly share similarities with Vietnamese. However to say that Cantonese people are nothing but sinicized Viets is quite a stretch in logic.

Nobody is trying to deny the Cantonese is free of baiyue blood or custom but their core blood and culture is still descended from ancient Huaxia/Han people spanned from the Qin dynasty to Song which is unlike the Viet in Vietnam who are mainly the offshoot of the Ancient Baiyue Lac Viet tribe intermixed with other Baiyue tribes, Han Chinese immigrant, the Khmer and the Cham. You can liken the Cantonese to the European who arrived America in 17 Century. When the European first stepped into American soil, many died because of malnutriton and unfamiliarity with the climate. In turn, they had to adopt Native American custom in order to survive in the harsh weather they were not accustomed to. Some European eventually intermarried with the Native American and their offspring constitue some sizable population in Southern United States and ethnically they are still white (Actors Johnny Depp and Billy Bob Thornton are the prime example of European and Native American mix although their Native American blood is very minimal).

nobody? what about RICECAKE?

When did I ever denied Cantonese-Chinese are free of Bai yue blood,show me one post written by me in those exact words ?

As matter of fact,it's you and a couple other South Pacific born individuals' never-endingly shoved " Bai Yue " bloods down our throats without respect to any possibility of there are indeed MANY Cantonese-Chinese families don't any "Bai Yue genes ".

This is my last posting in this thread and won't post in others regarding Viets for I have no interest what-so-ever more to discuss.

The Chinese perspective is all wrong. Vietnam's switching from China to the Soviet Union is a politically normal as China's swichting from the Soviet Union to the US in 1978. It is NEVER a basis for 1979 Sino-Vietnam War. Thousands of Chinese soldiers and military supplies aren't also a basis for this invasion.



Before 1974, Vietnam had ocuppied the Paracel island and China used military force to capture it. It clearly violated the United Nations' Charter. Regretably, this happened again in 1988 over the Spratly which Vietnam had occupied since before.

I don't agree with you that these two islands are disputable ones. Since 17th century (not 20th century), these had been Vietnam's territory before China's invasion in 1974 and 1988. You should read Vietnam histories for more information.

Turn back the Cantonese and Vietnam/Vietnamese. I never say MORDERN Cantonese are related to Vietnamese but in the past, Cantonese are related to BaiYue and I alread said, the BaiYue blood is still in them.

really?

perhaps u would like to explain this:

"Then,WHY all the crap talks here since you signed on yesterday

In geography only,another Bai Yue-ism crap talk.

Those of us who are genuine Cantonese-Chinese of Northern Han origin REALIZED we aren't related to Nan Yue ancient natives our ancestors slaughtered and pushed out to Guangxi and Vietnam.

We Cantonese-Chinese of NORTHERN Han heritage are truly proud of our Hua-Xia and Dong-Yi roots,and so are our beloved Chinese aboriginal minorities who held onto respective colorful culture in honor of their Nan Yue forebears.

"


and btw , i dun live in the Sth Pacific, get that straighten up

Actually I really "forgot" about Dong Yi.

I also doubt that Chinese would be proud of being descent of Dong Yi. Maybe most Chinese only remember Hua-Xia.

For most people Dong Yi is no better than BaiYue (both are often considered "barbarian"). And probably they are closer to BaiYue than Hua-Xia.

I don't really consider the minorities but that does not mean that my ancestry are really free from them. And even without ancestry from them I may still have their genes (you know that humans share so much gene).

Ricecake reminds me of qlittledemon.

Let me give an analogy to the chinese who first came to Malacca.

The earliest immigrants to Malaysia/Singapore in the 15th century are probably chinese men and malay women mixed. Their descendants are called baba/nyonya and they live in penang, malacca, singapore today. The later chinese immigrants to Malaysia/Singapore in the 19/20th century brought new Han chinese blood to the straits settlement.

Some of these baba/nyonya remarried the newer chinese immigrants so that they are more 'chinese' but we cannot deny that they have a little 'malay' blood.


The same similarities can be seen with the first chinese who immigrated to Guangdong during the Qin and Han dynasty, quite a number of them married the local zhuang people but later han chinese immigration during the Tang, Song dynasty diluted the 'bai yue' genes so that they now have more han chinese genes.

agree with you in principle

You forgot the Nam Viet era since the Qin Dynasty. I would consider that a chinese dynasty too.

I've stated quite a few times already and sound like a broken record, people they know what they know thus they could only speak what they know. There would be very few knowledgeable folks would dispute that Chinese culture is among one of the most developed ancient cultures in the world (if comparing to Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Indian, Inca, etc); however, we certainly can't rule out contributions from countless "lesser" cultures from across the land of human inhabitants. We sure do know now, China certainly is not the center of the world nor the Roman was the center of the universe!

The term "barbarians" certainly used to be applied by both the Romans & Chinese as a degratory terms to those living outside of their sphere of control and absolutely we shouldn't keep using the term "barbarians" within the degratory context to those who had not been romanized or sinicized.

Back to the relevancy of this thread; we'd probably agree that Bai Yue was a loosely term to describe various ethnic groups, which settled from southern part of the Yangze river outside of the control from the central plain China before the unification of China under the shortlived of the Qin dynasty. Since the establishment of the Han's dynasty, the vast majority of these bai yue groups had been sinicized or at least put under control of China including the Lou Yue (proto-modern Vietnamese people). Needless to say, current northern Vietnam had been an integral part of China from the Han through the Tang dynasty until Vietnam gains her independence during the fragmentation period of Chince since 983AD.

Despite of the fact that the Viet people (Lou Yue) lived under direct control of central plain Chinese folks for thousand years or so; nevertheless, the Viet folks have always wanted to remain as Viet (similiar to Korean folks); they've always wanted to be called as Viet but not Chinese; the Viet folks are also proud of their ancient culture which they attribute to the Dongsonian civilization which developed independently from the central plain of China before arrival of the Han people. The modern Vietnamese do appreciate and integrate their culture not only from various elements in the region of Asia but from across the world as well (Chinese, Indian, French, then American) therefore it may be a bit easier for them to move forward in our modern world.

In summary, if we only focus and disucss the history merely within the past two thousand years then Vietnam used to be part of China at least half of it. I do not recall if there was any reference if the Chinese written accords to call the Vietnamese as barbarians during the first millenium. If we just focus on our history a little bit further back then things could be a bit more interesting and even complicated though. For those who mentioned and interested about genetic markers, etc. to find out more of our humble origin then the diffusion rate of certain genetic markers would point toward our common ancestors eh!

there probably is some dongyi blood in most modern chinese, north and south.. in my opinion they contributed no less than the huaxia to the formation of the chinese civilization...

it might serve to remind all here that the family of the 1st emperor (ying) was of dongyi origin, and so by extension (if he s not a b** of Lv Buwei), the 1st emperor was actually a dongyi, (or more appropriately of dongyi ancestry)

chingiz , plse dun misappropriate my words!

There were many Yue who indeed assimilated into the Chinese race a long time ago. I found out that one surname "Ou-Yang" is descended from Guo Jian's Yue kingdom. They were from a Yue prince who was spared by Chu conquests. His descendants adopted the "Ou-Yang" surname. A very famous Song Dynasty historian had this same surname. Most "Ou-Yang" still live scattered in many southern provinces today. A lot of Cantonese have this surname too. I read in one other Vietnamese forum how they demand that China return Yue King (Guo Jian)'s sword to Vietnam. I can only laugh at that. The sword does belong to Guo Jian king, but the characters are written in Chinese. Even the ancient Yue kingdom of Guo Jian was Sinicized back then. Besides, they came from Xia Dynasty (via King Shaokang). They are still from our same race.

Our Yue genes are mainly in our maternal side. I don't know how ancient Yue or modern Vietnamese trace descent, but a Chinese is a Chinese if his father is Chinese. Read this DNA study. They sampled both northerners as well as southerners. Guangzhou and Shanghai samples were included as well as northern cities like Xian and Beijing:

Nature 431, 302 - 305 (16 September 2004); doi:10.1038/nature02878
Genetic evidence supports demic diffusion of Han culture

Excerpts:

On the paternal side, southern Hans and northern Hans share similar frequencies of Y-chromosome haplogroups (Supplementary Table 2), which are characterized by two haplogroups carrying the M122-C mutations (O3-M122 and O3e-M134) that are prevalent in almost all Han populations studied (mean and range: 53.8%, 37–71%; 54.2%, 35–74%, for northern and southern Hans, respectively). Haplogroups carrying M119-C (O1* and O1b) and/or M95-T (O2a* and O2a1) (following the nomenclature of the Y Chromosome Consortium) which are prevalent in southern natives, are more frequent in southern Hans (19%, 3–42%) than in northern Hans (5%, 1–10%). In addition, haplogroups O1b-M110, O2a1-M88 and O3d-M7, which are prevalent in southern natives17, were only observed in some southern Hans (4% on average), but not in northern Hans. Therefore, the contribution of southern natives in southern Hans is limited, if we assume that the frequency distribution of Y lineages in southern natives represents that before the expansion of Han culture that started 2,000 yr ago5. The results of analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) further indicate that northern Hans and southern Hans are not significantly different in their Y haplogroups (FST = 0.006, P > 0.05), demonstrating that southern Hans bear a high resemblance to northern Hans in their male lineages.

On the maternal side, however, the mtDNA haplogroup distribution showed substantial differentiation between northern Hans and southern Hans (Supplementary Table 3). The overall frequencies of the northern East Asian-dominating haplogroups (A, C, D, G, M8a, Y and Z) are much higher in northern Hans (55%, 49–64%) than are those in southern Hans (36%, 19–52%). In contrast, the frequency of the haplogroups that are dominant lineages (B, F, R9a, R9b and N9a) in southern natives12, 14, 18 is much higher in southern (55%, 36–72%) than it is in northern Hans (33%, 18–42%). Northern and southern Hans are significantly different in their mtDNA lineages (FST = 0.006, P < 10-5). Although the FST values between northern and southern Hans are similar for mtDNA and the Y chromosome, FST accounts for 56% of the total among-population variation for mtDNA but only accounts for 18% for the Y chromosome.

A principal component analysis is consistent with the observation based on the distribution of the haplogroups in Han populations. For the NRY, almost all Han populations cluster together in the upper right-hand part of Fig. 2a. Northern Hans and southern natives are separated by the second principal component (PC2) and southern Hans' PC2 values lie between northern Hans and southern natives but are much closer to northern Hans (northern Han, 0.58 0.01; southern Han, 0.46 0.03; southern native, -0.32 0.05), implying that the southern Hans are paternally similar to northern Hans, with limited influence from southern natives. In contrast, for mtDNA, northern Hans and southern natives are distinctly separated by PC2 (Fig. 2b), and southern Hans are located between them but are closer to southern natives (northern Han, 0.56 0.02; southern Han, 0.09 0.06; southern native, -0.23 0.04), indicating a much more substantial admixture in southern Hans' female gene pool than in its male counterpart.



Figure 1 Geographic distribution of sampled populations. Shown are the three waves of north-to-south migrations according to historical record. The identifications of populations are given in Supplementary Table 1. Populations 1–14 are northern Hans, and 15–28 are southern Hans. The solid, dashed and dotted arrows refer to the first, second and third waves of migrations, respectively. The first wave involving 0.9 million (approximately one-sixth of the southern population at that time) occurred during the Western Jin Dynasty (AD 265–316); the second migration, more extensive than the first, took place during the Tang Dynasty (AD 618–907); and the third wave, including 5 million immigrants, occurred during the Southern Song Dynasty (AD 1127–1279).

12 = Xi'an
2 = Hebei, Beijing
24 = Shanghai
17 = Guangzhou


==

BO WEN1,2, HUI LI1, DARU LU1, XIUFENG SONG1, FENG ZHANG1, YUNGANG HE1, FENG LI1, YANG GAO1, XIANYUN MAO1, LIANG ZHANG1, JI QIAN1, JINGZE TAN1, JIANZHONG JIN1, WEI HUANG2, RANJAN DEKA3, BING SU1,3,4, RANAJIT CHAKRABORTY3 & LI JIN1,3

1 State Key Laboratory of Genetic Engineering and Center for Anthropological Studies, School of Life Sciences and Morgan-Tan International Center for Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China
2 Chinese National Human Genome Center, Shanghai 201203, China
3 Center for Genome Information, Department of Environmental Health, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45267, USA
4 Key Laboratory of Cellular and Molecular Evolution, Kunming Institute of Zoology, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming 650223, China

Zhao Tuo is claimed to be the founder of both Vietnamese as well as modern Guangdong/Guangxi people. He came from the far north and took up Yue wives. Many of his followers did the same. Later when Qin and Han conquered Guangdong, they sent mostly soldiers and convicts to the region. They came without wives and thus took native Yue women. Later still, from Tang to Song, mass emigration followed. During the late Song, many came as soldiers accompanying fleeing aristocrats displaced from the north due to nomadic invasions. Some of the women and children died along the trek, and some (the soldiers) simply could not bring women. By the end of Song, Guangdong was largely Han in ethnicity except for Yue minorities in the mountains (ie She ethnicity).

[Mod edit: Merged into older thread]

I can't take sides for both Yue and Han is in my blood. It is painfully obvious the settlement of southern China was not through friendly means. Blame it on the nomads. They were killing families and culture in the north, so the displaced were forced to move south to find new homes and new families at the expense of Yue and other southern minority people. Our formation as a people is probably not too different from Latin Americans (a mix of conquerors with the conquered).

Southern Chinese have a unique identity. Leave us in peace.

Great information

Thanks a million

Actually that is based on the theory that Zhuanxu 颛顼 was a Dongyi, which is not really verifiable since we don't even have evidence yet of a real person named Zhuanxu.



I doubt the Vietnamese accept this Yue origin story, which is based only on the authority of the Shiji.



Actually, there were probably two Ouyang 欧阳 branches: one based in the Hebei (Jizhou 冀州) region, which produced Ouyang Jian 欧阳建 of the Western Jin; and one based in either Shixing 始兴 near Guangzhou or Changsha 长沙 in Hunan, which produced Ouyang Wei 頠 of the Liang and his grandson the famous Tang calligrapher Ouyang Xun 询. Many historians (starting from the famous Chen Yinque 陈寅恪) believe that the Shixing/Changsha Ouyangs were actually of the southern Li 俚 minority, based on the unflattering description of Ouyang Wei and Ouyang Xun as very ugly and looking like apes. As for the Song dynasty historian Ouyang Xiu 修, he was the one who compiled the Ouyang geneology in the Xin Tangshu 新唐书, and he was a native of Luling 庐陵 in present-day Jiangxi, and came from a poor commoner family without any record of distinguished ancestors. He would have had an interest in giving himself a pedigree by tracing all the Ouyangs all the way back to the Yue, and ultimately the Xia.

In short, I'm skeptical that all or even some of the Ouyang really descended from the Yue ruling family.

Hi, I am not actually basing my view on the fact that Zhuanxu was regarded as Dongyi, there are much more concrete materials

1. there were evidences in Western Zhou the Qin people were regarded as Yi ( i m trying to get a bit more info on this)

2. the 'Ying' surname is an Eastern surname, many regarded them as having the same origins as Feng(wind), Xu2 etc wich were generally from the Yi area

3. the Qin also has the sacred bird mythology which is widely prevalent among eastern peoples

Yeah, they are confusing Yue state of Zhou with Bai Yue (and their own Yue).

Well, how do you think did the Vietnamese, Korean and Japanese wrote? There were no Hangul, Katakana, and Chu Quoc Ngu(or maybe even Latin characters) back then.

Actually this has been stated by various members here a very long time ago in this forum, maybe in other threads.

Well, to see the figures, see
http://159.226.149.45/compgenegroup/paper/...er%20(2004).pdf
Though I have some little doubts that I can't resolve myself (as I'm not an expert) for the statements in the paper.

I've heard that Phoenix was worshipped in Chu?

ya people should stop this north and south thingy....for all you know this could be sued by enemies to seperate the chinese...we have already seen the effects of civil war to lebanon usa etc=)

Oops ... a little paranoid thought here! who dares to separate or offend China now while her military is growing way beyond her defensive needs! China would be viewed more as a threat to her neighbors rather than other way around!

certain things can change when least expect it

any way my MAIN POINT was the north and south thingy which you should have commented on if you really want to....

u are quite right , but that is of course expected of big and rising nation..

Just off topic a little! Now aday we're competing more so in a health economic arena; for better sakes of the people in the Asia region, positive economic competition would be better off for everyone involved; any form of military race (i.e. in lieu of North Korea) would certain bring instability and hardships to common folks. The real result of the 9/11 event, there are many Chinese/Pakistani and countless other common workers in Asia suffered a whole lot more than average Americans due to a sudden delay of import goods from US (due to security inspection matter).

For those who keep focussing on certain superficial differences from the Northerners vs Southerners, ethnics, races, etc.; well, since the invention of Boeing 747 in 1969 and we are living in quite a few generations away from the first IBM's PC being sold already; people are much more alike and able to share more common values and needs than whatever you view from a rather narraw bandwith you're possessing. It's quite pathetic in away as I would have to shake my head again when hearing those leaders from Bejing decide to put up those firewalls to make CHF's, Wikepedia, and many other neutral sites to keep them inaccessible to vast majority of Chinese from the mainland China's.

As we could learn from the lesson from Singapore, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, the most important resource of any country is really from their very own people. Initially, common people would need guidance, structures, and supports (in lieu of healthcare, education, and employment) from the government for them to develop and maximimze their potential; however, once the people (and their business) are able to take off, the gov't would need to be at ease and put in cruise control instead. People always know what they want and need and the needs and wants of people are not that much different from one to another!

there s 1 actual western zhou inscription (dated to King Gong's time), called the Xun Gui 询簋 that actually contains the term "秦尸" (尸s equated with 夷 here)

it s a bit late tonight so i will try to post some parts if anyone cares to have a look

(i had a look at the inscriptions and i m not sure if the 'yi' term still applied exclusively to people from the east, while i m a supporter of the fact that 'yi' originally denotes exclusively people in the eastern seaboard, there seem to be a shift in terminology between late western zhou and early spring-autumn, to include a wider range of 'barbarians')

Way beyond her defensive needs? May I ask how you know what PRC's defensive needs are and how you measure it??

Who is posing as China's potential threats?

- Russia
- India
- Japan
- North Korea
- South Korea
- Vietnam
- Taiwan
- the USA
- the Aliens from outer space

Wanna to analyze further, open another threat!

1- By Budhism and Confusism there is nothing to defense, and the defensive needs is zero.
2- By trend nowadays, PRC has to defend herself from all neighbour nations.
The need is huge, from A bombs to weapons of the latest technologies.
Like the US, PRC whould spend a lot of money on weapons to defend herself sending troops overseas.
Ultimately, greatest men with great thought meet each other: the USA and the PRC.