I've recently noticed that many people, be them Vietnamese, Cantonese, or others, tend to think that southern Han-Chinese (or at least Cantonese) are "Hanized" natives.

To my understanding, obviously the Han culture (and people) originated up north around the Yellow River basin. When the Han expanded southwards, they assimilated other peoples into their own culture and it's very likely that they even interbred. I am assuming this is the same case with peoples in modern southern China. If so then modern Cantonese are just as much "native" as they are Han as their ancestors interbred.

Let's just look at the Hispanic population today, although some people remained purely native-American, some purely black and some purely European, many are mixed. You don't see these mixed people claiming to be solely one side or another.

In any case, I would just like to hear the justification of Vietnamese and some Cantonese who claim that southern Han-Chinese are "Hanized" natives instead of mix of Han and natives.

I fail to recognise any Cantonese who do so. Only a few Vietnamese.

Oh no?



http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...opic=7228&st=15

Well, I guess it's not impossible to find some anomalies in a big sample of like 100 million people...

But certainly, the strongest proponents of this "theory" are Vietnamese...

That's why I said "...namely Vietnamese and a few Cantonese,..."

Point is though, I want to know how they justify their theory.

...if we can call it a theory at all.

Well it's obvious I don't agree with them, but I just want to hear their POV.

Hi gentleman

Can you address me any pronouncement that states all Vietnamese tend to think like what you just mention? Since you make clear between "Vietnamese" and "a few Cantonese", I suppose that you address all Vietnamese? If it does not, please, make clear your statement.

A part from this, would you please give me your source that addresses any Vietnamese who thinks of that (southern Han-Chinese (or at least Cantonese) are "Hanized" natives)?

Why should we care if anyone is mixed or not. No one can deny admixture.
No one can deny North or Central Chinese are not mix either.

Depends on how you mean "mixture".
Your mother and your father are not the same, so you are mixed.

See past discussions with the person who calls himself "正宗越人", or nguoiVietChanhTong. You can search for his last posts.

We have had our share of Pan-Yue nationalists here who claim that most of the south Chinese are Yue descendants who have been ruled and oppressed by a foreign state and culture ever since the Han dynasty.

The Pan-Yue nationalists who claim that most of the South-Chinese/Cantonese are Yue descendants because they hope that South China would break away from China to form a new "Nanyue" state with Vietnam. Fortunately most Cantonese still view themselves as Chinese/Han and not Yue.

Still no takers from the Pan-Yue nationalists to accept this challenge eh?

Hi all



I have no different viewpoint on this.



So is it an individual view point? Are the majority of Vietnamese here the so-called Pan-Yue nationalists?

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




How many persons? Is/Are he/they representative(s) of Vietnamese? Are there any Vietnamese political party or group declare themselves as "Pan-Yue nationalists" to propose the so-called “Pan-Yue nationalism”? Is the so-called “Pan-Yue nationalism” personal views or a theory, a doctrine?




Can I take some individual opinions in the topics like “Vietnamese lose Han identity” or “Which country will merge with China” to announce that there is a theory called “Pan-Han Expansionism" or "Sino-Neo-Fascism"?




Glad to meet you gentleman

I made separate questions for you to make clear whether the so-called “Pan-Yue nationalist” is an individual opinion or a theory. I would be pleased if you make clear your statement.




Please, make your simple calculation understandable.

Regards

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

Who are these Pan-Tue nationalists? Another strawman of your bigotry?

I have heard the argument that massive immigration, especially during the Tang Dynasty, has turned Cantonese to predominantly Huaxia. Subsequently, I read in Keith Weller Taylor's The Birth of Vietnam censuses from the Han Dynasty to the Tang Dynasty that originally Jiao Shi was 2 times more populous than what is now Quangxi and Quangdong. Then the Tang census showed in Quangdong a population that was roughly equal to that of Jiao Shi. Also a rebellion in Guizhou and Guangxi resulted in 100 thousands aboriginal heads rolled, depleting a chunk of their population. Because of Quangdong having better land, it probably attracted more immigrants. I tend to think that in this province, there may be a better than 50% proportion of Huaxia descendants.
BTW, Jiao Shi presented a totally different scenario. Maybe that was why even the influential Tang decided to cease considering it a province as the ones immediately North of it, but call it a protectorate instead.
As to the word Hanized or Sinification, I think it tends to have a cultural connotation. And if so, then it is safe to say that the Lingnan is very Sinicized.

You are not crippled. Move your fingers a bit and do an easy search on the forum and you'll know who and how many Pan-Yue Nationalists have made such claims.

"Bait"? Call this what you will, fact is, there are people on this forum who believe in this so-called theory which we've brought up and this is a chance for them to attempt to justify their point of view.

MY bigotry? If I am intolerant of other point of views I wouldn't even bother with Pan-Yue nationalists as I would automatically dismiss their views as wrong. I started this thread for two reasons: 1.) I am curious as to how these Pan-Yue nationalists came to their conclusions and 2.) I wish for them to express their POV in a mature, rational fashion. Of course, the likes of you is making things very difficult...

------

BTW, I have modified my first post in order to avoid people further picking apart my original point. I am not directing this question to just Vietnamese or some Cantonese, but anyone who agrees with this so-called theory that modern southern Han-Chinese (or at least the Cantonese) are actually "Hanized" natives, as opposed to having equal, if not more Han than Yue, ancestry IN GENERAL with exceptions.

AFAIK, Jiaozi/the modern day area of northern Vietnam broke off permanently from China during the Five Dynasty period, from the fragment state of Nanhan. Note that Nanhan had a really lousy ruler, and all people suffered, Huaxia or Yue.

Well, that was after Tang collapsed and I don't think it ever broke off from China before that (rebellions did occur though). Nanhan did not recognize the new state, but the Song dynasty, who re-united China, did, and called it a protectorate. Song probably didn't have the military might to re-claim it.

Song did try --twice.

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

I never disagree with you on that though; you just thought that I did.
Tang named it a protectorate, such as that which has to do with Korea, and either Tibet or what is now Qinghai or Xingkiang.
When Vietnam finally became independent, it still stayed in the tributary system. If that's what you mean by protectorate status, then it's just a misunderstanding in terminology between us.

Probably so... as in my terminology, a protectorate handles their own administration and stuff. So it's more like Annan's situation during the Song and Joseon's situation during Ming/Qing.

I always thought that Jiaozi was under direct administration of of China from Han to Tang, just like any other province, as it didn't have it's own king/chief/whatever.

Well, there is some limited truth in this. These areas (Sichuan, Guanxi, Guangdong, Yunnan) had distinct cultures in them and different peoples that never even figured in any Han fuedal system or ritual that might define period 'Chinese'.
Southern China before Han includes among many a pan-SouthEast Asian culture know as Dong Song (after a north Vietnamese archaeological site) as well as the better know and more relevant Yi and Ba-shu culture. Of these a well defined Dian culture in Yunnan is a quite materially different late bronze age people. Yun some time ago provided a link on these southern groups and in it there was a fascinating cave picture of a 'shaman' above a crowd holding a ring pomelled Han sword suggesting such trappings were becoming a sign of authority. The Han describe the tattoed folk encountered , tropical disease and the unpleasantries of occupation in hostile areas.
The ancient 'Hanification' or whatever we might call it within ancient borders is far from 100% even today. There is no suggestion that such true existing regional minorities are disaproved of in the modern PRC, although some were wiped out in the later dynasties. In southern areas with distinct non-Han people groups remaining a few become tourism fixtures in themselves.
In Yunnan region specific modern cultures bear little relationship to the original Han/central plains cultures of the north in terms of their belief, clothing & cuisine ,ie the 'insect eating' Yunnan minorities form a colourful example.
These are some of the suggestions of the survival of ancient non-Han tribal groups & peoples in the peripheral aeas of the ancient Han.
This is NOT relevant as a political tool to break up China. To recognise they exist/existed is not really an example as the members analogy of 'Latin Americans' and racial mixes in the US but more like the existence of Peruvians or Brazilians who can draw ancestory back to original native inhabitants (indians) rather than Hispanic citizens. There is mixing of course but it isnt universal. With the history being so long they all are quite surely a part of China.
It isnt required to see all true Chinese citizens needing to change into predominantly Han and it also follows that some variation in ethnicity & culture still fits within PRC identity (look at some fo the currency and the faces on them are non-Han people).
Regions like Xinjiang or Tibet on basis of culture could much more fit the issue of this thread and provide a stronger case for whether the inhabitants, ownership of land aside, would be considered 'Chinese'.
Without getting into the odd principle that 'nations' are a Western theory only and so aren't relevant to the motherland these southern groups who identify with a minority instead of being 'Chinese' are likely to be only a small % of the modern southern China (2,000 years later.)
The previous existence of non-Chinese original inhabitants can be patently observed in the material excavated and to recognise them does not mean a reason to turn to politics or even less of a reason for other outside regions bordering it to claim them. I dont think any are anyway.
Note; the movement of Chinese to Tibet in recent decades and the construction of rail there may mean that in the future the make up of Tibet ethnically will move in the same way. Not anti-PRC, this is fact. Of people I know who visited (Taiwanese & European) funnily enough they said standards in Tibet seem set to improve/better off by the Chinese efforts although it is natural to lament the impact on a distinct culture, i.e tourists disrupting 'sky burials' and such.

Conclusion; Yes there once was 'Hanification' even though it might now be more relevant to note Tibet as an example than south China today. The fact that there it began/occured 2,000 years ago to distinct cultures and continued over Chinese history is no real reason to take nationalism by claimed descendents of regional ancient minorities too seriously.
Minorities survive in many examples in the modern PRC and in the southern area this thread is discussing it seems unlikely seperatism or merger with another country would be anything that would be desired by modern inhabitants, by those that identify as 'Han' or the few minority cultures that still do exist.
There is some truth in the idea of a 'Cantonese' identity but even this was put to referendum (not going to happen of course) I would say it wouldnt result in a split. The only isue I have heard is over the offical prominence of Mandarin which displeases some in the south.
Loud voices dont reflect a common pattern of thought though.
We would need the opinions of a good number of local folk to understand the modern issues.

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...

QUOTE(Kulong @ Dec 21 2005, 02:56 PM) [snapback]4778110[/snapback]

Pan-Yue Nationalists

his so-called theory which we've brought up and this is a chance for them to attempt to justify their point of view.

Pan-Yue nationalists ...these Pan-Yue nationalists

I have modified my first post in order to avoid people further picking apart my original point. I am not directing this question to just Vietnamese or some Cantonese, but anyone who agrees with this so-called theory that modern southern Han-Chinese

Thanks for your constructive response.

But again, I am sorry that I do not know what is the so-called "Pan-Yue nationalist", since you add the terms "nationalist". Because there is no any theory, doctrine or school of thought in Vietnamese (domestic and overseas) to propose the so-called "Pan-Yue nationalism"? There is no any Vietnamese political party or group to promote this terms. Is there in Chinese community?

"Nationalism" refers to political implication.

I was misled by your use of this terms. I suppose that the users of this terms try to create it in the wish that it would provoke Chinese nationalism to response to "Vietnamese threat". Clearly, now there is only one Vietnamese nationalism, no any Pan-Viet nationals to have the so-called Pan-Viet or Pan-Yue nationalists. In a more reasonable thought, do you think that Vietnam is able to take over Southern China? Clearly imposible, right?

So you should not use this terms to mislead people and serve for the interest of your nationalism.

If the discussion is not related to political implication. Simply, kindly use another word or whatever that fits to the context. Do not pick some random and individual posts to justify that they are "theory" or "doctrine" of the so-called "Pan-Yue nationalism".

And, if this terms is only used among Chinese people, please be kind to remove any word that relates to Vietnam and do not figure out "Vietnamese" any more. Do not use the terms "Pan-Yue nationalism" unless you can justify that there is any Vietnamese political party or group advocating this ideal!

Otherwise, I think that you use this terms to serve your political purpose like "Hey, Chinese compatriots! the Vietnamese is threatening us, stand up to protect our country!"


Sincerely

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.

The name "Yue" (or Viet in Vietnamese) was then later used by the Nanyue kingdom established by a ex-Qin general named Zhao Tuo. After him, the name was later in history used by the ancestors of modern 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 know there will be over-sensitive people who, instead of contributing to the thread, will attempt to pick apart everything that come out of people's mouths. Let me just be clear that I only started this thread because I didn't want to go off-topic in another thread, namely this one http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...opic=7228&st=15

After seeing adoo's comment:



I was really disturbed that there are Cantonese (whom seem to be in the minority, at least according to other Cantonese members here) that subscribe to the "Pan-Yue theory" claimed by SOME, but not all Vietnamese members on CHF. I was disturbed not because it's a POV or idea that's different from my own, but because I personally don't find the "Pan-Yue theory" to be convincing. Which is why I wanted to those who subscribe to such theory to explain their POV so I can better understand their mindset as I can't read people's thoughts...

I do not care whatever you discuss about historical matter. It is history, nobody can change it and it has nothing to do with the current facts.

My point is that there is no Pan-Viet Nation now, therefore, it is no reason to have the so-called "Pan-Viet or Pan-Yue nationalist". In history discussion, you can call it any terms that fits to the context of history discussion.

Regards

Please understand what others are saying a little better before making a response. No one is disputing historical facts here, at least I'm not.


Like I said, 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. Feel free to come up with a new label and if it's good enough, I'm sure people will use it.

"Pan-Yue nationalist" name is a term that I coined in April to describe a Vietnamese (and occasionally also a south Chinese) who emphasizes ethnic and cultural solidarity between south Chinese and Vietnamese based on the argument that the Yue once inhabited all the land from the Yangzi Delta to north Vietnam. This often also includes an argument that Vietnam and south China should merge into one country to restore the Yue 'nation' to its former size. Hence "nationalist" since there is a belief in a nation, whether it now exists or not.

The Pan-Yue nationalists on CHF at that time were Like2learn and nguoiVietchanhtong. Like2learn has stopped coming after we put him on mod preview, but nguoiVietchanhtong is still fairly active.

I will concede that two members is not at all representative of all Vietnamese, but because they were the most active Vietnamese members on CHF until Metronomad, Nguyen-Truong Cam, and Thankstoall joined us, they made a deep impression on both Kulong and myself. Since Metronomad, Nguyen-Truong Cam, and Thankstoall were not yet on CHF when Like2learn was here, they will not be aware of how he tried to steer almost any discussion of the Yue and south China towards the idea that all of south China still belongs to the Yue, that the south Chinese are all descended from the Bai Yue, and that the Bai Yue were one single homogeneous nation that is synonymous with the Austronesians. It was extremely tiresome because it was based purely on romantic nationalism and not historical evidence.

Only one time in history did Vietnam invade China. But that was to sack ammunitions being accumulated for an imminent invasion of Vietnam.
Because China invaded Vietnam many times, the Vietnamese are always on guard when it comes to China. China is 15 times greater in territory and population, and per capita income is twice that of Vietnam, making it 30 times greater economically. Though the Vietnamese are very unhappy with having lost the Paracels in 1974, and some of the Spratleys islands in the 80's, we are in no position do fight for them, just worrying about the remaining ones. We do not want to give China any reason to attack us, and that was exactly what thankstoall said.
I am with him 100% on this.
I just want to add that I find Kulong's opening post for the thread very benign. He wanted to challenge the notion that Cantonese are Sinicized Yue, and he himself did not use the term Pan-Yue, let alone Pan-Yue nationalist.
Yun has a point about the term nationalist not requiring an existing nation to validate. He probably coined the word Pan-Yue after reading Like2learn and NguoiVietChanhTong, correctly or not, without knowing that we Vietnamese are fearful of excuses for China to attack us.
The rather violent manner that many of us react to such things simply shows that we are afraid of China. But it also shows that we are determined to fight, though that is of course off subject.
Though this is a history topic, it touches on current relations between our two nations, not just past ones.

Count me in please.

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.

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.

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.

I did not point to you.
Regards,
qrasy

How about the Thousand-Springs country?
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.
I'm still wondering what is the remaining of Vietnamese culture apart from its language and Chinese influences?
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.
I think more than half of Chinese would turn into extremists if you say that they are not Chinese.
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".
Pan-Yue-ists usually consider them as Yues.
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)
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.

Hi all

Thanks for your positive and constructive responses.



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.




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.




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.



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



“Ten-Thousand” would be exact.



I think this is also fine.

Regards,

Thankstoall

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

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.


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.


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.


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 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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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...


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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hi Trueviet,




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



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.



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.

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 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

Now I see the disagreement. It's Cantonese and Vietnamese and Zhuang had been politically and geographically shaped by North Chinese in the past and we have to carry that influence until today, but IMO they carry similar genes and cultures. How do you account or explain that?

I am not talking about the scientists. I am talking about some persons who raise the BaiYue issue.
Please, read some articles by ChenDaShi and ZhangTaiYou to see that yourself.
I do not claim to be a scholar or a scientist. So I can excuse of my writing.
However, there is no excuses for those who claim to be good in many things, and cannot write an
acceptable essay.

I am different from you, who dare not to speak out before you think you are equally good as them.
I have courage to speak out against any scholar or famous person with whom I do not agree.
I do not wait until I gain enough reputation to speak out. I say that they are wrong.
Making judgement is the rights for everyone, from baby to adult. I do not want to be a liar when
I hide my judgement or thinking. I do not want to be a person unable to make a decision, either.
In the future, when I have new concept against my old one, I speak out again. Is it wrong doing that?

No. They are not saying that. These are examples of possibilities from BaiYue theory. There are other
samples of possibilities in opposit direction as Southern Han are Hanized Yue, the Yue should be
reunited in one Yue against great China, etc. I take back what I said that Chen and Zhang are actually
saying that. These thoughts and ideas are merly suggestions that make readers upset and disagree.

I don't know if Vietnamese generally know how Chinese society are, but you should do since you worked among them(?).
If you can explicitly do so, please tell what. Right now I don't have time to participate in Viet society

OK. I forgot to translate well. It's something like 萬春國.

Which paper?

Me too, I do not have time to tell you what

Do not misunderstand my intention.



Fairly quality, need not to refer.

Regards,

TTA

I accept the fact, the history, and I do not support the BaiYue concept. I think it is a nonsense idea.

I know many Han Chinese in Vietnam for generations. They have been intermarrying with local
Vietnamese for many generations. Their genes are distributing all over Vietnam. What does it
mean to the BaiYue concept?

At the time of ZhaoTuo, he moved thousands of North Han Chinese to the Canton area, and he
encouraged intermarriage. How about the genes of the Cantonese today in comparision with that
in the time before ZhaoTuo?

What genes and cultures are in common amongst the mordern Vietnamese, Zhuang, and Cantonese?
And how about that in the past? Even if there was something in common in the past, what is the
BaiYue concept promoting? There are Mongolia in both Mongol and in China, is there necessarily a
Mongolia concept or theory that all Mongolia should be in one? When all Mongolia in one community,
should they belong to Mongol or to China? All people with same genes and cultures should be detained
in separated concentration camps?