yeah, they might not call themselves viets... so they call themselves cantonese? u cant even name them and u wana give them a country. what if i suggest the whole of africa should belong to a race called homo sapiens and we should start a republic, consisting the whole of africa, for them? in fact the early people at the red river delta probably didnt know how to cultivate rice and were of a half nomadic half foraging nature, so how are u gonna define a clear boundary for them? they might not even have the idea of a 'country' like the chinese had. right, u probably can tell me about the old dragon king, but who knows the idea of a 'dragon king' actually came from the chinese?
right, cantonese living in america. a cantonese holding american passport is automatically an american citizen, like it or not. dun identify with it, he can either migrate or there'll be a possibility he'll be called a traitor. u forgot one thing, the idea of a 'cantonese'(or any other dialects) is only applicable in the 'chinese background', meaning, he's of chinese ethnicity(maybe, but not necessarily, a chinese citizen). either u scroll up this thread or look for it in the other thread, i have already said, first u say, 'this guy is a 'chinese'(either citizenship or ethnicity or both) then u further define him according to his dialect group or hometown, 'he's a hokkien / shanghainese / pekinese / cantonese / teochiew, wadever. the idea of a cantonese or any of the dialects already classified this guy under 'a chinese', this speak for itself and need no further explaination. for an american citizen of chinese ethnicity, same case. he's first an american, (then maybe a northerer/ southerner, then city, like l.a., chicago, n.y.) then a chinese american, then further on a chinese american of cantonese ancestry. there is no contradiction in identifying himself both as an american and cantonese, cos one is his citizenship, and the other is his ethnicity+ancestry, there is no conflict at all. i doubt any american born cantonese would not identify themselves as an aerican citizen, cos first of all there is not a cantonese republic for them to identify with. u mixed up ancestry and citizenship.
for the case of japan, wrong story, cos the japanese race is almost homogeneous, the race probably equals citizenship. and japanese left in china after the war is only 2 generations at most(even my grandad still think himself as a chinese citizen, and he refused to learn malay thou he had been in s.e. asia for most of his life), so u are trying to compare 2000 yrs of racial+cultural assimilation with 2 generations. that proved my statement, u have no idea wad is 2000 yrs of history. anyway, if he dun like being a chinese citizen, there are proper procedures for him to migrate to other countries, nothing wrong or right here, just do it. see, again u mixed up ancestry and citizenship.
yes, reasons of a cantonese republic are already told, so are the reasons of not having one, for studies and academic purposes, no need to restore one(or was there any in the first place?), no need to rebuild the roman, mongol or napoleon empire to study them. simple? for nostalgic reasons, want to identify myself as a cantonese citizen, dun think any cantonese thought of that. i think u shouldnt try any further, ur reasons are limited and easily countered.
and i dun understand why u like to use 'wrong' or 'right' or other moral judgements like 'greed', first, ancestry and citizenship dun conflict, u got it mixed up, second, we are not here to judge anyone, just debating whether its a sound and workable idea to start a cantonese republic.
double standards in what? i'd alway like to see the world united into one and identify ourselves as earthlings, a pro globalisation guy here. u are the one who goes for 'separation, a separate republic' all the while. it's not whether i believe i can change anything or not. if u 'believe' in something, u actually dun know anything about it, its a guess(right, do u 'believe' in god?*laugh*). i dont usually make wild guesses, i do wad i can do, and anyway the idea of a cantonese republic isnt sound to me at all.
A Separate Cantonese Republic???
-
ppk
Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???
maybe u have a misunderstanding of chinese from different part of china. a cantonese only identify himself as a cantonese when he's with other chinese from different dialect groups, this is only a internal, regionalistic feeling, not some sort of patroitism. this is the same for every dialect group. to foreigners, they are, first of all, a chinese. no hokkien or cantonese or teochew in his right mind will identify himself according to his dialect group then tells u he's a chinese(or citizens of any other country) under normal circumstances.
my defination of cantonese? simple,
1. anyone who speak cantonese, learn cantonese as a mother tongue, and have paternal ancestry that can be traced into regions under the cantonese jurisdiction, say, for 5 generations and above.
2. anyone with the above identity but do not speak cantonese well or do not speak cantonese at all(speak other language/dialects).
3. anyone residing in cantonese regions holding proper residential documents.
4. anyone who lived elsewhere(in china or abroad) but can still trace their ancestry(with solid evidence) to cantonese region.
wad about that?
my defination of cantonese? simple,
1. anyone who speak cantonese, learn cantonese as a mother tongue, and have paternal ancestry that can be traced into regions under the cantonese jurisdiction, say, for 5 generations and above.
2. anyone with the above identity but do not speak cantonese well or do not speak cantonese at all(speak other language/dialects).
3. anyone residing in cantonese regions holding proper residential documents.
4. anyone who lived elsewhere(in china or abroad) but can still trace their ancestry(with solid evidence) to cantonese region.
wad about that?
-
Sum Won
Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???
ppk:
Did I say that the aborigins in the Cantonese regions called themselves "Cantonese"? No! The fact that you lump both the proto-Cantonese and the Viets, shows that you still don't know what I mean about nomenclatures. The fact that you have to stay in one place to cultivate rice (the southern regions was where rice was first cultivated), shows a sedimentary life by these people. However, if we were to go under your assumptions, that these people don't have a sense of nation, they do have a sense of race and culture. The Mongols were nomads, but they kept their seperate identity from the Chinese, and "Oh look! The Mongolians have a country with boundaries as well!"
I'm not the one who lumps citizenship with race, you are! The native-Cantonese, have distinct lineage from the rest of the people in China, and yet you claim them as 100% Chinese. Then you go around saying that I'm the one who gets confused about citizenship and race?
The Japanese left behind in China were children, not (grand)parents and (grand)children: "children". It may have been two generations ago, but there is only one generation of people left behind. You're right! I am comparing something old to something new, so what's wrong with that? Do you know how much human nature stays the same? Yeah, I said "human nature", why do you think history is categorized under a "social science"? "History repeats itself", have you ever heard of that? We learn about history to avoid the mistakes of the past from happening again.
Too bad the proto-Cantonese didn't have a choice when it came time for them to be forced to learn something native.
What the heck do you mean you aren't here to judge? You've been criticizing my REASONS for having a Cantonese Republic, not whether it's "sound or not"! If you were judging whether it was sound or not, you'd be criticising the way it'd be set up, the political structure, and policies of the Republic (which unfortunately doesn't exist).
I can't believe you don't see a double standard! You're the one proposing it! You believe in China's sovereignty over many places, that don't even belong to it, yet when other people have attacked China, I don't see you defending their sovereignty over China. If you are saing "something I don't know anything about", referring to the subject on the aborigins in the Cantonese regions, you can't necessarily say that your views are correct either. I do believe in something that I have a small amount of knowledge to, but it doesn't mean I don't have enough evidence to prove my point. Robert Broom was right, in contradicting the world, by saying that the earliest hominids were from Africa, and not Asia or Europe.
-------------------------------------------------------
Your definition of Cantonese...
1. "你對你啊媽都幾薄情呀!" What about maternal ancestry? Not only that, but you're worse than the NAZIs you described --to have to include 5(+) generations....
2. Well, at least you have some compassion in this area, for those who don't speak it well...
3. This is pretty funny, because all of the Caucasians in Macau and Hong Kong are still being called by the slur "鬼佬", and the Indians in Hong Kong are still demeaningly called "啊羼" (or something that sounds similar), yet some of their ancestors have been there for quite a while.
4. If you are referring to a lineage book, not even Cantonese in Guangdong and GuangXi have them, so how the heck are the Cantonese around the world going to claim their ancestry? I suppose a "Sorry, don't have any tangible evidence" won't suffice for you, now would it? Some of these lineage books don't even go back until as late as the Qing dynasty, so where the heck were they from before?
Did I say that the aborigins in the Cantonese regions called themselves "Cantonese"? No! The fact that you lump both the proto-Cantonese and the Viets, shows that you still don't know what I mean about nomenclatures. The fact that you have to stay in one place to cultivate rice (the southern regions was where rice was first cultivated), shows a sedimentary life by these people. However, if we were to go under your assumptions, that these people don't have a sense of nation, they do have a sense of race and culture. The Mongols were nomads, but they kept their seperate identity from the Chinese, and "Oh look! The Mongolians have a country with boundaries as well!"
I'm not the one who lumps citizenship with race, you are! The native-Cantonese, have distinct lineage from the rest of the people in China, and yet you claim them as 100% Chinese. Then you go around saying that I'm the one who gets confused about citizenship and race?
The Japanese left behind in China were children, not (grand)parents and (grand)children: "children". It may have been two generations ago, but there is only one generation of people left behind. You're right! I am comparing something old to something new, so what's wrong with that? Do you know how much human nature stays the same? Yeah, I said "human nature", why do you think history is categorized under a "social science"? "History repeats itself", have you ever heard of that? We learn about history to avoid the mistakes of the past from happening again.
Too bad the proto-Cantonese didn't have a choice when it came time for them to be forced to learn something native.
What the heck do you mean you aren't here to judge? You've been criticizing my REASONS for having a Cantonese Republic, not whether it's "sound or not"! If you were judging whether it was sound or not, you'd be criticising the way it'd be set up, the political structure, and policies of the Republic (which unfortunately doesn't exist).
I can't believe you don't see a double standard! You're the one proposing it! You believe in China's sovereignty over many places, that don't even belong to it, yet when other people have attacked China, I don't see you defending their sovereignty over China. If you are saing "something I don't know anything about", referring to the subject on the aborigins in the Cantonese regions, you can't necessarily say that your views are correct either. I do believe in something that I have a small amount of knowledge to, but it doesn't mean I don't have enough evidence to prove my point. Robert Broom was right, in contradicting the world, by saying that the earliest hominids were from Africa, and not Asia or Europe.
-------------------------------------------------------
Your definition of Cantonese...
1. "你對你啊媽都幾薄情呀!" What about maternal ancestry? Not only that, but you're worse than the NAZIs you described --to have to include 5(+) generations....
2. Well, at least you have some compassion in this area, for those who don't speak it well...
3. This is pretty funny, because all of the Caucasians in Macau and Hong Kong are still being called by the slur "鬼佬", and the Indians in Hong Kong are still demeaningly called "啊羼" (or something that sounds similar), yet some of their ancestors have been there for quite a while.
4. If you are referring to a lineage book, not even Cantonese in Guangdong and GuangXi have them, so how the heck are the Cantonese around the world going to claim their ancestry? I suppose a "Sorry, don't have any tangible evidence" won't suffice for you, now would it? Some of these lineage books don't even go back until as late as the Qing dynasty, so where the heck were they from before?
-
ppk
Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???
--Did I say that the aborigins in the Cantonese regions called themselves "Cantonese"? No! The fact that you lump both the proto-Cantonese and the Viets, shows that you still don't know what I mean about nomenclatures. The fact that you have to stay in one place to cultivate rice (the southern regions was where rice was first cultivated), shows a sedimentary life by these people. However, if we were to go under your assumptions, that these people don't have a sense of nation, they do have a sense of race and culture. The Mongols were nomads, but they kept their seperate identity from the Chinese, and "Oh look! The Mongolians have a country with boundaries as well!"
no, u didnt, in fact u said nothing about who they really are, but i clearly remember u did say they are vietnamese in an earlier post. the mongols have no definite boundaries until the qig govt and russian decided on that. to them, the world is a huge grassland and therefore their horses can go wherever they like.
--I'm not the one who lumps citizenship with race, you are! The native-Cantonese, have distinct lineage from the rest of the people in China, and yet you claim them as 100% Chinese. Then you go around saying that I'm the one who gets confused about citizenship and race?
they are 100% chinese citizens, and accepted the chinese cultures, dun u get it? either u forget or u simply reject everything others told u and just going round and round in circles like a dog chasing its tail. scroll up or look in the other thread, i am very sure i have said this before, for someone to be a 'chinese' its whether they accept the mainstream chinese culture or not, racial composition isnt the most important reason. this is one of the fundamental distinction of being a chinese or a foreigner. u want to stress on the racial thing, u wont get any acceptance from chinese, cos 'chinese' itself is already multi-racial. its the culture, language and way of life that bonds them together.
--What the heck do you mean you aren't here to judge? You've been criticizing my REASONS for having a Cantonese Republic, not whether it's "sound or not"! If you were judging whether it was sound or not, you'd be criticising the way it'd be set up, the political structure, and policies of the Republic (which unfortunately doesn't exist).
nope, no judging, just countering. ur reasons of having a cantonese republic and the methods of establishing one are both not sound to me. u cant decide who they really are(at least u cant tell who am i, a recognised cantonese, really is), and dont have a good way to do it, except separating the land.
1. "你對你啊媽都幾薄情呀!" What about maternal ancestry? Not only that, but you're worse than the NAZIs you described --to have to include 5(+) generations....
chinese customs, count the paternal side when it comes to ancestry. i am surprised u dont understand this yet u want to talk about chinese ancestry. nazis did that out of discrimination, i did that out of classification, as demanded by u. besides, thats one of the 4 criteria i proposed, anyone meeting 1 or more of the 4 can be considered a cantonese, not all. dont u see they wll be contradicting each other if a person is to meet all these criteria? its pretty obvious that a cantonese only need to meet one of these, yet u missed it.
3. caucasians, as u have already named them, shared a different racial composition and culture with chinese, the are not cantonese although they might speak the language and understand(not accept) the culture. read my posts properly, 'cantonese' only exist under the 'chinese background' context. first a chinese, then a cantonese. u really makes me feel like a tape recorder...
4. thats ur assumption. i have my linage book up till 1000ad, and i can trace up my ancestors at least 25 generations before, so did many of my friends. maybe this will let u understand what 'history' and 'ancestry' really is.
no, u didnt, in fact u said nothing about who they really are, but i clearly remember u did say they are vietnamese in an earlier post. the mongols have no definite boundaries until the qig govt and russian decided on that. to them, the world is a huge grassland and therefore their horses can go wherever they like.
--I'm not the one who lumps citizenship with race, you are! The native-Cantonese, have distinct lineage from the rest of the people in China, and yet you claim them as 100% Chinese. Then you go around saying that I'm the one who gets confused about citizenship and race?
they are 100% chinese citizens, and accepted the chinese cultures, dun u get it? either u forget or u simply reject everything others told u and just going round and round in circles like a dog chasing its tail. scroll up or look in the other thread, i am very sure i have said this before, for someone to be a 'chinese' its whether they accept the mainstream chinese culture or not, racial composition isnt the most important reason. this is one of the fundamental distinction of being a chinese or a foreigner. u want to stress on the racial thing, u wont get any acceptance from chinese, cos 'chinese' itself is already multi-racial. its the culture, language and way of life that bonds them together.
--What the heck do you mean you aren't here to judge? You've been criticizing my REASONS for having a Cantonese Republic, not whether it's "sound or not"! If you were judging whether it was sound or not, you'd be criticising the way it'd be set up, the political structure, and policies of the Republic (which unfortunately doesn't exist).
nope, no judging, just countering. ur reasons of having a cantonese republic and the methods of establishing one are both not sound to me. u cant decide who they really are(at least u cant tell who am i, a recognised cantonese, really is), and dont have a good way to do it, except separating the land.
1. "你對你啊媽都幾薄情呀!" What about maternal ancestry? Not only that, but you're worse than the NAZIs you described --to have to include 5(+) generations....
chinese customs, count the paternal side when it comes to ancestry. i am surprised u dont understand this yet u want to talk about chinese ancestry. nazis did that out of discrimination, i did that out of classification, as demanded by u. besides, thats one of the 4 criteria i proposed, anyone meeting 1 or more of the 4 can be considered a cantonese, not all. dont u see they wll be contradicting each other if a person is to meet all these criteria? its pretty obvious that a cantonese only need to meet one of these, yet u missed it.
3. caucasians, as u have already named them, shared a different racial composition and culture with chinese, the are not cantonese although they might speak the language and understand(not accept) the culture. read my posts properly, 'cantonese' only exist under the 'chinese background' context. first a chinese, then a cantonese. u really makes me feel like a tape recorder...
4. thats ur assumption. i have my linage book up till 1000ad, and i can trace up my ancestors at least 25 generations before, so did many of my friends. maybe this will let u understand what 'history' and 'ancestry' really is.
-
Sum Won
Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???
For one thing, if you can't read (which might explain the reason for your poor spelling), don't go putting words in other people's mouths. I have also noted for the both of us, while you concentrate on culture, I concentrate on lineage. As gray as my arguements are on lineage, your arguements for culture can't do much better. You are constantly under the assumption that the aborigins willingly accepted the culture, when actually they were held at gunpoint.
Regarding the Mongolians, what makes you think the Mongolians didn't have any sense of fate for themselves, as to have China and Russia decide it for them?
http://www.upenn.edu/museum/Mongolia/section2c.html
You judge something, before you decide to take action upon it. Obviously, you had to have judged my arguements, before you took action to criticize them. Correct?
1. The customs of the aborigins didn't exclude the women. Even the books written by Chinese historians note that women had a better status in society than their counterparts in China did.
"they are 100% chinese citizens, and accepted the chinese cultures, dun u get it? ...i am very sure i have said this before, for someone to be a 'chinese' its whether they accept the mainstream chinese culture or not, racial composition isnt the most important reason. this is one of the fundamental distinction of being a chinese or a foreigner ...cos 'chinese' itself is already multi-racial. its the culture, language and way of life that bonds them together."
3. From the footages I've seen, even these "foreigners" that do accept Chiense culture and practice it, it doesn't seem like they get much acceptance in turn...
4. Yeah, but let me rephrase my question, since leaving out a few words will always allow you to misconstrue things...
"If you are referring to a lineage book, not EVERY Cantonese have them, so how the heck are the Cantonese around the world going to claim their ancestry? I suppose a 'Sorry, don't have any tangible evidence' won't suffice for you, now would it? Some of these lineage books don't even go back until as late as the Qing dynasty (and not all go as far back as the Shang [or Xia] dynasty), so where the heck were they from before?"
Regarding the Mongolians, what makes you think the Mongolians didn't have any sense of fate for themselves, as to have China and Russia decide it for them?
http://www.upenn.edu/museum/Mongolia/section2c.html
You judge something, before you decide to take action upon it. Obviously, you had to have judged my arguements, before you took action to criticize them. Correct?
1. The customs of the aborigins didn't exclude the women. Even the books written by Chinese historians note that women had a better status in society than their counterparts in China did.
"they are 100% chinese citizens, and accepted the chinese cultures, dun u get it? ...i am very sure i have said this before, for someone to be a 'chinese' its whether they accept the mainstream chinese culture or not, racial composition isnt the most important reason. this is one of the fundamental distinction of being a chinese or a foreigner ...cos 'chinese' itself is already multi-racial. its the culture, language and way of life that bonds them together."
3. From the footages I've seen, even these "foreigners" that do accept Chiense culture and practice it, it doesn't seem like they get much acceptance in turn...
4. Yeah, but let me rephrase my question, since leaving out a few words will always allow you to misconstrue things...
"If you are referring to a lineage book, not EVERY Cantonese have them, so how the heck are the Cantonese around the world going to claim their ancestry? I suppose a 'Sorry, don't have any tangible evidence' won't suffice for you, now would it? Some of these lineage books don't even go back until as late as the Qing dynasty (and not all go as far back as the Shang [or Xia] dynasty), so where the heck were they from before?"
-
ppk
Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???
1. good point, this makes cantonese distinctively different from the aborigins, they are different, get it? go ask any cantonese whether he counts his ancestry based on his paternal line or maternal line.
3. cos they didnt acquire a chinese citizenship in the first place, understand? they are still, a foreigner. if they arent even chinese, by race or nationality, how are they supposed to be accepted as a cantonese? remember, a cantonese identity only works under a 'chinese background'.
4. meeting any one of the 4 requirements, my friend, any one of the 4. dun have a linage book? he speak cantonese, his father is a cantonese, his grandfather is a cantonese(and automatically his great grandfather is a cantonese), and acknowledged himself as a chinese cantonese, good enuff. anyway, u cant prove anything else too, with or without the linage books. are u telling me without the linage books it makes them automatically 'aborigins'?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Regarding the Mongolians, what makes you think the Mongolians didn't have any sense of fate for themselves, as to have China and Russia decide it for them?
if your ideas of mongolia was based on this website u posted, then u are misinformed. the mongols were nomads divided into multiple factions with no fixed locations until genghis khan united them. the mongols are overlords of the manchus ever since the state of jin(of the jurchens, ancestors of the manchus. manchus were of jurchen origins and called themselves 'later jin') was defeated by the mongols during southern song dynasty. the jin nobles were subdued and they sometimes intermarried the mongolian royals. after ming govt chased the mongols out of china, they are divided into multiple factions, and so are the jin nobles, separated into 3 main groups with numerous 'flags'(factions, some consisted of hundreds while some dozens. nurhaci, the first leader of qing dynasty started with only 30 warriors). as stated by that website, the mongols had around 3 centuries of civil war, between 2 major groups: the oirad and khalkha mongols.
most manchurian royals have mongolian blood in them since 1612ad. every emperor of the qing dynasty(except nurhaci) married the daughters of the strongest(and probably most supportive) mongolian factions and made her queen. concubines can be from other races, but queen is definitely mongolian. on the other hand, ard 50 manch princesses were married to mongolian royals. that website of yours did say the manchus 'officially take over' the halh princedom in 1691, but why? how? well this is the reason. the khalkha mongols, based in present rep. of mongolia, was defeated and somehow recognised the manchurian emperor as their 'cousins', sworn an oath and pledged alliance with the manchus, assisting them in the conquest of other factions. after the qing emperors conquered mongolia the factions are divided into the core factions and external factions(probably why inner and outer mongolia). the core were of majority and were those who supported the manchus. the externals were those who fought against the manchus. some of the oirad mongols moved westwards into kirghiz and kazakh territories during 1620 and became excellent horsemen for the russians. qing govt dd not exercise direct control over mongolia. they still have their own khans.
while qing were busy fighting the oirad mongol, altan khan(1507-83) of the tumed clan gradually grew in power, defeating other oirad clans and extend their influence into tibet and xinjiang. around 1680, the ambitions of altan khan was succeeded by galdan khan(1632-97) of the dzungar region. he tried to unify mongol and take it away from the qing govt. he gradually lead his men into khalkha regions. in 1682 he expanded into kazakh. in 1688, the khalkha mongols complained to qing govt and a war followed. galdan was defeated by a manchu-chinese force and followers fled to xinjiang, which lead to xinjiang being conquered later on when the manchus pursued the 'rebels'. mongolia came under manchurian control. russia and china are now neighbours and had several conflicts in between until 1727. russia and manchu china concluded the treaty of khiakta that year, delimiting the border between china and mongolia that exists in large part today.
after 1911 revolution in china, the mongols felt that they pledged alliance with the manchus, not the han chinese, and therefore wanted an independent state(under russian support) in 1912 or 1913, together with tibet(under british support). from 1922-28 mongolia was actually controlled by russia troops stationed there without consent from the chinese govt. hence there is nothing wrong in saying that the chinese and russians decided the size of their country.
3. cos they didnt acquire a chinese citizenship in the first place, understand? they are still, a foreigner. if they arent even chinese, by race or nationality, how are they supposed to be accepted as a cantonese? remember, a cantonese identity only works under a 'chinese background'.
4. meeting any one of the 4 requirements, my friend, any one of the 4. dun have a linage book? he speak cantonese, his father is a cantonese, his grandfather is a cantonese(and automatically his great grandfather is a cantonese), and acknowledged himself as a chinese cantonese, good enuff. anyway, u cant prove anything else too, with or without the linage books. are u telling me without the linage books it makes them automatically 'aborigins'?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Regarding the Mongolians, what makes you think the Mongolians didn't have any sense of fate for themselves, as to have China and Russia decide it for them?
if your ideas of mongolia was based on this website u posted, then u are misinformed. the mongols were nomads divided into multiple factions with no fixed locations until genghis khan united them. the mongols are overlords of the manchus ever since the state of jin(of the jurchens, ancestors of the manchus. manchus were of jurchen origins and called themselves 'later jin') was defeated by the mongols during southern song dynasty. the jin nobles were subdued and they sometimes intermarried the mongolian royals. after ming govt chased the mongols out of china, they are divided into multiple factions, and so are the jin nobles, separated into 3 main groups with numerous 'flags'(factions, some consisted of hundreds while some dozens. nurhaci, the first leader of qing dynasty started with only 30 warriors). as stated by that website, the mongols had around 3 centuries of civil war, between 2 major groups: the oirad and khalkha mongols.
most manchurian royals have mongolian blood in them since 1612ad. every emperor of the qing dynasty(except nurhaci) married the daughters of the strongest(and probably most supportive) mongolian factions and made her queen. concubines can be from other races, but queen is definitely mongolian. on the other hand, ard 50 manch princesses were married to mongolian royals. that website of yours did say the manchus 'officially take over' the halh princedom in 1691, but why? how? well this is the reason. the khalkha mongols, based in present rep. of mongolia, was defeated and somehow recognised the manchurian emperor as their 'cousins', sworn an oath and pledged alliance with the manchus, assisting them in the conquest of other factions. after the qing emperors conquered mongolia the factions are divided into the core factions and external factions(probably why inner and outer mongolia). the core were of majority and were those who supported the manchus. the externals were those who fought against the manchus. some of the oirad mongols moved westwards into kirghiz and kazakh territories during 1620 and became excellent horsemen for the russians. qing govt dd not exercise direct control over mongolia. they still have their own khans.
while qing were busy fighting the oirad mongol, altan khan(1507-83) of the tumed clan gradually grew in power, defeating other oirad clans and extend their influence into tibet and xinjiang. around 1680, the ambitions of altan khan was succeeded by galdan khan(1632-97) of the dzungar region. he tried to unify mongol and take it away from the qing govt. he gradually lead his men into khalkha regions. in 1682 he expanded into kazakh. in 1688, the khalkha mongols complained to qing govt and a war followed. galdan was defeated by a manchu-chinese force and followers fled to xinjiang, which lead to xinjiang being conquered later on when the manchus pursued the 'rebels'. mongolia came under manchurian control. russia and china are now neighbours and had several conflicts in between until 1727. russia and manchu china concluded the treaty of khiakta that year, delimiting the border between china and mongolia that exists in large part today.
after 1911 revolution in china, the mongols felt that they pledged alliance with the manchus, not the han chinese, and therefore wanted an independent state(under russian support) in 1912 or 1913, together with tibet(under british support). from 1922-28 mongolia was actually controlled by russia troops stationed there without consent from the chinese govt. hence there is nothing wrong in saying that the chinese and russians decided the size of their country.
-
Sum Won
Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???
The Chinese and Russians were major influences in the politics and history of Mongolia. However, the "Treaty of Kyakhta", was established, as an agreement between the Russians and the Manchurians, as to where their borders were. At that time, as you described yourself, the Manchurians were the ones in control.
-
Sum Won
Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???
1. Remember the dual-origins modern Cantonese have. You've constantly been ignoring the aborigin's side. Just because the modern Cantonese accept Chinese culture, doesn't mean there is no way they won't accept aborigin culture.
3. Well then, you should show every "minority" in Hong Kong and Macau how to obtain citizenship, since that's the only thing they're missing in your requirements.
5. Meeting any 1/4? Well, the minorities in Macau and Hong Kong who meet at least two requirements of yours, aren't even accepted by you, because they don't have citizenship.
One thing about you sinocentrics that never ceases to amuse me, is that you'll always take a statement, like "lineage books aren't trustworthy, and not all Cantonese have them", and add your own little speculations to become something outrageous as "without lineage, these people aren't Cantonese".
3. Well then, you should show every "minority" in Hong Kong and Macau how to obtain citizenship, since that's the only thing they're missing in your requirements.
5. Meeting any 1/4? Well, the minorities in Macau and Hong Kong who meet at least two requirements of yours, aren't even accepted by you, because they don't have citizenship.
One thing about you sinocentrics that never ceases to amuse me, is that you'll always take a statement, like "lineage books aren't trustworthy, and not all Cantonese have them", and add your own little speculations to become something outrageous as "without lineage, these people aren't Cantonese".
-
ppk
Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???
so it was manchurian in control, so the west had never encountered the chinese, they were just meeting up with manchurians, right? there was no sino-russian war nor sino-japanese war, there was a manchurian-russian war, a manchurian-japanese war, is that what u are saying? so the boxers' revolution was between manchurian and the west, so why the west attacked chinese instead of the manchus? so why was hong kong and macau returned to the chinese instead of manchurian? there is this chinese saying, 'eyes open but talked blindly', i think it fits u quite well.
have u heard of the term 'manchurian and chinese are a family'? this was a policy proposed and implemented by the manchurian emperors of qing dynasty for more than 200yrs. they see themselves as chinese. u still dont get it do u? all regional differences within china are internal affairs, between chinese, not between foreigners and chinese.
1. would u think a group of people will accept a 'culture' that they dont even know about at all, more than 2000yrs back, and are relatively backwards compare to what they have now? and its not just 'modern' cantonese who accepted chinese culture. cantonese practiced chinese culture(but not limited to chinese culture) since the first day they appear on chinese land.
3. well, its up to them to do so, not me to tell them. if they wanna be cantonese, they got to be 'chinese' first. if they cant do it racially(since they are caucasians or other 'minorities' as suggested by u), do it officially, take up a chinese citizenship. look at it from a asian point of view, its not that u speak english, u accept western culture, u automatically becomes an englishman or an american. u need a passport or a green card, isnt that obvious?. i am surprised u keep on arguing on this point.
4. reasons stated above, so resistance is futile. first of all, they are not chinese in anyway, not politically as emphasized by me(no documents) nor ethically as emphsized by u(not ethnical chinese). so no way they can be cantonese since cantonese is a sub group under chinese. please read my post properly, i already said my requirements apply to chinese only. u are not born as an english and u dont carry a uk passport, do u claim urself an englishman just because u speak english? please answer.
its a fact that u cant prove anything either with or without a linage book. and its just a question for u anyway, not a claim or a speculation.
nevermind, for ur sake, i'll add another requirement. this is a fundamental requirement that applies to all cantonese and i believe no cantonese will disagree with it. all cantonese will meet this requirement:
5. cantonese have to be chinese, either, if not both, in race and/or citizenship.
happy now?
have u heard of the term 'manchurian and chinese are a family'? this was a policy proposed and implemented by the manchurian emperors of qing dynasty for more than 200yrs. they see themselves as chinese. u still dont get it do u? all regional differences within china are internal affairs, between chinese, not between foreigners and chinese.
1. would u think a group of people will accept a 'culture' that they dont even know about at all, more than 2000yrs back, and are relatively backwards compare to what they have now? and its not just 'modern' cantonese who accepted chinese culture. cantonese practiced chinese culture(but not limited to chinese culture) since the first day they appear on chinese land.
3. well, its up to them to do so, not me to tell them. if they wanna be cantonese, they got to be 'chinese' first. if they cant do it racially(since they are caucasians or other 'minorities' as suggested by u), do it officially, take up a chinese citizenship. look at it from a asian point of view, its not that u speak english, u accept western culture, u automatically becomes an englishman or an american. u need a passport or a green card, isnt that obvious?. i am surprised u keep on arguing on this point.
4. reasons stated above, so resistance is futile. first of all, they are not chinese in anyway, not politically as emphasized by me(no documents) nor ethically as emphsized by u(not ethnical chinese). so no way they can be cantonese since cantonese is a sub group under chinese. please read my post properly, i already said my requirements apply to chinese only. u are not born as an english and u dont carry a uk passport, do u claim urself an englishman just because u speak english? please answer.
its a fact that u cant prove anything either with or without a linage book. and its just a question for u anyway, not a claim or a speculation.
nevermind, for ur sake, i'll add another requirement. this is a fundamental requirement that applies to all cantonese and i believe no cantonese will disagree with it. all cantonese will meet this requirement:
5. cantonese have to be chinese, either, if not both, in race and/or citizenship.
happy now?
-
Sum Won
Re: A Separate Cantonese Republic???
Yeah, when things are going alright under the Qing dynasty, it's "滿漢一家" ("Manchu-Han are a family"), and when the revolution sprouts around, it's "打倒滿清走狗" ("Down with the Manchu-Qing 'running dogs'"). If you were really one family, you would've said "Down with imperialism", but since the revolutionaries put race into the context, rather than government system, the Manchus and Hans weren't a family.
1. This is exactly what "Red Sultan" and I were addressing, in earlier posts. You haven't even given the aborigin culture a chance. No one wants to research it, because they're happy with their own little lives, afraid of their roots, rather than confronting it.
Of course the proto-Cantonese gradually accepted the culture! It was practically enforced upon them at gunpoint.
3. Up to them? Before 1997, tons of Indians and Pakistanis in Hong Kong, were about to be left citizen-less in either China or Hong Kong. The British had to implement plans to give them citizenship. It's not up to them, it's up to the politicians and the representatives in Hong Kong's local parliament to decide the standards for citizenship. Even if these people wanted to apply for Hong Kong citizenship, it'd be hard. Who knows how hard it'd be for these people to even apply for PRC citizenship!
4. If citizenship (a requirement of yours), is all they're missing then why don't you help these poor souls trying to be as Cantonese as they can, get their citizenship? What, you can't stand the idea that a Portuguese in Macau legitimately claiming that he's Cantonese? Or a Briton, Indian, or Pakistani in Hong Kong doing the same?
A new requirement just for my sake? I'm flatterred!
5. You have to be Chinese, in order to be Cantonese? That again is one-sided, because you are again ignoring the fact that modern-day Cantonese have aborigin lineage as well. So race-wise, these people couldn't be 100% Chinese. Hence, they wouldn't fit your category of being Cantonese. Citizenship-wise, you haven't even allowed for a Cantonese Republic to form, and set up its government institutions. So to have to stick with Chinese citizenship only, would be completely unfair, for those who actually do want a Republic set up.
1. This is exactly what "Red Sultan" and I were addressing, in earlier posts. You haven't even given the aborigin culture a chance. No one wants to research it, because they're happy with their own little lives, afraid of their roots, rather than confronting it.
Of course the proto-Cantonese gradually accepted the culture! It was practically enforced upon them at gunpoint.
3. Up to them? Before 1997, tons of Indians and Pakistanis in Hong Kong, were about to be left citizen-less in either China or Hong Kong. The British had to implement plans to give them citizenship. It's not up to them, it's up to the politicians and the representatives in Hong Kong's local parliament to decide the standards for citizenship. Even if these people wanted to apply for Hong Kong citizenship, it'd be hard. Who knows how hard it'd be for these people to even apply for PRC citizenship!
4. If citizenship (a requirement of yours), is all they're missing then why don't you help these poor souls trying to be as Cantonese as they can, get their citizenship? What, you can't stand the idea that a Portuguese in Macau legitimately claiming that he's Cantonese? Or a Briton, Indian, or Pakistani in Hong Kong doing the same?
A new requirement just for my sake? I'm flatterred!
5. You have to be Chinese, in order to be Cantonese? That again is one-sided, because you are again ignoring the fact that modern-day Cantonese have aborigin lineage as well. So race-wise, these people couldn't be 100% Chinese. Hence, they wouldn't fit your category of being Cantonese. Citizenship-wise, you haven't even allowed for a Cantonese Republic to form, and set up its government institutions. So to have to stick with Chinese citizenship only, would be completely unfair, for those who actually do want a Republic set up.