Hoklo on Bali, reports from the field

[amhoanna]

Thanks for the link, aPin! (capitalizing roots instead of prefixes, Zulu-style). It makes sense that even Vietnamese identity is a "man-made" construct with a new name, fortified through "backstreaming" the hell out of history.

Because they are Negritos? Did they reach SEAsia before the ancestors of other East Asians?

As far as I know, yeah, they're from an earlier wave of human settlement in the region. Then along came the "Austronesians" with their high-tech rice-growing and shipbuilding, etc.

One or two tribes of "Alisan lang" hold ceremonies every yr or every other yr to commemorate the "little people" that they murdered and displaced...

Re ethnicity, I agree with most of what's being said here, but there's one related (to the VNese situation) thing that I see differently...

Don't they still think of themselves as Hoklo or Hakka? If so, then they cannot deny that they are Chinese, since Hoklo & Hakka are Chinese.

From what I know, I tend to believe that "Hoklo as Chinese" and "Hakka as Chinese" are artificial constructs just like a "Vietnamese" identity that reaches back through the ages unscathed.

Both tribes came to be through a long process that involved mixing, conquest, assimilation, re-education, etc. To say that "all Hoklo are Han" or "all Hakka are Han" was and is a POLITICAL statement, whether in 2011 or in 1511, when much of the people that became "Hakka" were still hoanna trying to hold Ming rule at bay. Referring to aPin and his colleagues' papers, we could just as easily say "all VNese are Han"...

Taking another step back, even the terms "Hakka" and esp. "Hoklo" have lots of political content.

Still, I think it's valid to identify as "Hoklo but not Han".

In practice, it would probably be hard to do this w/o "backstreaming" --- picking and choosing among historical facts to build a "Hoklo" identity that reaches back through the ages unscathed.

Personally, I wish the TW nationalists would've paid some attention to Hoklo and Hakka history! It could've served them well, no doubt. It could've solved so many of their inner non sequiturs. But they didn't. Most were anxious to act as if nothing that had ever happened on the Asian mainland had anything to do with them.

In any case, I'm sure most of the Taiwanese who say they aren't Chinese are merely saying that they are not Tiong-kok-lâng and not denying their Tng-lâng-ness or 華人-ness and that the issue is more of English confusing membership of political and other entities.

True, I think. As for the people that denied/deny their Hoajin-ness on some level... I think that was mainly a "Meijian" denial of the concept of ethnicity. It wasn't "We aren't Hoajin." It was more "We've already been baptized in our nationalism. Bloodlines and tribal history don't matter anymore."

I used to take a dim view of this kind of attitude, but now that I think of it, denying the relevance of bloodlines and tribal history is probably just as valid as denying the relevance of national identities and the modern state --- something "me and my friends" do on a daily basis.

[Ah-bin]

I think it is good to treat people's beliefs about their ethnicity with as much respect as we do their religious beliefs, even if we happen to think they are nonsense.

Well, I'm not going to edit out what I said, as has been done some time in the past on this forum, but I can see that I haven;t really obeyed my own rule here. One of my friends had a worse run in with those people than I did, and I think it has made my opinion of them rather negative. Anyway, I'll just let it rest there I think and get back to the topic in hand.

I suppose the "Hoklo aren't Han" would be easier to do if Taiwanese nationalsts weren't so keen on making a distinction between Taiwanese Hoklo and everyone else. But as far as I have read, and I spent about a month back in 2006 searching through the Fu Szu-nien library at Academia Sinica for materials on the Hundred Yueh, confirms what Amhoanna says about the lack of interest and research into the origins of Hoklo speaking people on the East Asian mainland in Taiwan.

As for Hakkas I think there is a bit more interest because of they are in the minority. I collected a few books on Hakka history when I was there, but have yet to read them. One of them I have read a bit of says something about the Hakka being the product of intermarriage between Miao-Yao peoples and migrants from the north. Another thing I read once said that Hakka was more like a social category than a different type of Chinese, as some Hakkas retained their distinctive identity and customs even though they spoke the same sort of Sinitc language as those who surrounded them. I forget where I read this though, sorry.

Prof. Teng Hsiao-hua 鄧曉華 (I think that is how you write his name) at Amoy University has written a bit on the non-Sinitic element in Hakka, words which he traces to the Miao-Yao languages. I was trying to order some books from Chinese Amazon, one of which was a collection of songs in one of the Sinitic languages spoken by the people of 福安 (Hok-oaN) north of Hokchiu, but they declined my order for some reason. It was, as far as I remember (I saw it in a bookshop in Amoy and am now kicking myself for not having got it just then) a Min dialect with lots of those □ symbols indicating words with unknown characters that I love so much, because they usually indicate Hoanna vocabulary.

[niuc]

Thanks, Ah-bin & Amhoanna, for the well thought responses. I appreciate our different views. As I comment further, I am not trying to be stubborn, so kindly bear with this amateur.

You're still making a decision for them when you write that, and some people may still not want to be included in any variation of Chineseness, and still have their own reasons for doing it.

Actually I am not concerned at all about how they view themselves, but rather about consistency of terms (labels). I don't believe that anyone can "suka suka" change the established definitions.

In any case, I'm sure most of the Taiwanese who say they aren't Chinese are merely saying that they are not Tiong-kok-lâng and not denying their Tng-lâng-ness or 華人-ness and that the issue is more of English confusing membership of political and other entities.

If so, then it's indeed a matter of misunderstanding.

There are plenty of people whose ancestors came from what is now China in western countries who want nothing to do with it. I don't see any problem with it. One's culture and interests need not always be determined by our genetic ancestry I think. One day the balance of power might be different and the descendants of English people might not care about learning English. I wouldn't blame them for that either.

I concur. Everyone have free will to identify themselves as anything they want, to become whoever they wish. Yet I don't think they are free to redefine common labels that are not used by them only. I am not saying that those Taiwanese are doing that, since I don't know. If what they are denying is not their Tng-lâng-ness, then there is no problem in using the label Hoklo or Hakka.

As a digression, one of the interesting things I learnt last year was that the Ch'ing government did not consider Chinese who had converted to Christianity as Chinese any more, so they were permitted to stay in Macau overnight, when the other Chinese were not.

In Bagansiapiapi, there was a time (may be 20+ years ago) when Chinese who converted to Christianity were also viewed as less Chinese. Roman Catholicism missed a good chance due to papal initial objection to veneration of ancestors ("Chinese Rite Controversy"). The later decision to permit it was in a sense too late because the edict of toleration had been replaced by a ban.

As far as I know I-kuan-tao will sneakily pretend to be just about anything (Taoist, Confucianist, Catholic) to get converts.

So true. I had heard many stories from my friends who were brought by some members to their meetings and forced to accept 開光 khui1-kng1 (initiation into the sect) on their first visit! There were two female missionaries, one around 50+ and the other 20+, from Taiwan who went to Jakarta and stayed nearby our place. They came several times trying to get us to attend their meetings. Their members have to achieve certain quota in bringing people in, that's why they are so persistent. One ex-member told me that she was "sternly warned" that eating Yongtaufoo 釀豆腐 (containing fish) would land her in hell for several hundred years, not to mention red meat! Some told me that it was related to White Lotus Sect 白蓮教. Did you meet them in Australia? Glad that you manage to make the break!

(just edited this to apologise for the blunt tone, I think it was the shortness of the sentences that does it. I've been on night shift and had no sleep, and I can see how it has affected my writing by making me unable to string long complex sentences together!)

You didn't changed the sentences, right? Personally I don't feel any blunt tone. Sorry if any of my postings sound blunt!

One or two tribes of "Alisan lang" hold ceremonies every yr or every other yr to commemorate the "little people" that they murdered and displaced...

To commemorate the people and not the "victory"? Do the "Alisan" tribes feel remorse for that? Or to pacify the souls of those victims?

Both tribes came to be through a long process that involved mixing, conquest, assimilation, re-education, etc. To say that "all Hoklo are Han" or "all Hakka are Han" was and is a POLITICAL statement, whether in 2011 or in 1511, when much of the people that became "Hakka" were still hoanna trying to hold Ming rule at bay.

No doubt. Anyway, I don't think there are any pure Han, or any pure ethnicity for that matter. Regardless how Hoklo (if it is still equivalent to Minnan/Hokkien) or Hakka became Han/Tng-lang/Chinese, it is now an established identity, a traditional identification, for those people themselves. If any Taiwanese (so it seems none or very rare) think that they are not Han/Tng-lang, they indeed are free to do so, yet better in a consistent way.

Still, I think it's valid to identify as "Hoklo but not Han".

IMHO, it'd mean a small number of people changing the definition of a label used by many more others, in a sense a minority forcing their view on majority, and that surely would trigger disagreement. This is what I think shouldn't be done. There is always possibility that in the future most Hoklo may come to think that they are not Han anymore, and that's perfectly fine, as that would become an established tradition. Many may think that everyone is free to have their own definition, free and easy, yet that would render it eventually meaningless.

Sorry if I offend anyone who read these. I am not trying to make anyone agree with me. Thanks for sharing!

[Ah-bin]

You didn't changed the sentences, right? Personally I don't feel any blunt tone. Sorry if any of my postings sound blunt!

No, that wasn't a veiled hint about you! I think I was just feeling grumpy from lack of sleep, and I read my own writings as a bit grumpy. I didn't want to come across as if I were blankly stating my opinions as indisputable facts. I'll just outline some of the reasons here about why I became extremely sceptical about identities and ethnicities.

Actually I am not concerned at all about how they view themselves, but rather about consistency of terms (labels). I don't believe that anyone can "suka suka" change the established definitions.

All I would say is that nothing is really consistent over the long term, human lives are short and what people say they are in one generation and what their children say they are the next can be quite different. I haven't met any Prussians, Ottomans, or New South Welshmen recently, but a hundred years ago it was easy to meet them. I suppose you could say that Kà-liáu míh-kiàⁿ sī bô-siông ê or (in a classical style) that 天下無不滅之族 Thian-hā bû put biát chi chók, or even though some might, through their adaptability to change and long traditions, (Jewish and Chinese for example) convince us that they are immortal!

Three hundred years ago there were no Māori (the word at that time simply meant "ordinary"), no Indonesians and no Australians, and now there are people who would fight for the right to call themselves such.

A century ago, the people we now call Chinese in Southeast Asia were far less likely to identify themselves in that way, and would stick to their own groups, maybe more like the Germans, French, and British in Shanghai.

I one way it is actually a bit more difficult to change now since states and organisations have vested interests in convincing people to fit into one definition or another, and they reinforce identities through education systems. Even the identity that the Chinese state tries to construct now, has very little to do with that of the Ch'ing or Ming empires, the morality is completely different. They even let merchants into administrative positions!

Then again culture is increasingly becoming pick-and-mix, Young Chinese spend a lot of time watching barbarian TV shows, (Prison Break and Lost and Friends were particularly popular in China, as I remember, I didn't even really know about the first two!) and then there are even some misguided barbarians who spend years trying to learn Chinese thinking it will civilise them (hehehe)!

Many may think that everyone is free to have their own definition, free and easy, yet that would render it eventually meaningless.

Considering the problems that ethnic identity and nationalism have caused over human history, it might be a good thing if these became meaningless. Then again just because they might become meaningless in some quarters doesn't mean they will constantly stay that way...because Kà-liáu míh-kiàⁿ sī bô-siông ê!

Well, after that I don't know what I can say.....some academics dig themselves a theoretical grave by doubting all identities and labels sampai kóng lâi kóng khì pún sī siâng and they can't say anything about anything. I do prefer to walk around the deep hole rather than fall into it, otherwise I couldn't even say "Hokkien" without having to add some long qualifying clause!

One ex-member told me that she was "sternly warned" that eating Yongtaufoo 釀豆腐 (containing fish) would land her in hell for several hundred years, not to mention red meat! Some told me that it was related to White Lotus Sect 白蓮教. Did you meet them in Australia? Glad that you manage to make the break!

Actually I met the I-kuan-tao people through a Chinese language school in NZ where I used to work teaching the parents English conversation while the children were doing the ROC curriculum in the afternoon. Eventually the director of the school and the IKT people took it over, and moved it out west. They were making Chinese language teaching materials and wanted me to check them. It wasn't until a bit later that a classmate told me who they were. In Tai-lam they took some of the overseas students along to that ceremony (it was about a week before I arrived there) and tried to force them to do a ceremony, upsetting quite a few of them. Comparing them with the Hoat-Lun-Kong, they are much more eager to get converts. I think they have an uphill battle though. Vegetarianism is one thing, but it doesn't mean the same thing as 吃素/食齋, the thing about not eating onions/garlic/leeks/chives is just ridiculous to most westerners, except for Vegan vampires, perhaps!

[amhoanna]

A new book on Hakka history (inc. the diaspora) came out last yr: 千年客家. The pre-Han coverage is impressive. The author is a Prof. 湯 who's also published books on the history of the Hoklo at sea.

Do the "Alisan" tribes feel remorse for that? Or to pacify the souls of those victims?

Remorse, yes, at least ceremonially. I mean, it's been so long already. Not sure about pacifying the spirits of the orang asli, though.

I suppose the "Hoklo aren't Han" would be easier to do if Taiwanese nationalsts weren't so keen on making a distinction between Taiwanese Hoklo and everyone else.

There was a weak link and a strong link. They went after the strong link, i.e. TW Hoklo vs. other Hoklo. Constant harping on irrelevant Japanese loanwords, barely-there Dutch blood, etc. Yet in most cases, keeping themselves in the dark as to their Formosan blood.

Actually I am not concerned at all about how they view themselves, but rather about consistency of terms (labels). I don't believe that anyone can "suka suka" change the established definitions.

I tend to feel the same way, for better or worse. But I still nod and smile when I'm told that "B. Indonesia" is also spoken in M'sia.

IMHO, it'd mean a small number of people changing the definition of a label used by many more others, in a sense a minority forcing their view on majority, and that surely would trigger disagreement. This is what I think shouldn't be done.

I kind of agree with you here, Niuc. Ah-bin might see this differently? As I see it, ethnic identity is a group thing. If it's individual, then it's meaningless. Ah-bin says "Good riddance, maybe", and I think he's right.

Back to the labels and majorities and disagreements: pan-Hoklo dialog would definitely be good. It doesn't exist now.

Wait, actually there is no pan-Hoklo identity. Easy to forget here in this forum.

Regardless how Hoklo (if it is still equivalent to Minnan/Hokkien) or Hakka became Han/Tng-lang/Chinese, it is now an established identity, a traditional identification, for those people themselves.

But the truth is that "the Hoklo people" (or Hakka, etc.) flow from Han and non-Han roots! OK, so once upon a time the Hoklo ancestors decided to pretend to be "just Han". Now that we (or "you all", since I'm not a "real Hoklo") know better, why not embrace the old non-Han roots together with the Han? If an old tradition clashes with reality, then why NOT actively, constructively replace it with a new one? And if most Hoklos don't like the idea, should the ones that do (or their Shanghainese comrades ) give up b/c of that?

I have a hard time imagining Hoklos from Moslem Nusantara getting on board any identity that wasn't 100% "Chinese". Every time the "Chinese" were singled out or persecuted in Moslem Nusantara, their (you guys') Chinese identities became more steel-bound. Even w/o the persecution effect, it seems that Nusantara Chinese have the same view of China that the VNese have: clear enough across water (Hokkian, HK/Kuinntang, modern ROC) but murky across land (N China, central China), with many "Tngsoanns past" overlaid across the view of "China present". But in reality old Tngsoann is gone... (Though it lives on in Penang? Macau?) And the North is there and it's relentless. Now don't get me wrong. I like my Northern Chinese "paklou" just fine. I just don't like the idea that someday I'll be forced to be an "aTiong" for the greater good, and if not me, then my kids and their kids.

Let's just look around us. Here's just an example of what I'm trying to get at. The Peranakan Chinese had much contact and synergy with the people that got to Nusantara before them. The sinkhehs had and still have much less of both. Now the aTiongs are here. They're the new sinkheh. They're even more detached from the "ASEAN" environment than the old sinkheh! That's the China effect. That's what China is to me. A land culture, an army culture, a swarm culture, a top-down culture, a self-isolating culture that doesn't want to mix. But I believe (and probably most of you guys too) that "China" was so much more than just that during some Golden Age, during some part of the Tng era. I guess that's why "Aku bukan orang Cina", yet in many ways I'm proud to be a "Tnglang".

[niuc]

Kà-liáu míh-kiàⁿ sī bô-siông ê

True for most cases, depends on the definition of míh-kiàⁿ there. Is the statement itself also bô-siông? To understand the balance and the scope of a "truth" is the key we always need to pursue, I believe.

Beside above well known teaching in Buddhism, many Indonesian Buddhist websites (not sure why I found none in English or other languages) also mention that there is something unborn (na uppado pannayati), imperishable (na vayo pannayati), existing and not changing (na thitassa annathattan pannayati), known as Asankhata Dhamma. Nibbana (Nirvana) is called Asankhata Dhamma.

[I don't understand Pali, I simply quote from those websites e.g.
http://www.buddhistonline.com/dasar/tiratana2.shtml
http://satyagatha.blogspot.com/2010/10/tiratana.html ]

A century ago, the people we now call Chinese in Southeast Asia were far less likely to identify themselves in that way, and would stick to their own groups, maybe more like the Germans, French, and British in Shanghai.

Thanks for sharing about Maori etc, all very interesting. About Chinese in SEAsia, from my experience, the grouping would be like many concentric circles e.g. Bagan-lang as the very core circle, then Hokkien, then greater Minnan, then Chinese. About 20 years ago, Bagan-lang usually didn't want their children to marry other Hokkien (e.g. Medan), much less with Hakka or Cantonese etc, while non-Chinese was a big no-no. But nowadays, intermarriage with other Chinese are very common, although still rare with non-Chinese.

... and then there are even some misguided barbarians who spend years trying to learn Chinese thinking it will civilise them (hehehe)!

I suppose most Chinese indeed admire the achievements of Western(ized) countries. Surely the latter also have their own problems. To learn the good things and not to imitate the bad ones is the way to go, though easier said than done.

Considering the problems that ethnic identity and nationalism have caused over human history, it might be a good thing if these became meaningless.

It'd be great if all people can become "one" global people without being forced to. Given the selfishness of human beings, I have to say that I am skeptical about that possibility.

some academics dig themselves a theoretical grave by doubting all identities and labels sampai kóng lâi kóng khì pún sī siâng and they can't say anything about anything. I do prefer to walk around the deep hole rather than fall into it, otherwise I couldn't even say "Hokkien" without having to add some long qualifying clause!

A much needed realization in this era!

the thing about not eating onions/garlic/leeks/chives is just ridiculous to most westerners, except for Vegan vampires, perhaps!

[niuc]

Remorse, yes, at least ceremonially. I mean, it's been so long already. Not sure about pacifying the spirits of the orang asli, though.

I see. Thanks for the info.

Wait, actually there is no pan-Hoklo identity. Easy to forget here in this forum.

Indeed!

But the truth is that "the Hoklo people" (or Hakka, etc.) flow from Han and non-Han roots! OK, so once upon a time the Hoklo ancestors decided to pretend to be "just Han". Now that we (or "you all", since I'm not a "real Hoklo") know better, why not embrace the old non-Han roots together with the Han?

Not that I know for sure, but I think may be it was easier for them, that they not even needed to pretend, but could sincerely believe that they had become Han (or actually Tng) by the virtue of being loyal subjects of then 大唐 TāiTông. Could it be that the definition of being Han or Tng or Song was more about allegiance than the modern sense of ethnicity? Personally I don't mind to embrace all non-Han roots (but I know too little of them), and actually think of Tng identity as organically including those.

Every time the "Chinese" were singled out or persecuted in Moslem Nusantara, their (you guys') Chinese identities became more steel-bound.

Hmmm... very true.

That's the China effect. That's what China is to me. A land culture, an army culture, a swarm culture, a top-down culture, a self-isolating culture that doesn't want to mix.

Many if not most Singaporean who identify themselves as Chinese agree with you here. I constantly hear complains about PRC nationals.

But I believe (and probably most of you guys too) that "China" was so much more than just that during some Golden Age, during some part of the Tng era.

I gladly concur. I always think that current CCP's PRC will be merely a brief transitory period in Chinese history. Also ROC.

I guess that's why "Aku bukan orang Cina", yet in many ways I'm proud to be a "Tnglang".

Aku juga bukan orang Cina. Aku orang Tionghoa = Tnglang.

(Most) Indonesian Chinese would gladly agree with you that they are not Cina, but Tnglang/Tionghoa. Cina was considered very offensive. Nowadays it's more acceptable, yet most still say Chinese (using English pronounciation) instead of Cina. Strangely enough, after "Reformasi" some media use "China" to replace "Cina" e.g. Republik Rakyat Cina becomes Republik Rakyat China, may be due to Malaysia's influence. During Soekarno's time, it was Republik Rakyat Tiongkok.

[Ah-bin]

IMHO, it'd mean a small number of people changing the definition of a label used by many more others, in a sense a minority forcing their view on majority, and that surely would trigger disagreement. This is what I think shouldn't be done.

Actually...this is where my idea falls down! Not the right to be called what one wants, but the right to have exclusive use of it and stop others from using it in a certain sense.

[amhoanna]

Yeah, that's the crux of why to me Tng is all right to identify with: it's organic. And right now it's not being used politically. In fact the military-political complex might find it a little threatening.

For the same reasons, aku bukan orang Tionghoa... If I'm not mistaken, and maybe I am, Tionghoa was made popular (if not invented) by modern Tiongkok to serve its nationalistic ends.

Thanks for the discussion to this pt, guys.

[Ah-bin]

True for most cases, depends on the definition of míh-kiàⁿ there. Is the statement itself also bô-siông? To understand the balance and the scope of a "truth" is the key we always need to pursue, I believe.

Yes...and of course, if you're not a Buddhist that argument doesn't hold anyway!

Tng-lang is great, I wouldn't mind being a Tng-lang, not so sure about being an orang Tionghoa or orang Cina, not that I get a choice anyway.