Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Discussions on the Cantonese language.
Locked
javis

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Post by javis »

you don't know chinese history at all
maybe japanese was from china
ppk

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Post by ppk »

sorry sum, no more proto cantonese, and no one responsible for thir culture now. u missed the point totally, i said a loooooong time ago, the term cantonese only appeared long after china aquired canton, not before, so cantonese are already naturally chinese by birth. the chinese might have killed some of the 'proto cantonese', but 'cantonese' is a true blue chinese product, and they dun get themselves killed by chinese, they are a branch of the chinese race. 'proto cantonese' might still exist for a while after that but they either dissappeared or got assimilated into other minority groups, and these new types no longer represent the original proto cantonese. no matter its out of greed or survival, they merge with someone else, so be it. when we look at history, its about how things 'had' happened, not how things 'should' happen. a lot of us might feel that liubei instead of caocao should win in 3 kingdoms, maybe yuefei shoulnt have died, maybe the mongols shouldnt rule china, but that is history, we learn aout it, but we are not here to correct it as the way we like.
Sum Won

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Post by Sum Won »

Javis:

I get many remarks like yours, yet unlike ppk, and some of the other sinocentrics in this forum, at least they debate about the topic, so why don't you do the same? Beforehand however, you should read the whole entire thread, unlike some of them...
ppk

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Post by ppk »

and again, sum, u are looking at the 'proto cantonese' the way u wished they were. u are just speculating that the leaders are greedy and corrupted. greedy about what? the chinese can provide them with wealth and status? what for? if i can conqure a land with troops would i still be bothered to use money to bribe them? would the germans bribe the jews when the they can round the jews up with german troops? on the other hand, if its like what u say, i doubt that the general proto cantonese population couldnt realised the chinese can actually make them richer. how could u be sure there wasnt a poll among the proto cantonese that they finally came to the conclusion that they decided to join the chinese, and those who choose oherwise decided to leave for present vietnam?

looking at numbers, the 3 newly established province at present canton(guangdong) and guangxi area had a population of almost a million in early han dynasty, which was only 4 or 5 decades after the chinese aquired canton. say 50% were ethnic chinese, then that makes half a million proto cantonese. so are u telling me that those who stayed with the chinese were 'officials'? half a million greedy proto cantonese petty officials?

besides, cantonese were not called cantonese in the beginning. until tang dynasty they were called 'ling'nan'(south of the hills) people, ie. people south of fujian separated by the 5 hills between fujian and canton. cantonese is quite a recent term, and proto cantonese robably end up with 'ling'nan' people, who were already chinese at that time.
Sum Won

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Post by Sum Won »

If you're a smart person, you'd know that winning over someone with favors, is easier than using brute force to keep them under your control. The Chinese government knew this, and so its policies towards these people, were to incur as little trouble as they could, by pacifying them with whatever material goods they could afford, while still making a profit. Try looking at the Romans and compare them with the Chinese, you'll see similarities in policy of assimilation. The NAZIs --i assume these are the Germans you are referring to, unless you're trying to direct me to the Goths, who would've had some ancient contact with the Jews-- burned the Jews in WWII, because they found a scapegoat for their problems, and hence was the reason for not bribing them. One of the common stereotypes of Jews, are that they're very stingy when it comes to money, so it would be completely unimaginable for a NAZI to bribe a Jew. The Chinese relation to the proto-Cantonese, wasn't because they found a scapegoat to their problem, and that it had to be rid of. It was, more of a "Hey, we're pompous, egotistical, people who think that our culture is better than anyone elses, so let's spread our culture to those inferior barbarians and 'teach' them the correct way. Ooh! Don't forget, they also have fertile land, and very exotic plants and women too!"
[noting the incompatibility of your comparison, I shall move onto your next question...]
The reason why there is no vote by the general population to stay or leave, is because there is no evidence that this happened, compared to the compelling evidence of the fighting that took on.

As I've said many times before, Chinese census counts in the south are rarely trustworthy. You should sift through earlier arguements to see why...

The reason I chose "proto-Cantonese", is because, LingNam also encompasses modern-day Northern VietNam, and their relations to China differ at certain points of history.
ppk

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Post by ppk »

whether the numbers are trustworthy or not, they are there. what is there to back u up then? speculations? by using ur speculation methods, i can firmly assumed that a polling did actually took place, wad do u say?

yes i referred to the nazis and yes, u are stereotyping the jews.

now u say the chinese are richer, but they bribe the locals, becos they are envious of the rich land and produce the local 'barbarians' (as u say) have, isnt that contradicting?
Sum Won

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Post by Sum Won »

So, if someone were to tell you Enron's company was still doing very well, even though it's company filed for chapter 11, would you believe them?

Thankyou for clarifying your reference to "Germans to WWII", and not the Goths. Unfortunately, as you usually do, read something wrong again. I gave you an example of a stereotype that was present among the Germans (and other people) at the time. Go back and read it...

Why don't you read the thread again, and find out just what exactly I said, then apply a little brain power, and there is nothing contradicting to what I said earlier, instead of making false accusations.
ppk

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Post by ppk »

if someone is gonna tell me that enron is still doing well, then show me the numbers, simple as that. where are ur numbers? in fact, by using enron as an example it shows that u got no idea how accounts in such huge multinational firms are handled.

what exactly u said, is that u 'speculate' the ancient viets resisted joining the chinese, without giving any numbers, what portion, how many of them thnk this way, and only some of their leaders do agree cos they got bribed. and again, with anything to prove ur remark, u simply make a moral judgement on them, that greed makes them did so. may i remind u this is no longer a time where u can simply burn others on the stake by branding them heretics?

what u are trying to prove, is that present cantonese are the descendents of the ancient viets(and therefore they are suppose to built a nation of their own), which is a wrong conclusion. reasons i have given earlier on either in this thread or the other.

maybe i should refresh your memory a bit, that 'cantonese' doesnt constitute to a race, but simply a general, collective, regionalistic description of chinese living in canton(maybe only for now, maybe for a few generations, maybe thruout their family history), speaking cantonese and shared almost identical cultural background with chinese anywhere else.

i maybe a cantonese now, but my ancestors moved from, say, beijing, to canton like 10 generations ago for various reasons. does that makes me a descendent of the ancient viets? the answer is a definite no. again, show me the numbers: u have no idea how large a portion of the present cantonese population are actually immigrants from other parts of china(in fact nobody knew), yet u try to make a sweeping statement(which may even sound insulting to some) that cantonese are vietnamese(which is another layer apart, cos present vietnamese arent exactly the same as the ancient viets, thou they are closely related). hey, maybe u should apologise to some of the canonese people here. i guess u wont be happy if i brand all vietnamese as chinese either.
ppk

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Post by ppk »

in other words, sum, u have no idea how things can evolve in 2000yrs. to u, it may be a blink of the eye and u see present cantonese equals vietnamese(ehh... nomemclatures?!). but in actual fact, thing does change a lot within 2000yrs. and there is no way one can describe it in a few simple sentences.
KP

Re: Cantonese originally not Chinese???

Post by KP »

Someone told me when the Trung sisters rebelled against China in 40 AD, a few "Chinese" provinces also joined the rebellion. So, apparently, there is limited information available about ancient viets rebelling against expansionist China.

Anyways, with the conquests of China by the nothern barbarians over the past 1000 years, it is safe to say that Vietnamese are now very different than the "Chinese" from Guangdong/Xi and Southeast China. Obviously from the opinions of most Cantonese here, there is on need or want by the "Cantonese" to separate themselves from China.
Locked