|
|
|
|
|
GOLDSEA |
ASIAMS.NET |
POLL & COMMENTS
CHINESE MALE/ VIETNAMESE FEMALE RELATIONSHIPS
(Updated
Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008, 05:23:28 PM
to reflect the 100 most recent valid responses.)
This poll is closed to new input.
Comments posted during the past year remain available for browsing.
CONTACT US
|
ADVERTISING INFO
© 1996-2013 Asian Media Group Inc
No part of the contents of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission.
|
|
|
|
WHAT YOU SAY
[This page is closed to new input. --Ed.]
[This page is for discussions about relations between Chinese men and Vietnamese women. No more history lessons. --Ed]
First of all let me break all of the semantic remarks.
It must be known and understand that there is no such thing as a pure Chinese or Vietnamese. This is greatest poobah.
Based on historical evidence, and no one can deny this, China lost its country nearly 300 years ago to the Qing dynasty (Manchu). The Han (considered to be the truth Chinese) lost their empire when the Ming emperor hung himself to death in the rural area outside the capital, Beijing.
After the fall of Ming dynasty, many Hans moved to the region of Fujian, Taiwan, Canton, Yunnan and Vietnam.
The modern China now is shaped with mix race of the manchurian and the Han people, thus it would make it difficult for a person to determine what origin he/she came from... Only during the first few reigns can one be able to determine if he/she is a Han or Manchurian. Therefore, this is a mood point to consider.
As I remebered, one poster possibly a Korean in several previous posts claimed that Korean is closer to the Han heritage, this is purely a false analyzing and he/she needs to keep track with the history and anthropology. The Korean is closer to the Manchurian, not the Han.
Based on some historical records, the Korean's ancestor may be the same as those who are known to be the Manchu and Siberia. Although, there are some evidence that Mon-khmer also had settled in Korea, they originated from the southern border of the Yangtze river, geographically located in between the China and Myanmar. Mon-Khmer are also one of the ethnics living in Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma, Malaysia, Thailand and Laos. Click on: http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/stearns_awl/medialib/IM/ch19.pdf
However, I found there are numerous flaws in the history of Vietnam and its origin people, written by the Westerners and the Vietnamese themselves.
If one has been to Vietnam, he/she could see that there are different facial structures among the North, Central and South Vietnamese. One must keep in mind that Vietnam invaded the Cham empire(which is now known as the Cambodian "Mon-Khmer"), southern part of Vietnam, in the mid 1700's and had intermarriage between the two clans. After the Conquest, several decades later, the French started to colonize Vietnam. Before the conquest of the Cham dynasty, Vietnam was rule by a local king under the Le dynasty, it was also a territory of the Chinese but had not fully intergrated into the Chinese empire, due to the fact that that region is newly develop and uncultivated as comparing to the central or northern provinces of China. That is why the Vietnamese local king has to sacrifice and give some tokens away to the Chinese emperor yearly. The Ming dynasty of China during the 1700's was to annex into its empire. However, they lucked out and was invaded by the Manchu "Qing" dynasty. The war between the Manchu and the Ming dynasty had put Annam "Vietnam" allied with the Manchuria, please see the Britannica encyclopedia for reference. The manchuria at that time has some form of bilateral agreement with Annam "Vietnam" if they were not to help the Ming Dynasty...thus will create its independent.
After the Qing dynasty ceased China under their control, Vietnam then at that time could be said to have its own independent. Prior to that all of the Vietnam local kings are considered to be "Vuong" or in chinese "Wang", the status is equivalent to the European middle age as "landlord". Although, many Vietnamese will disagree...This is mostly due to the french Colonization that segregated the Vietnamese from its neighbors.
The high class and rulers of Vietnam spoke different language than the commoners. They spoke the "Han" language, the pronounciation is similar to Cantonese; however, its dialect derives mostly from the Mandarin.
Notice the "Nguyen" name has never been recorded in history until the development of its dynasty. The purpose of the Nguyen Dynasty was to break away from china. When the Nguyen(Yuen) and the Trinh(Zheng) Dynasty got into a feud, the Nguyen ran to the south and invaded the Cham dynasty, as mentioned above. After the Tay son brothers conquered or united the whole country, one of the Nguyen's nephew fled and exile to France and asked for help. The French at the time of Louis XIV or XVI(?) didn't want to help; however, there was one Roman-catholic priest, who was the teacher of that exile Nguyen's nephew helped and demanded some exchanges in return. This is the beginning of the French colonization.
Year after year, the French changed the whole system, and thus many old vietnamese culture, literature and type of writting had been lost. Many Vietnamese at that time were brainwashed by the French, so that it would be easier for the French to rule. Imagine how 10,000 French Soldiers can control more than 15 million people in Vietnam... That set the course and Vietnam has lost its culture, with only myth and legend left to be it history.
By the way, since I have been living in France for more than seven years, I can tell you honestly the current Vietnamese is nothing like French, as many Vietnamese had believed. Our roman letter is basically derived by the Portugal style or accent in writing, created by a French missionary Alexandre de Rhode.
Although these are based on my research and observation, accurate hytorical analyzing would be challenging daily. Nonetheless, one must consider it's impossible to obtain an accurate data.
Sorry this is not so eloquently illustrated because history is en masse to express at once.
The traveller
Wednesday, June 19, 2002 at 01:14:48 (PDT)
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|