Comparing Asian Nationalities | Asian American Poll

COMPARING ASIAN NATIONALITIES
(Updated Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008, 05:20:43 PM to reflect the 100 most recent valid responses.)

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.]

i was wondering is the filipino actually Asian? I know for a fact that thousands of words in filipino are derived from spanish, and some actually mexican. their family of tongue is malayo-polynesian but i've read in books that only 500 words are actually Malay.
linguist Monday, June 03, 2002 at 13:43:16 (PDT)

olmy,

How did the Han chinese like people get to southern Korea? What references did you use for your comments?
Edward Monday, June 03, 2002 at 12:40:07 (PDT)

Dai Viet,

Do you think who else in the world know the Vietnamese more than the Chinese?

I believe both Chinese and Vietnamese scholars recorded the relation between China and Vietnam very accurately with different perpectives.

Please remember most of history of Vietnam were recorded by Vietnamese scholars in Chinese language.

An Nam Guy Monday, June 03, 2002 at 11:49:47 (PDT)

Wonbin,

Cham people are different from Cambodians and Laotians. Champa Kingdom was located southern neighbor of Vietnam (central of today Vietnam). If Champa still existed, Vietnam has no contact with Cambodia. Cambodia was further South. Champ people have their own culture. They might link to the people of Malay or Indonesia. They practice Muslim and their skins are very dark. They have curly hair. There are about several thousand Chams living in central Vietnam, mostly in Phan Rang near Cam Ranh Bay. They were recorded in Vietnam history as one of the best warriors compared to other Vietnam neighbors. I personally met some Chams in Vietnam. They don’t look different from what Vietnam history recorded.

In 14th century they launched many military campaigns against the Vietnamese. Several times, Thang Long (now Ha Noi), capital of Kingdom of Vietnam was raid by Champs warriors. (General Viet correctly mentioned). They came by boats from the sea (South China Sea) and land from the south.

Cambodians practice Indian Buddishm. Their skins are darker than Vietnamese, but some are light. Their eyes are big and beautiful.

Both Kingdoms of Champ and Cambodians were flourished in the past. They both have strong armies recorded by Vietnam history.

But sometimes in the 16th century, Thailand on West Side and Vietnam from North and East Side attacked the Khmer Empire and caused it to collapse.

Laotians skins are comparable to Vietnamese: light and bright. They are more influenced by Thai culture. Many words in their language are from Thai. Like her Thailand sister, they practice Indian Buddishm. She considered small and weakest in the region. She almost has no conflict with the Vietnamese for thousand of years. She is considered “State of Swiss” in the region.

Vietnam is only nation that has Chinese influences in the region. Others are more Indian influences.

In America, very often, a Vietnamese is mistakenly for being Chinese and a Cambodian is mistakenly for being Filipino.

For questions regarding Guangxi, Guangdong provinces.

In 18th century, after the defeat of Chinese Qing army in Hanoi area, Vietnamese Emperor Quang Trung asked the Chinese Quing to return Guangxi and Guandong provinces to the Vietnamese. However, advised by Chinese governor of these provinces to maintain peace with China, Emperor Quang Trung requested to engage a Chinese princess instead. His request was approved by Qing Emperor Cang Long (Chinese spelling?). But the marriage was never fulfilled because Emperor Quang Trung passed away. He was recorded in Vietnam history as “ the best military strategist”. He defeated two Vietnamese warlords: Nguyen in the South and Trinh in the North. He originally came from central Vietnam, Binh Dinh province.

It is clearly that Vietnamese people went south, many were left behind in two Chinese provinces Guangxi and Guangdong (Vietnamese called Quang Tay and Quang Dong).

An Nam Guy Monday, June 03, 2002 at 10:47:55 (PDT)

I remember watching a story on a Korean TV channel some years ago. It was about a Vietnamese prince who came to Korea on a ship. I was amazed to hear the story because never had it occurred to me that there might have been a Korean/Vietnamese connection in ancient time. Since I have forgotten most of the details about him I did research about the person in Korean websites and found a site containing information about him (this is the only site I could find that had information about him). This site is about places of origins of Korean family names and their respective founders.
www.rootsinfo.co.kr

The following is a translation of a document found on the Korean website of the origin of �Hwa San� Lee family. (Note, �Hwa� and �San� mean flower and mountain in Chinese respectively).

�Hwa San� Lee Family

Origin: In the 13th year (Year 1226) during the reign of king Ko-Jong of Koryo dynasty after the fall of An Nam Gook (present day Vietnam) to the Tran dynasty, Prince Lee Yong-Sang, second son of Lee Chun-Jo king of An Nam Gook, was exiled to Hwang-Hae Province of Korea by a ship. (Note, Hwang-Hae province is located in present day North Korea)
Upon hearing of his arrival, king Ko-Jong, feeling sympathetic for him, bestowed upon him a land to live off of and the honorary title of �Kun�.
Afterwards the descendants of him started to call themselves members of the �Hwa-San� Lee family.

Population: according to census data in 1985 there are 1,131 citizens tracing their ancestry to the �Hwa-San� Lee family.

For those of you not familiar with Korean family names: Claiming that all the Lees of Korea are descendants of Prince Lee Yong-Sang is inaccurate. Although many Koreans have Lee as their family name they are not necessarily from same line of ancestry. This is why Koreans with same last name ask each other where and to whom they trace their ancestry, for example they ask �what is your root?� Many Koreans do this to see if they are related to each other.

Under Korean civil law men and women from the same last name and same ancestry line are not allowed to marry (of course, siblings included), yet there are many married couples with same last name. How is this possible? This is because they are not related to each other ancestrally albeit having the same last name. Presently out of the almost 6 million people that bear the Lee family name there are 240 different lines of lineage.

Examples of this include: �Chun-Ju� Lee family, �Yeon-An�Lee family, �Kyung-Ju� Lee family, �Han-San� Lee family, �Duck-Su� Lee family, � and so on, 240 of them in total including the �Hwa-San� Lee family. Are all these Lee families related to each other ancestrally? No, they trace their ancestry to different people.

Some years ago a Chinese American I met asked me this funny question: �How come there are so many Kims among Koreans? It seems most of the Koreans are Kims�, to which I replied, �don�t assume they are related. They probably are as unrelated as Kelley is to Smith�. Presently there are 280 different lines of lineage within the almost 10 million Kims.

For the person who asked about the origins of Lee family names in Korea: It is believed that China is the first civilization to use family names (i.e. names after rivers, mountains, animals, and places, etc�).

It was a part of cultural adoption that ancient Koreans started using family names, that is, by copying Chinese family names as well as creating their own family names unique to Koreans (i.e. Park, Hae, Yae, Ko, etc.). However, some members of Lees as well as other family names trace their origins to ancient and medieval China, Uigur, Mongolia, Arab, Japan, and Vietnam, for example. They came to Korea for trade, religious mission, as war captives, on political exile, and eventually ended up settling down in Korea.

We Koreans don�t deny the fact that foreign blood trickled into Koreans albeit minimal. It is all written in family logs and history annals.

Yet, I may argue with those who deny the relative pureness of Korean genetics. It has been noticed by foreigners visiting Korea as well as by geneticists studying Korean genes that Koreans as a whole retain one of the most phenotypic as well as genetic homogeneity in the world. That Korean genes have remained remarkably pure is a fact as well as general perception, which is further confirmed by the fact Korea, as a nation, has been secluded from the rest of the world for most of her history earning the nickname �Hermit Kingdom�.

I hope my posting doesn�t offend anybody. I just want to clarify some misunderstandings regarding Korean family names and our genetic makeup.

H.J. Kang Monday, June 03, 2002 at 05:00:45 (PDT)

olmy:

I don't know how many times I have to respond to posters who dispute/disagree with (Ural-)Altaic origin of Korean(or Japanese) language. I'm getting kind of tired of this topic. This is old news to me and many others. And yes, I bet there will be plenty more (young) people who will come along and yet restart this discussion over and over in the future. That seems to be the ongoing trend here on Goldsea as I'm quickly finding out -- I myself am guilty of that too. I've also discovered that there are a lot of young individuals (sometimes very immature/underdeveloped or illogical/handicapped in their deductive and reasoning skills) who sometimes like nothing but to stir up a pot, so to speak -- yes, I may be guilty of that as well although I'm no longer a teenager -- due to severely overflowing case of testosterone/too much leisure time at hand. I guess that's what makes this site interesting/intriguing for most part and revolting at the same time. At any rate, I'll say a few more words regarding Ural-Altaic language topic. I hope this is indeed my last word...Once again, I'm not a language expert. Far from it...

You simply CANNOT -- and I repeat CANNOT -- compare Ural-Altaic languages to those of Indo-European sub-family. Why? Because of time and spatial differences. These are very important factors.

Ural-Altaic speaking people separated from one another at much much earlier time and branched out/settled into far wide-spread territories than Indo-European speaking people had. Ural-Altaic region virtually covers the whole Eurasian continent from Scandinavia all the way through Siberia/Russian Far East. (Some argue that a certain branch of Eskimo tribes should be included in this group as well possibly further extending the boundary.) When the prehistoric ancestors of these erstwhile people migrated/separated out, their languages were very primitive/in developmental stage with limited number/a set of common vocabulary among them. As they settled/adopted to new environments, and their culture developed/advanced to higher/sophisticated level, they invented many many new words on their own, completely different from other group(s), and oftentimes acquired whole new set of vocabulary from members of totally-unrelated language groups who came in physical contact with them. The most recent example = Just look at how new words are being invented/springing up in American English dictionary on daily basis due to new technology being discovered, and how the rest of the world are adopting these new words and incorporating into their own lexicon. Anyway, that's why Ural-Altaic language groups have so fewer common words between one another compared to Indo-European language groups who separated out from common ancestor at much later time, and also clustered together in close proximity from one another. Thus, when the groups of early Indo-European language sub-family separated from one another, they had a FAR FAR more common words among them, and also due to their geographical closeness, they were able to borrow bunch of new words from one another, thus further cementing their linguistical relationship, e.g., English-German-Dutch-French, etc., unlike the far-flung members of Ural-Altaic people.

Finnish and Hungarian(Magyar) languages (members of Ural group) are very closely related, but the lack of commonality in their vocabulary is profoundly striking and deep just like in Korean and Japanese languages (members of Altaic group).
However, while adding/acquiring new sets of muscles/flesh(vocabulary), the backbone/skeleton(grammatical aspects) of the language have remained virtually unchanged in Ural-Altaic members despite thousands of years of separation/isolation from one another.

The similar/common/distinct traits are (I forgot many many of these traits. It's been long long time since I read up on this topic...) the agglutinative nature of the language/sound, the SOV (Subject-Object-Verb) order, lack of gender, honorific forms, some common root stems, vowel harmony, etc., etc.

This is very very crude/simplified example, but let's take a look at English; isn't it odd/funny that there are British, North American, Australian accents after separation of only a few hundred years even with a great ease/access to interact with one another compared to a thousand years ago? In USA, there are regional accents as well just like it would be in Britain or Australia/Canada, I assume. Bostonian accent is quite different from that of drawling Southern one in Alabama for example.(I heard that Latin countries also have different accents from one another, and yes, the Latin Spainsh accent is quite different from that of Iberian peninsula of Europe.)

Then, let's use our imagination, and pretend that these English-speaking people left Europe in prehistoric time and settled in North America, Australia thousands of years ago as a very primitive/uncivilized people in relatively small number. They were just barely able to cover their buttocks with some animal skin carrying axes or bows/arrows. Maybe they were horse-riding people, or hunter/gatherers. You know where I'm getting, right? They didn't have cars, airplanes, trains, computer/tv, or advanced maritime technology, etc., to travel to their relatives, and thus exchange common culture/idea/vocabulary/etc., to bond. To further complicate the matter, there were quite a number of aboriginal/indigenous people -- racially different strains -- these proto-English-speaking people met up with when they first migrated to North America and Australia from British Isles.

Fastforward about 4-8 thousands years later. You understand now, right?

Not only the people in Britain, North America and Australia would have totally different/souding sets of vocabulary or even somewhat different grammatical features in language -- of course, this is based on assumption that the Brit descendants were a militarily/culturally dominant group to force their language upon the indigenous people, and thus pass on the language to subsequent generations -- but most importantly they would be racially different from one another as well after thousands of years of separation from their cousins and intermixing/intermingling with other racial stocks. British would have remained as white. North American English-speaking people would have looked more Mongoloid, and Australian English-speaking people would have looked somewhat Negroid.

This is what exactly happened to Ural-Altaic speaking people. There are blonde-haired, blue-eyed Finnish/Hungarian. There are dark-eyed, dark-haired Mediterranean type Turks. There are Eurasian looking Turko-Mongols. And then there are us Koreans/Japanese/Mongols/Manchus/Etc., more or less so-called classsical Mongoloids, and possibly the closest to the original Ural-Altaic people from all the historical records/indications.

That's why linguistical relationship doesn't always tell the whole story. Often it's in stark contrast to genetics. There are 30 million plus Indo-European language speaking people in this country who are not closely related to Europeans, but genetically a lot closer to the people in West Africa. However, after 400 plus of miscegenation with whites, the blacks in this country carry significant amount of European genes now. Need I mention Hispanics?

Anyway, in final analysis, linguistical relationship is fundamentally crucial and vital in tracing one's racial origin. Last time I heard there was this mega-scale/pain-staking language project going on iniated by Russian scholars who are determined to prove that all human languages originated from one common ancestor. Of course, I bet some languages have been singularly isolated for such a long time, the group link may never be proven. On the other hand, the task of proving Korean and Japanese relationship to Ural-Altaic sub-family is a cup-cake and HAS BEEN PROVED for a couple of centuries now. The relationship between Korean and Japanese languages to one another? Are you for real?

My final word -- presumably -- on "KOREAN" migration to Japan:

Who knows for sure whether so-called "Han Chinese" type people existed on Korean peninsula before several fractions of ancestors of most of modern day Koreans arrived on the peninsula from Central/Northeastern Asia, Manchuria, etc., pushing southward? By the way, let's not forget that along with present-day Korean peninsula, for thousands of years ancient Koreans roamed freely in the vast territory of Manchuria, modern day northeastern China, and to a lesser extent, even Russian Far East land, specifically Vladivostok or even Sakhalin. It was really only 600-1000 years ago when Koreans began gradually losing its share of control in Manchuria and northeastern China, and almost completely when Manchus took over Manchuria and China in mid 17th century. That's why there are still some small number of Koreans living to this day in northeastern China, Manchuria and Russian Far East...

In any case, your contention in saying that the earliest migrants to Japan were of so-called "Han Chinese" type rather than Korean racial stock has "some" validity, thereby distancing modern day Japanese from modern day Koreans and as a consequence linking Han Chinese to all over East Asia! But more than likely it is a false assumption/claim in light of many other convincing archeological/anthropolical, yes even linguistical eveidences that have been found/uncovered or accumulated over years if not centuries.

The difficulty in today's academia regarding some sensitive issues of East Asia is that so many aspects/events of ancient history and even modern history have been written/proposed/modified/altered by ultra-nationalistic individuals with extreme Sinocentric or Japancentric prejudiced/biased point of views that it gets really tiresome/quarrelsome/divisive.

China of course, had and still has this "World revolves around us," mentality. Historically, they have been the most powerful nation in East Asia. Japan, because of its recent rise to power, not that they didn't try to do the same in the ancient times, has always tried to distort/misinterpret and sometimes downright DESTROY or erase/eliminate the legitimate historical evidences, particulary those regarding its relationship with Korea.

For example, there was this archeological excavation undertaken some years ago to uncover the mystery surrounding Japan's first-ever emperor. I forgot his name. Japanese goverment was not too enthusiatic about this undertaking to start with to mind you. Anyway, after some crucial artifacts were dug out/recovered, Japanese government put a permanent stop to the whole project, and basically sealed off the whole area from the public. Why? The artifacts that were found in the grave of this emperor all indicated, w/o any doubt whatsoever, of Korean origin. The knives, the pottery, the jewelry itmes(crown, bracelet, what have you), or maybe even some clothing items, I forgot, etc., all bore identical resemblance to those of one of ancient Korean kingdoms. I forgot which kingdom it was, but I strongly suspect it probably was Packje(sp?) kingdom.
Well, there seemed to be no written document existing/surviving today concerning the origin of this first-ever emperor of Japan, so let's try to forget about this incident and go to the next one, shall we?

Fastforward a few hundred years. Now another Japanese emperor became a focus of hot "controversy." Why again? Some of the written letters in correspondence between royal houses of Packje kingom and Japanese imperial court(Yamato kingdom, I assume) were found or publicly examined for the first time. Maybe dating from 3th or 4th century, I'm not sure about the exact time line. And in those letters, it flat-out stated, on both sides, that the Japanese emperor was a younger brother of the king of Packje dynasty. And it also revealed that the very previous Japanese emperor was a uncle to both Korean king and the Japanese emperor. It was logically deduced that this previous Japanese emperor had no male heirs, so he went to his motherland, Korea, and adopted his nephew, the younger one, to be the next emperor of Japan. At any rate, the two brothers poured out so much of genuine brotherly love, concern, etc., for one another in those old letters. The response of Japanese hostorians? Well, I forgot which lame or illogical/idiotic explanations they tried to come up with, but it was hilarious. Not only the letters, but there was this magnificient knife or some kind of object made out of precious metal with engravings written on, that also confirmed the brotherly relationship of the Korean king and Japanese emperor. It was a gift from older brother in Korea to his younger brother in Japan. Again, Japanese historians hotly contested the authentication, and once again tried to come up with some weird/invalid/illogical explanations.

When Packje kingdom fell in 6th century, most of members of royal families and ruling class fled to Japan for protection/new life. They are the ones who became the ruling class(or rather a big big bulk) of the Yamato clan/kingdom. Also many many people of various background/all walks of life of Packje kingdom accompanied their masters to Japan. This was essentially the end of the large-scale wave of migration from Korean peninsula to Japan. Numerous Korean scholars claim that once the Packje royal familiy and ruling class lost their kingdom to other Korean rivals and forced to move to Japan, they became anti-Korea to the bone. They started hating everything that was about their motherland and its people since then...

There are many many many other instances like the above two where Japanese acted irrationally. But, I don't have time and space. Let's move to the original argument.

Okay, I'll have to be brief; yeah, who really knows with 100% certainty about the true identity of the VERY FIRST migrants who went from the southeastern part of Korean peninsula to Japan 2000-2300 years ago. There is no written documents after all. Anyway, the southeastern part of Korea, i.e., Pusan, seems like a good choice/route to migrate since on a clear day, you can see Japanese islands from Korea, or vice versa. They are that close in distance. Also, your argument seems to suggest that the southward movement of Korean people was rather late/tardy compared to the possible Han Chinese type settlers who were already there before Koreans. I have never heard of such Han Chinese. But, let's assume what you said is true, okay? Over time, whoever might have been in southern part of Korean peninsula or migrated to Japan, be it Han Chinese, Malays, or whatever, obviously got so overwhelmed/assimilated or killed off by the direct ancestors of MODERN KOREANS. Why? Linguistic evidence. Let's link Korea and Japan now.

Through a very reliable/convincing research done some years ago, it was suggested that old Japanese(slightly different from modern Japanese language) clearly shows a direct linkage to one of the tribal dialects spoken in old Korea. I forgot the name of the Korean tribal kingdom, maybe Puyo or somthing. Thus, the paper suggested that, much like you mentioned, the Korean migration to Japan occured about 2000 years or so ago, and the separation of Korean and Japanese languages also occured about that time. Yes, I repeat; although doubtful, it may be true that the earliest migrants from Korean peninsula to Japan were different from modern Koreans or rather were not direct ancestors of modern Koreans. However, lasting until 6th century, the constant wave of large scale migration from Korea -- the direct forefathers of modern day Koreans -- to Japan basically formed the backbone/majority of population from which modern Japanese descended.

Of course, while the various kingdoms/tribal states were forming and falling, etc, the identity of nation gradually started to take a form. And both Korea and Japan absorbed certain elements of foreigh racial stocks in the process, you know...Anyway, recent DNA tests showed that Koreans and Japanese are genetically most closely related. Also, linguistically as well whether you like it or not...

I do have a certain point to make about the Huns originating from Korea (a poster alias "from Discovery Channel"), but I'll skip today. Lemme just say that I kept my mouth shut because personally I don't like the Huns at all. But, I feel the need to speak up even though I probably accomplish from little to nothing. I mean, who really cares about an opinion of one anonymous poster on an internet forum whose expertise is not even in history, linguistics, ethnology, or what have you. Far Far from it...In conclusion, "the discovery channel" were not too off the base from the real truth based on what I know...See you next time...
One Korean Man Monday, June 03, 2002 at 04:22:29 (PDT)

General Viet: well i thought it was in an nam's post.LOL anyway thanks for the explanation. A lot of Cham must have fled to Cambodia. I've seen some cambodian with cham features. Cambodians seem to be mix of khmer, cham, indian, Thai.

Cham and Laotian are closely related i guess? you know the song or poem Flower of Champa is a laotian poem.
WOn Bin Sunday, June 02, 2002 at 20:22:27 (PDT)

"Nong Zhigao (Nung Tri Cao in Vietnamese) is seen as a hero both in China and Vietnam today. He belonged to the Zhuang and Hmong race (Yueh people)."

i think people With surname Nong (or Nung)is usually of Nung descent, not Hmong. A majority of Nung people in Vietnam has this surname.

gk Sunday, June 02, 2002 at 20:00:28 (PDT)

"The X�ch-Quy� Kingdom was bounded on the North by �o�ng-��nh Lake (Hu Nan province), on the south by Ho�-To�n Kingdom (Champa), on the West by Ba Thu�c (Szechwan) and on the East by Nam-Ha�i Sea. "

I don't think the Xich Quy Kingdom include Champa. as known by most historians, Champa were conquered by Vietnam only until 18th century. However, vietnamese almost never mention about the Southern area of Vietnam Once belonging to Chams. Champa is a Muslim(or Hindu) kingdom. The truth is many Vietnamese historians try to downplay the fact that Vietnam did conqher Champa and massacred 40 thousands Chams and turn the other into slaves. Champa was an independant kingdom. I don't think it was reltaed to Lac Viet back then.

gk Sunday, June 02, 2002 at 19:52:52 (PDT)

To, Dai Viet;

I think the numbers for the koreans and japanese are much lower then the vietnamese. Many koreans can track their ancestry to china, japanese ancestry is still a cloud of mystery.

To, An Nam Guy;

Didn't the Portuguese bring the roman alphabet to vietnam? Didn't the french just perfected it? Confirm please.

To, Tri;

The last names Ly, Lee, and Li could be a derivative from a common ancester, such as the Yueh. Or just names which developed independently, but sounded the same, thus the chinese categorized it as the same when giving the names a character (no one wants to create a new character for a language which already has enough).
Hafti Sunday, June 02, 2002 at 15:44:40 (PDT)

To Tri;

The last name Ly, Lee, and Li could be related or NOT AT ALL. In theory any langauge can be restricted, if this is true, then people can develope similar names from far off places without knowing it. Then the chinese could have came in and associated with one of the names they have (same sounding so same spelling), making it seem that they are related. Understand? Same sounding so same sounding, they categorized it as the same, but could welly be not. All languages are restricted to a point, so same sounding words can be developed in different places easily, especially words with only one syllable and two letters like the last name Ly.

Or it could be that we are related. No one said that they aren't. If it is true that the vietnamese today are the Yueh descendents, then the last name Lee/Li/Ly could have been a pass down from this common ancestor. Easy as that, and it is sometimes believed that in the years of 500 bc the Yueh did move to the Korea and Japan but in really small numbers, as they were also sea ferring people. But the majority went to the south.

To History;

Um, the areas of the Red River Delta was found to be occupied by mass numbers even in 24000-20000 bc by the Son Vi, and then by their descendents the Hoa Binh from 20000-10000, then a whole bunch of other descendents, then the Dong Son. The Dong Son is now also accepted to be one of the modern vietnamese people's ancestors, because of the legends of the vietnamese people (the Hung Kings, and stuff does outline this era very closely), and the bone structure. Their bronze work and many other works tell stories (pictures carved on the drums) which sometimes resemble the legends in vietnamese stories passed on from generation to generation. So that even more strongly supports them to be one of our ancestors.

To, Something;

I'm not surprised that the Yueh beat the ancient Han's. As the ancient Yueh's beat Sun Tzu himself in a few battles, then ultimately destroyed Sun Tzu's prized student in a battle which brought the downfall of the Wu Kingdom.

Origin of the Viets

Archaelogy supports the common theory that Dong Son are the ancestors of the vietnamese (Kinh) who makes up 90% of the entire nations population.

But historically written, the chinese claim us to be the Yueh since the beginning.

I like to combine this two and say the Yueh assimilated into the superior rice society of the Dong Song.

But it is still a mystery, as it was recorded by the chinese, but it is supported by other factors which say otherwise.

General Viet Sunday, June 02, 2002 at 15:41:14 (PDT)

Hafti,

You are right too.

There are many words in Cantonese, Hakka and Toisan that has no equivalents in any other Chinese dialects (and some speculate that those are remnant Yueh words).

For example I am half-Cantonese and half-Toisan.

In Cantonese, "Going where?" is "Hui bin do?"

In Toisanese, "Going where?" is "Hui nai?"

I am not sure if you can pick any similarities here with Vietnamese?

This is also more the case with the Min dialects of Fujian, which Sino linguists say has a lot of remnant non-Han (ie Yueh) words.

But, the fact is that my ancestors (as all other southern Han) were conquered by the Tang, Song and whomever Han authorities from the north. Our ancestors mixed with the incoming Han Chinese, took their language, culture, food and blend it into a unique one. And, today we are no longer Yueh (Viet) but forever will be part of Zhongguo (China). We can't change this reality. I have both the Yueh and the Han in my veins. I might add in Persian and Arab as well, because many (as much as 200,000 in Guangzhou alone during 800 ADs) had settled among the Yueh prior to being conquered and massacred by Tang.
Some Yueh broke off and became Han Sunday, June 02, 2002 at 12:59:57 (PDT)

olmy,

You are right in one sense.

Ainus are also found in the the northern parts of Manchuria (now Russia, near Amur region). Either they settled in Japan through the north (via Sakhalin to Hokkaido to rest of Japanese islands), or they were pushed up to these regions by the encroaching Japanese (Yayoi).

In southern parts of Korea, the exact origins of the people are not well known. It is known that they grew rice, like the people in Yangtze China. Some claim they were either Yueh or Malays. The Karak (Kaya) kingdom was probably from this same strain.

Chinese entered Korea in the 1,000 BCs., usually through the northern parts. They were not numerous to overwhelm the indigenous people (whom many claim were Altaic-Tunguz). But, the Chinese did profoundly change the native society and its cultural structures.

When the Han Dynasty established its 4 military colonies in northern Korea, the south was ruled by a series of kings. There were some who claimed descent from Kija Chosun (King Chun established the 3 Han kingdoms in southwest Korea after Wiman usurped his throne in north) and some who claimed descent from Wiman Chosun.

It is mainly from Paekche area that most Koreans moved to Japan. At that time, there already was a significant Han Chinese component among the native inhabitants of Paekche. They came via 2 directions: either by boat from Yangtze region in the distant past, or as refugees from the existing Chinese orders in Old Chosun (Kija and Wiman dynasties). Whether they were Han or Yueh, it does not matter, because both are from the same strain. They merged with the later invading Puyo Manchurians to form Paekche.

That is why both Korea and Japan are so receptible to Chinese influences in the past.
Bob Sunday, June 02, 2002 at 12:45:19 (PDT)

patch,

Not all northern Hans are light skinned.

If you visit Gansu, Shaanxi, Ningxia and Shanxi, you see a lot of people baked in the sun for a long time.

Only the northeastern Hans (those looking close to Koreans and Manchus) are light skinned like cream.

At the same time, not all southern Han are dark skinned.

A better indicator would be nose shape, eye shape and lip shape. A typical southern Han person would exhibit intermediate features of these indicated features between those of northern Han and Viet peoples.
Southern Han are the mextizos Sunday, June 02, 2002 at 12:30:27 (PDT)

Something,

The Qin advance to the south (Guangdong) is the first instance of "Han Chinese" intrusion to the south. The Qin conquered Guangdong, but made no attempts to fully settle it. That would come later during the late Tang and early Song periods.

However, like in faraway Xinjiang, there were military garrisons established in Guangdong and Guangxi. The emperors sent soldiers and convicts to these faraway places. Later, when the Qin fell, one Qin general fled over to the Yueh (Viets) and established himself as king of Vietnam. CORRECT ME IF I AM MISTAKEN ON THIS!

The newly established Han Dynasty demanded tribute from this Qin renegade turned "Yueh king." His loyalty to the Qin order caused him to go into conflict with the Han. Then, Han briefly ruled over northern parts of Vietnam. It is similar to what happened in Korea at that time.
Cantonese-American Sunday, June 02, 2002 at 12:16:58 (PDT)

Something,

The "Han" people you are referring dwelled in northern China around the Huang Ho (Yellow River) region. They were an amalgamation of many races. It is in north China that you had different races coming together and intermingling to form the modern Chinese culture and civilization. At that time in the past, you probably found Sino-Tibetan, Mon-Khmer, Malay, Altaic-Turkic, and Iranids living side by side. It was mainly the Sino-Tibetan component that ruled and assimilated the rest.

About Lao Tzu: Even the Tang Dynasty royal family (Li Shimin, etc.) claimed descent from him as well as from the Han Dynasty General (Li Guangli). If what you say is true (Lao Tzu from south), then people in the pre-Han Dynasty era did not yet have the modern distinction of being Han Chinese vs. Yueh (Viet). Many even claim the Chu state (of warring states period) is of Yueh extraction mainly, but the other 5 warring states included Chu as one of their own.
Han and Yueh are from the same race Sunday, June 02, 2002 at 12:10:30 (PDT)

I am doing a research on the bronze artifacts of northeastern China (Liaoning, Manchuria) and ancient Korea. Little do I know, that even respected Korean scholars in this field acknowledge the Kija Chosun theory as accepted fact through archaeology.

The bronze daggers of Korean mandolin shape were excavated in Northeast China and Korea in Bronze Age (11th century B.C.-4th century B.C.), and so the latter believed to be related with the former. In northeast China (Liao-ning Province, Jirin Province), there had been a bronze culture different from that of China and that of North China. And the bronze dagger of Korean mandolin shape represents the bronze culture in this region. Also, peculiar bronze ware-bronze mirror, disk-shaped bronze implement accompanied bronze dagger.

Korean mandolin shaped bronze dagger, bronze mirror with meander pattern and disk-shaped bronze implement used for making a sound are appeared as a set. This set is a symbol of chief and shamman and also appeared in Korean peninsula. This bronze culture is cal1ed "Liaoning Bronze Culture". This style of bronze dagger affected that of Korean bronze dagger and this style of bronze mirror affected that of Korean bronze mirror with fine linear design. Liaoning bronze culture is divided into three parts of regions; Liaodong peninsula, Liaoshi region, and the north region of Jirin. But they were linked up with the same leadership centering around Liaodong region. These three regions had the same artifacts; fan-shaped axe, bronze knife with teeth, and stone-cist stone lined tomb etc. These artifacts also populated in Korea. A style of bronze dagger and bronze mirror didn't affected by another culture but originated in Liaodong region for itself.

But the disk-shaped bronze implement was transmitted to Liaoshi region in 10th-9th century B.C. This fact reflected historical evidence of Kija's escape from China. An exiled Shang's nobbleman named Kija escaped to Chosun with 5,000 his followers upon the fall of the Shang Dynasty in 12th century B.C. At that time Chosun existed in Liaodong and Liaoshi regions. Many scholars linked Liaoning Bronze Culture with Chosun history. At first, Shang's refugees took up their residences in the western limits of Chosun, later their posterities immigrated into Liaodong by way of Liaoshi little by little for a long time. Some of them migrated into the southwest region of Korea.

The alleged descendants of this Kija ruler in modern North Korea wrote a family genealogical history that differs little from the Chinese version and accounts.

Anyways, I heard that the Japanese game of "Go" came from Korea and many Koreans claimed it was introduced to Korea by Kija Chosun. Did this board game existed in Shang China?

Kija Chosun revisited Sunday, June 02, 2002 at 11:58:39 (PDT)

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS