Comparing Asian Nationalities | Asian American Poll

COMPARING ASIAN NATIONALITIES
(Updated Wednesday, Jan 22, 2025, 06:39:09 AM 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.]

kc:

No, you’ve got it backwards. You are the loser; you are the descendants of defeated Yayoi (Wu) refugees who got squeezed out by the Han Chinese from the north and the Yue Cantonese from the south! http://www.carleton.ca/~bgordon/Rice/papers/gujx98.htm (Just kidding, don’t take it too personally : - )

From a historical point of view, the massive migration by boats across the East China Sea 2,300 years ago by the defeated Yayoi refugees from the Yangtze River area to southern Korea and Japan was the singular most important event for the Korean peninsula and the Japanese archipelagos. Literally overnight, those areas received a massive boost in intelligence, became transformed into advanced rice cultures after 10,000 years of primitive aboriginal existence, and would later one day supply the world with electronic devices and motorized vehicles affecting the lives of all humanity.

Recent DNA genetic research and archeological evidence confirm this utterly profound connection. The Chinese, Korean, and Japanese people are all one people after all, just 2,300 years ago. The mystery of the origin of the Japanese and Korean people is finally being solved. You now know who you are and where you came from. You are the brother I never knew I had. I just want to hug you, man!

I Ching Friday, June 21, 2002 at 08:48:33 (PDT)

One Korean Man:

Actually, all of the 66 Chinese used to compare to the genetics of 64 Koreans and 62 Japanese were from Taiwan, who are predominately southern Chinese-type. http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news146.htm (Read the Note in the diagram.) Not surprisingly, the DNA results show close genetic relationship between Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans, which only reinforces the theory that the defeated Yayoi of the Yangtze River area left as refugees from the invading Yue Cantonese from the south. The Yayoi introduced irrigated rice growing into southern Korea and Japan around 300 B.C. http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news111.htm http://www.carleton.ca/~bgordon/Rice/papers/zhimin99.htm Prior to that southern Korea was occupied by even more primitive Austronesian people, with some of their linguistic imprints still found in the Korean language. The bulk of the Korean people live in the southern portion of the Korean peninsula (South Korea), which feels like a tropical jungle during the summer. There are of course, bigger Altaic-types in northern Korea, but the Southerners discriminate against them as being barbaric and dirt poor. I am sorry to be the one to break the news questioning your manhood, One Korean Man, but like most South Koreans, your ancestors were, more likely than not, refugee rice patty farmers.

If it is of any help, by the powers of the barbaric genes sown in me by the Khitans, the Mongols, and the Manchus over thousands of years, I bestow upon thee, One Korean Man, an honorary membership to the great barbaric Altaic Race. Just remember to stop eating rice, pickled vegetables (kimchee), because real barbarians don’t eat quiche, sushi, and white rice. Eat lots of mutton and drink a lot of sour milk, and you will feel and smell like a real man. http://www.chinats.com/huhhot/indcui.htm You may now go forth and terrorize the world in your Hyundai Excel! Happy, now? ^_^

I Ching Friday, June 21, 2002 at 08:34:55 (PDT)

I remembered reading from someone in here stating that the Vietnamese are not from one of the "Yueh" tribes, does anyone have any link to this or is it his/her opinion?
Just Curious Friday, June 21, 2002 at 08:30:28 (PDT)

I hardly see any Filipino, Korean , Indian or Japanese in Chinatown, why is that? It seems like the Chinese and Vietnamese share more of a culture than the rest.
do you know? Friday, June 21, 2002 at 08:24:49 (PDT)

I don't know about these genetic tests being done, but even so, it only confirms what I already see through height. The northern Han Chinese are very tall. Koreans come close, but they are still a tad shorter than ethnic northern Hans. The true Mongols are short. So, the Koreans must be an intermediate mixture of Han with Mongol types in the past. Just look at the height to tell.
measured in foot and inches Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 23:50:41 (PDT)

>>>I was greatly disappointed when I found out that Korea (South) didn't participate in the Human Genome Project.
Instead we get all these independant DNA tests/reseraches done by a few ambitious individuals that don't really tell the whole story, you know.<<<

I don't think North Korea participated either. I am sure their DNA is even more closer to Han China than South Korea.

All the tests done on Koreans were conducted by Korean geneticists themselves. They have compared their DNA continuously and strenously with those of other so-called "Altaic" peoples and the tests still show Koreans being closer to Han Chinese than they are to Mongols.

Why can't Coreans accept the truth? Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 22:34:52 (PDT)

I heard that when the Ming Dynasty restored Han Chinese rule in China, one of the first things that the emperor (Zhu Yuanzhang) did was to send the men from Yangtze and more deeper southern parts of China to mix with the women of the north. The Chinese of the north at that time were already highly mixed with Mongols, Khitans, Jurchens, Arabs, Turks, Persians and Tibetans. When the Ming conquered the north of China, many lives were lost and so the conquering Ming from southern parts of China again mixed and refertilized the northern China plains. That is why you see many northern Chinese with semi-Altaic features and semi-Persian, but DNA tests prove that 95% of all Han Chinese (north and south) share the same paternal DNA. When you see the Altaic and Iranian features among northern Chinese, it might be from their mtDNA (maternal side).

When Chiang Kai-shek led his Kuomintang (KMT) "northern march" from Guangdong all the way to Beijing, it was largely Cantonese and other southern troops fighting for the KMT against northern warlords. The north lost, and there may have been some mixing going on as a result. This was the birth of the Republic of China.

In China, the gene flows all directions. But, it is still ironic that we all still share the same fathers. North and south, east and west.
Bob Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 22:29:12 (PDT)

To One Korean Man, SO, and all others,

The haplotype that is common to Koreans and Chinese (Haplogroup 7) is also more than 60% among the Cambodians. However, among the Mongols, it is only around 35-40%.

We are talking about paternal DNA.

It is quite obvious that the Chinese, Cambodians, Viets and Tibetans do share the same fathers as attested to DNA and their common tonal languages.

But, Koreans and Japanese DNA share the same patrilineal pattern as the above mentioned Sino-Tibetan groups. They are not so close to Mongols-Altaic afterall.

South Chinese don't have to try to block off the perceived Altaic genetic and cultural influences on northern China. Because there wasn't any. Paternal DNA proves it.

tri Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 22:19:51 (PDT)

>>>After all, the city of Beijing was founded by the Khitans.
Oddly enough, "China" was also derived from Khitans (from a corrupted Russian word).
Just think about it for a second...<<<

"China" was derived from the Indian-Persian word for Qin Dynasty (300 BCs).

"Cathay" is the Russian corrupted word you are referring to.

Need I mention again the prehistoric relationship(the monopolization) the Eastern barbarians ("Dong-yi" people as some poster already mentioned) had with Northern China/Manchuria/Siberia/ETC?
Don't you think at least some factions of these people did migrate southward into China Proper/intermingled when the ancestors of most of modern Koreans were just pouring into Korean peninsula??
Why do you think the Chinese built the Great Wall for?

First of all the Qin emperor (Shih Huangdi) built it after his many wars against the Hsiung-nu (Huns). Shih Huangdi was himself very martially oriented emperor and on occasions he had defeated the Huns in modern Mongolian plains. But, he could never effectively wipe them out and they often regrouped to constantly raid northern China. So, he had to build a wall to keep them at distance.

About the "Dong-yi."
They did not migrate to China. They were always there. It was the Han Chinese who pushed out/absorbed them. Even during the times of Confucius, he makes mention of them. They were largely confined to eastern Shandong, Hebei (in Beijing area) and Liaodong provinces. During the Zhou Dynasty, various Han Chinese kingdoms encroached on their lands. The Dong-yi lands were variously carved up by the Lu, Chi and Yen kingdoms.

Funny thing is that the Lu kingdom was once thought to be Han Chinese, but the bodies dug up in Linzi area (in modern Shandong) have proven that the pre-Han Chinese inhabitants of that region had DNA closer to Middle Easterners and Europeans than it did the Mongoloids. Even during the Han Dynasty, the bodies in the Linzi area was still closer to Central Asian (mixed Mongoloid-Caucasoid) than it was to Han Chinese. Only after the Han, did the people of Linzi conform to the genes of other Han Chinese.

Lu, Chi, and Yen were 3 of the 6 kingdoms conquered and unified by Qin after the Warring States era.

This history does show how diverse the racial components of Han Chinese are.
Dong-yi, Linzi, Yueh, etc. are all part of Han race now Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 22:04:36 (PDT)

One Korean Man,

The Chinese (Tang) had already conquered Afghanistan before it even conquered either Koguryo or Paekche.

Imperial History of China, pp. 389-391:

"The year 630 AD marks the start of the great Tang Chinese expansion in Asia, during the reigns of Emperor Tai-tsung and Emperor Kao-tsung (from 626 to 683 AD). The defeat of the Turks by the Chinese opened the way to Central Asia for the Chinese army and government in the years 630-45. Hami, Turfan (the kingdom of Kao-chang founded earlier by Han Chinese colonists) in 640, Karashahr and Kucha in 658, then the oases of Transoxiana all passed successively under Chinese control. Chinese administrative districts were created on the far side of the Caspian-the prefectures of Kang (now Samarkand), An (Bukhara), Shih (Tashkent), Mi (Maimargh), Ho (Kushanika, now in Afghanistan), Ts'ao (Kaputana), and Shih (Kish).

In 648 AD, General Wang Hsuan-ts'e organized an expedition to the Patna area of northern India, in order to settle to China's advantage the succession to the throne of the little kingdom of Magadha. Many Chinese Buddhist pilgrims passed through Central Asia and Afghanistan on their way to this kingdom.

In the northeast, Manchuria and almost the whole of the Korean peninsula passed under Tang Chinese control about 660 AD.

In 662 AD, China intervened in the internal affairs of the Sassanid Dynasty of Iran in Ctesiphon on the Tigris R., just at the very time when the Persian Empire was threatened by the advance of the Arabic Ummayad Muslims.

The extension of Tang Chinese control to these vast territories led to the creation of 6 "governments-general" (tu-tu-fu or tu-hu-fu) or military protectorates: those of Annan at Hanoi, Vietnam, of Peiting at Beshbalik in Central Asia, of Anhsi and Anpei in the northwest of the Mongolia area, of Antung in Korea and of Shanyu in Siberia.

The Tang Chinese expansion from Korea to Iran was undoubtedly the most important phenomenon in the political history of Asia in the 7th cent. AD. It implies a remarkable military and administrative organization, with quick moving striking military forces of cavalry, efficient horse breeding, the establishment of military colonies for the provisioning of the armies in Central Asia, a system of relay stations and intense diplomatic activity. This extraordinary expansion made Tang China the greatest power in Asia at this time."
---------------------------------------

Korean (specifically Koguryo) remnant units and officers were deployed to these Central Asian regions to bolster and reinforce the Chinese already there. One Chinese Tang general of Korean descent helped the Chinese defeat a large Tibetan army in northern India/Pakistan area. But, he later lost a major battle to the Moslems and hence, all of Central Asia was lost.

But, Tang did recognize the military prowess of Koreans, especially Koguryo.

The forgotten Koguryo story Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 21:48:10 (PDT)

Hoklo Taiwanese,

Actually, it was the choice of the Korean school to have their uniforms look different from the uniforms of girls who attended Japanese schools. They don't have to wear the uniforms because they are not actually made to attend these Korean-run schools.
Joy Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 21:44:51 (PDT)

hey, this korean man now wants people to believe that all chinese have altaic blood in them!
Peking Man Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 21:00:32 (PDT)

Japanese are beautiful and kind.
Nikki cutekawaii_2001@hotmail.com Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 20:30:39 (PDT)

One Korean Man,

Your logic don't make sense. One of those DNA studies say that 82% of all the Koreans share the same paternal haplotypes as 95% of all Chinese.

If you claim that the Altaics influenced the genetic composure of Chinese, then why are the numbers not switched? It should be the other way around, with Chinese having less of the paternal haplotypes compared to Koreans.

Anyways, I know those haplotypes they are talking about. Mongols, Manchus and other Siberian peoples don't even have 50% of the paternal haplotype that is shared by 82% and 95% of the Koreans and Chinese respectfully speaking. On the other hand, Tibetans and Chinese do share the equal amount. And, that is why some studies claimed the Japanese to share much with Tibetans.
DNA can never be erased Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 20:06:48 (PDT)

One Korean Man,

Just a bit of some clarifications. Recent DNA testing by Western as well as Korean geneticists show the Chinese (they did not mention south nor north, because both these people share some paternal haplotypes), Koreans, Tibetans, Burmese and Japanese as forming one East Asian genetic cluster. They are more closer to themselves than they are to others (ie Mongols, Manchus, and Malays). It is beyond doubt that there exists genetic markers in the Sino-Tibetan peoples on their paternal side that is unique compared to other Asians. Koreans and many Japanese seem to share these haplotypes. In studies, the Mongols and Manchus do not have these patrilineal haplotypes to the same degree that the Sino-Tibetan and Korean-Japanese people do.

Ulchi Mundok was not known to have left any descendants. There was a Tang general (Ko Sagye) of Koguryo descent whose surname was "Ko." His father was a captive who later served the Tang army. Ko Sagye did not conquer Afghanistan. An earlier general of Tang Li Shimin had already subdued Bactria and Sogdiana (parts of modern Afghanistan). But, Ko Sagye helped Tang push into Gilgit (northern India and Pakistan) and he put down a rebellion by the people in Balkh (modern Uzbekistan).

Ko Sagye later lost to Arabs at Talas in 751 AD. He had lost all of Tang's Central Asian possessions. Not his fault, but because the Turkish and Tibetan mercenaries changed sides after 5 months of battle. Ko Sagye fought and killed his way back to Tang China, but many thousands of Chinese prisoners were taken by Arabs back to Middle East. After the An Lushan rebellion, the new emperor beheaded Ko Sagye and another Chinese general for failing to protect the palace and the western colonies.

I heard there was a Korean "suicide squad" among the Tang armies in Central Asia too. Whether they served with Ko Sagye is not known? But, they were instrumental in fighting off Tibetan marauders led by their King Mgar.

But, yes, I am sure many Chinese of the north as well as south have some ancestors who were from Koguryo and Paekche. Just like many Koreans have had some Chinese gene flow since 1,000 BC.

Remember, the DNA tests prove it. The East Asians are more alike than not.
General Ko Sagye Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 19:59:12 (PDT)

"First of all, both the Cantonese and Japanese come from Confucian traditions. 2) Hispanics never adapted to Western trends, instead Westernization were mostly forced by their oppressors. This the big difference."

HK wasn't forced to be given away to Britain??? In HK courts, why do the judges wear those stupid looking British wigs? Colonialism and forced westernization is long past, westernization in modern times by all groups including the hispanics have been done willingly.

The Koreans were greatly influenced by Confucianism, even more so than the Japanese. So were the people of most of the Asian continent including the Northern Chinese and the Taiwanese.

"Southern Fujian is where the Hokkiens originated. Some ventured into Guangdong, Taiwan and Southeast Asia."

Yes, therefore the Taiwanese Hoklos/Hakkas aren't as isolated as you would like to think.

"Changing topics....I'm sure you know all too well that there is distrust and disliking between the Cantonese and Taiwanese in America. Much of it has to do with educational and cultural perspectives, and the Taiwanese-Inferiority-Superiority complex towards Mainlanders."

..and the Mainlanders' "inferiority-superiority complex" towards Taiwanese. So? I'm not surprised, considering the same is also true between HK folks and the Mainlanders and between northern and southern Chinese.

Hoklo Taiwanese Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 19:24:12 (PDT)

To, Want to know;

Well can you be more specific PLEASE. China has 57 ethnics. If your talking about he Han chinese then the koreans ar probably more related. Through genetics. But the south chinese are a descendent of the Yueh, who's purest descendents or direct descedents are said in the annals as are todays vietnamese.

And through influence the koreans are more influenced without other influences. Vietnam is surrounded by more then just china (in korea's case) but is also close to india, another powerful force of influence in asia.
Speculation Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 17:54:20 (PDT)

To One Korean Man,

Please be aware that in the old days, people of the same origin tended to be more conservative than nowadays. The "Han" Chinese always consider the Manchurian as the barbaric nomad; thus, they don't allow themselves to marry to any Manchurian. It's not like now, when people are more liberal and accept other ethnics to be their soulmate.

It's unfortunate and naive to think that many "Han" Chinese would easily accept intermarriage with the outside clans, especially the Nomad. Perhaps if they did, they would be living out of "Chung Yuan". The Chinese in the old days are very proud of their culture and profond of themselves.

This is not to insult you; however, I just want to point out the opinion of those in the old days. Be well....
Just Watching Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 17:07:53 (PDT)

supporting ROK in World Cup,

Yes, a subset of the Chinese population may not be very different from Koreans (the ones in the NE). But the Chinese, again, are not a monolithic peoples so you cannot lump them all together when speaking of genetics or DNA.

Joy (fka black gyrl in Japan),

Actually, Japan was influenced far more by Korea than China in it's formative years (Chinese influence would have been negligible in fact). Introduction of Buddhism, writing, Confucianism, gov't came from Korea, not China. In fact, to use the word "influence" is a bit misleading, as the waves of Korean immigrants created Japan as we know it today.

The Nihongi and Kojiki intimate Korean origins.

The Chinese didn't come via the north because the Chinese didn't occupy Manchuria -- the Koreans and other Tungusic tribes did.

I Ching,

The so-called Yayoi are not the basis of Koreans. No doubt, immigrants from both northern and southern China moved into Korea, but they were relatively minor compared to the Tungusics from the North.

However, the more "malay" or "yayoi" time peoples can probably be more markedly noticed in the islands, such as Jeju, south of the Korean peninsula.

The Yayoi influence will no doubt have been greater in Japan, as they are a more heterogeneous society compared to Korea, made up of indigenous Ainus, Malays and continental immigrants, esp. Koreans.

Chinese, Japanese and Koreans all came from the same fathers,

Again, it is misleading to speak of the Chinese monolithically. If your argument is that NE Chinese are similar to Koreans, I wouldn't disagree very much, as the NE Chinese are arguably a mixed stock: Sinitic and Tungusic.

Furthermore, the Yen were not necessarily Han Chinese. They were a mixed kingdom, only later to be incorporated into the Chinese line of history. There were many "Chinese" kingdoms whose leaders were nomadic in origin, at least partially: Eastern Zhou, Qin, Northern Wei, Sui, Tang, Yuan, Qing.

Koreans and NE Chinese did not go unmixed throughout history, but that is not the same as ALL CHINESE. The Chinese population is too diverse.

so Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 16:49:07 (PDT)

It seems reasonble to surmise that Chinese have caucasoid influences in their genetic constituency. At least more reasonable than similar claims by Koreans and Japanese. Just take a look at the geography; China extends farther west than any east Asian/south east Asian country, by far. To further subtantiate these claims, take a look at the appearance aspect of the demographics. If you move farther north west, facial features become less and less familiar to that of conventional east Asia.
chinatown Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 16:41:21 (PDT)

General Viet:

I suggest you check out www.mevietnam.org.

The Yueh is a group of mongoloid mainly, Melanesian, Malay living in southern china. yueh is a name given to southern chinese in general, but it has been said in yueh group, there has been racially different groups of people.

there are other things as well concerning Vietnamese origin...i don't know if it is totally correct..anyway good read.
Check this site Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 12:49:06 (PDT)

rare stuff:

"Siberians and Baikal Mongols my have remained closer to the roots of mankind. East Asians had some additional mutationsin their specific East Asian evolution.Khmer must also have remained relatively close to the proto-Asian type."

interesting... I've never heard Khmer is close to the proto-Asian type. I think they are more Dravidian related. And Khmer and Mongols are relatively difference as far as physique is concerned. Probably khmer are close to proto south asian , and Mongol are close to proto-northern asians???
Do you any source that can confirm your points? I'm not challenging you or anything. i'm just curious and want to know.

k Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 12:37:11 (PDT)

The influence of West Asian on chinese gene pool is true, however the influence is very very very little. As a whole, Chinese gene pool has little to do with Caucasoids. It sure is more closer to Chinese Asian neighors like Korean, Japanese. just take a look at genetic study on Northern Asians.
k Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 12:29:53 (PDT)

Chinese guy and General Viet:

The link i provided earlier proves that Southern Chinese (Hakka, minna, cantonese,...), Viets, are clustered genetically. There is a difference in Southen Han and Northern Han/Asian gene pool.

However, the genetic study seems to be done in Viets from Southern Vietnam where a lot of intermixing with chinese occur. IMO, to study the gene pool of a nation as a whole, it is necessary to study the genes of people in various regions for accurate outcome, if it is true that Southen viets have some physical differences compared to Northen Viets. The genetic study was done mainly on Haka, Minna. Whereas the study on Viets and Thais seem to be a little less sufficient.

If i find more links concerning this matter, I surely will post here for you guys.
k Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 12:13:56 (PDT)

I Ching, I haven't seen you in the korean unification thread, so I assumed that you stopped spouting your fascist ideology. But here again, I see you doing the same.

You say that "There is a psychosis common amongst ethnic Japanese and South Koreans that they have a romantic heritage, a kinship of sort with the so-called barbaric ‘Altaic races’ - the Mongols, the Turks, and the Manchus, i"

There you go off again without knowing any Koreans or japanese people. For your information, Koreans and the Manchurians ARE related people as Koreans and Han Chinese also related. Furthermore, you think Koreans generally have a positive impression of Manchurian and Mongolian history? Those two groups wrecked havok on the Korean peninsula, and just because the Mongol horde razed "white" europeans, you think Korean people look at the Mongols, the same people who occupied Korea, with respect and awe? MAYBE YOU ARE ENVIOUS of them. (these militaristic hoodlums will become Chinese by the way over time.) Also, Manchurians claim of the Baekdu(Changbai) mountains as their ancestral birthplace is the very reason why korea lost portion of the mountain to the Chinese--incidentally Koreans also claim Baekdu to be our ancestral birthplace, which makes one think that there is a common heritage here? You keep on sprouting forth your fascist ideology, dividing up ethnic groups in neat trenches, when in fact people throughout history have been marrying across vast distances, and the very notion of national identity is a somewhat new concept. You are obviously no biochemist, and have absolutely no idea anything at all about genetic analysis.

It is admirable that you are telling Korean and Japanese people not to admire the historic injustices of those other altaic groups. Killiing people for national glorification is wrong. the glory of Chinese civillization lies in the fact that they were peaceful technologically advanced agrarian society--who also lost some wars to militaristic "barbarian" people. But from what you write, you clearly disdain and have very little respect for a peaceful agrarian way of life. You have a twisted view of history and you have a twisted view of national glory and incidentally, your facts are all wrong. I wish you just stop writing your fascist drivel and get over your inferiority complex.

Other Chinese people I know don't have your complex and do not share your twist interpretation of history.

Look at your how warped your mind is! You mention that some Western researcheers think that the ainus were one of the 12 lost tribes of israel. Obviously you did not attend school in the United States, because the vast majority of Western scholars mock that idea. Just because you found an internet site that has these ideas, does not mean that they are anywhere near mainstream academic theories.

It's very obvious from anyone who reads what you write, that you read a lot, but at the same time, was never exposed to diversity of world ideas. You obviously do not know any Koreans, Japanese, or Western researchers, your opinion of them is entirely from what you read and watch from CCTV. Have you ever thought about engaging some of us in conversation? All your internet "credentials" are all from highly questionable websites. In fact, often they don't support your argument at all. I'm so curious whether you are a university student or a highschool student.
ka Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 10:19:34 (PDT)

To, the traveller;

"which is now known as the Cambodian "Mon-Khmer""

Wrong, the Cham and the khmer empires were TOTALLY different. They may have blood relations but they were totally different empires all together. The khmers and the Cham were historically recorded to have warred with one another and the Cham only moved to where cambodia is today because of the vietnamese peoples hatred for them, for that they had for no reason sacked the capital of the vietnamese nation at that time and killing half the inhabitants, in retalliation their land has been seized.

"That is why the Vietnamese local king has to sacrifice and give some tokens away to the Chinese emperor yearly."

This is called TRIBUTE, smaller countries pay bigger countries so that they DO NOT attack. This DO NOT in anyway mean that the weaker country is under the bigger countries control, just that fear existed. Like the mongols who had the pope himself pay tribute to them, but in no way was italy part of mongolia during kublai khan's time. Plus a leader is the man that the people choose, so what does it mean that the chinese called our leader a 'landlord'? We never actually accepted another leader or recognized anyone else, we saw him as a ruler. And plus that is if your analogy is true, the vietnamese people always had an emperor. What others consider them is no matter of our own. Another weak insight.

"The Ming dynasty of China during the 1700's was to annex into its empire"

Just to let you know, the Ming empire had TOTAL control over vietnam for a little over twenty years. They castrated boys, raped women, and killed men to weaken the vietnamese spirit to assimilate them into the chiense han, but once again it did not work and the people once again stayed loyal to the vietnamese blood.

"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""

But to the contrary, if you go even farther back the vietnamese were originally indepenent, they were said to be the Yueh. After bring conquered there WAS NO actual emperor, just a leader of the people. In this one thousand years alone the vietnamese people warred ten times, that doesn't make it seem that we submitted well.

"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."

For the entire time the vietnamese language was under restrictions. AT half the times it was even OUTLAWED. BUT, your observation is once again WRONG. The commoners AND The upperclass learned the vietnamese language in underground schools, which were funded by the "wang/voung" themselves. The upperclass no matter how close to the chinese learnt vietnamese in underground schools. ALL of the famous vietnamese poets spoke vietnamese and were good friends with the people. Poets like Nguyen Binh Khiem and many others spoke vietnamese. The WRITING was in chinese, that is how the nobility of the chinese and vietnamese communicated. You think if the upperclass spoke "han" the people wouldn't? Plus another thing you have gotten wrong. The vietnamese language as a whole has A LOT more influence from cantonese, if your analogy where we spoke "han" is true then why were we more influenced by cantonese? PLUS, HAN is an ethnic NOT A LANGUAGE. Another mistake.

"Imagine how 10,000 French Soldiers can control more than 15 million people in Vietnam..."

Yeah, that's why all of the vietnamese peoples heros at that time were against the french. And the same reason why we celebrated when the french lost right? Man, we may have been influence but we didn't want to be slaves EVER. You tell me we wanted to be slaves and YOU ARE NOT a viet for sure. How can 10 thousand men control 15 million? Especially when most of them were rural and spread out, the french had extensive influence on the urban MINORITY. VERY SMALL.

AND i agree with the moderator/editor, please let this slip through, because it will teach the traveller to actually know, rather then read one source and blabe on in a forum which it has no connection too. Even in these forums there are knowledgeable people.

Here's a GOOD advice, STOP POSTING HISTORICAL info in relations forum/thread.
GO HERE: http://goldsea.com/Poll/Comparing/comparing.html

Thanks for your patience my good editor.
Man, misinformation again, and go to the comparing thread for historical stuff Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 17:50:58 (PDT)

[This and the previous post have been moved from the Chinese Men/Viet Women page. --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