PebHmong Discussion Forum
General Category => Hmong Culture & History => Topic started by: TheAfterLife on October 16, 2015, 12:22:17 AM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQjRu-kmiRU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQjRu-kmiRU)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQjRu-kmiRU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQjRu-kmiRU)
... kekeke ... :2funny:/ :idiot2:
There is no such thing (factually) as "Hmong History about Chiyou (Documentary)". For the record, the narrator (a Hmong/Mong layperson), was spoon-fed Miao history by Miao scholars/researchers in China then ignorantly regurgitated it as if it was "Hmong history" which is ludicrous, false, and absurd. Examp: In the video, at 1:01, the narrator claims the Miao in Hainan Island are Hmong/Mong, or of Miao (Hmong-Chinese) descendants. Fact (or truth) is, they are not. They are Dai/Tai who are basically your Lao/Thai ethnicity. The embroidery, the Dai/Tai simply learned/copied from the Miao when they once lived among one another. This is what happens (epic fail/s) when naïve, ignorant, gullible HA'Mung edumacate themselves with, thru, via spoon-fed Hmong/Mong laypersons ... KEKEKE ... >:D
Here is a more accurate depiction/history of Chiyou, aired by China's very own CCTV, which is the equivalent of the USA's PBS network.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUtz14wsP30 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUtz14wsP30)
-
/\/\ ... kekeke ... :2funny:/ :idiot2:
Ur typical ha'primitive ha'cluleless ha'ignorant HA'Mung ha'ranting ha'idiotically ha'incessantly ... KEKEKE ... >:D
Ha'HINT:
Basically, a " ... ruam tsab ntse ... HA'Mung " ... kekeke ... ::)
-
Chidor is just a sad middle age troll. The Hainan Miao are NOT Dai/Tai people
The Hainan Miao call themselves Kim Mun, which is a Mien/Yao people
-
Chidor is just a sad middle age troll. The Hainan Miao are NOT Dai/Tai people
The Hainan Miao call themselves Kim Mun, which is a Mien/Yao people
... kekeke ... :2funny:/ ::)
They obviously did not call (or claim) to be Hmong, or Miao-Hmong (who are Hmu, Kho Xiong, Ahao for that matter) which the ignorant narrator of the video idiotically proclaimed ... ha'DUH ... KEKEKE ... >:D
And fyi, Mien/Yao is a "family classification", which includes the Dai//Tai and Mien ... ha'DUH ... kekeke ... 8)
-
Yeah, retard. Why do you think I said the Hainan Miao call themselves Kim mun? Because they aren't hmong, but they're definitely not Dai/Tai like some ruam tsab ntse (you) claim them to be
FYI Kim mun are closely related to the Iu Mien in southeast Asia and the US, and are claimed by Mien as Mien. What qualifies you to claim them as Dai? None
-
/\/\ ... kekeke ... :2funny:/ ::)
Kim Mun is a self-proclamation/designation, exactly like the Kho Xiong, Ahao, and Hmu self-proclamation in China (or a ha'edumacated ha'nincompoop HA'Mung per ya ha'rant) They are ethnically grouped/classified as Mien: Dai/Tai, Mien, etc (including your "self-proclaimed Kim Mun") and Miao; Kho Xiong, Ahao, Hmu, Hmong respectively ... ha'DUH ... KEKEKE ... >:D
Talk about "ruam tsab ntse" (which over qualifies you ha'aZZ ha'edumacated HA'Mung -- like your/the Ha'Mung "self-proclamation" of being Ha'Mung-ha'Americans for example) ... ha'DUH ... kekeke ... :idiot2:/ 8)
-
Are they a cousin of us? I do have a question about that...
Yao and Miao do share some similarities like how Hmong and Mien are. I am not so sure about this, but I can assume that in the far past of Dongyi OR the Chu, we might've been cousins before....
... kekeke ... :2funny:/ ::)
If u believe (accept) the fact that Apes, Chimps, and your Spider-monkeys are your best of kin then "YES", the Mien/Kum Mun are your cousins ... KEKEKE ... >:D
Else, fAWk hELLz-kNOwzzz (per ALL known scholarships in genetics, linguistics, and history/ethnology) ... kekeke ... 8)
-
Says the laughing clown who has never studied the Kim mun, and thinks mien is synonymous with Yao, an umbrella term for Mien and non Mien related groups
-
Says the laughing clown who has never studied the Kim mun, and thinks mien is synonymous with Yao, an umbrella term for Mien and non Mien related groups
... kekeke ... :2funny:
I would rather study a monkey's aRse over the Kim Mun any lifetime, century, or existence doofuss ... KEKEKE ... >:D
BTW, Mien and Yao may not by synonymous such as doofuss and dolt, but in Ethnology, they (Mien/Yao) ARE IN FACT related and under the exact umbrella ... DOLT/DUH! ... kekeke ... 8) (But a defecating doofuss/dolt would not comprehend/avow such mundane basics ... KEKEKE ... :2funny:/ ::))
-
Typical contradicting/baseless argument - how predictable
-
Chidor is just a sad middle age troll. The Hainan Miao are NOT Dai/Tai people
The Hainan Miao call themselves Kim Mun, which is a Mien/Yao people
You are correct. Narratively speaking, before PORC took over, and introduction of the 55 Ethnic Minority, there were only 5. Han, Mong, Manchu, Hui, and Zang. The 5 races were classified as 中华民族 Zhonghua Minzu or TsooHuam PejTsoom/Txum in Hmong. We Hmong were stuck with Miao with other Ethnicity. When 55 Ethnicity were introduce, we Hmong got the short end of the stick of calling Miao. Miao descendant today are virtually non-existence, or they just don't accept the name Miao. We Hmong are unfortunately stuck with it.
-
/\/\ ... kekeke ... :2funny:/ ::)
Not totally 100% sure about Hui and Zang, but It is a known universal truth that first and foremost, Mong and/or Hmong, is and was never a documented nomenclature is any/all Chinese historical records, history, and documents ever written, or in any scholarships to my knowledge -- even at present. That said, it a known universal truth that Miao is and has been exclusively the nomenclature of non-Chinese ethnic groups since Chinese antiquity. That truth can be found, cited, and clearly documented in nearly any/all Chinese historical documents, regardless of who, or what ruler was in power throughout Chinese history, even up to the PROC, which is why Miao was used so predominantly.
Mong and/or Hmong is a SEAsian appellation/origination near the latter 20th Century, during GVP's era/reign. This truth can be researched, clearly traced, and validated with worldly scholarships. Not hearsay, folklore, fairy tales, and wives rumorville.
Ha'HINT:
As an amateur researcher, for personal knowledge, I have studied and still studying (that is continued research) Mong/Hmong (and Miao) history etc for the past 10+ years now; therfore I am pretty sure I have a clue, or a lot of clues, as to what I am saying (NOT your typical ha'primitive ha'ignorant ha'clueless ha'idioctic HA'MUNG ha'ranting HA'MUNGINGLY ha'nonsense ) ... kekeke ... 8)
Any/all claims that Mong/Hmong is an ethnic origination in and throughout Chinese history is pure nonsense. (NOT the people, the nomenclature.) Even our Hmong kins in China (who avow being Miao), still there today, are clueless what Mong/Hmong is and are till we spoonfed them, just fairly recently around late 1980s. This can be proven.
Lastly, most, one can even argue, the newly incepted nomenclatures of Miao ethnicities of the 55 came into existence purely out of government public assistance programs starting around the late 20th century when China become more global and worldly to better its worldwide view/tolerance etc.. Again, this can be proven. Ua tsaug ... KEKEKE ... >:D
-
If you are so passionate chidorix there are two books that might interest you. Some of my post comes from these two books: Constructing the Zhonghua minzu: The frontier and national questions in early 20th century China 2002. The other is Dreams of the Hmong Kingdom
The Quest for Legitimation in French Indochina, 1850–1960. The second one was print this year 2015. atthetop you should check it out too.
Just for your information Zang are references to Tibetan or Qiangic descandants. Hui refers to outsider, specifically Chinese Muslim.
-
/\/\ ... kekeke ... :2funny:
Hmmm, the two books you mentioned will be scouted towards my current collection of scholarships on Hmong/Mong/Miao studies. The latter, since it is/was printed in 2015, raises an eyebrow because from most/ALL the scholarships I have seen, read, and studied thus far, some (arguably most), current works/publications are :idiot2: and ::) to say the least, especially the ones by USA/Western Hmong/Mong authors. For example, I have three books (when I bought them -- not knowing better), which I do not care to mention (by Hmong authors ironically) that is nauseating %!#c@o%w!@c%*r^%ap in my honest opinion -- utterly bordering a High School paper. One just ranted the same crap over and over that I literally had to stop reading after the 4th/5th Chapter. (Yes, I will finish that book. Someday? For laffs.)
Any passion for any civilized Hmong, is first and foremost, being and knowing Hmong/Mong authenticity versus hearsay, fairy tales, and wives' gossip/rumorville. Secondly, so that all the ha'primitive ha'clueless ha'ignorant ha'idiotic HA'Mung ha'ranting ha'incessantly ha'nonse can be logistically/academically schooled -- reprimanding their HA'Mungness ha'edumacated ha'UH-DUH-skewl ha'UH-DOPE-in-turd-loser-gence ... KEKEKE ... >:D
(Yes, Hmong/Mong culture/practices are within a civilized Hmong/Mong's passion as well ... kekeke ... 8))
-
stuff
Just let me know your opinion of the two books when you finished it. I'm not interest of your childhood.
-
/\/\ ... kekeke ... :2funny:
Per the fact that you, yourself, have made questionable statements/ :idiot2: solely rooted in your two books is and are very telling already of their limited info/ ::) (in your words, "regurgitation ... nothing new we all already know ....") ... KEKEKE ... >:D
Buying those two books will be a waste of money, but knowing and having sources to directly cite from towards and of an author's limitation and regurgitation is priceless ... kekeke ... 8)
Examp:
In one of the three glorified books of mine, the author claims that Hmong/Mong (solely) originated in/from the Western Central plain of China -- Juanhua, and all its various names/pronunciation -- and went to great lengths to prove it by citing folklore, personal interviews, and even myths/fairy tales. But what the author failed to acknowledge (and debunk), is and are other works/researchers, or more credible origin scholarships. Needless to say, it was a very narrowminded one sided perspective that was not well received within the overall academic community. That is a kind way of saying, "Pure/poor BS ...". ... kekeke ... ???
-
... kekeke ... :2funny:
dlabtsi_os ,
As suspected, your two books (in your own words), brings " ... nothing new ... and are just regurgitation ..." of what is already known by many/MOST intellects/researchers (including myself) ..." ... KEKEKe ... >:D
In scouting your two books (with respect to readers' reviews, and internet feedbacks), they are essentially NOT worth buying, as they have very little to do with Hmong/Mong/Miao history (except for Ms Na Lee's book to a limited extent). Constructing the Zhonghua Minzu is nothing more than a reimagining of Chinese nationalism; redefining China's perception of "nationalistic identify" more or less towards global adherence with respect to its array of ethnic diversity, cultures, states (autonomous provinces) and Chinese patriotism, at the forefront, in and/or moving into the 20th/21sth Century. (The book is not even for sale. It is a Poly-Sci or History College/Univ. book only from what I gathered.) That is why it primarily focused on the 5 main more dominant/larger ethnicity you stated (of which Hmong/Mong and Miao is NONEXISTENT, or even uttered -- you poser).
As for " Dreams of the Hmong Kingdom ... ", it is Ms Lee's analysis of Hmong/Mong filial and messianic constructs of political leadership/s during/throughout the Indochina era, and how it effected the politics, states, and outcomes of events etc. on all fronts: Hmong/Mong (Laos), Vietnam, China etc.. Again, very little to do with definitive Hmong/Mong/Miao history as a whole, but worth the read for any Hmon/Mong enthusiast. (I had some dialogue with Ms Lee many years ago after reading her graduate dissertation, "The 1000 Year Myth ..." ; which by the way is a very insightful paper to her credit, that even a Hmong (poser) regurgitated ( :idiot2:/ ::)) from it as if it was his own original work/research. What a doofuss. Needless to say, Ms Lee had different opinions regarding matters in question, and thus we ended our dialogue ... :2funny: You'd think she would act more professional, but whatever, ... KEKEKE ... 8))
-
/\/\ ... kekeke ... :2funny:/ ::)
Not totally 100% sure about Hui and Zang, but It is a known universal truth that first and foremost, Mong and/or Hmong, is and was never a documented nomenclature is any/all Chinese historical records, history, and documents ever written, or in any scholarships to my knowledge -- even at present. That said, it a known universal truth that Miao is and has been exclusively the nomenclature of non-Chinese ethnic groups since Chinese antiquity. That truth can be found, cited, and clearly documented in nearly any/all Chinese historical documents, regardless of who, or what ruler was in power throughout Chinese history, even up to the PROC, which is why Miao was used so predominantly.
Mong and/or Hmong is a SEAsian appellation/origination near the latter 20th Century, during GVP's era/reign. This truth can be researched, clearly traced, and validated with worldly scholarships. Not hearsay, folklore, fairy tales, and wives rumorville.
Ha'HINT:
As an amateur researcher, for personal knowledge, I have studied and still studying (that is continued research) Mong/Hmong (and Miao) history etc for the past 10+ years now; therfore I am pretty sure I have a clue, or a lot of clues, as to what I am saying (NOT your typical ha'primitive ha'ignorant ha'clueless ha'idioctic HA'MUNG ha'ranting HA'MUNGINGLY ha'nonsense ) ... kekeke ... 8)
Any/all claims that Mong/Hmong is an ethnic origination in and throughout Chinese history is pure nonsense. (NOT the people, the nomenclature.) Even our Hmong kins in China (who avow being Miao), still there today, are clueless what Mong/Hmong is and are till we spoonfed them, just fairly recently around late 1980s. This can be proven.
Lastly, most, one can even argue, the newly incepted nomenclatures of Miao ethnicities of the 55 came into existence purely out of government public assistance programs starting around the late 20th century when China become more global and worldly to better its worldwide view/tolerance etc.. Again, this can be proven. Ua tsaug ... KEKEKE ... >:D
Right on bro, prior to the late 20th century all people in China are claimed to be Han or dead will come to their door steps.