Comparison of physical appearance and fashion style of Southeast Asians (move, citizen)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We were never "occupied" by the Chinese. You have to realize that back then, everything was a collection of tribes. See this map?
As you can see, neither China nor us look close to anything they are now. Here's what happens, a lot of tribes back then, each with different dialects, agreed to be united under one ruler, we were the one tribe that refused. If you say we were occupied or conquered, then you have to say that Hong Kong or the right part of Nam Yue has been occupied by the Chinese for 2000 years, you'd have to say that Taiwan is being conquered by the Chinese. Heck, you could say anyone who doesn't agree to be under communist rule is being conquered by the Chinese. Extend it to the West and you can say that the U.S used to be conquered by the British. Makes no sense of all.
We never became independent until Ngo Quyen fought off the Chinese in 938 and became a country for good.
Now the reason that many people of our people look "Chinese" is simply because the northern tribes migrated south during this occupation period, but then they also fought off the "Chinese"(or more accurately, the northern tribes who they used to be a part of that agreed to be under one ruler), Mongolians, the French and the U.S later(in fact, they're the ones who did most of the fighting), so in effect, they are a part of us. Just like the Chinese, we are a mix race from North and South.
So there's no such thing as a Chinese race. All there was was a collection of tribes, and many agreed to be united under one ruler and call themselves Chinese, one didn't.
Finally, if we were to go with the Chinese logic(using something from the 7th century as proof that Tibet was part of China), then you can say that half of China should be part of Tibet right now(probably took them by force back then, because IMO, there's no way that all 56 tribes with different cultures and languages could all agree to unite under one ruler).
(same thing as when that same group of ignorant stereotypes Filipino are related to Hispanics and stereotypes that Indonesian/Malaysian are related to Arabs. While in reality aside from "culture" Filipino has nothing related to Hispanics and Indonesian/Malaysian has nothing related to Arabs in any other aspects such as origin, history, race, language, physically appearance.
Indonesian/Malaysian don't look like Arab but look like Austronesian-Islander. Filipino also doesn't look like Hispanics but look like Austronesian-Islander.)
No Indonesians aren't related to the arabs but large number of the people are worshipping the arabs like fools, there is minor arab community and mixing, but that's mostly it... Aceh however are known to have large number of Arabs descent, due to its position as the starting point of the spread of Islam in the country.
We were never "occupied" by the Chinese. You have to realize that back then, everything was a collection of tribes. See this map?
As you can see, neither China nor us look close to anything they are now. Here's what happens, a lot of tribes back then, each with different dialects, agreed to be united under one ruler, we were the one tribe that refused. If you say we were occupied or conquered, then you have to say that Hong Kong or the right part of Nam Yue has been occupied by the Chinese for 2000 years, you'd have to say that Taiwan is being conquered by the Chinese. Heck, you could say anyone who doesn't agree to be under communist rule is being conquered by the Chinese. Extend it to the West and you can say that the U.S used to be conquered by the British. Makes no sense of all.
We never became independent until Ngo Quyen fought off the Chinese in 938 and became a country for good.
Now the reason that many people of our people look "Chinese" is simply because the northern tribes migrated south during this occupation period, but then they also fought off the "Chinese"(or more accurately, the northern tribes who they used to be a part of that agreed to be under one ruler), Mongolians, the French and the U.S later(in fact, they're the ones who did most of the fighting), so in effect, they are a part of us. Just like the Chinese, we are a mix race from North and South.
So there's no such thing as a Chinese race. All there was was a collection of tribes, and many agreed to be united under one ruler and call themselves Chinese, one didn't.
Finally, if we were to go with the Chinese logic(using something from the 7th century as proof that Tibet was part of China), then you can say that half of China should be part of Tibet right now(probably took them by force back then, because IMO, there's no way that all 56 tribes with different cultures and languages could all agree to unite under one ruler).
Well, yes.
Hong Kong is being conquered by the Chinese(and still today).
Taiwan is being conquered by the Chinese(and still today).
U.S used to be conquered by the British.(but not anymore)
The fact is that there are clear historical event that actually happened. No one can deny it.
You are definitely right that Vietnamese today are a mixed race of many things(Kinh(Mon-Khmer),Khmer(Mon-Khmer),Han(Sinid) and Cham(Austronesian))
You are one of a few realistic Vietnamese who accept the true history, unlike some other nationalist conservative Vietnameses who tried to claim that Vietnamese are the pure race.
No Indonesians aren't related to the arabs but large number of the people are worshipping the arabs like fools, there is minor arab community and mixing, but that's mostly it... Aceh however are known to have large number of Arabs descent, due to its position as the starting point of the spread of Islam in the country.
Yes, I know that Indonesian and Malaysian are definitely not racially, historically and linguistically related to Arabs.
The only similarity between Indonesian/Malaysian is culture and religious, that is about it.
Mien ...
Indonesian Languge is written with the Latin script. It was originally based on the Dutch spelling and still bears some similarities to it. Consonants are Represented in a way similar to Italian( Europa). Indonesian foreign languages have many loans the most popular and dominant is "Dutch "a former Dutch colonial, the second one is English (as the language is preferable by the people of Indonesia), Arabic (relating to religion) . No link Indonesia with Arab like you wrote because Indonesian Culture is a mixed culture and Indian, Chinese, West European , less Arab .
Linkages Islam in Indonesia is coming Arab ,this same as saying that Thailand is India becuase Buddhis Indochina came from India. I am so glad you know about the history of religion / culture among countries in south east asia, but it should be more concrete and clear.
Yes, I know that Indonesian and Malaysian are definitely not racially, historically and linguistically related to Arabs.
The only similarity between Indonesian/Malaysian is culture and religious, that is about it.
Hmm there is some loanword from the Arab language too and architecturally, in places like Aceh (the only sharia province) where Islam completely eradicated the people's former way of life. But yes the influence is very minimal to the people on average, other influences are much more appealing.
Mien ...
Indonesian Languge is written with the Latin script. It was originally based on the Dutch spelling and still bears some similarities to it. Consonants are Represented in a way similar to Italian( Europa). Indonesian foreign languages have many loans the most popular and dominant is "Dutch "a former Dutch colonial, the second one is English (as the language is preferable by the people of Indonesia), Arabic (relating to religion) . No link Indonesia with Arab like you wrote because Indonesian Culture is a mixed culture and Indian, Chinese, West European , less Arab .
Linkages Islam in Indonesia is coming Arab ,this same as saying that Thailand is India becuase Buddhis Indochina came from India. I am so glad you know about the history of religion / culture among countries in south east asia, but it should be more concrete and clear.[/quote]
I see what you meant. Btw the way, how many % of vocab in Indonesian language are loan from Arab?
If was talking about structurally of the language of Indonesian and Malaysian such as core vocab like numeral for words for body parts or simple everyday life sentences. Mostly are related to Filipino, and are considered Austronesian.
Hmm there is some loanword from the Arab language too and architecturally, in places like Aceh (the only sharia province) where Islam completely eradicated the people's former way of life. But yes the influence is very minimal to the people on average, other influences are much more appealing.
What kind of influence was the most effected to Indonesian today? (if not Arab)
What kind of influence was the most effected to Indonesian today? (if not Arab)
Hmm the Dutch got to be the most influential since they're the one who brought the country together, its funny that people tend to associate India as British colony but hardly recognize the Indonesia as Dutch ex colony. Although Indonesian in parcular aren't proud of the history. The way people see things, education, ethics, women's emancipation, architecture, morals and the use of Bahasa Indonesia itself etc, all are colonial legacies by right.
Indian influence definitely are strong and influential to Indonesia, as its influence in the neighboring country but the influence is limited to Sumatra, Java, and Bali only... (note that the Hinduism of Indonesia is the older form of Hinduism which is very different to the current Indian one) while in Sumatra it almost dissapeared, some of the ancient Buddhist value are still practiced by the locals. Chinese are also influential but not as appealing as the Indians, there are Chinese elements in Indonesian culture as well and the fact that Chinese community is quiet large, its a living influence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mien
Mien ...
[*]If was talking about structurally of the language of Indonesian and Malaysian such as core vocab like numeral for words for body parts or simple everyday life sentences. Mostly are related to Filipino, and are considered Austronesian.
[/list]
Some of the words in Indonesian do not have counterparts in Malaysian but do in Filipinos, which is pretty fascinating actually.
We were never "occupied" by the Chinese. You have to realize that back then, everything was a collection of tribes. See this map?
As you can see, neither China nor us look close to anything they are now. Here's what happens, a lot of tribes back then, each with different dialects, agreed to be united under one ruler, we were the one tribe that refused. If you say we were occupied or conquered, then you have to say that Hong Kong or the right part of Nam Yue has been occupied by the Chinese for 2000 years, you'd have to say that Taiwan is being conquered by the Chinese. Heck, you could say anyone who doesn't agree to be under communist rule is being conquered by the Chinese. Extend it to the West and you can say that the U.S used to be conquered by the British. Makes no sense of all.
We never became independent until Ngo Quyen fought off the Chinese in 938 and became a country for good.
Now the reason that many people of our people look "Chinese" is simply because the northern tribes migrated south during this occupation period, but then they also fought off the "Chinese"(or more accurately, the northern tribes who they used to be a part of that agreed to be under one ruler), Mongolians, the French and the U.S later(in fact, they're the ones who did most of the fighting), so in effect, they are a part of us. Just like the Chinese, we are a mix race from North and South.
So there's no such thing as a Chinese race. All there was was a collection of tribes, and many agreed to be united under one ruler and call themselves Chinese, one didn't.
Finally, if we were to go with the Chinese logic(using something from the 7th century as proof that Tibet was part of China), then you can say that half of China should be part of Tibet right now(probably took them by force back then, because IMO, there's no way that all 56 tribes with different cultures and languages could all agree to unite under one ruler).
Well yes, the Qin state became supreme as it started defeating competing states, and Shi Huangdi united 'China' for the first time. It was the first time what is now 'China proper' was united under a single ruler, but the various 'tribes'/nations had some autonomy. Vietnam was still as much under Han rule as any other province in China. Minyue/Baiyue, where modern day Fujian is, was also pretty independent.
It'd be interesting to spectacular how people looked in most of southern China at the start of the Han. I would say they would look a bit like Dai, with a few looking like Khmer. Of course, the Vietnamese are a heterogeneous people, like most, with many influences. Culture/language/identity is what really unites them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
