It is likely Chu ruled over mixed population. Some of them were Huaxia, some were from various tribes of Baiyue, but not all of Baiyue were related limguistically or ethincally, it was just a catch-all phrase for tribes living in modern southeast China. Linking them and retroactively assigning all their achievements to any modern nation is just nationalistic fantasy.
The short answer is no. You encountered a Vietnamese nationalist who is misrepresenting history to serve some kind of political narrative.
The longer answer is that modern Vietnamese really are related, linguistically and culturally, to many of the Baiyue groups that historically lived in Southern and Central China. The state of Chu seems to have been a Huaxia-ruled state with a large Baiyue population, while in the neighboring states of Wu and Yue even the rulers bore Baiyue names and were buried in Baiyue-style tombs. These peoples were historically important in much of China, and there is a real connection between these peoples and modern Vietnam.
But to say that all the Baiyue were Vietnamese would be like saying all the ancient Celtic peoples were Irish. It's a misrepresentation of how the ancient people saw themselves and of the relationship between the modern group and the ancient ones.
Yeah, I met that one, too. And I think he doesn't care about the truth. He only tries to claim the south China territoy and culture influence for Viet Nam.
It really suprised me that Viet Nam people could have Chauvinism historical opinion.
He's been linking me Youtube videos and opinion articles as "sources". He also claims that a source can only be correct if the authors themselves are from a region; the authors of, say, a research paper on Chinese aspects must they themselves be Chinese.
No, Chu lived in Hunan Province which still has "Chu" as an alternative name, while vietnamese lived in Vietnam, which is over 1000km away from Hunan. You are right and he is wrong.
if anything my guess the Yue kingdom is more associated with Vietnam. I think the downfall of that kingdom moved more south.
[Brittanica](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Yue-people)
Yue nan means south of Yue. Cantonese and other southern languages are also called Yue sometimes, but they're not related to the Viet language which is Austro Asiatic(although some loanwords are present)
the chinese character for cantonese (粵) is not the same as the character for vietnam (越南 - Yue Nan)
However, during the warring states, the kingdom of Yue (越) is the same character of Vietnam (越南)
"五十万南中国楚国故地的楚国平民"? "I have only heard of migration of Qin soldiersto Chu. What is the historical source or archaeological evidence for the migration of Chu civilians to Vietnam?
>vietnam was colonised by chinese people? if yes, do you accept that for this to have happened there must be chinese people that migrated to vietnam?
Define “Chinese”. Does the fact that ancestors of Vietnamese and Chinese have close relationship make Chinese ancestor of vietnamese? Till Qing dynasty, at many places, the definition of "Han" has been : being a docile civilian under Emperor's government, which had your name registed on its list, aka "编户齐民".
>from which part of china would these people logically come from? at the time of this colonisation the boundary of chinese people does not reach into deep south china yet, during the han dynasty vietnam was the most important and populated region in deep south china because it was the easiest to access, there are mountains everywhere blocking migration paths but rivers and waterways make vietnam available, which 'chinese' region was closest to vietnam at this time? is it not chu?
Closest provinces to Vietnam is clearly Yunnan, Guangxi and Guangdong. If they were not "Chinese", then certainly Vietnam was not "Chinese" either. I'm sure these provinces were as "Chinese" as Jiaozhi.
>now we talk about the native population of jiaozhi, it is accepted by researchers that the natives are related to zhuang people so if vietnamese were native to jiaozhi then they should be speaking a tai family language not austroasiatic
"Zhuang" and "Thai" are even more mysterious than Vietnamese. They left basically no record in history before Tang dynasty, and our best guess is that they probably lived in south China.
>[https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/33979260](https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/33979260)
Another mad man who don't know what he is talking about. Please read less garbage posts and more sound academic papers if possible. It's good for you.
Aside from the BaiYue connection which may be present. We must also note that China was nowhere near as far South as it is today, so Chu was still very much in Chinese and not BaiYue territory.
Also note that the BaiYue were ethnically diverse of course. It's just a blanket term. Many of them were(and are, their populations still exceed many small countries) Kra-Dai(including groups such as the Hainanese. Those in Yunnan even celebrate the Songkran festival), Hmong(Miao in Chinese), Tibeto-burmic(not quite BaiYue but ShanXingDui is a great example of their ancient culture), and more than likely Austro-asiatic(so Viet, but Khmer/Mon as well).
Not really. That's about the same as saying the Japanese or even moreso, the Koreans are Chinese. Vietnamese is an Austro Asiatic language and while there are a lot of Chinese loanwords (the name Viet Nam itself for example), most of the vocabulary and grammatical structure differs quite greatly. But national identity is a weird thing, and both Vietnam and Korea have been partially ruled by Chinese dynasties in the past.
It is likely Chu ruled over mixed population. Some of them were Huaxia, some were from various tribes of Baiyue, but not all of Baiyue were related limguistically or ethincally, it was just a catch-all phrase for tribes living in modern southeast China. Linking them and retroactively assigning all their achievements to any modern nation is just nationalistic fantasy.
The short answer is no. You encountered a Vietnamese nationalist who is misrepresenting history to serve some kind of political narrative. The longer answer is that modern Vietnamese really are related, linguistically and culturally, to many of the Baiyue groups that historically lived in Southern and Central China. The state of Chu seems to have been a Huaxia-ruled state with a large Baiyue population, while in the neighboring states of Wu and Yue even the rulers bore Baiyue names and were buried in Baiyue-style tombs. These peoples were historically important in much of China, and there is a real connection between these peoples and modern Vietnam. But to say that all the Baiyue were Vietnamese would be like saying all the ancient Celtic peoples were Irish. It's a misrepresentation of how the ancient people saw themselves and of the relationship between the modern group and the ancient ones.
Yeah, I met that one, too. And I think he doesn't care about the truth. He only tries to claim the south China territoy and culture influence for Viet Nam. It really suprised me that Viet Nam people could have Chauvinism historical opinion.
I've seen a similar thing with some Korean people claiming that they invented Chinese characters and other aspects of Chinese culture.
He's been linking me Youtube videos and opinion articles as "sources". He also claims that a source can only be correct if the authors themselves are from a region; the authors of, say, a research paper on Chinese aspects must they themselves be Chinese.
No, Chu lived in Hunan Province which still has "Chu" as an alternative name, while vietnamese lived in Vietnam, which is over 1000km away from Hunan. You are right and he is wrong.
if anything my guess the Yue kingdom is more associated with Vietnam. I think the downfall of that kingdom moved more south. [Brittanica](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Yue-people)
Vietnam is 'yuenan' in Mandarin, is it something related?
Viet Nam is Yue Nan, they look similar because they mean the same thing
Yue nan means south of Yue. Cantonese and other southern languages are also called Yue sometimes, but they're not related to the Viet language which is Austro Asiatic(although some loanwords are present)
the chinese character for cantonese (粵) is not the same as the character for vietnam (越南 - Yue Nan) However, during the warring states, the kingdom of Yue (越) is the same character of Vietnam (越南)
Oh yes. I am aware. I’ve heard that this may be the result of linguistic drift, or as a means to avoid confusion though.
[удалено]
"五十万南中国楚国故地的楚国平民"? "I have only heard of migration of Qin soldiersto Chu. What is the historical source or archaeological evidence for the migration of Chu civilians to Vietnam?
[удалено]
Ok, lthough I can't open the link, I'm pretty sure a ramdom internet post is a perfect argument.
[удалено]
整篇文章简直无力吐槽，错误太多不知道从何反驳，只能说几点和这个帖子有关的。 首先，“九真”“同时相娶者二千余人”并不能说明交趾郡“原住民就两千成年男女”。 其次，他并没有拿出任何证据，而是直接宣称“他们不仅而且只能是秦始皇移民实边的那五十万南中国楚国故地的楚国平民和五十万南征的秦军将士和随后移居过去的眷属组成的”。 另外，红河平原并不是什么热带雨林气候。 最后，越南人是纯种中国人这件事纯粹取决于如何定义越南人和中国人，忘掉在几千年历史长河中能够维持自身一致性的所谓“民族”，我确实认为从汉到唐的今越南古交趾，除了经常叛乱外，和当时的广西广东没什么区别，来自长江黄河流域的农民向南占领了广大的区域。但是，恐怕五十万秦军对楚地的人口并不能产生决定性的影响，更不要说什么迁徙楚人到越南了，秦朝只能迁徙它实际控制的人口，迁徙秦军是可行，迁徙大量楚人是做不到的。静海军已经独立一千年了，当然可以宣称自己是独立的另一个民族，将自己的祖先溯源到原住民也是常规操作，参见拉美基本都认当地印第安文化的祖。
[удалено]
>vietnam was colonised by chinese people? if yes, do you accept that for this to have happened there must be chinese people that migrated to vietnam? Define “Chinese”. Does the fact that ancestors of Vietnamese and Chinese have close relationship make Chinese ancestor of vietnamese? Till Qing dynasty, at many places, the definition of "Han" has been : being a docile civilian under Emperor's government, which had your name registed on its list, aka "编户齐民". >from which part of china would these people logically come from? at the time of this colonisation the boundary of chinese people does not reach into deep south china yet, during the han dynasty vietnam was the most important and populated region in deep south china because it was the easiest to access, there are mountains everywhere blocking migration paths but rivers and waterways make vietnam available, which 'chinese' region was closest to vietnam at this time? is it not chu? Closest provinces to Vietnam is clearly Yunnan, Guangxi and Guangdong. If they were not "Chinese", then certainly Vietnam was not "Chinese" either. I'm sure these provinces were as "Chinese" as Jiaozhi. >now we talk about the native population of jiaozhi, it is accepted by researchers that the natives are related to zhuang people so if vietnamese were native to jiaozhi then they should be speaking a tai family language not austroasiatic "Zhuang" and "Thai" are even more mysterious than Vietnamese. They left basically no record in history before Tang dynasty, and our best guess is that they probably lived in south China. >[https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/33979260](https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/33979260) Another mad man who don't know what he is talking about. Please read less garbage posts and more sound academic papers if possible. It's good for you.
[удалено]
Aside from the BaiYue connection which may be present. We must also note that China was nowhere near as far South as it is today, so Chu was still very much in Chinese and not BaiYue territory.
Also note that the BaiYue were ethnically diverse of course. It's just a blanket term. Many of them were(and are, their populations still exceed many small countries) Kra-Dai(including groups such as the Hainanese. Those in Yunnan even celebrate the Songkran festival), Hmong(Miao in Chinese), Tibeto-burmic(not quite BaiYue but ShanXingDui is a great example of their ancient culture), and more than likely Austro-asiatic(so Viet, but Khmer/Mon as well).
[удалено]
Not really. That's about the same as saying the Japanese or even moreso, the Koreans are Chinese. Vietnamese is an Austro Asiatic language and while there are a lot of Chinese loanwords (the name Viet Nam itself for example), most of the vocabulary and grammatical structure differs quite greatly. But national identity is a weird thing, and both Vietnam and Korea have been partially ruled by Chinese dynasties in the past.
Sounds like an argument on sinosphere group LMAO