Rebuttal from Professor Paoze Thao
Teev Lis
Rebuttal to Dr. Kao Ly Yang’s Email
Posted on Hmoob21s...@yahoogroups.com
June 1, 2003
I do not subscribe to this Internet group discussion. However, some
of my
colleagues forwarded Dr. Kao Ly Yang’s email that was posted on
the Internet
group discussion pertaining to me on May 30, 2003. Therefore, this is
my
rebuttal to her email and I request my colleagues to post my responses
on
hmoob21s...@yahoogroups.com.
My name is Paoze Thao. I am a Professor of Linguistics, Education and
Ethnic
Studies at California State University, Monterey Bay. My other
disciplines
include comparative international education, history of education,
policies
studies and Teaching English and French as a Second Language.
I firmly disagree with Dr. Kao Ly Yang's critical information provided
to
you with respect to the fact that I operate based on my ideological
point of
view. Please be aware that the information that she discussed with
you in
her email about the spelling terms "Hmong" and "Mong" are not
accurate.
Since her information is not based on sound research, it is biased and
misleading.
The purpose of this response is two-fold:
1. As a scholar, I want to respond to your inquiry and Dr. Kao Ly
Yang's
critical information posted on the Internet group discussion about the
spelling term "Mong" and her notion that I operate based on my
ideological
point of view;
2. As the Mong Federation, Inc., we oppose AB 78 (Reyes) because it
discriminates against the Mong Americans;
The following paragraphs will describe and expound on item #1 above
with
respect to the definitions of term "Mong" and "Hmong." These are
excerpts
from my research that were published in peered reviewed books and a
book
chapter (see the citations below):
Thao, P. (1997). Kevcai siv lug Moob [Foundations of Mong language].
Marina, CA: PT Publishing.
Thao, P. (1999). Mong education at the crossroads. Lanham, MD:
University
Press of America.
Thao, P. (1999). “Mong linguistic awareness for classroom
teachers.” In
Park, C. & Chi, M. (1999). Asian-American education: Prospects and
challenges. West Port, CT: Bergin & Garvey, pp. 237-262.
In the past, several terms have been coined for the two Mong/Hmong
groups by
the Chinese, their neighbors, and Western scholars (Pollard, 1909;
Hudspeth,
1939; Arlotto, 1972). The term 'Miao' was historically used by the
Chinese
and was loosely translated as 'barbarian' (Bernatzik, 1947). This term
is
related to the Annamese word, 'Meau' transliterating for cat.
'Mong-tse'
was also used by the Old Chinese historical work Schudjing, which
compared
Mong/Hmong language with the howling or the cry of the hyena. Terrien
explained the meaning of the Chinese character for 'Meau,'
transliterating a
cat's head. When agricultural activities are involved, the term
'Meau' in
Chinese character, consists of two parts: 'Miao' for 'plant' and the
bottom
part 'tse' for 'field;' whereas 'tse' is translated as an ethnicity.
As a
result, 'Meau-tse' means the 'son of the soil, the farmers, who do not
belong to the Great Nation.' Schotter referred in the Chinese Kweichow
province to designate 'Meau' as all non-Han people (Bernatzik, 1947,
p. 7).
Other researchers have used the spelling of 'Meo' as called by their
hosts,
the Laotians and the Thai (Savina, 1924; Barney & Smalley, 1953;
Binney,
1968; Haudricourt, 1972). However, all the terms mentioned above have
negative connotations. The Mong/Hmong prefer to be called 'Mong' and
'Hmong' referring to two classless egalitarian groups who call
themselves
'Mong' and 'Hmong.'
[Txij le thaus peb xeevxwm lug moog] From this time immemorial and far
beyond, there has existed in China the Mong Leng and the Hmong Der.
The
Mong Leng speak the Mong Leng language [lug Moob Leeg] and the Hmong
Der
speak the Hmong Der language [lug Hmoob Dawb]. The Mong Leng language
and
the Hmong Der language have co-existed at the same level for centuries
since
the times of our forefathers as far back to history as we can
remember.
Every member of the two Mong/Hmong communities is born to speak one of
these
two languages. In the United States, the Mong/Hmong are culturally and
linguistically classified into two groups: (1) Mong Leng (Moob Leeg),
also
known as Blue Mong and (2) Hmong Der (Hmoob Dawb), also known as White
Hmong. The Mong Leng (known as the Blue Mong) who speak and write in
the
Mong Leng language and the Hmong Der (known as the White Hmong) who
speak
and write in the Hmong Der language. The Blue Mong identify
themselves as
Mong “M-o-n-g” and the White Hmong as Hmong
“H-m-o-n-g.” The difference
between the White Hmong and the Blue Mong languages may be compared to
the
difference between the Lao and the Thai languages. The Mong is not a
subgroup of the Hmong and the Hmong is not a subgroup of the Mong, but
they
both have co-existed from time immemorial since the times of our
forefathers
as far back to history as we can remember. The other classifications
(e.g.
Black Hmong, Striped Hmong, etc.) are based on the colors of their
costumes,
but they all fall under the Mong and Hmong groups. The population of
the
Mong and Hmong groups is substantially comparable in terms of numbers
in the
United States and throughout the world. This is contrary to Dr. Kao
Ly
Yang’s claim in her email on May 30, 2003 that the term
“Mong” was just
coined by Lyman (1974) and me (Thao, 1997, 1999 & 2000).
Two terms have been used to call Mong Leng: "Blue Mong" and "Green
Mong."
The term "Green Mong" has a negative connotation. Those identified by
that
term find it objectionable and offensive, and are intimidated by its
use.
Historically, "Green Mong" was a small Mong/Hmong group who
anachronistically practiced a cult of cannibalism. It is believed
that this
particular subgroup is no longer in existence. The Mong Leng are
proud of
their true name which translates "Veins of the Mong," implying that
the Mong
Leng carry the life blood of the Mong people; whereas White Hmong
refers to
the color of a ceremonial dress, and no negative connotation is
attached to
the term.
It is difficult to estimate an accurate account of the two Mong/Hmong
groups. However, they may be roughly equal in numbers and population.
The
two Mong/Hmong groups have interwoven their bonds through
intermarriage for
centuries but, surprisingly, have preserved their linguistic and
cultural
homogeneity, and have respected each other's differences. Both groups
have
lived with each other harmoniously for centuries. In fact, their
patterns
of interaction constitute a system of checks and balances within the
two
Mong/Hmong societies. The social, religious, educational, and
political
system has its own dynamics that is absolutely symmetrical within the
Mong
and Hmong societies. However, the bottom line is that the Mong Leng
(Blue
Mong) call themselves "Mong" and the Hmong Der (White Hmong) "Hmong."
When
the two spelling terms are used “Hmong/Mong” or
“Mong/Hmong” and appear
side-by-side, the meaning includes both groups. These two spelling
terms
“Mong” and “Hmong” will need to be used
side-by-side next to each other to
refer to all Mong/Hmong until there is a neutral spelling term that
can be
coined and acceptable for use by both of the Mong Leng and the Hmong
Der
groups.
Second, a report pointed out that "General Vang Pao established the
Mhong
Language Council in February, 1982, in response to the resolutions
passed at
the consecutive national Hmong conferences," which were held in June
1980,
in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and in December 1980, in Santa Ana,
California
(Thao & Robson, 1982). Former General Vang Pao appointed twelve
members to
the Hmong/Mong Language Council: six members from the Mong Leng (Blue
Mong)
community and six members from the Hmong Der (White Hmong) community.
I was
one of the appointed members. The committee members met at the
University
of Minnesota in Minneapolis, Minnesota on August 12-14, 1982, through
the
sponsorship of the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington, D.C.
The
role of the Council was to conduct studies to standardize the
Mong/Hmong
language. Through the committee's experience of literary search, they
agreed that it was necessary to change the consonantal phoneme from
/hm/ to
/mh/ and the spelling of the initial spelling of the term from 'Hmong'
to
'Mhong' to encompass or include both Mong/Hmong groups as one (Thao &
Robson, 1982).
Third, the spelling of the term 'Hmong' only occurred in Laos in 1974
(Garrett, 1974 & Yang, 1975) and was based solely on sociopolitical
and
economic factors rather than on sound academic disciplines, such as
linguistics. Because there is no obstruction of the airstreams in the
oral
cavity in the articulation of the sound [h] (a pair of [ ] is used to
denote
phonetic symbols), [h] is classified as a voiceless glottal and is
used as a
consonant by itself or as a glide combining with other sounds. With
the
articulation of the sound [h] in English, there is an aspiration of a
small
puff of air that occurs immediately following the articulation of the
oral
stops /p/, /t/, and /k/ (a pair of slashes / / is used for phonemic
representation) if they are syllable initial preceding a stressed
vowel as
in pin [ph], tick [th], and kin [kh] and thereby are aspirated
voiceless
stops. If these three oral stop sounds occur after syllable initial
/s/, as
in spin [p], stick [t], and skin [k], they are unaspirated voiceless
stops.
The pairs of sounds [p] and [ph], [t] and [th], [k] and [kh] are the
allophones (the predictable phonetic variants) of the phonemes /p/,
/t/, and
/k/, respectively. Because of this, linguists generally consider this
aspiration a minor aspect in the American English phonology. This
means
that aspiration does not change the overall phonemic representation of
the
phonemes /p/, /t/, /k/ within the broader phonological context
(Fromkin &
Rodman, 1993, 1998 & 2003). By the same token, in Mong phonology,
there are
four pairs of nasal sounds used between the two Mong/ Hmong languages
(Blue
Mong and White Hmong) that share the same aspiration feature as in
English.
These pairs of sounds consist of [m]/[hm], [ml]/[hml], [n]/[hn], and
[ny]/[hny]. The Blue Mong (Mong Leng) use the full voiced nasals [m],
[ml],
[n], and [ny]; whereas the White Hmong articulate devoiced or
voiceless
nasals [hm], [hn], [hml], and [hny]. Compared to English, though
these
pairs of sounds are spelled differently by the two Mong/Hmong, they
are the
predictable phonetic variants or the allophones of the same phonemes
/m/,
/ml/, /n/, /ny/, respectively. Thus, the aspiration feature for these
four
pairs of sounds does not change the overall phonemic representation of
those
phonemes in Mong. For this reason, the term represents Mong Leng is
spelled
‘Mong.”
Fourth, the decision to use the spelling 'Mong' is not new.
Researchers,
such as Lyman (1974 & 1979), Thao (1994, 1997, 1999 & 2000), Xiong &
Xiong
(Xiong et al, 1983), Yang (1999), and Thao (2002) have used the
spelling
term 'Mong.' The term is firmly supported by the perspectives of
historical
and comparative methodology of linguistics. Even though the term
“Mong” has
not been used widespread compared to the term “Hmong,” the
Mong Leng have
called themselves “Mong” and have supported the use of
this term “Mong” to
represent them.
Fifth, the spelling 'Mong' will simplify library listings.
Researchers tend
to examine their literary search with the initial spelling 'm' for
'Mong'
rather than 'hm' for 'Hmong.' The Mong and non-Mong would spell the
term
with an initial /m/ sound rather than /hm/, when they hear it for the
first
time.
Sixth, on July 22, 1995, in Denver, Colorado, Chee Yang, Colonel
'Bill' F.
Bilodeaux, Christine Cook, and the American Tribute Committee with the
cooperation from Colonel Frank Bales, Generals Harry C. Aderholt, Jim
Hall,
Steve Ritchie, Art Cornelius, and the Mong/Hmong veterans paid special
tribute to the 40,000 Mong/Hmong soldiers who died during the Vietnam
War as
part of the U.S. Secret army in Laos and to the 15,000 Mong/Hmong
soldiers
who were wounded in the line of duty between 1961 and 1975. This
tribute
was to commemorate them for the first time in the history of the
United
States. A symbolic (letter) 'M' was posted on the hill behind the
background of the stage and one of the generals stated that this
symbolic
‘M’ represented the 'Mong' people. Colonel Hang Sao
accepted the Medal of
Honor on behalf of the Mong/Hmong soldiers who fought and died in this
war
(Thao, Videotapes, 1996 & 1997).
Seventh, the spelling term “Mong (Moob)” represents
“Mong Leng (Moob Leeg)”
as a people.
For all the above rationales, the spelling term “Hmong”
does not represent
“Mong” and “Mong” is not a subgroup of
“Hmong.” In fact, the term “Hmong”
only represents Hmong Der (Hmoob Dawb) and it does not include Mong
Leng
(Moob Leng).
Therefore, I firmly refute against Dr. Kao Ly Yang's critical notion
that I
operate on my ideological point of view and my research on the
spelling term
"Mong." In fact, my study is based on sound research grounded in
linguistic
and multidisciplinary training described previously.
2. This paragraph provides the rationale why the Mong Federation,
Inc. and
the Mong Americans oppose AB 78. As I stated above, the term
“Hmong” does
not include the “Mong.” Initially, we requested that the
term "Mong" be
included in AB 78 to show the inclusion of the two Mong/Hmong groups
in the
text of the bill to reflect both the Mong Leng and the Hmong Der on an
equal
basis so that the children and their parents of the two Mong/Hmong
groups
will have equal access and equity in education along with the rest of
the
mainstream Americans since AB 78 has curricular implications, but was
refused, neglected and ignored. Assemblywoman Sarah Reyes' decision
discriminates against the Mong Americans. The decision was made
without
consideration for their self-identification and understanding of the
Mong
and Hmong people.
I want to conclude this email with an excerpt from a book entitled,
Mong
Education at the Crossroads (Thao, 1999) that “the best
guarantee for
peaceful co-existence between Mong/Hmong groups and/or between the
Mong/Hmong and other groups is for the Mong/Hmong to respect,
recognize, and
allow for diversity, be it linguistic, religious and racial.
Fragmentation
along socio-linguistic, religious, political or other lines for
personal or
family gain can plant the seeds for senseless conflict in the
Mong/Hmong
communities in the years to come. Besides these internal factors, the
Mong/Hmong should be aware of the external factors, such as the local
and
state government’s intervention in their community affairs. The
Mong/Hmong
should nurture, preserve, and respect their diversity and differences
and
not risk the prospect of dissension and cultural incompatibility,
which can
develop into serious problems within the Mong/Hmong society. Besides
these
internal factors, the Mong/Hmong should now redefine themselves as a
community or communities within a larger nation-state, such as the
United
States” (p. 142).
For further inquiries, I can be contacted at:
Paoze Thao, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
College of Professional Studies
California State University, Monterey Bay
100 Campus Center
Seaside, CA 93955-8001
Voice Mail: (831) 582-3762
Fax: (831) 582-3356
E_mail: paoze...@csumb.edu
& President
Mong Federation, Inc.
P.O. Box 842
Merced, CA 95341
E_mail: mong_fe...@yahoo.com
FYI
-----Original Message-----
From: Kao-Ly Yang [mailto:kao...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 12:46 AM
To: Hmoob21s...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Hmoob21stCentury] when the past comes to put the present in
trouble
For some of you who are champion of higher education,
well, if you were unable to get this level of a more
intellectual debate, you'd better stop seeking to
promote education. I think all need to know that there
must different opinions based on observation and real
facts. Since we told about all your sources from
Pobzeb Thoj, I would like to see the written basis of
what put you all into so much passions and troubles.
Then ... some of you may not know that this issue
Hmong-Mong has been raised by the same people since
Laos ... this time might be the 3rd or 4th time. Be
careful. You may put yourself in something not at all
comfortable ... FOCUS TO the benefit of the Bill AB78
which is to encourage teaching of the Secret War in
Laos ...in ENGLISH.
All I regret here is that the old generation did not
share many facts that happened in Laos and in
Thailand, and that lead today to such problems of
conflict during this reinterpretation of Hmong
ethnicity. Definitevely, there is need to promote
studies of Hmong history, research of past facts that
have such an impact on the present like this issue
Hmong/Mong; then there is need to homogeinize your
knowledge on Hmong participation to this secret war
that generated -- ALSO -- internal conflicts between
Hmong that lead to this division. But all of this is
possible if there is serious research ... I am hoping
that this Bill AB78 will give this occasion for
scholars to request fund for this research.
Kub, as a lawyer you significantly know that the
interpretation of facts needs proofs ... and proofs
need research basis ... . SIMPLE
You, young and new generations, do not follow the path
of the past ... OPen you heart and your mind to your
century. Let's seek to promote a community of culture,
of plurality, and of diversity. Clan, dialectal
subgroup divisions wimust be kept in their limitation
of wedding or of internal identification.
Nkauj Hli
>
>From: Kao-Ly Yang <kao...@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: Hmoob21s...@yahoogroups.com
>To: Hmoob21s...@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: [Hmoob21stCentury] California Assembly Bill 68 - Hmong
In The
> News
>Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 09:23:35 -0700 (PDT)
>
>A point of view more divers and analytical, less
>emotional.
>
>Whatever all of you feel, share or challenge, let's
>remember that we are only one group with different
>subgroups and dialects. Let's always remember that if
>we are divided, we will be very WEAK face to the
>integration of the Hmong community to the mainstream
>society; reunited, we will be STRONGER and will offer
>a better and stronger quality of life to our community
>in the USA.
>
>Here is a message that I have wrote concerning Hmoob
>Dawb and Moob Lees. I believe it will help you to take
>some distance because one opinion is not enough to
>bring a more objectivable debate on such an issue old
>as the Earth.
>
>Nkauj Hli
>
>
>--------------
>Among the criterias taken in consideration to choose a
>name to name an ethnic group, there are the historical
>criteria, the linguistic appropriateness, the scope of
>use, the representative appropriateness of the word
>for the whole group. Here are the various points of
>view that you may need to know.
>
>From the anthropological and historical points of
>view, the term "Hmong" used to be used by researchers
>and administrators to call the whole ethnic group
>calling "Hmong". Under this ethnonym** "hmoob"(HMONG),
>you have different ethnic sub groups that used
>different sub-ethnonyms to call themselves: "Moob" for
>Green Hmong or otherwise called "Mong Leng" (it is not
>Blue) (Moob lees or/and Moob ntsuab), "Hmoob" for
>striped Hmong (Hmoob txaij or Hmong quas npab),"Hmoob"
>for black Hmong (Hmoob dub), "Hmoob" for Hmong Shee
>(Hmoob sib) and "Hmoob" for white Hmong (Hmoob dawb).
>HMONG is the standard term legally used in the US in
>existing bill (see bill citizenship) to refer to the
>Hmong group; it is also the word the most used by
>dictionaries and by people (Hmong as well outsiders)
>to identify the Hmong group.
>
>(** Definition of "ethnonym": an ethnonym is word that
>native people use to name themselves)
>
>From the linguistic point of view, the term MONG
>without "H" and without any other attach of "GREEN"
>or "BLUE" or LENG" is recently introduced by Dr. PaoZe
>Thao in the US as a political paradigm to name the
>sub-group "Green Hmong". Since the end of the 19th
>century, there were several terms that had been used
>to identify the ethnic group in Southeast Asia. And I
>have to say that at that times before 1960, each word
>was used according to the researcher and the country
>where the research study
>was conducted. Some of them have dispeared or are
>jointly used with others, these others are not used to
>name but to better let other people to identify the
>group by referring to an old word (put in brackets).
>For example, in Vietnam, 2 on-going terms in use are :
>"Meo", "Hmong"; they used to be written in that way
>"Hmong (Meo)" -See
>website:
>http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/vietnam/vn_appen.html .
>
>Let me tell you now the various words that have been
>used from the last century:
>
>Miao, M'peo in China => on-going word in use: MIAO for
>the whole group, then "Kuaxiong" for the sub group in
>Hunan, "Hmou" for the sub-group in the Northwest of
>Guizhou, and Hmong for the sub group of Yunnan.
>
>Meo, H'Mong, M'peo, Hmong in Vietnam=> on-going word
>in use: MEO for the whole group, then Meo Hoa, Meo
>Xanh, Meo Do (hmoob dub), Meo Den, Na Mieo, Man Trang
>for the various sub groups: those names are given
>depending more on their colors of their clothes than
>their dialects or other specific features of their
>rituals or beliefs.
>
>Meo, H'mong, Hmong in Laos => on-going word in use:
>HMONG, then for the sub groups: White Hmong, Green
>Hmong, striped Hmong ; those names are given to
>identify the sub groups depending on the types of
>clothes; regarding the sub group "green Hmong", in
>addition to the distinction based on the colorful
>skirt in the female costume, there is a clear
>distinction of this sub group from others by their
>dialect (But there is still oral comprehension between
>White Hmong and Green Hmong). This distinction is only
>valid in the Lao context - e.g not in the Vietnamese
>context according to the current knowledge on the
>various hmong sub groups in this country.
>
>Meo, Hmong, Mong in Thailand => on-going word in use:
>HMONG even if MEO continue to be in use for the
>average Thai people. (see this article in Bangkok post
>for the official name used:
>http://www.bangkokpost.com/230303_News/23Mar2003_news25.html
>
>In Thailand, the sub-groups are likely considered as
>the same in Laos with an exception on the mistake that
>anthropologist Geddes has made in the years of 1970:
>he called the "green Hmong", the "blue Hmong"
>which doesn't have any corresponding sub group in the
>Hmong ethnic group.
>
>In general, when the word "MONG" (MOOB) appears
>somewhere or used by researchers or missionaries, it
>used to be in use with "Green" or "LENG" (Lees/leeg)
>and to name --ONLY-- the SUB GROUP "Green Hmong",
>and NOT the WHOLE ETHNIC GROUP. See the study that has
>been conducted by the Linguist Lyman: when he used
>"Mong", he associated Mong with "Green". In addition,
>if "Green Mong" is used, it is for comparing a
>subgroup with another sub-group, here "green Hmong"
>with "white Hmong". (see this website for Lyman's
>work:
>http://www.hmongstudies.org/scholofhmonr2.html
>
>From the ideological point of view, what does Dr. Pao
>Ze Thao and his group - which is not the position of
>the whole sub group of Green Hmong in the US, try to
>do? This is the question that you, journalist may need
>to find out? Would he with his group been trying to
>add only a word to represent more the whole group
>Hmong? Or would they plan to divide the group? Did
>they act in such verbally violent way because of
>this deep feeling of unfairness that most of green
>Hmong would have towards White Hmong ? By adding
>"Mong", what would be the cost regarding psychological
>consequences on Hmong identity as an ethnic group?
>What would be the consequences on the recognition of
>the whole group by outsider politicians, and so their
>support to this group?
>What would be the consequences on this Bill AB78 if
>Mong was added?
>For this Bill AB78, as you guess, nobody is going to
>speak in green or white dialect to talk about history.
>The only language that will be used at school in front
>of any student will be English. So you guess that AB78
>is just a tool for this minority group to fight for
>something that has nothing to do with the Bill AB78.
>They may just want a precedent in the legal system to
>assert other purposes which have nothing to do with
>this Bill AB78.
>
>Definitively, it is a wrong place for this group to
>come over and try to pull down a Bill that will
>benefit generations and generations.
>[...]
>
>Kao-Ly Yang PhD Sociolinguist & Anthropologist
>
_________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
tousavang
this issue? We would like to hear from her too.
tee...@hotmail.com (Teev Lis) wrote in message news:<bfe5da4b.03060...@posting.google.com>...
MoobThaibteb MoobTwmzeej
only one with this same idea. So does that mean Mong is like Thai
language and Hmong is like Laotian language, but Mong is like Laos
economically and Hmong is Thai economically? Do I want to go as far
as Mong is like Laos in regard to population and Hmong is Thailand?
Oops...I forgot to consider all those in China too, so may be Thailand
and Laos are not such a good comparison for population wise anymore.
Also, all those Thai Isan are basically Laotian, but we don't call
them Laotian are we. We call them Thai. Then why can't the Mong just
be satisfy to be called Hmong, like the Laotian in eastern Thailand
are known as Thai? Man, if only we have our own two countries like
the Thai and Laotian, then we can congregate wherever/whenever and
still be able to say without any hesitation that that country over
there is Hmong and this country is Mong.
ML
tee...@hotmail.com (Teev Lis) wrote in message news:<bfe5da4b.03060...@posting.google.com>...
Pao
ensure that what he meant and what you and I understood is the same
thing.
My ultimate aim here is for us all to "understand and to be
understood".
I believe that there are some fundamental issues that need to clarify
and Dr pao Zeb is in the best position to do that.
Here are few items that Dr Pobzeb has to clarify:
1. <[Txij le thaus peb xeevxwm lug moog] From this time immemorial and
far
beyond, there has existed in China the Mong Leng and the Hmong Der>.
Question:
IS THIS MEAN THAT WE HAVE OB HAIV NEEG - (i)Mong Leng, (ii) Hmong Der?
My question is: Does Dr. Pob Zeb refer to TWO (2) ETHNIC groups? Or
ONE ethnic group with two subgroups/?dialects?
2. <The Mong Leng speak the Mong Leng language [lug Moob Leeg] and the
Hmong
Der speak the Hmong Der language [lug Hmoob Dawb]. The Mong Leng
language
and the Hmong Der language have co-existed at the same level for
centuries
since the times of our forefathers as far back to history as we can
remember. Every member of the two Mong/Hmong communities is born to
speak one of
these two languages.>
QUESTION: Doed Dr Pob Zeb means that we have TWO DIALECTS - (i) lug
Moob Leeg, (ii) lug Hmmob Dawb? Does he meant that we have IB HAIV
NEEG but two dialects? Or OB HAIV NEEG with two differrnt languages?
Secondly, do these two language/?dialects are linguistically inclusive
or exclusive. If Inclusive, meaning that the two group share the
majority of the vocabulary and we can understand each other, then...
we need to work toward STANDARDISATION of our language. If Exclusive,
ie. the bulk of the Mong Leng language is different from the Hmong Der
and the bulk of the vocabulary cannot be understood by the Hmong Der,
then DR Pao Zeb is right to push for a SEPARATE language group - as
lug Moob Leeg.
3. <In the United States, the Mong/Hmong are culturally and
linguistically classified into two groups: (1) Mong Leng (Moob Leeg),
also known as Blue Mong and (2) Hmong Der (Hmoob Dawb), also known as
White
Hmong.>
QUESTION: This is somewhat relate to 1 & 2 above but the REAL question
is about this CULTURALLY classification by Dr Pob Zeb:
*WHAT IS THE DIFFERENT BETWEEN "Mong/Hmong" CULTURALLY? How this
culturally classification comes into exist and and based on what?
According to Dr Gary Yia Lee, our Hmong anthropololist, who wrote to
the hemhit...@cla.umn.edu list on Tuesday, 3 June 2003, he said
that "Apart from speaking different Hmong/Mong dialects, wearing
slightly different clothes and some difference also in the clan names,
there is not much different deep down in other areas - the rituals
and the myths are the virtually same. In Thailand at least, even the
"Qhuab Ke" of the White Hmong contains many Green Mong words - and I
was told that some White Hmong even learned their rituals from Green
Hmong relatives".
So, Dr Pao Zeb will need to spell out more about what he meant by
Mong/Hmong different culturally and how these difference, if any,
contribute to our understanding as in 1&2 above.
SO THE BUTTOM LINE:
1. Do we have TWO ethnic groups?
2. If we do, please educate me further. If we do have TWO different
ethnic groups, then GO to 6.
3(i) If not, then we only have ONE Ethnic group with TWO dialects.
3(ii) If we ahve only ONE ethninc group... then I agree with Dr Gary
Yioa Lee:
"First off, we need to resolve this problem with the international
name for
ourselves. Is it going to be Miao (and thus include all those under
this
name in China where Miao has no negative connotation)? Or is it to be
Hmong
or Mong? There can only be one name, as otherwise we will be the
laughing
stock of the world if we call ourselves by many names. (DR G.Y Lee)".
4. If 3(i) is correct, are the TWO dialects inclusive or exculsive?
5. If Inclusive ===> We need to talk about STANDARDISATION.
6. If Exclusive ===> WE need to talk about TWO separate language group
- SO Hmong Der should have NO say in what Mong Leng wanted to do - but
only to support them in their quest.
Pao
tee...@hotmail.com (Teev Lis) wrote in message news:<bfe5da4b.03060...@posting.google.com>...
Tsujsua Dluag
yaweh
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Yia Thao
subgroup of a name to represent Hmong/Mong. Just like the south and
the north of USA. I sometime have difficulty time to understand
people speak southern and they sometime don't understand me either. I
sometime wonder do I speak English or not? We need to work this out.
How do we call ourselves, to classify ourselves to be just one name?
That let alone be for all the intellectual to decide. When you all
come to a sense of a single name for the Hmong/Mong then I would like
to use it. Come on, no more division.
HMOOB/MOOB... THIAJ HLUB HMOOB/MOOB... XWB.
Yia
tee...@hotmail.com (Teev Lis) wrote in message news:<bfe5da4b.03060...@posting.google.com>...
khejdub perdou
Somehow, I agreed with some of your ideas. Hmong/Mong must belong to
one ethnic group (Ib haiv). But there are 2 subdialects or even more.
We just need to clarify on the dialect parts.
One question that confuses me is: When did the words Hmong/Mong come
to existence or became official? Who recognized them?
And if we trace back to our ethnic origin, I wonder if these two words
are the proper words we used to identify our ethnicity?
So far, the word Hmong was popular when Dr. Yang Dao claimed that the
Hmong people are "Freemen". Is that true that the Hmong-Lao is the
first group to use this word "Hmong"?
May be we need to have some more research to prove that the word
"Hmong" is the right word to use to identify our ethnicity. Otherwise,
we all are just talking on the air.
dr...@hmoob.net (Pao) wrote in message news:<bd07f89c.0306...@posting.google.com>...
ntxubhmoob
Tom) es thiaj muaj tej nyuag teeb meem meme lino coj los sib cav. Kuv
xav kom peb cov Dr. yog cov medical doctors, scientists, chemists,
mechanical/electrical engineers, computer scientists..etc. but please
no more doctor of phylosophy or languistic----cov degree no pab tsis
tau haiv hmoob li os. The more we debate about Hmong/Mong, the more we
get confuse.
Paslimyeeb.
vimlicas
2. ARE WE HMONG OR MONG ?
3. WE ALL ETHNICS UNDER THE 3 HAIV HMOOB ARE HMONG.
4. IF ANYONE SAY WE ARE MONG THEN THIS IS A MISPRONOUNCIATION OF THE
WORD "HMONG" HAIS LUS "HMONG" TSIS MEEJ, HAIS TSIS TAU LO LUS TIAS
HMONG NO CES THIAJ LI HAIS TIAS MONG. IS IT CLEAR PEOPLE?
HMONG IS THE WAY TO GO NO MATTER WHAT WE ARE.
Tzexa Lee
Crockett Graham, 1954. Smithsoniam Miscellaneous Collections, volume
123, Number 1, page 2. This is what it says,
"The Miao call themselves Hmong, and the Ch'aun Miao call themselves
Hmong Bo or old Miao, because they believe that they are descended
from a very ancient race. They are also called Hmong Gleh or White
Miao because in some localities they wear or have worn white
clothing."
Tzexa
khe...@hotmail.com (khejdub perdou) wrote in message news:<309e5d46.03060...@posting.google.com>...
M. M. Lee
he would provide us with an answer. It is now very clear that Dr.
PobZeb wants to keep the Moob separate from the Hmoob by his use of
the word "Mong" for "Moob" and "Hmong" for "Hmoob". What I don't get
is, if this is the case then why did Dr. PobZeb grouped both the
"Hmong" and "Mong" under the single term "Mong" is his book "Mong
Education at the Crossroad"? Clearly, this book is not just about the
"Moob" and the students he talked about in the book are not just
"Moob" students, they are both "Hmoob" and "Moob" students. Why the
inconsistency? One moment embracing both Hmoob and Moob under the one
term "Mong" and then the next going on an elaborate explanation for
the historical, linguistic, and social separation of the two groups
and, thus, arguing for separate recognition of "Mong" and "Hmong"? I
don't get it. Perhaps it takes several PhDs to understand such complex
logic? Someone enlighten me.
-M
M. M. Lee
joining the ranks of our "old" politicians by causing even further
factionalization and break-up of the Hmong? This response from Dr.
PobZeb represents a historical juncture in our development as a
people, as ONE people. To me, PobZeb's response shows that our
intellectuals have also joined the ranks of the nasty political breaks
that characterize the Hmong since the beginning of the dawn of
history. None of these surprise me, however. The Hmong have not yet
succeeded in unifying across clan or dialectic lines and these kinds
of petty disputes only goes to prove a certain lack of ideological
attainment. This is why I often wonder if all the great claims of the
existence of a "Hmong Kingdom" in China was even true because the
Hmong definitely do not exhibit the mentality of having united once
before in the ancient past.
As a student who has been studying the emergence of nation-states and
nationalism for nearly a decade, I find it ironic that while other
"great" people who have founded their own nation-states and
nationalist ideologies talk of unity toward broader ideas, the Hmong
people who are on the brink of biological as well as social extinction
still engages in intellectual break-up into even smaller pieces. I
would not be surprised if some intellectual Hmong woman (some Nkauj
Ntxuam?) emerge soon to argue that the Hmong women who have suffered
even more prejudice, discrimination, and oppresion than the Hmong Leng
did under Hmong Daw hegemony should opt for complete separation from
the Hmong and rename themselves some other name, too. [I personally
vote for "Arcadian" since I've been attracted to that name from
watching the "Scorpion King"]. I await that day and I will certainly
put my weight to support that woman just so that I could join the
ranks of Hmong factionalists and remain true to the blood that courses
within me. After all, it is in the breaking of the amorphous baby
conceived by brother and sister that the "Hmoob" people were founded,
right? How can we not give into our separatist destiny? When my day
comes, don't any of you expect me to withstand a temptation you
yourself cannot withstand for I am only "Hmong" after all.
-M
Tzexa Lee
>
> Somehow, I agreed with some of your ideas. Hmong/Mong must belong to
> one ethnic group (Ib haiv). But there are 2 subdialects or even more.
> We just need to clarify on the dialect parts.
>
> One question that confuses me is: When did the words Hmong/Mong come
> to existence or became official? Who recognized them?
>
> And if we trace back to our ethnic origin, I wonder if these two words
> are the proper words we used to identify our ethnicity?
>
> So far, the word Hmong was popular when Dr. Yang Dao claimed that the
> Hmong people are "Freemen". Is that true that the Hmong-Lao is the
> first group to use this word "Hmong"?
>
> May be we need to have some more research to prove that the word
> "Hmong" is the right word to use to identify our ethnicity. Otherwise,
> we all are just talking on the air.
>
>
>
From: Shur....@ci.fresno.ca.us
To: e_m...@yahoogroups.com ; hg ; kao...@yahoo.com ; Tzex...@msn.com
Cc: da...@laofamilyfresno.org ; pang...@email.com ;
paoze...@csumb.edu ; yv...@laofamily.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: [e_moob] Dr. Paoze Thao's Rebuttle on Hmong/Mong
I admire those of you who try to push to get AB 78 for Mong/Hmong, but
please mind your own business and do not say things that are damaging
to the name of the entire Mong/Hmong community. On the other hand, I
totally desagree with Dr. Kao Ly Yang that the Term Mong Without "H"
and without any other attach of "GREEN" or "BLUE" or "LENG" is
recently introduced by Dr. Paoze Thao. I am not trying to debate this
issue with you, but if you go to China, Thailand and even in Laos, you
would hear people use the Term "Mong" and not Hmong. Foreigners too
use the Term "Mong" . Researchers used the Term "Hmong" only after
they were introduced to by a White Hmong. Mr. Jacque Lemoine, a
French researcher in 1960, whom I knew very well knew the Term "Hmong"
only after I told him there are two groups of Mong. The White Hmong
called themselves Hmong and the Blue or Green Mong called themselves
Mong. So, Dr. Kau Ly, you are an Anthropologiest, you should select
your wording more carefully and that those words are not divisive to
the Mong/Hmong community. I am not an Anthropologist and am not
trying to convince or encourage our own people or foreigners to use
only the Term "Hmong" or "Mong". What I am trying to say here is that
Both Terms "Hmong" and "Mong" are equally important because if you are
a White Hmong, you use the Term Hmong. I am a Blue or Green Mong, I
use the Term Mong. I think this is fair for everyone.
Dr. Paoze Thao's suggestion is simply that in the Assembly Bill, the
wording should be: Hmong/Mong Education (Reyes). Please do not take
this opportunity of AB 78 to take advantage of or exploit other group
or subgroups. My point of view: Please add the term Mong into the
Bill by saying AB 78 Hmong/Mong education. Thanks for listening.
Shur V. Vangyi - City of Fresno.
Mongshee
Thaus kuv tsi to taub lub tseem ntsab (detail reason) ntawm cov xuvxwm
lug Hmoob Dawb hab lug Moobleeg, kuv los tau has lu puav lug txaaj
muag txug txuj kev peb haiv neeg Mhoob muab tej xeem lug nuav lug sis
caav. Tawm sis tom qaab kuv muab Dr. Pobzeb Thoj tsaab ntawv kws nws
sau teb Dr. Nkauj HLi cov lug sau nuav ua tuab zoo nyeem nkaag sab zoo
lawd, kuv kuj xaam pum tas nwg yeej has ncaaj hab pheejxeeb (fair)
kawg txug ob xeem lug nuav.
Txij le thaus cov xuvxwm nuav tshwm lug rua peb suav dlawg caav, xaam
pum tas mej ib tsoom Hmoobdawb- tseem ceeb mas yog cov txawj ntse- kuj
tau muab comment ntau negatively txug Dr. Pobzeb Thoj qhov initiative.
Tug yuav dlha puaj tsaam kob le caag los muaj taag. Thaus kuv muab ua
tuab zoo ntsuag lug txug, kuv xaam pum tas mej cov kwvtij Hmoobdawb
yeej tuam mom zog hab saib tsi tshuam taug peb cov Moobleeg. Los tej
zag ntshai peb tseem tsi tau ntse npaum le mej suav dlawg. Kuv xaav
tau tas cov neeg ntse npaum le mej coob tug huv nuav lawd tsim nyog ua
zoo soj qaab taug lw saib qhov tseeb yog le caag maam le dlha puaj
tsaam kob los yeej tsi lig. Los yog ua zoo tawkev rua peb ib zej tsoom
suav dlawg pum tas ua le caag txhaj yog, tsi taag yuav moog thuam Dr.
Pobzeb Thoj mob hab nchaav taag npaud.
Thov kuas peb suav dlawg (Hmoobdawb hab Moobleeg) ncu ntsoov tas yog
tsi muaj peb sib txuam, ua ib yaam dlaab tsi yeej tsi lomzem hab tsi
caj ncaig.
Tej zag kuv xauj tsi pum mej tej zeem muag (points of views) kuv txhaj
to taub le has sau nuav. Txawm yog le ntawd los mej suav dlawg ho zaam
txim. Ca sab tas mej cov paub taab hab thoob tsib yuav ua lub teeb pum
kev ci rua peb suav dlawg.
Mov hab tshua,
ms
Pov Lauj
Hmong or Mong.
This is not an issue to me. By discussing this issue and making it an
issue, it further divides us as an ethnic group.
Please grow up. We have bigger issues then Hmong or Mong.
Note, I am a white hmong and my wife is a green hmong.
Honestly, we have bigger fish to fry then Hmong or Mong. We are
fighting over scraps left over from the dinner table, when we should be
fighting over the main course.
This is reality and as a young Hmong-American, we should acknowledge
that we have two dialects but we should not let this issue divide us.
It is like the current situation with the last names:
- Lo, Lor, Lao
- Thao, Thor
- Xiong, Song
- Vue, Vu
- Lee, Ly, Li
We need to move on beyond this. I am sorry if I am blunt but I am tired
of us dividing over small issues.
BOTTOM LINE WE ARE HMONG/MONG.
Pov Lauj
Thomas Lee
Hmong so well and published such a book that long ago. I posted here
in SCH a while ago that I read that book but not many people
interested and reply to my post.
Tom,
tzex...@msn.com (Tzexa Lee) wrote in message news:<d60d891f.03060...@posting.google.com>...
Tommy
Excuse my young knowledge, everyone.
I would like to point out that Hmong/Mong cannot be classified as (2)
different ethnic group as Yang Dao has pointed out in his review and
as Dr. PaoZe has mentioned (correct me if I'm wrong) based on this
question:
How different is the burial ceremony of a green Hmong and white Hmong?
We both have txiv xaiv
We both tshuab qeej ntau nruas
We both xyom
We both nyiav
We both tso plig (excuse my young mind if I'm wrong)
We both hlawv nyiaj
I'm sure there are many more commonalities between us.
When it comes to differentiating ethnicity, do we go by linguistic
(which changes so fast and variations exists) or do we go by Cultural
beliefs and custom procedurals?
Please, anyone... clarify this for my young mind so I can be on the
same page as everyone is.
Tzexa Lee
It may true some Hmong Njua/leng, but to Dr. Paoze Thao and Mong.
When someone dioes, they no ttawv kev, hais no txiv xaiv, tshuab no
qeej, no xyom, no nyiav, no tso plig, abd no hlawv ntawv ntawv. They
sing songs and go to heaven.
Tzexa
HMAS
I completely concurr with you! As I said in another thread, the people
who wish to segregate or dispute the spelling of the word "Hmong" can
shove their fingers up thier asses for NOT utilizing thier brians in
the MOST efficient manner as educated people should. I can't believe
that being Hmong we have the same intellectual capacity to think
beyond more importnat issues like other human beings too and why can't
we utilize our energy on issues that are productive to us than
fighting over the word "HMONG". I wish to echo M.M. Lee's words..."The
spelling is a DONE deal". Any chnages will have reference back to the
word "HMONG". However, until Hmong have a country of their own, with
the majority approval through a democractic system will it have the
power to enforce and change the spelling or create a new name
altogether. As it stands now, if we contiue this sort of childish play
between Hmong der and Hmong Leng, we're better off stick or heads
under the sand. This is too EMBARRASSING!!
hmas
"Pov Lauj" <wolfpa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<63761de78ee95dc2707...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
Hmong
> lug Hmoob Dawb hab lug Moobleeg, kuv los tau has lu puav lug txaaj
> muag txug txuj kev peb haiv neeg Mhoob muab tej xeem lug nuav lug sis
> caav. Tawm sis tom qaab kuv muab Dr. Pobzeb Thoj tsaab ntawv kws nws
> sau teb Dr. Nkauj HLi cov lug sau nuav ua tuab zoo nyeem nkaag sab zoo
> lawd, kuv kuj xaam pum tas nwg yeej has ncaaj hab pheejxeeb (fair)
> kawg txug ob xeem lug nuav.
> Mov hab tshua,
>
> ms
******************************************************************************
Tus Kwv Hmoob MS/Kwv Pajnruag:
Sawvdaws sib cav txog los spelling "H" los tsis muaj tus "H" xwb, tab
sis sawvdaws tsis look deep into what Dr. Paoze is really trying to
say. My reading of what Dr. Paoze is trying to achieve is 1. raise
consciousness hab sensitivity txug Hmoob Dawb and Moob Leeg; 2. call
for a sense of mutual respect and equal treatment; and 3. allow for
diversity to thrive for the benefit of both Hmoob Dawb and Moob
Leeg.....Vim li cas? Let's examine the problems we have seen in the
past....and perhaps history can bear the truth:
I. Social Disparity: In any setting like kev mob kev tuag, kev tshoob
kev kos, los yog kev noj kev haus,,,,,koj thiab kuv uas lub age yog 50
tawm xyoo,,,,yeej paub thiab pom los,,,,,,tias txoj kev sib cav, sib
lua, sib laij, sib hais tias Hmoob Dawb zaj thiaj yog,,,,,or Moob Leeg
zaj thiaj yog,,,,,,can go on for quite some time,,,,before any type of
resolution....and more often than not, cov Moog Leeg ends up
compromising,,,,,,,,so there is always this social tension,,,,,when
disagreement arises......
So, it's important to keep this in mind,,,,tias maybe,,,,we all need
to be sensitive to the nuances of our cultural heritage and mutually
respect people for who they are, what they like, and how they behave
or prefer to get things done.......This, both Hmong Der and Moog Leeg
have to ua siab loj thiab treat each other with dignity, respect, and
equality..... Koj puas dau hnov VP, DYD, or the other intellectual
Hmong DER hais lus Moob Leeg ib zaug in PUBLIC???
2. Political Disparity: Kom sim mus suav cov colonels, commandants,
cov toj xeem, Nais Npab, cov Cob Moos, Cob kHeem, etc,,,,Hmoob cov qub
nom qub tswv saib,,,,,,Hmoob DAw coob tshaj los Moob Leeg coob
tshaj??? Cov kwvtij Moob Leeg have always felt being brushed aside,
stepped over, or being mistreated for who and what they are.....If
statistics bear Moob Leeg wrong, then this perception needs to be
eliminated,,,,If statistics and truth point to Moob leeg being
discriminated by Hmoob DER, then we all need to work on that and be
realistic about it,,,,,,,,,
3. Economic Disparity: Yog vim Hmoob DER have been perceived to hold
more political power, Moob leeg in the past felt like the distribution
of economic well-being have not been equitably allocated....Yog li no,
Moog Leeg thiaj feel tias lawv poob qab, lawv txom nyem dua, thiab
lawv raug Hmoob DER used ntau tshaj li the other way around.....For
that reason, DR. PObZEB feels like such economic disparity should not
continue in the STATE of CAlifornia,,,,when Reyes's BIll is
proposed....Why?
All the money will go into curriculum, translation, hiring of Hmong
teachers,etc.etc.......and overall, as you know, every thing in
translation so far has been ua lus Hmoob DER more than lus Moob
Leeg,,,,,,,,so to all of us, we have to ask: Should this disparity
continue here in this country??? Or is there a way to ensure that Moob
Leeg are not left out in the cold again,,,,and again?????? This
speaks to the issue of fairness, equality, responsibility,
sensitivity, and respect........as more and more issues like that are
prone to pop up here in this country and as Hmong continue to advance,
make progress, and march forward,,,,,,as a community....
Does Dr. Pobzeb advocate for a separatist
movement?????NO!!!NO!!!!!!!Peb yog ib haiv neeg, ib tsev tib
neeg,,,,,,tab sis, peb yuav tsum nco ntsoov tias peb yuav tsum muaj
kev sib fwm, sib hlub, sib txhawb sib nqa,,,,,,,that means,,,,,yuav
tau nqa cov Moob Leeg, too,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and vice versa, Moob
Leeg too need to reciprocate and acts in similar
fashion.................
I think that's all what Dr. Pobzeb is trying say,,,,,,I could be wrong
though,,,After all, Moog Leeg should be proud of who they are, what
they cherish, and move on.....
tousavang
Beside the Hmong/Mong issue, what are your other bigger issues? I
think AB 78 is one of the issue that lead to the Hmong/Mong issue. The
issue is there. You are in an honorable position who can greatly
clarify on this issue. How come you try to get away?
"Pov Lauj" <wolfpa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<63761de78ee95dc2707...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
Hmong
1.)From the ideological point of view, what does Dr. Pao
Ze Thao and his group - which is not the position of the whole sub
group of Green Hmong in the US, try to do?
2.) Would he with his group been trying to add only a word to
represent more the whole group Hmong?
3.) Or would they plan to divide the group?
4.) Did they act in such verbally violent way because of this deep
feeling of unfairness that most of green Hmong would have towards
White Hmong ?
5.) By adding "Mong", what would be the cost regarding psychological
consequences on Hmong identity as an ethnic group?
6.)What would be the consequences on the recognition of the whole
group by outsider politicians, and so their support to this group?
7.)What would be the consequences on this Bill AB78 if Mong was added?
> >Kao-Ly Yang PhD Sociolinguist & Anthropologist
*******************************************************************************
ANSWERS: From Dr. Paoze
The best guarantee for peaceful co-existence between Mong/Hmong groups
and/or between the Mong/Hmong and other groups is for the Mong/Hmong:
1.) To respect,recognize, and allow for diversity, be it linguistic,
religious and racial.
2.) Fragmentation along socio-linguistic, religious, political or
other lines for personal or family gain can plant the seeds for
senseless conflict in the
Mong/Hmong communities in the years to come.
3.) Besides these internal factors, the Mong/Hmong should be aware of
the external factors, such as the local and state government's
intervention in their community affairs.
4.) The Mong/Hmong should nurture, preserve, and respect their
diversity and differences and not risk the prospect of dissension and
cultural incompatibility, which can develop into serious problems
within the Mong/Hmong society.
5.) Besides these internal factors, the Mong/Hmong should now redefine
themselves as a community or communities within a larger nation-state,
such as the United States; (p. 142).
> For further inquiries, I can be contacted at:
>
> Paoze Thao, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor
> College of Professional Studies
> California State University, Monterey Bay
> 100 Campus Center
> Seaside, CA 93955-8001
> Voice Mail: (831) 582-3762
> Fax: (831) 582-3356
> E_mail: paoze...@csumb.edu
>
> & President
> Mong Federation, Inc.
> P.O. Box 842
> Merced, CA 95341
> E_mail: mong_fe...@yahoo.com
****************************************************************************
FOR THE REST OF HMONG/MONG PEOPLE?
Why didn't these "intellectuals" sit down and talk about these things
amongst themselves before they go at each other in public???? Where do
we go from here???????????????????
Teev Lis
Please join or visit hmong21s...@yahoogroups.com. This is the
hottest issue there. I am not sure if Professor Paoze Thao ever
visited SCH, but quite sure that he has visited the Yahoogroup. Good
luck.
Teev
mlee...@hotmail.com (M. M. Lee) wrote in message news:<ea31c499.0306...@posting.google.com>...
Teev Lis
According to Professor Paoze Thao, you cannot call your spouse a
"Green Hmong". That is a No-NO. She is either "Moob Leeg" or "Moob
Xiav". You have been insulting her all these years without a clue,
have you not? I have been proudly insulting my mother, too. In fact,
she has encouraged me to insult her. Can you believe it?
If you read carefully Dr. Thao's rebuttal, he presented the fact that
"Hmoob Dawb" and "Moob Leeg" have co-existed since time immemorial as
two distinct and different ethinic groups. You are thus "Hmoob Dawb".
Your spouse is thus "Moob Leeg". If you insist that she is "Green
Hmong". Then watch out, she may practice cannibalism on you. For your
sake, call her Moob Leeg from now on. You and she have co-existed
since you married her and she married you, but you both are not from
one and the same ethnic group - be it Hmong or Mong. Man, you thought
you have married your own kind.
I wonder what your grandkids and my grandkids are going to be. By
then, they will speak neither Hmoob Dawb or Moob Leeg. If Professor
Paoze Thao were then to conduct a linguistic study, would he arrive at
the conclusion that our grandkids are neither Hmong or Mong? They may
be Hmong-American or Mong-American, but they will not be Hmong or
Mong. The same will go with Hmong-Laotians, Hmong-Vietnamese,
Hmong-Thai, Hmong-French, Hmong-Chinese, Hmong-Burmese, Hmong-Down
Under and so on, who no longer speak Hmong. They just co-exist. They
are not one and the same Hmong. The same goes for the Mong in all the
countries who no longer speak Mong.
I wonder if Professor Thao would also rationalize distinction among
people based on religion. From time immemorial, Hmong and Mong "coj
dab qhuas". Christianity, Buddhism and the rest were only fairly
recently introduced to Hmong and Mong. So, will Hmong and/or Mong in
all the different religions still remain the same Hmong and/or Mong.
Or they just co-exist. Since Professor Thao is a Christian and I am a
"coj Dab", coupling with him being Mong and me being "Hmoob dawb Tsuam
Tsoov Moob Leeg", I wonder if he and I even come close to being the
same people. I thought we were.
Teev
"Pov Lauj" <wolfpa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<63761de78ee95dc2707...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
hmoob xeev
Koj hais yog lawm, Tseem peb sau tsis sib toom los peb saws dawd twb
yog ib haiv neeg. Kuv tsis xav hais tias lub teb chaws vam meej npauj
li no es tej tub txawj tub thiab nte, ntxhais txawj ntxhais thiab nte
tsis los qos Hmoob tej teeb meem no koj tsua muaj zoo mus xwb. Tseem
yauv muaj tej niag issues li no los tuaj thiab. Yog hais tias peb
Hmoob tseem xav hias tias peb Hmoob thiab Moob no tsis yog ib hais
neeg no ces txhais tau hais tias peb Hmoob xeem Tsab yauv tau Moob
xeem Tsaab hab. Puas yog?
Ham yuav tau Haam
Khab yuav tau Khaab
Vaj yuav tau Vaaj………
On and on……………………………
Kuv xav mas ua li ib co phooj ywg tau hais. Peb Hmoob muaj teeb meem
loj tsaj qhov no nav, ua cas tsis los mus sib tsoo taub haus es daws
Hmoob txoj saib nyob hau tiaj teb no. Zoo li no xwb mas tsis tas yuav
vam ua kom muaj ib diam av hais tias yog Hmoob li tug. Ib tsam ces to
peb puab Hmoob tuag zom zaws.
Like it not happening already sad.
lamkoom
Pao
ETHENICITY and LANGUAGE so there is no room for misinterpretation in
what he is saying. AS I have posted earlier, he needs to clarify the
following questions:
1. Does Dr Paoze believe that we have TWO ethnic groups? Dr Paoze has
not made himself clear when he wrote, "The Mong/Hmong prefer to be
called 'Mong' and
'Hmong' referring to two classless egalitarian groups who call
themselves
'Mong' and 'Hmong.'" He wrote further that "From this time immemorial
and far
beyond, there has existed in China the Mong Leng and the Hmong Der" -
So, does Dr Paoze meant to say that there are TWO ethnic groups - One
group is MONG and the other is HMONG?
2. If he believe that we do have two separate ethnic groups, please
educate me further. If we do have TWO different ethnic groups, then
GO to 6.
3(i) If he believe that we have only ONE Ethnic Group, then does he
meant to say that we have ONE Ethnic group with TWO dialects?. One
dialect is Hmong and the other one is Mong dialect?
3(ii) If we have only ONE ethninc group... then I agree with Dr Gary
Yia Lee:
"First off, we need to resolve this problem with the international
name for ourselves. Is it going to be Miao (and thus include all
those under
this name in China where Miao has no negative connotation)? Or is it
to be
Hmong or Mong? There can only be one name, as otherwise we will be
the
laughing stock of the world if we call ourselves by many names. (DR
G.Y Lee)".
4. If 3(i) is correct, are the TWO dialects inclusive or exclusive? Dr
Paoze wrote, "The Mong (language)is not a subgroup of the Hmong and
the Hmong (language) is not a subgroup of the Mong, but they both have
co-existed from time immemorial since the times of our forefathers as
far back to history as we can remember." I agree that there are two
dialects but are these two dialects have more in common (inclusive) or
more in different (exculsive)?
5. If Inclusive ===> We need to talk about STANDARDISATION.
6. If Exclusive ===> WE need to talk about TWO separate language group
- SO Hmong Der should have NO say in what Mong Leng wanted to do - but
only to support them in their quest.
Without clarification of the above, Dr Paoze will open himself to
varying interpretation. For me, the above questions are the
fundamentals that Dr Paoze needs to clarify before we discuss any
other issues.
We need to UNDERSTAND each other and be UNDERSTOOD.
Pao
Hmoo...@hotmail.com (Hmong) wrote in message news:<4cbc6bb8.03060...@posting.google.com>...
Pao
BUT... PLEASE... acn you get Dr Paoze and his group to clarify the
following (as posted earlier).
FWD message (posted earlier):
Dr Paoze needs to come out and spell it clearly about two issues:
ETHENICITY and LANGUAGE so there is no room for misinterpretation in
what he is saying. AS I have posted earlier, he needs to clarify the
following questions:
1. Does Dr Paoze believe that we have TWO ethnic groups? Dr Paoze has
NOT made himself clear when he wrote, "The Mong/Hmong prefer to be
called 'Mong' and
'Hmong' referring to two classless egalitarian groups who call
themselves
'Mong' and 'Hmong.'" He wrote further that "From this time immemorial
and far
beyond, there has existed in China the Mong Leng and the Hmong Der" -
So, does Dr Paoze meant to say that there are TWO ethnic groups - One
group is MONG and the other is HMONG?
2. If he believe that we do have TWO separate ethnic groups, please
educate me further. If we do have TWO different ethnic groups, then
GO to 6.
3(i) If he believe that we have only ONE Ethnic Group, then does he
mean to say that we have ONE Ethnic group with TWO dialects?. One
dialect is Hmong and the other one is Mong dialect?
3(ii) If we have only ONE ethninc group... then I agree with Dr Gary
Yia Lee:
"First off, we need to resolve this problem with the international
name for ourselves. Is it going to be Miao (and thus include all
those under
this name in China where Miao has no negative connotation)? Or is it
to be
Hmong or Mong? There can only be one name, as otherwise we will be
the
laughing stock of the world if we call ourselves by many names. (DR
G.Y Lee)".
4. If 3(i) is correct, are the TWO dialects inclusive or exclusive? Dr
Paoze wrote, "The Mong (language)is not a subgroup of the Hmong and
the Hmong (language) is not a subgroup of the Mong, but they both have
co-existed from time immemorial since the times of our forefathers as
far back to history as we can remember."
I agree that there are two dialects but are these two dialects have
more in common (inclusive) or more in difference (exculsive)?
5. If Inclusive ===> We need to talk about STANDARDISATION.
6. If Exclusive ===> WE need to talk about TWO separate language
groups
- SO Hmong Der should have NO say in what Mong Leng wanted to do - but
only to support them in their quest.
Without clarification of the above, Dr Paoze will open himself to
varying interpretation. For me, the above questions are the
fundamentals that Dr Paoze needs to clarify before we discuss any
other issues.
We need to UNDERSTAND each other and be UNDERSTOOD.
Pao
mong...@hotmail.com (Mongshee) wrote in message news:<472a22e7.0306...@posting.google.com>...
tobewitty
PICKING game for the H/Mong to entertaint them.
Well, it is to bad that "Nplooj xyoog kav, Noog xyoog tsav". No matter
how educated and intellected we think we come to be, our attitude are
not much differed from our elders ;)
I wonder why these bored peoples don't pick on their own kind: Make
the Red-Neck fight the Yankee for a federaly, politicaly corrected to
formaly standardize a correctly US English!!! (by LAW and ORDER, of
cause... hehehehe)
tousavang
Tsi yog koj chim sab tsawv lawm hab lov? Yog, koj has yog lawm.
Kuv tsi tau pum cov Moob Leeg questioned cov Hmoob Dlawb npaum le cov
Hmoob dlawb questioned cov Moob Leeg. Tej zag uale Dr. Pobzeb has,
Moob leeg poob qaab zog lawm es puab xaav cob kuam Moob leeg ntse zog
xwb. Txhob tu sab, luas tej laug has tas "quaj kws ces qaab sis xws
xwb nua". Yeej tsi muaj leej twg heev tshaaj leej twg le. Kuam muab
xaav tas nyag tsuas fus nyag kwjtse xwb nua.
mong...@hotmail.com (Mongshee) wrote in message news:<472a22e7.0306...@posting.google.com>...
Nao
Several months ago when the Mong/Hmong issue kicked off I suggested
through Hmoob21s...@yahoogroups.com that the opponents of AB78
(individuals like Chimeng Yang and others) need to understand the
concepts of ethnicity, language, and dialect if they wish to further
address the core issue of Mong/Hmong. It's been serval months now and
it appears that such group still lacks the basic understanding of
these elements. As a result, they have continued to advocate for two
distintive ethnicities among the Hmong, using dialect as the major
differnce. Interestingly, some Hmong "educators" even argue that
biology is a major difference between Hmoob Dawb and Hmoob Lees.
Nao
Grad student in sociology
dr...@hmoob.net (Pao) wrote in message news:<bd07f89c.03060...@posting.google.com>...