Blame that Asian!
Danielle T Wei
Isn't it amazing how many times in history Europeans have insulted each
other by calling them Asian names?? For instance, the Germans were often
referred to as "HUNS" by the British, and the Russians as "MONGOL half-wits."
While it is obvious that both "Asian names" were meant as insults, it should
also be noted that the real Huns/Mongols originated around Mongolia and
northern China (Inner Mongolia) and that they have little blood-ties, if any,
with the natives of Germany and Russia
Onto my next point; even if the Germans and Russians did have contacts with
the Huns/Mongols, why should that be an insult? Is it a disgrace to come into
contact with two of the most successful conquerers of the ancient world?
Why should the Huns/Mongols be viewed as barbarians while it is obvious
that their battle strategies were much superior to that of their opponents'?
Not very pleased,
NW
Till Poser - ZEUS OFFLINE
dt...@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danielle T Wei) writes in soc.culture.usa:
Hoo ha! A chance to pontificate!
|>Isn't it amazing how many times in history Europeans have insulted each
|>other by calling them Asian names?? For instance, the Germans were often
|>referred to as "HUNS" by the British, and the Russians as "MONGOL half-wits."
|>While it is obvious that both "Asian names" were meant as insults, it should
|>also be noted that the real Huns/Mongols originated around Mongolia and
|>northern China (Inner Mongolia) and that they have little blood-ties, if any,
|>with the natives of Germany and Russia
That doesn't matter a whit. The quaint appellation huns for the Germans was
earned entirely by sheer native (German) stupidity. It so happened that during
the revolt of the Yi-he quan (Boxer-Revolt) in 1899-1900 the German envoy
Klemens von Ketteler was murdered by the Boxers on 19.06.00. The embassy
compound of all the westerners was partially seized and the rest besieged
between that date and middle of August. A international expedition corps,
with the US, Britain, Germany and others participating, was sent to China and
occupied Peking on the 16.08.00. The German component was given a royal
send-off and had to suffer a speech by Kaiser Wilhelm II, in which he uttered,
paraphrased, the following lines: "At the end of the Roman Empire, the word
Hun struck fear in all those who heard it. You will now go out and make sure
that the word German will be feared in these times as the word Hun was feared
in those times [(roughly) amongst those uncivilised peoples]". During that
time, in the post-Bismarck era, the relations between Britain and Germany
had already deteriorated, so the English press glommed on to the word Hun like
a leech onto a vein (And to be entirely truthful, the Germans seem to have
done as their Kaiser bid, though somewhat belated. Rest assured that for the
next couple of hundred years German will stand on par with Mongol, if that is
any consolation to You).
And actually, in another vein, at least two early Germanic sagas, one in the
later Edda, the Nibelungenlied, and the tales of Dietrich of Berne (probably
Theoderich the Great) do feature the Huns prominently and, most interestingly,
not alltogether as bad guys. Indeed, Kriemhild, the Queen of the Nibelungs
and the widow of Siegfried married Etzel (Attila). Since the Huns were only
stopped on the Catalaunian Fields, they went through all of Germany and most
Gaul, with all that entails. Are You really prepared to argue against
bloodties, of the most cursory sort, of course?
As for the Russians, for about 150 years, the Khaganate of Kiew and the
Khaganate of Vladimir(?) hemmed in the expansion of the Rus, which had
transported itself to Moscow. Both of these Kaganates created from the
Khaganate of the White Horde (Ordu) from Ogutai's time. I think it was
Boris Godunov, as the first real Czar, who destroyed both and layed the
foundation of the Russian Empire. For instance the Krim and Caucasus Tartars
are supposed to derive directly from resettled Huns.
|>Onto my next point; even if the Germans and Russians did have contacts with
|>the Huns/Mongols, why should that be an insult? Is it a disgrace to come into
|>contact with two of the most successful conquerers of the ancient world?
|>Why should the Huns/Mongols be viewed as barbarians while it is obvious
|>that their battle strategies were much superior to that of their opponents'?
The Hun-thing I've already explained, this is relatively modern. About the
Mongols, I think You don't realise how much the Mongols were feared, hated
and abonimated. The word Mongol is still today a word to conjure evil with
of the most horrible kind . Subutai and Timur-Lenk (Tamerlane, he of the city
walls into which thousands of people were imured alive, he of the pyramids of
skulls) have seen to it (the fall of Vladimir, the sack of the Ionian Greek
cities, the Awarians and Polovzer were nearly completely wipe out, the battle
of Mohi-heath, or rather its aftermath). The fairly able reigns of
Dshingis-Khan and Kublai-Khan have been obscured by the utterly unconscionable
brutality of some of the Mongol leaders (and their following, of course).
Your prototypical "Mongol" is a slavering barbarian, who likes nothing so much
as to disembowel women and beat children to death. This aura of brutality was
transported to the Russians, of course, by way of propaganda.
|>Not very pleased,
|>NW
Well, what do You propose to do about it? The reputation for brutality was
well earned, well deserved and sometimes well cultivated. So is the reputation
of the Vandals and Visigoths, two Germanic tribes which did their fair share
of butchering and, specifically, destroying the remnants of the West Roman
empire, to a point where vandal and visigoth are fairly common derogatory
bywords. Both tribes, however, founded highly civilised reigns, the Vandals
in Tunisia and Algeria and the Goths in Italy and Spain. Both names are
similarly besmirched. Should I complain? What about the Vikings and Normans?
You see, there are other "bad names" which do not hale from Asia, so don't
feel too much put upon, ok?
Till Poser Internet: po...@vxdsyc.desy.de
-F35- ZEUS DESY/Freiburg Bitnet: POSER@DESYVAX
bldg.1b-235, Notkestr.85 Hepnet: VXDESY::POSER (13313::Poser)
D-2000 Hamburg 52 Tel.: -49-40-8998-2004
Jon Livesey
|>
|> Isn't it amazing how many times in history Europeans have insulted each
|> other by calling them Asian names?? For instance, the Germans were often
|> referred to as "HUNS" by the British, and the Russians as "MONGOL half-wits."
These are popular misconceptions. It was a German, Wilhelm II, who,
bidding farewell to his troops who were off to help suppress an anti-
European uprising in China, told them to conduct themselves so as
to make 'German' feared as 'Hun' had been. Needless to say, the
name stuck.
As for the Russians, they had a long history of invasion by the
Mogols, so it's a fairly obvious label to pin on invadres.
|> Onto my next point; even if the Germans and Russians did have contacts with
|> the Huns/Mongols, why should that be an insult? Is it a disgrace to come into
|> contact with two of the most successful conquerers of the ancient world?
|> Why should the Huns/Mongols be viewed as barbarians while it is obvious
|> that their battle strategies were much superior to that of their opponents'?
You are confused, I think. Germans are not called Huns because
there is something disgraceful about Huns, but because the word
Hun used to arouse fear. The popular view of Huns was that of
a destructive horde. In Russian popular history, there is somewhat
the same view of the Mongols.
jon.
Ross Paterson
> [...] even if the Germans and Russians did have contacts with
> the Huns/Mongols, why should that be an insult? Is it a disgrace to come into
> contact with two of the most successful conquerers of the ancient world?
> Why should the Huns/Mongols be viewed as barbarians while it is obvious
> that their battle strategies were much superior to that of their opponents'?
Because they really were barbarians. The main improvements they
brought to battle strategies were in the techniques of terror, like the
Mongol practice of slaughtering all the inhabitants of a city unless it
surrendered without any resistance at all. Just the sort of name to smear
one's enemies with in war-time propaganda. Nowadays Nazi or Fascist or
Stalinist are more popular. Nor are Europeans the only ones among whom
Central Asian nomads have a bad name, e.g. the various derogatory words
in modern Chinese containing "hu2", an old Chinese term for these people.
Ross
George Shay
>Ross
I believe one of the war strategies the Europeans developed in Forbidden
City, China in 1900 was to burn down everything, to kill the civilians
randomly even the city had surrendered without any resistance at all. The
allied troops were from Russia, Germany, Britain, Austry, and 4 other
European countries which I need to go over my history book to find.(Pretty
sure US was not among these 8 countries). Sounds Europeans did learn a lot
from Mongolians and improved their strategies quite a lot so that they could
be called civilized natons, right?
But this is not the point. Suppose there was a British soldier named
Paterson who did a lot of burnings and killings, those Chinese were
scared when they heard this name Paterson and they called barbarians
Patersons. What do you think?
Michael F. Kamprath
>But this is not the point. Suppose there was a British soldier named
>Paterson who did a lot of burnings and killings, those Chinese were
>scared when they heard this name Paterson and they called barbarians
>Patersons.
Sounds reasonable. Study the origins of "vandalism." Watch the Simpson's
and learn what "pulling a Homer" is.
It is not a race issue, it is an "shared experience" issue. The culture
that experienced the invasion of the Vandals have used their name to
describe like actions in others. Words merely so not just represent
literary meanings, they also represent experiences. To truly understand
what is being said, you must also understand the culture of the person who
is saying it.
Did you ever see the episode of Star Trek TNG where the Enterprise encountered
a superior race (technologically) yet could not understand what they wanted?
There inability in communication arose from the fact that the aliens spoke
in metaphors and allusions that only people who understood their culture
would understand. The Enterprise originally thought they were threatening
them when in reality they just wanted to be friends. The same concept,
IMHO, can be applied to this discussion. (oh, yes, of course Capt. Picard
saved the day by figuring it all out.)
To say that the use of the word "Hun" to describe aggressive enemies is racist
probaly reflects more on your understanding of the metaphor than the bigotry of the
speaker.
>
>What do you think?
>
If you are trying to bait a racial discussion, this topic won't do.
========================================================================
| Michael F. Kamprath | The University of Michigan |
| kamp...@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu | Aerospace Engineering |
| kamp...@engin.umich.edu | |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| This country is a _democracy_. It is NOT a "Two Party Sytem." DO |
| NOT believe The Lie that not voting Republican or Democratic will |
| waste your vote. Vote for who ever you please, and let the |
| politicians find out what a democratic government is all about. |
========================================================================
Jon Livesey
>
> The allied troops were from Russia, Germany, Britain, Austry,
> and 4 other European countries which I need to go over my
> history book to find.(Pretty sure US was not among these 8
> countries).
Why are you pretty sure about this?
jon.
Sergey Shimkevich
Wei) writes in soc.culture.usa:
>Onto my next point; even if the Germans and Russians did have contacts with
>the Huns/Mongols, why should that be an insult? Is it a disgrace to come into
>contact with two of the most successful conquerers of the ancient world?
A disgrace - no. Would be dangerous to your life, though...
>Why should the Huns/Mongols be viewed as barbarians while it is obvious
>that their battle strategies were much superior to that of their opponents'?
Tatars (Mongols) should be viewed as barbarians because they raped and
pillaged Russia for three hundred years, bringing unimaginable suffering to
its people.
For example, after the battle at Kalka, the Tatars piled boards upon the
captured prisoners and celebrated their victory on this grisly platform among
the moans of the dying people. Is this barbaric enough for you?
As for their battle strategies, they were nothing but a human wave.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Ryan: What is it to you, demon? //// Sergei Shimkevich //
// Lune: It is Sir, Demon to you, worm! //// shim...@buchmf.bu.edu //
// -Phantasy Star III //// shimk...@A1.tch.harvard.edu //
Larry Watanabe
>From article <Bvw4y...@acsu.buffalo.edu>, by dt...@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danielle T Wei):
>> [...] even if the Germans and Russians did have contacts with
>> the Huns/Mongols, why should that be an insult? Is it a disgrace to come into
>> contact with two of the most successful conquerers of the ancient world?
>> Why should the Huns/Mongols be viewed as barbarians while it is obvious
>> that their battle strategies were much superior to that of their opponents'?
>Because they really were barbarians. The main improvements they
>brought to battle strategies were in the techniques of terror, like the
>Mongol practice of slaughtering all the inhabitants of a city unless it
>surrendered without any resistance at all. Just the sort of name to smear
>one's enemies with in war-time propaganda.
>Ross
I agree with most of what Ross says, but it is not true that the
main improvements that the Mongols brought to battle were the
techniques of terror. They were much better at military communications,
and mass maneuvers than Europeans. Although terror helped them win
victory without battles, it probably inspired their enemies to
fight even harder when they DID enter battle (Wouldn't you, if you
knew that losing meant that EVERYONE you knew would be killed).
The Mongols were also better at tactics and strategy. Contrary to
popular belief, they did not win all their victories through numerical
superiority; often they defeated numerically superior opponents.
As well, I think it is hard to say if they were really more barbaric
than the people they fought. As I mentioned in an earlier post,
their rationale for slaughtering all the inhabitants of a city
is similar to the rationale behind the use of the atomic bomb
(which also, needless to say, slaughtered all the inhabitants
of a city, and did inspire Japane to surrender without
any resistance at all).
-Larry Watanabe
Hubey
> >Why should the Huns/Mongols be viewed as barbarians while it is obvious
> >that their battle strategies were much superior to that of their opponents'?
>
> Tatars (Mongols) should be viewed as barbarians because they raped and
> pillaged Russia for three hundred years, bringing unimaginable suffering to
> its people.
Hasn't the world gotten enough mileage out of the Mongols yet ?
Russia (Muscovy) was never under direct rule of Mongols. And if it's
any consolation, there are now 120 million Russians, 50-60 million
Ukrainians. Where are the Mongols ?
> For example, after the battle at Kalka, the Tatars piled boards upon the
> captured prisoners and celebrated their victory on this grisly platform among
> the moans of the dying people. Is this barbaric enough for you?
Much has been written about the Mongols. Please see below.
> As for their battle strategies, they were nothing but a human wave.
THis one should have gone out with the rest of the Middle Ages Myths.
Any one of serious history books should do to dispel this myth.
----------------------------------------------
from;
Russia and the Golden Horde:Mongol Impact on Medieval Russian History,
Charles J. Halperin, Indiana Univ Press, 1985.
p.21
Mongol rule over Russia is traditionally considered to have lasted from
1240 to 1480, a century longer than in China or Persia, where the Mongols
had maintained their supremacy for nearly a century and a half. The longevity
of the Mongol Empire and its successor states, including the Golden Horde,
owed much to their flexible and creative administration and to the legacy
of Chingis Khan's charismatic leadership and political acumen...
Evaluations of Chingis and his accomplishments tend toward the extremes. For
some historians he is the noble savage, the illiterate skyworshipper whose
inspired leadership, flawless judgments of human character, and military
genius catapulted the obscure Mongols to the height of world power. For
others he is a monumental gangster whose bloodthirsty cruelty and indifference
to human life mobilized the barbarian Mongols for a worldwide rampage of death
and destruction. Both images derive from uncritical reading of the medieval
sources. The demigod emerges from the pages of the so-called Secret
History of the Mongols. Though the origin and often the meaning of this text
are obscure, it has the virtue of expressing the Mongol point of view.
Critics of Chingis have relied on chronicles written in the sedentary
civilizations overrun by the Mongols, in particular China, Persia, and Russia.
These sources attribute the excesses of Mongol conquest to innate depravity.
Obviously neither of these views can be taken at face value. Empire building
is an invariably destructive process, unwelcome to the conquered.
Tacitus immortalized the darker side of Roman expansion when he noted that
Romans made a wilderness and called it peace. Chingis Khan's military and
political genius and charismatic leadership cannot be questioned; neither
can the number of lives lost during his pursuit of glory. The same is true
of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Napolean. Chingis was no more
cruel, and no less, than empire-builders before and since. Moral judgements
are of little help in understanding his importance.......
Chingis Khan's great abilities were not alone responsible for his success,
which depended on the conditions of the Inner Asian steppe and
the culture of the nomads who dwelt there. The central unit of
nomadic society was the clan, which served all economic, social, political,
and military functions. Women and children looked after the herds, which
feed the men for warfare. Males were trained from boyhood as mounted
archers. They fought as a unit under the command of the clan elder, who
also determined the political allegiance of the clan as a whole. Steppe
wars could arise over grazing rights, politics or personal feuds but
the nomads fought no more often than medieval European knights.
one clan defeated another, the victors assimilated the losers into
their own clan as a military unit, perhaps with a new officers.....
Chingis had a divine mission and a higher purpose than glory and
booty; Tengri, the Inner Asian Great Blue Sky, had granted him the
right to rule over all who lived in felt tents....
To storm cities he needed experts in siege warfare. He drafted these
from among the Muslims and the Chinese and built an army capable of
besieging any city in the world...With this advantage and the tactics
and iron discipline of all nomad armies, Chingis fashioned an almost
unbeatable war machine, capable of coordinated operations on on
immense scale....The armies were held together by the nomadic
clan-tribal system, and as they advanced their ranks swelled with the
peoples they conquered. Though Chingis' original Divine Mandate
applied only to nomads, his armies did not stop when they reached
the ends of the steppe.
p. 24
Chingis Khan's empire did not fragement after his death as had those of
Alexander and Charlemagne....When the Mongols converted to Buddhism in
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Chingis became a Buddhist
saint.
The significance and power of his name and memory in the successor
states of the Mongol Empire is reflected in the Yasa, the fictive legal code
created after his death but attributed to the great conqueror....
Clerics and chroniclers of each faith recorded the Mongol era largely in
religious terms and from vantage points of their own religions. Thus,
depending on the source, Chingis quotes from the Koran, favors Nestorian
Christianity or holds Taoist beliefs. These sources, concerned mainly
with religion, fail seriously to adress the administrative structure of the
Mongol Empire and thus create the impression that it had none....
The enormous destructive cost of Pax Mongolica cannot be denied, but the
Mongol Empire made significant contributions to the political institutions,
economic development and cultural diversity of many lands. No history of the
Mongol Empire, no matter how erudite, which dwells only on Mongol
destruction can be satisfactory.
--
mark
hu...@pilot.njin.net hu...@apollo.montclair.edu
...!rutgers!pilot!hubey hu...@logos.montclair.edu
Gerard Fryer
|>
|> Study the origins of "vandalism."
|>
that Czechoslovakia is to become two nations, the P.C. thing to do
would be to excise that word from the language.
---
Gerard Fryer (g.f...@soest.hawaii.edu)
School of Ocean & Earth Science & Technology
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Jean-Francois Berne
>A similar racially-inspired adjective comes to mind: slovenly. Now
>that Czechoslovakia is to become two nations, the P.C. thing to do
>would be to excise that word from the language.
>
Hon hon...
Oxford English Dictionnary:
--------------------------
sloven , sb. and a. Forms: 5 sloveyn, 6 slovayne, sloueyne, slovein; 6
slouyn, -in, slovyn, slooven, 6-7 slouen, 6- sloven. [Of doubtful origin; perh.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
an AFr. formation on Flem. sloef dirty, squalid, shabby (see Kilian), or Dutch
slof careless, negligent.]
A. sb. 1. A person of low character or manners; a knave, rascal.[...]
--------------------------
About the Huns:
--------------
Hun , sb. [OE. H&uacu.ne, H&uacu.nas, = ONor. H&uacu.nar, MHG. Hunen,
Hiunen, Ger. Hunnen, med.L. Hunni (Chunni, Chuni), believed to represent the
native name of the people, who were known to the Chinese as Hiong-nu, and
also Han.]
1. One of an Asiatic race of warlike nomads, who invaded Europe c a.d. 375,
and in the middle of the 5th c., under their famous king Attila (styled
Flagellum Dei, the scourge of God), overran and ravaged a great part of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
this continent.
A. 900 Cynewulf Elene 21 (Gr.) Werod samnodan Huna leode and HreDgotan, foron
fyrdhwate Francan and Hunas. A. 900 Cynewulf Elene 32 Huna cyning. 1607 Topsell
Four-f. Beasts (1658) 226 The Companies or Armies of Huns, wandering up and
down with most swift Horses, filled all things with slaughter and terrour. 1728
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Pope Dunciad iii. 90 The North..Great nurse of Goths, of Alans, and of Huns.
1838 Penny Cycl. XII. 346/2 Under Heraclius [610-641] many of the Huns embraced
Christianity. After that period their name is no longer mentioned in History.
[...]
----------------------------
Guess that answer the question "why are they held as barbarians".
Clare Chu
>--------------------------
>About the Huns:
>--------------
> Hun , sb. [OE. H&uacu.ne, H&uacu.nas, = ONor. H&uacu.nar, MHG. Hunen,
>Hiunen, Ger. Hunnen, med.L. Hunni (Chunni, Chuni), believed to represent the
>native name of the people, who were known to the Chinese as Hiong-nu, and
>also Han.]
Huns were also considered barbarians by the Chinese.
Allen Wu
>Tatars (Mongols) should be viewed as barbarians because they raped and
>pillaged Russia for three hundred years, bringing unimaginable suffering to
>its people.
Considering the pillagings committed by the Russians in their course of
conquest to build their empire, I guess the Russians should be viewed as
barbarians according to your logic.
Allen Wu
Chunde Shi
word a new invention under the new wave of antigerman sentment in UK?
Jon Livesey
>
> I read a word "reichman" fro soc.culture.bitish a month or so ago.
> Was that word a new invention under the new wave of antigerman
> sentment in UK?
Cute idea, but no. Mr Reichman was a very notorious landlord
(we called him a slumlord) in London about twenty years ago. He
charged high rents and cut off water and heat when people could
not pay them. Where his surname came from I couldn't say.
jon.
Sergey Shimkevich
>In article <98...@bu.edu> Sergei Shimkevich <shim...@buchmf.bu.edu> said:
//Tatars (Mongols) should be viewed as barbarians because they raped and
//pillaged Russia for three hundred years, bringing unimaginable suffering to
//its people.
>Considering the pillagings committed by the Russians in their course of
>conquest to build their empire, I guess the Russians should be viewed as
>barbarians according to your logic.
Before or after 1917?
Chunde Shi
>In article <Bw51I...@ulowell.ulowell.edu>,
>|>In article <1992Oct13.2...@morrow.stanford.edu>
>|>be...@nova1.stanford.edu (Jean-Francois Berne) writes:
>|>ger...@caliban.soest.hawaii.edu (Gerard Fryer) writes:
>|>>>A similar racially-inspired adjective comes to mind: slovenly. Now
>|>Those mogol "barbarians" brought to Europe a magic staff, invented by
>|>Chinese,
>|>GUN POWER! Without which is unconceivable that europeans could colonized
>|>most of the world.
>
>While it is true that the Chinese had used black powder for a couple of
>centuries before it became known to the Europeans, and sometimes in military
>applications, it is fairly obvious that the Mongols didn't bring it to
>Europe. Black Powder and gunnery started up in Europe in the late 14th
>century while the Mongol incursions into Europe took place in the early 13th.
>
>There a varied accounts on how that knowledge was developed, or, if You will,
>redeveloped, and one centers around the German monk Berthold Schwarz from
>the town of Freiburg around 1350. This had something to do with the rise of
>the science of alchemy in Europe at a time when it started to stagnate in
>the Islame world, where it first was developed.
>
> Till Poser Internet: po...@vxdsyc.desy.de
>-F35- ZEUS DESY/Freiburg Bitnet: POSER@DESYVAX
>bldg.1b-235, Notkestr.85 Hepnet: VXDESY::POSER (13313::Poser)
> D-2000 Hamburg 52 Tel.: -49-40-8998-2004
during the conquest?
Danielle T Wei
>
>While it is true that the Chinese had used black powder for a couple of
>centuries before it became known to the Europeans, and sometimes in military
>applications, it is fairly obvious that the Mongols didn't bring it to
>Europe. Black Powder and gunnery started up in Europe in the late 14th
>century while the Mongol incursions into Europe took place in the early 13th.
From what I learned in an European History class, the gun powder was
introduced to Europe by the Arabs after the Crusades.. But then again,
the Arabs (maybe some Europeans too, remember Europeans<>ArrogantGermans)
probably got the powder from the Mongol invasions..
NW
David Johnson
>In article <1992Oct13.2...@morrow.stanford.edu> be...@nova1.stanford.edu (Jean-Francois Berne) writes:
>>--------------------------
>>About the Huns:
>>--------------
>> Hun , sb. [OE. H&uacu.ne, H&uacu.nas, = ONor. H&uacu.nar, MHG. Hunen,
>>Hiunen, Ger. Hunnen, med.L. Hunni (Chunni, Chuni), believed to represent the
>>native name of the people, who were known to the Chinese as Hiong-nu, and
>>also Han.]
> Huns were also considered barbarians by the Chinese.
True but didn't the Chinese consider all non-Chinese barbarians?
--
David Johnson
XLNT Designs, Inc. (XDI)
da...@xlnt.com
Chunde Shi
Chinese did have different names for different people other than Chinese, there
was no monolithic word for "barbarians".
Dwight Joe
>True but didn't the Chinese consider all non-Chinese barbarians?
That's very true. In fact, the Chinese developed specialized terms
that are used to describe non-Chinese; examples are the following:
Chinese word[1] Literal meaning What it stands for
---------------------------------------------------------------
hakku-guai black ghost anyone with black skin
bakku-guai white ghost anyone with white skin
yappun-jai little Japanese anyone who is ethnically Japanese
By the way, these words are used in everyday ordinary speech by many
Chinese-cu Chinese-ge. Of course, these terms are very insulting, but the
Chinese-cu Chinese-ge don't care.
The irony here is that, of the 4 or 5 (depending on how you count)
major nations in East Asia, China is clearly the most barbaric nation
in the lot; 20/20 reported that the Chinese transported American POWs
of the Korean War to Russian prisons. These POWs have never been
returned.
[1] Hepburn romanization is used here. I don't know the standard
romanization for Cantonese.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seikatsu no imi wa nan desu ka. \| |` | Don't buy from Toyota;
Shitte itara oshiete kuremasen ka. | -+- | especially, don't buy
/| / \ | from Capitol Toyota in
Copyright 1992. Disclaimer: 1 + 1 = 3 | San Jose, California.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle T Wei
First of all, it should be noted that Mr. Joe has shrunk the "newsgroups"
to scaa only (as opposed to the original scaa+usa+europe)
That can only imply that Mr. Joe's only purpose of posting here is to
destroy the common bond between asian americans, something that cannot
be seen by europeans and other americans
>That's very true. In fact, the Chinese developed specialized terms
>that are used to describe non-Chinese; examples are the following:
>
>Chinese word[1] Literal meaning What it stands for
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>hakku-guai black ghost anyone with black skin
>bakku-guai white ghost anyone with white skin
>yappun-jai little Japanese anyone who is ethnically Japanese
Your spellings are very inaccurate.. Here're the modern ones:
Hei Gui black ghost blacks
Lao Hei old black blacks
Lao Mei old american whites
Lao Zhong old chinese CHINESE
Mei Guo Gui Zi american ghost americans
Ri Ben Gui Zi japanese ghost japanese
Nan Man southern barbarians vietnamese
Ai Kou short foreigner japanese
Dong Yang Gui Zi east foreign ghost japanese
Yang Gui Zi foreign ghost europeans+americans
Xiao Ri Ben little japan japanese
Fa Xi Si fascist germans
Da Bi Zi big nose whites
Bai Lian Lang white face wolf whites
Da Du Zi big stomach europeans+americans
Wang Ba Dan turtle's egg dwight joe
>By the way, these words are used in everyday ordinary speech by many
>Chinese-cu Chinese-ge. Of course, these terms are very insulting, but the
>Chinese-cu Chinese-ge don't care.
No, they're more humorous than insulting.. And they're not used everyday
>The irony here is that, of the 4 or 5 (depending on how you count)
>major nations in East Asia, China is clearly the most barbaric nation
>in the lot; 20/20 reported that the Chinese transported American POWs
>of the Korean War to Russian prisons. These POWs have never been
>returned.
All the Russians' fault
[dwight's mysterious .sig deleted]
NW
William Crosmun
>In article <1992Oct13.2...@morrow.stanford.edu> be...@nova1.stanford.edu (Jean-Francois Berne) writes:
>>--------------------------
>>About the Huns:
>>--------------
>> Hun , sb. [OE. H&uacu.ne, H&uacu.nas, = ONor. H&uacu.nar, MHG. Hunen,
>>Hiunen, Ger. Hunnen, med.L. Hunni (Chunni, Chuni), believed to represent the
>>native name of the people, who were known to the Chinese as Hiong-nu, and
>>also Han.]
>
> Huns were also considered barbarians by the Chinese.
We're ALL considered barbarians by the Chinese.
===============================================================================
William Crosmun
cro...@dg-rtp.dg.com
===============================================================================
"No matter what the subject, there is some group which wants government
to regulate or subsidize it, and there are always those in Congress
eager to take over more power and control. But it is impossible to
get something for nothing. The government produces no goods, so it
can hand out favors to some people only by taking the earnings and
property of others first."
From the Libertarian Party platform - 1992
===============================================================================
Chuan Lee
>
>The irony here is that, of the 4 or 5 (depending on how you count)
>major nations in East Asia, China is clearly the most barbaric nation
>in the lot; 20/20 reported that the Chinese transported American POWs
>of the Korean War to Russian prisons. These POWs have never been returned.
Is that all you can come up with to prove your point? So who
ultimately is responsible for the fate of these POWs anyway?
Chuan Lee
Chunde Shi
>In article <1992Oct14.1...@nynexst.com> cl...@nynexst.com (Clare Chu)
>writes:
>>be...@nova1.stanford.edu (Jean-Francois Berne) writes:
>>>About the Huns:
>>>--------------
>>> Hun , sb. [OE. H&uacu.ne, H&uacu.nas, = ONor. H&uacu.nar, MHG. Hunen,
>>>Hiunen, Ger. Hunnen, med.L. Hunni (Chunni, Chuni), believed to represent the
>>>native name of the people, who were known to the Chinese as Hiong-nu, and
>>>also Han.]
>> Huns were also considered barbarians by the Chinese.
>
>non-Han to be barbarians...until they became sinicized.
>
>Twinkie Chinkie
*******
One Chinese hater, go away!
>
>
>--
>//Lui Sieh
>Dum loquimur, fugerit invida Aetas: carpe diem, quam minimum postero.
>Horace, Odes, I.xi.7; <-- "Why post to USENET?" -Brian O. Indeed.
>What about my opinions? ====>> /dev/null or si...@panix.com
Chunde Shi
>>...
>>True but didn't the Chinese consider all non-Chinese barbarians?
>
>That's very true. In fact, the Chinese developed specialized terms
>that are used to describe non-Chinese; examples are the following:
>
>Chinese word[1] Literal meaning What it stands for
>---------------------------------------------------------------
This is new to me, a Chinese.
>hakku-guai black ghost anyone with black skin
This only appeared in translated America Movie, for "Darky"
>bakku-guai white ghost anyone with white skin
Never heard of this.
>yappun-jai little Japanese anyone who is ethnically Japanese
I heard this one in Chinese movie, for WWII.
>
>By the way, these words are used in everyday ordinary speech by many
>Chinese-cu Chinese-ge. Of course, these terms are very insulting, but the
>Chinese-cu Chinese-ge don't care.
>
>The irony here is that, of the 4 or 5 (depending on how you count)
>major nations in East Asia, China is clearly the most barbaric nation
>in the lot; 20/20 reported that the Chinese transported American POWs
>of the Korean War to Russian prisons. These POWs have never been
>returned.
Chunde Shi
>In article <1992Oct14.1...@nynexst.com> cl...@nynexst.com (Clare Chu) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct13.2...@morrow.stanford.edu> be...@nova1.stanford.edu (Jean-Francois Berne) writes:
>>>--------------------------
>>>About the Huns:
>>>--------------
>>> Hun , sb. [OE. H&uacu.ne, H&uacu.nas, = ONor. H&uacu.nar, MHG. Hunen,
>>>Hiunen, Ger. Hunnen, med.L. Hunni (Chunni, Chuni), believed to represent the
>>>native name of the people, who were known to the Chinese as Hiong-nu, and
>>>also Han.]
>>
>> Huns were also considered barbarians by the Chinese.
>
>We're ALL considered barbarians by the Chinese.
Here has a trick! First Claim being a victim(being called barbarians by the
Chinese), and "we all"(humanity except chinese) should unit against Chinese.
it is a systematic game played by old imperilists to ganged togather gainst
CHina. It resurfaced again after Cold War.
Kerry Go
>In article <1992Oct17.2...@leland.Stanford.EDU> unde...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe) writes:
>>Chinese word[1] Literal meaning What it stands for
>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>>hakku-guai black ghost anyone with black skin
>
>Your spellings are very inaccurate.. Here're the modern ones:
Perhaps this is a difference of dialect rather than inacurracy. Perhaps not.
Anyone who speaks one of the other dialects of Chinese care to comment?
>Hei Gui black ghost blacks
[Other spellings for epithets deleted.]
chi...@iscs.nus.sg
Wrong! Ghost has no strong connotations of being evil. I think the
correct translation is "white devil". Its unclear (except maybe to you)
however if chinese people use it as a derogatory statement (some probably
do) or if it is just an utterance which they have gotten used to.
Certainly the same people don't use "white devil" when referring to whites
in English. Its probably just convention. Besides, if you aren't Chinese-cu
you probably can't judge Chinese-cu since you don't know or understand
their intentions. Why don't you convert to Chinese-cu (it should be easy
since you are Chinese-ge) for a while. Live with them, think like them
and then judge them. You might find that some of them are really quite
nice after all. I certainly have.
TS
James Davis Nicoll
>In article <1992Oct16.1...@dg-rtp.dg.com> cro...@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct14.1...@nynexst.com> cl...@nynexst.com (Clare Chu) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct13.2...@morrow.stanford.edu> be...@nova1.stanford.edu (Jean-Francois Berne) writes:
>>>>--------------------------
>>>>About the Huns:
>>>>--------------
>>>> Hun , sb. [OE. H&uacu.ne, H&uacu.nas, = ONor. H&uacu.nar, MHG. Hunen,
>>>>Hiunen, Ger. Hunnen, med.L. Hunni (Chunni, Chuni), believed to represent the
>>>>native name of the people, who were known to the Chinese as Hiong-nu, and
>>>>also Han.]
>>>
>>> Huns were also considered barbarians by the Chinese.
>>
>>We're ALL considered barbarians by the Chinese.
>************************************************
>Here has a trick! First Claim being a victim(being called barbarians by the
>Chinese), and "we all"(humanity except chinese) should unit against Chinese.
>it is a systematic game played by old imperilists to ganged togather gainst
>CHina. It resurfaced again after Cold War.
Where in the above is the call for unification against China?
Just because someone mentioned non-Chinese were looked down upon by
Chinese people in the past, you can't leap to the conclusion that a
anti-Chinese offense *on those grounds* is immanent. After all, regarding
foreigners as 'barbarians' is scarcely a Chinese monopoly: look at the
origin of the word barbarian, or some of the rhetoric from the old
Imperial powers in the 19th Century.
James Nicoll
dp
>>>>> "Sergey" == Sergey Shimkevich <shim...@buchmf.bu.edu> writes:
...
>Considering the pillagings committed by the Russians in their course of
>conquest to build their empire, I guess the Russians should be viewed as
>barbarians according to your logic.
Sergey> Before or after 1917?
Before AND after 1917!
dp
The first year [1977] I spent getting my family moved to Washington.
The second year I ran for re-election. Then as soon as I was elected,
I started running for the Senate.
-- Vice President Dan Quayle, describing his career
in the House of Representatives.
dp
>>>>> "William" == William Crosmun <cro...@crosmun.rtp.dg.com> writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.2...@morrow.stanford.edu> be...@nova1.stanford.edu (Jean-Francois Berne) writes:
>>--------------------------
>>About the Huns:
>>--------------
>> Hun , sb. [OE. H&uacu.ne, H&uacu.nas, = ONor. H&uacu.nar, MHG. Hunen,
>>Hiunen, Ger. Hunnen, med.L. Hunni (Chunni, Chuni), believed to represent the
>>native name of the people, who were known to the Chinese as Hiong-nu, and
>>also Han.]
>
> Huns were also considered barbarians by the Chinese.
William> We're ALL considered barbarians by the Chinese.
IMHO, the term "barbarians" was mainly used by Chinese to refer aggressive
neighbors. I don't think the Chinese considered, for example Indians, Arabs
as "barbarians".
/dp
I don't know what his problem with the Pledge of Allegiance is.
-- George Bush, on Michael Dukakis, August 1988.
Ty Lee
^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^
> NW
This is good. I just can't help but laugh all the rest of my day.
One thing to be noted is that the so-called Chinese spouted by underdog
is really Cantonese Chinese (or close, but not accurate, well it
is just doing very hard to make a scene).
--
/* The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of IBM's. *\
* Take care and have a nice day. *
\* Ty Lee */
Michael F. Kamprath
>
>IMHO, the term "barbarians" was mainly used by Chinese to refer aggressive
>neighbors. I don't think the Chinese considered, for example Indians, Arabs
>as "barbarians".
>
>/dp
You may want clarify that as "aggressive-against-us neighbors." I am sure
that there are nation in this world that would consider India and "Arabs" as
aggressive (e.g., Pakistan, Chad, Israel, . . .).
But I guess that is just nit-picking.
========================================================================
| Michael F. Kamprath | The University of Michigan |
| kamp...@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu | Aerospace Engineering |
| kamp...@engin.umich.edu | Graduate Student |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| This country is a _democracy_. It is NOT a "Two Party Sytem." DO |
| NOT believe The Lie that not voting Republican or Democratic will |
| waste your vote. Vote for who ever you please, and let the |
| politicians find out what a democratic republic is all about. |
========================================================================
Jimmy Blair
> In article <Bw4KA...@inews.Intel.COM> a...@mipos3.intel.com (Allen Wu) writes:
> >In article <98...@bu.edu> Sergei Shimkevich <shim...@buchmf.bu.edu> said:
>
> //Tatars (Mongols) should be viewed as barbarians because they raped and
> //pillaged Russia for three hundred years, bringing unimaginable suffering to
> //its people.
>
> >Considering the pillagings committed by the Russians in their course of
> >conquest to build their empire, I guess the Russians should be viewed as
> >barbarians according to your logic.
>
> Before or after 1917?
>
If barbarian is taken to mean culturally less advanced, present
day reality suports the view that the Mongols were barbarians --
the limit of western encroachment by the Mongol Horde corresponds
to the boundary between Eastern and Western Europe today.
Societal development was suspended during the centuries of
occupation, creating the distinction between the two Europes.
The Mongols would have probably overtaken all of the continent
if not for the death of one of the great Khans ( the exact name
escapes me ). Apparently they retreated to attend a big
send off for the old guy and things were never quite the same
afterwards.
-- Jimmy
P.S. Sorry for clogging up s.c.a.a with Russian history, but
there was originally a posting complaining that
Mongols=barbarians was a racist statement. Maybe
the politically correct statement is Mongols=culturally deprived.
Bertil Jonell
>>>>>> "Sergey" == Sergey Shimkevich <shim...@buchmf.bu.edu> writes:
>>Considering the pillagings committed by the Russians in their course of
>>conquest to build their empire, I guess the Russians should be viewed as
>>barbarians according to your logic.
>
> Sergey> Before or after 1917?
>
>Before AND after 1917!
Yup, but all their neighbours are now wondering: After 1991?
>dp
-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."
William Crosmun
>>In article <1992Oct14.1...@nynexst.com> cl...@nynexst.com (Clare Chu) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct13.2...@morrow.stanford.edu> be...@nova1.stanford.edu (Jean-Francois Berne) writes:
>>>>--------------------------
>>>>About the Huns:
>>>>--------------
>>>> Hun , sb. [OE. H&uacu.ne, H&uacu.nas, = ONor. H&uacu.nar, MHG. Hunen,
>>>>Hiunen, Ger. Hunnen, med.L. Hunni (Chunni, Chuni), believed to represent the
>>>>native name of the people, who were known to the Chinese as Hiong-nu, and
>>>>also Han.]
>>>
>>> Huns were also considered barbarians by the Chinese.
>>
>>We're ALL considered barbarians by the Chinese.
>************************************************
>Chinese), and "we all"(humanity except chinese) should unite against Chinese.
>it is a systematic game played by old imperialists to ganged together against
>CHina. It resurfaced again after Cold War.
Say what?!! First of all, just because the Chinese consider us to be
barbarians doesn't make us victims. Of course I'm not up on the latest trends
in victimology, I just remember sticks and stones may break my bones but names
will never hurt me. Second, I never said the Chinese "called" us barbarians.
They are much too polite, and civilized to do any such thing. I said they
"consider" us to be barbarians, and with some justification. After all, Chinese
culture goes back 5000 years - Western culture, not even 500. Finally, I
don't see anything in this statement of fact that could conceivably be
construed as an invitation to imperialist warfare. Lighten up, Chunde Shi,
the whole world is not out to get you.
Jean-Francois Berne
>
>[...] After all, Chinese culture goes back 5000 years - Western culture,
>not even 500.
?
You must be talking about USA only. European civilisation is much older,
although it probably cannot claim the record longevity of the chinese one.
Remember: american way of life -rather than civilisation- is only a child
of Europe.
>Finally, I
>don't see anything in this statement of fact that could conceivably be
>construed as an invitation to imperialist warfare.
JF
-----
"Vatican... how many divisions?"
Stalin.
Danielle T Wei
>In article <1992Oct20.1...@dg-rtp.dg.com> cro...@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>>
>>[...] After all, Chinese culture goes back 5000 years - Western culture,
>>not even 500.
>?
>You must be talking about USA only. European civilisation is much older,
You're right, the dinosaurs conquered Europe more than 100 million years ago
>Remember: american way of life -rather than civilisation- is only a child
>of Europe.
Correction: the old american way of life... ...
NW
Yannis Schoinas
>In article <1c4vu5...@morrow.stanford.edu> be...@nova3.stanford.edu (Jean-Francois Berne) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct20.1...@dg-rtp.dg.com> cro...@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>>>
>>>[...] After all, Chinese culture goes back 5000 years - Western culture,
>>>not even 500.
>>?
>>You must be talking about USA only. European civilisation is much older,
>You're right, the dinosaurs conquered Europe more than 100 million years ago
Excuse me?
>>Remember: american way of life -rather than civilisation- is only a child
>>of Europe.
>Correction: the old american way of life... ...
And, excuse me?
Yannis.
Jean-Francois Berne
>>cro...@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>>>[...] After all, Chinese culture goes back 5000 years - Western culture,
>>>not even 500.
>You're right, the dinosaurs conquered Europe more than 100 million years ago
Did you write this in an attempt to be funny, or just because it's irrelevant?
In any case, I'm sure you understood me right and you know what I meant.
>>Remember: american way of life -rather than civilisation- is only a child
>>of Europe.
>Correction: the old american way of life... ...
Do you mean that Americans have now developped a culture of their own?
If that's the case, then I agree with you. The american culture carries a
perfectly valid message of its own. It's not contradictory with
the fact that this message is 100% derived from Europe.
Besides, its validity doesn't prejudge its value.
--------
OPE...@hasara11.bitnet
be...@nova1.stanford.edu (Jean-Francois Berne) says:
>
>In article <1992Oct13.2...@news.Hawaii.Edu>
>ger...@caliban.soest.hawaii.edu (Gerard Fryer) writes:
>>A similar racially-inspired adjective comes to mind: slovenly. Now
>>would be to excise that word from the language.
>>^^^^^^^^
>>Gerard Fryer (g.f...@soest.hawaii.edu)
>
>Hon hon...
>
>Oxford English Dictionnary:
>--------------------------
> sloven , sb. and a. Forms: 5 sloveyn, 6 slovayne, sloueyne, slovein; 6
>slouyn, -in, slovyn, slooven, 6-7 slouen, 6- sloven. [Of doubtful origin;
>perh.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>an AFr. formation on Flem. sloef dirty, squalid, shabby (see Kilian), or Dutch
^^^^^^^^
> A. sb. 1. A person of low character or manners; a knave, rascal.[...]
I hope you don't find it a P.C. thing to do, to excise the word Dutch
from the language.
Although I must admit we are of low character and manners :-)
Hans