Luo's claim about the origin of Hakka serves as the spiritual support of the JDS. Although the theory of the origin of Hakka was no more than a repetition of Xu, they were now backed up with carefully chosen "historical facts". Hakkas were a result of five waves of migration as mentioned in the beginning of this paper. Hakka people were ethnic Chinese, and even of purer blood than the other neighboring groups, who are mixed with barbarians, or "adulterated" in the eyes of Hakkas.

Here we do not want to list out the facts to nullify this theory, which has been mentioned elsewhere. The most important weakness of this theory, however, lies in the derogatory view on the neighboring groups, a Hakka version of racism. Luo also failed to keep his promise for a detailed account Cantonese and Hoklos (Luo, 1933), which makes a contrast of the three groups impossible. There is new evidence to illustrate that at least the first three of the five waves of migration are common for all Southern Chinese (Chen, 1997). In genealogical records, for example, Cantonese, Chaozhou and JDS are sharing common founders as late as in the Ming dynasty. Therefore, the notion of a pure Hakka line is more of an imagination based on racial prejudice than a fact. We will come back to other evidence that deny the existence of an ethnical Hakka group before the end of Ming dynasty in section 2. As a conclusion, the formation of Hakka as postulated by Luo is more a myth than historical reality.

D. Results of a created identity

1. "Hakka" no more a synonym for "barbarian".

Although we stress that the story supporting the Hakka identity is fabricated, it did help to unite and awake the sense of belonging to JDS speakers. In the early thirties, when Luo's theory first came to light, the Cantonese could no longer say that the Hakka were equivalent to barbarians. Being equally Chinese, or even more Chinese as argued by Luo, the insults on Hakka stopped altogether. Luo's version of Hakka origins went into textbooks, encyclopedia and dictionaries, and also affected the framework of dialectologists and historical linguists (Yuan, 1960; Zhan, 1980).

To date, when people mention Hakka, the Cantonese sense originally of derision is totally inhibited, and the Hakka interpretation dominates. This has become the unifying force for JDS and their descendants overseas, and is a positive factor for the Chinese consciousness.

2. The Meixian accent accepted as a symbol for Hakka

In the formation of a unifying Hakka identity, the Meixian accent plays a central role in the whole process. The Hakka dialect in the narrow sense means the Jiaying dialect spoken in Meixian, or today's Meizhou city. In the past century, as all JDS over Guangdong were uniting to protect against their neighbors, the Meixian accent served as the lingua franca. The Hakka speakers regarded the Meixian accent as the paragon of the hakka tongue, and up to now most JDS regions have used the Meixian accent as the standard (Xie, 1997).

In the formation of an ethnic group, a unifying language is crucial. In doing so, the Cantonese speakers have been successful in using the Canton dialect to symbolize their ethnicity. Parallel to this development is the use of the Meixian accent among Hakkas, even if their mother tongue differs significantly from the "standard". This has also been possible for the JDS around the world to find a sense of belonging when they hear the tongue, and hold meetings in this accent. Nowadays, the Meixian accent is also available in dictionaries and treated as an independent dialect among the seven main dialects of Chinese.

IV. Evidence of a Misunderstanding for the Hakka Identity

As pointed out above, Luo's theory has been found to contain a lot of flaws. We are not aiming to find fault with Luo, however, we are not satisfied to rely upon such a handicapped theory to support an important objective. In short, if we find that the Bible contains obvious flaws, then it would be hard for anyone to preach. Here we can list at least four pieces of evidence that contradict Luo's theory.

A. Physical anthropological findings - Similarities between all southern people

The similarities between the Southern groups were illustrated clearly by molecular analysis of immunoglobins. In a paper by Zhao et al (1991), it was shown that Hakka (Meixian) are genetically most related to Cantonese (Canton). As a criterion for racial relationship, the result is clear-cut. Similar result with Hakka and Cantonese are obtained by comparing the She minority in Jingning and Mandarin speaking population of Liuzhou (Guangxi). Although the Min group had a somewhat different result than the Hakka-Cantonese, they were nevertheless more related to the populations in Guangdong than the Northern group. If Hakkas are really pure blood descendants from the north and Cantonese speakers are natives in Guangdong, contradicting the fact that both groups have the similar immunoglobins.

Moreover, there are more shared genetic diseases between Hakka and Southern Chinese, than Hakka with northerners, such as G6PD (Qiu, 1998) and nasopharyngeal carcinoma (Note 1). These two diseases are insignificant among the Northerners, but are common among Southerners. All these scientific data point out that Hakka, Cantonese and some neighboring groups are biologically so related that they cannot be treated as separate groups among the families of ethnic Chinese. The following table is a brief account of the frequencies of the males patients among different groups:

B. Linguistic findings and demography of Guangdong

Another piece of evidence to contradict Luo is found in linguistics. Although most dialectologists regard Hakka and Cantonese as separate dialects due to the influence of Luo's theory, some people also found that the two dialects share many basic characteristics in common with Min (Lin et al, 1995; Norman, 1989). The first author of this paper has also discovered that about half of the basic vocabulary is shared by both dialects, which cannot be a result of borrowing (Lau, 1997), and the amount of sharing with neighboring minorities are also similar (Lau, 1998). By calculating the 100 basic words between the two dialects, Xu (1992) has also found that Hakka and Cantonese separated from each other for only less than 700 years. The implication is that the two dialects indeed only diverged from a "mother tongue" only since the beginning of the Yuan dynasty. Although Xu could not explain his results, his method is scientific and the data are reliable. Here I also want to list out a few important basic cognates Hakka and Cantonese that remind us of their close relationship:

Our explanation is simple: Hakka and Cantonese (and also some Minnan speakers) arrived Guangdong and neighboring regions at the end of the Song dynasty, and they probably spoke the standard tongue of that time. They came to Guangdong via different routes and settled down in different regions, mixed with the minorities there, but they dominated the minorities in number, economic strength, language and culture. None of them came to the idea of naming themselves Hakka, nor did they call each other so before they confronted each other.

The Cantonese are also immigrants from the North who share physical and linguistic characteristics of JDS who were later called Hakka. The demography of different regions in Guangdong during the past millenium may help us to interpret the case. The population of the PRD was 0.22M in AD 742, but declined to 0.21M in 1080, before it rose to 0.81M in 1391 and ca 2 Million in 1729. Cantonese speakers are mainly descendants of northern immigrants after the Song dynasty. For the Meizhou region, the population was sparse before the Ming dynasty, with only 22 thousand inhabitants in the beginning of Ming Dynasty, but rose to 3.17 million at the end of Qing. They came from western Fujian at the beginning of the Ming dynasty.

C. Lack of Hakka identity in Guangdong and other provinces until recently

In Taiwan, the history of Hakka identity movement is strikingly recent: adopted after its return to China in 1945 as a result of the promotion of Luo's theory. Evidence is given by dictionaries of Hakka compiled during the Japanese occupation period, were simply called "Guangdonghua" dictionaries. Since the democratization of the island in the eighties, Taiwanese JDS felt that their culture was being ignored when compared to the Minnan speakers, mainlanders and aboriginal groups. As a means to survive, the Hakka identity came to the foreground, because this cultural identity stretched across the borders. A united Hakka force may help them withstand the immense pressure of the Minnan culture.

As we can see, almost all Chinese groups claim themselves as being the most "genuine" Chinese. If genealogical records are not pure inventions, all Southerners also share a common migration history from the Central Plain. Then most Cantonese and some Minnan speakers are by Luo's definition "Hakka", as most of them are immigrants after the Song dynasty. This can also be shown by census data and county gazetteers. Therefore, the Hakka identity is clearly a result of the dispute between JDS and Cantonese at beginning of the Qing dynasty.

V. Hakka Identity today

I. Proud and ashamed to be Hakka

Hakka identity has now developed to such an extent that the word "Hakka" is regarded with pride in the area of Meizhou, the homeland of the migrated JDS. As these unmigrated JDS had not faced the difficulties and troubles of their migrated brothers into the Cantonese speaking areas, they accepted the whole story of Luo to gain a sense of superiority. Radiating from Meizhou as the hub, the sense of pride is spreading around into the "pure Hakka" speaking areas, and to regions where there are no obvious disputes between the JDS and their neighbors. For example, in Guangxi, Western Fujian and Sichuan, more and more JDS have recently formed "Hakka Associations" and claimed themselves "Hakka" (Hu et al, 1997).

Unfortunately, their migrated brothers had to pay for this "title", which cost them blood and life in the last century. They were discriminated against or faced danger when they confronted with the local Cantonese. Those who could not afford to pay the price for this title just gave it up, and assimilation was the rational choice. Therefore, in the mixed Hakka areas, especially those with Cantonese, Hakka identity is weakening or has totally disappeared. Only in areas where no dispute with other groups occurred, is the term "Hakka" becoming more and more popular among the JDS. Meanwhile, the Hakka Associations in Hong Kong and Taiwan are weakening their influence and less people want to have the label "Hakka" in order to gain harmony with the mainstream culture there.

One point worth mentioning is that there are still some Hakkaologists suggesting that the time of formation of the Jiaying dialect is the time of emergence of the Hakka (Wang, 1995), probably because they could not understand the sense of Hakka identity can be formed much later than when Jiaying dialect was spoken. The lack of a sense of Hakka identity among JDS in some parts of Guangdong and Guangxi today can illustrate this point clearly.

II. Hakka Identity Overseas

There are usually no disputes between the dialect groups of Chinese themselves in oversea settlements; instead the tension and lack of tension between the locals, plays a role. In most countries, the assimilation is complete within three generations, with the second generation as bilinguals. Before the spreading of Luo's version of Hakka history, all Hakka speakers, like other dialect group speakers, just simply viewed themselves as "Chinese", although their meanings for "Chineseness" may differ a bit in their contents.

As Luo's theory gained an audience overseas, some second or third generation Hakkas are also attracted by its grandeur, and began to claim themselves Hakka even they understand no word of their ancestral tongue. In some extreme cases, they even tried to learn to speak the language and practice its culture. Therefore, the theory may have some positive value for the unification of dispersed Hakka strengths. The fear is that when they find out on day that Luo's theory is only a self-deceptive illusion, the Hakka force may break altogether. It is high time that we changed the basis for the unity of Hakka.

III. Hakka Identity and Hakkaology

1. Hakka as a Subgroups Chinese

Once the dispute between the two related groups in Guangdong caused the awareness of the Hakka identity, Hakka people began to form an ethnic subgroup among the Han Chinese. They regarded themselves as the "purest" Chinese descendants, or at least more "Chinese" that the neighboring Cantonese and Minnan speakers. Luo's migration history was thought to be Hakka-only, thus degrading their neighbors to barbarians or semi-barbarians. Interestingly, this belief alone is enough to upgrade JDS into an ethnic subgroup.

Thus, the "chosen people theory" did help Hakka stand against the Cantonese speaking locals. Yet the claim that Hakka is the only "pure Chinese" creates more risks than advantages. Finally, when scientific data has shown that it is not the case, the whole basis for Hakka identity will be overthrown. To date, we have to point out that this is happening already. The newly built Hakka identity in various locations far away from the center of dispute will be embarrassed by the accumulation of more and more scientific data and historical findings. We hope that this will not cause the disintegration of the Hakka identity altogether.

2. Hakka dialect as a separate dialect

The direct result of the formation of the Hakka identity in the past two centuries was paralleled by the consciousness of a "Hakka dialect". As Luo's version of Hakka history entered most textbooks, most linguists also accepted the "Hakka theory" as a scientific basis when they began to classify Chinese dialects. Despite the striking similarities between Hakka, Gan and even Yue, they are misled by Luo's view in considering that these two dialects are of different origin. Therefore, many Hakka linguists are scratching their heads hard, to find, or even invent the differences between the two seemingly inseparable dialects (Norman, 1986; Deng, 1998; Wang, 1998). This, of course, has created some distinctions in which to divide the two groups of dialects. If these distinctions hold and we apply them to all Chinese, then the result would be more than 100 "dialects". Interestingly, mutual intelligibility is not a criterion. As Chinese dialectology is a relatively young science, the classification of dialects does not utilize the scientific methods that has been used for German and French, but has to rely on the "feeling" of the speakers and the linguists. Therefore, some scholars have advocated a more scientific way of classification using isoglosses (Iwata, 1995; Sagart, 1998). If so, then Hakka may have to be put together with Gan and perhaps also with Yue.

VI. Hakka Identity tomorrow - The need for a revised Hakka Identity

A. Justification of an Identity for Hakka

Although we emphasize that the Hakka identity does not stand up to scrutiny when we consider all the evidence, we still think that Hakka has justification for an identity. With it, Hakka should survive as a separate group to keep their own customs and language intact. In the past, when weaker groups came in contact with stronger groups, their culture often disappeared totally. In terms of cultural and linguistic preservation, this means a loss forever. Only when the two groups in contact strongly recognized themselves as two separate identities, could the cultures co-exist side by side, but sometimes the price may be loss of social harmony and casualties may arise out of this. The conflict might be more sharpened especially when the education levels of both groups are low.

In our opinion, every culture is the crystallization of the wisdom of our ancestors. Therefore, no culture should be lost due to neglect. There are thousands of different accents in Guangdong, which reflect the different layers of linguistic changes. The overall linguistic and cultural pictures are far from complete. We need every minute to preserve more dialects and customs so as to understand the developmental history of Chinese dialects. Keeping Hakka identity is a good means for keeping the Jiaying dialect intact.

1. Hakka should retain their language and culture and be proud of their culture

2. Hakka needs respect and Hakka should respect other groups

Today, the main reason why Hakka cannot keep their language and culture intact in a society of mixed cultures nowadays is that Hakka is seen as somehow backwards, due to the influence of modern socio-economic pressures of the media which use other dialects (mainly Cantonese in Hong Kong, Mandarin on the Mailand and Minnan in Taiwan) and mainstream life.

In the past JDS were misunderstood as barbarians, and the retaliation was that they invented the Hakka identity to rebuff that and counterclaim that their neighbors were the barbarians. This is not the correct way to conduct relationships between brother subgroups under the roof of Han Chinese. When Chinese people can understand that we can be different in the accents, customs, religion and other cultural aspects because of historical and geographical backgrounds, and begin to respect the other's language and way of life, then Chinese can enter a more advanced state of civilization.

In the past, we have always tried to convince other people that our own way is the correct one and that other people should learn from us. When JDS migrants became named "Hakka" by the Cantonese, the intention was to degrade them as non-Chinese. Therefore the Cantonese subscribed to the view that they were somehow right. On the contrary, when Hakka decided to picked up on the use of this name, their aims were just the same. The deriding of other groups as barbarians or half barbarians followed. It is now time for us to interpret "Hakka" correctly, and that our understanding of Hakka is objective and scientific.

B. Hakka should understand their history in a correct way

The flaw with the present theory for Hakka identity is that Hakka will not be able to gain the respect of other groups because the Hakka identity excludes and belittles other groups. The story is too naive to be convincing to others: it contradicts the molecular genetics data, historical fact and simple logic. Unfortunately, most Hakkas so identifying themselves are attracted by Luo's "chosen people theory", that they are purer form of Chinese than others. The discontent between Hakka and other neighboring groups will persist. Some Hakka are unhappy to know that they share the same genes with Cantonese, and both tongues split off just about 700 years ago. Strictly speaking, almost all Cantonese can fit Luo's definition of "Hakka" if we only judge their migration to Guangdong within the last millenium. Of course, no Cantonese speakers will accept this also because "Hakka" is a derogatory term they have given to the "Eastern barbarians". As a result, the brotherly relationship between the two groups is spoiled by a series of misunderstanding, even though only these two groups claim to be descendants of Tang. The claim is consistent with the genetic relationship between the two groups. If Hakka came from the Central Plains, then they did not came alone. The fact that Hakka, Cantonese and other groups are true "brothers" has been shown clearly by molecular genetics and linguistics.

C. A clarified Hakka Identity helps understand the Chinese dialectology

Note 1: From personal communication with Dr. Tsao SW and Dr. Veronica Lam, both molecular pathologists at Medical faculty, Hong Kong University.

References:

Chen, Zhiping,