HGN: Hakka Origin (fwd)

[sllee <sllee@mail.asiawind.com>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 06:44:29 -0700
From: Kai-hsu Tai <kaihsu@ugcs.caltech.edu>
To: sllee@infinet.com
Cc: teoh@cs.utk.edu
Subject: HGN: Hakka Origin

In your web page:

> The "theory" on Hun origin of Hakka was based on very fragmentary > blood typing and DNA analysis
>      done by Japanese and Russian researchers. Undoubtedly, the > original Hakkas migrated under the
>     pressure of the northern intruders. During this cultural conflict, > there could be a very small portion of
>     the population derived from voluntary or involuntary marriages > causing the inclusion of non-Han
>     factors. However, using the isolated examples to support the > Hun-Hakka theory is ungrounded. 

It appears to me that you are actively against the idea of Hakka being
"unpure" Han people.  As a scientist, I feel quite insulted about your
comment that Hun-Hakka theory and the genetic evidence supporting it are
"ungrounded".  You appear to imply that "Japanese and Russian
researchers" are less informed in the historical facet (or is it just
because they might be supported by "foreign Imperialism that has always
conspire to divide and conquer the sacred unity of Chinese people"?
<joking>  [:)] ) and thus their research is of no value whatsoever.

Scientists, unlike historians, usually present their work as they are,
without any further interpretation.  Please try to look at the
scientific data and present them as they are without any prejudice.  I
haven't look at any data yet so I don't want to jump to conclusion
saying either "Hakka are purely Han" or "Hakka are mainly Hun" or any of
these things are "ungrounded".

Being the major Hakka information resource on the Internet, it is better
to present all possible hypotheses as you see them.  So the readers
won't be misled, even if the data can be interpreted in different ways. 
Please also clearly indicate "I think..." when you make an
interpretation.

>     I hope these are sufficient supports to clarify Hakka as (at least > one of) the true Han people. 

I have seen genetic evidence (scientific research done by Taiwanese, if
that matters to you) that a "true Han people" by genetic arguments is
almost nonsense.  Of course, ethnic groups are not only defined on
genetics but also on the language, the culture, etc.  I definitely
acknowledge that the Hakka culture is strongly influenced by the Han
culture, but I believe the idea that there is this "Han people" and then
there are all these different "branches" is not appropriate.  What I
would say is "Hakka is a people that is strongly influenced by the Han
culture" or (less preferred) "Hakka is considered a people of the Han
culture".

One thing very important in modern science is that "pencil is mightier
than pen, because it is eraseable."  I think the paradigm of the
"Han-Hakka" theory is now being challenged by new evidence.  I now doubt
everything until someone has strong enough evidence to establish a new
paradigm.  Let's keep open minds as we always should.
-- 
hlo: TE3, Khai2-su7 | hak: TAI4, Khai3-si4
http://nanigani.caltech.edu