No Subject

[teoh@cs.utk.edu]

>From edchan@vossnet.co.uk Fri Sep 20 14:57:57 1996
Subject: Re: Unicode and Hakka Ngin

I am a newcomer to the HGN and I am very glad that Mr SL Lee has taken  
the time to discuss the biological origins of the Hakka and present the
theories  
and his opinions in a civil manner.  I know that it is far more difficult
to  
contribute something then it is to criticise. 
 
I am not sure what Mr. Kai-Hsu is trying to say though.  Most of the
comments 
were about Mr. SL Lee not providing enough evidence and that biology is not
 
the most important thing.  I 'am' interested in the biological ancestry and
 
migration patterns of the Hakka and would be pleased if you could provide
some  
supporting evidence of any Hun/Hakka relation in the same manner that Mr SL
 
Lee presents his case.  If this is not possible, then a clarrification of
what 
you are trying to say would be useful (and yes, we all already know that 
"Hakka is a people that is strongly influenced by the Han culture"). 
 
Remember that when discussing biological and migration patterns, 
we will 'never' find a perfect answer.  There will always be a degree of 
uncertainty.  We will wait forever for the 100% perfect scientific answer. 
So what we want are the 'most likely' cases with some (not perfect)
supporting 
evidence and I thank Mr SL Lee for his contribution. 
 
Regards, 
Hsiou LF 
 
 
 
On Sep 20, 1996 08:21:51, 'teoh@cs.utk.edu' wrote: 
 
 
>[moderator:  Kai-Hsu has sent unicode and  Hakka/Hoklo for comparison 
>and introduction. Interested party please write to me to get a copy since 
>it is a fairly large file and I am sending the article to Hakka forum  
>for posting as well, thanks ! 
>[hakka forum:http://www.asiawind.com/pub/forum/] 
>.. 
> 
>From: Kai-hsu Tai <kaihsu@ugcs.caltech.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 
> 
>