[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
No "Man" is Hakka
Thank you for your comment. Actually it was a puzzle to me why I met no
Hakka-speaking "Man" (Wen2 or Vun2) in the past. I have been doing field
works in the New Territories and know that there is no Hakka speaking "Man"
village, nor does it exist in Eastern part of Guangdong. "Man" is a very
interesting surname because it is one of the five major clans in Hong Kong
who own a lot of land. Frankly speaking, they were quite hostile to Hakkas,
as my neighours inform me. But when i was attending school in Yuen Long
about 30 years ago, they forgot the hatred and some of them became my best
>You meant no "Man" YOU know is Hakka. To conclude "no 'Man' is Hakka" based
on surveying the few friends you have is incomplete and not scientific. I
don't want to drag us back to the previous discussion.
Thank you. I would admit that the method was not scientific enough to
conclude that no "Man" is Hakka in the world, but I choose the title as
just for arousing the interest of Hakka friends. The statement is open to
discussion anyway. If you know anyone with surname "Man" (Wen2) and claims
him/herself Hakka (Hakka-speaking is not essential anyway), just tell me.
But so far I can found no natural Hakka village with surname "Man" in Hong
Kong and China. I hope other hakka firends can also help.
>The definition of
Hakka for you and me is different. Let me clarify one point: I regard Hakka
as a description of a cultural group, not a migratory group, nor a
biological group, nor even a linguistic group. The name "Hakka" given to
them may have started in 1699 AD, but their language and custom started much
farther back from 1699 AD. Hakka can even include Xianbei, Xiongnu by blood,
but who identifies him/herself as part of the heritage of ancient Han/Tang
culture. That is all.
That's good. I agree 100%. See my definition of Hakka follows that of Hu
et. al (1997), i.e. one who meets two of the three criteria: (1) His
ancestors lived in a Hakka speaking area and spoke Hakka, (2) He speaks
Hakka, (3) He claims himself to be Hakka.
>Whether Wen Tianxiang was a Hakka or not is not the result of my research.
Good, but we cannot just accept it without thinking. I like your scientific
mind of criticizing my "No 'Man' is Hakka". Be critical to this statement
too. If Wen Tianxiang could fit the label "Hakka", then we can extend this
to almost every Cantonese speaker who fled to the South in the Song
Dynasty, meaning that Cantonese is as Hakka as you and me. I lose my
>The south-bound migration of Hakka continued through
the ages starting from Qin, even up to now. To insist that Hakka did not
migrate to Ji-An until 300 years ago and conclude that Ji-An was not a Hakka
county would certainly agree with your definition of 1669 AD as a
delineation of the existence of Hakka and pre-Hakka. But the abrupt
distinction of pre-Hakka and Hakka is exactly what we do not agree on.
I think we can keep this difference. My definition is good enough to
distinguish a Cantonese or Chaozhou/Minnan speaker to be designated
"Hakka". Pre-Hakka, pre-Cantonese and Pre-Min who migrated from the Central
plain to the South cannot be distinguished anyway, and in your/most
people's definition they should be HAKKA. That is why so many dead people
were included in the "Hakka" series. I oppose this (see my previpous
postings) but it should not be an obstacle for our common goal to preserve
the exisitng Hakka (but no Cantonese and Chaozhou) culture.