Talk:First Era of Northern Domination

The identity of modern-day Cantonese peoples

The ancestors of the said peoples originated in the Nam Viet area too. Can someone amend the article accordingly so that the plights of the Cantonese peoples are covered too please?
I also believe that the Trung Sisters stood for all southern Viet peoples, not just ethnic Vietnamese. David873 (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Zhao Tuo

Where was Zhao Tuo born? If in Vietnam, please use his Vietnamese name first. If in China, use the Chinese name, then the Vietnamese name in parentheses. Badagnani (talk) 04:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani, I think you already stated at Talk:Nanyue that Zhao Tuo was born in China. Furthermore, you are well aware that when Nanyue was founded, the Red River valley was certainly not part of the kingdom.

I believe it is time that the cat and mouse game being played by Vietnamese nationalists must stop now. Furthermore, User:Kinh Duong Vuong has now been put on notice about POV pushing.

Also, it is very important to realise that the Cantonese and many other peoples suffered greatly too at this time in history; it would be highly insulting if the Cantonese peoples were portrayed as enemies of the Vietnamese people (which some Vietnamese nationalists are so willing to do). David873 (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The Nanyue article does state that northern Vietnam (where the Red River Valley) is located was part of Nanyue. Why are you stating that it does not? Where does it state that it was not? Badagnani (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That is because Nanyue already existed under Zhao Tuo's reign before he led a military expedition to overthrow the Thuc Dynasty and annex the Red River Valley region. David873 (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the Cantonese people should be overemphasized unless there are sources showing this. Remember that the Guangxi province lies in between. If reliable sources show that the Cantonese people had contacts with early Vietnamese regimes, then add them. However, there's a difference between populations and ruling families, who were often different in outlook and politics. Badagnani (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Vietnamese history so it should only mention about Vietnamese people and territory. If you want to discuss Cantonese people then write another article about them at this time. Don't mix them here. Kinh Duong Vuong (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Cantonese people have always been an important part of Vietnamese history ever since the Han Chinese tried to take over the lands of Canton and modern-day northern Vietnam. Unless you have a grudge against the Cantonese people, I can't see why you have a problem with the notion that the Vietnamese identity was inherently multicultural has always been multicultural since its inception. David873 (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

One of the nine districts was in Canton, however. Badagnani (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Districts

Five of the nine districts are given Vietnamese names, yet are places in China. Badagnani (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Kinh Duong Vuong was the user who recently removed the redirect to Nanyue and turned the article into a highly POV interpretation of Vietnamese history. I believe someone had already attempted to revert this user's edits. David873 (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Right you are, this article is about Vietnamese history, not Cantonese history. Kinh Duong Vuong (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about the article being about Vietnamese history but this is not an excuse to write an article that ignores the plights of the Cantonese peoples and the fact that Cantonese people are (rightly or wrongly) an important part of the Vietnamese identity. Furthermore, we need to realise that the Cantonese peoples (like Vietnamese people) were totally unrelated to Han Chinese for much of their history and are still more closely related to Vietnamese people than Han Chinese today in a genetic, cultural and linguistic sense. David873 (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The French (and Spanish, and British) were once Celtic until the Romans came in, and linguistically and culturally those cultures were lost within a few generations. The question is, how is this relevant to this article? Only one of the nine divisions was in Canton and the rest in Guangxi, Hainan, and Vietnam. There are many more peoples in those regions than the Cantonese and Vietnamese. Badagnani (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a valid point and in fact, it is possible that most people living in the area described in the article during the period concerned had little or no relations to the cultures that then existed in the Red River Valley. For example, the Zhuang people, although often said to be very similar to modern-day Vietnamese people, have maintained a distinct "non-Vietnamese" identity to this day. In any case, the false idea that only ethnic Vietnamese suffered needs to be eradicated. David873 (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. The conquered in many cases adopt the ideologies (cultures, religions languages) of the conquerors, often within just a few generations. Badagnani (talk) 07:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What are the sources showing a connection between the Viet and Zhuang peoples? Are you talking haplogroup genetics or other connections? Badagnani (talk) 07:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about it in terms of something that I believe is known as genetic distance; in order words, this is simply a raw measure of the "genetic closeness" between target groups.

Unfortunately, the term "Viet" itself is often the source of much confusion. Although it is supposed to be a synonym of "Yue", for some inexplicable reason, the Vietnamese nationalists appear to have gone out of their way to make sure that people the world over associate the term Viet with the "Vietnamese identity" as they see it, i.e. to the exclusion of other Viet/Yue peoples such as Hokkien peoples, Cantonese peoples and even modern-day Zhuang people. It seems to be their way of portraying anything they dislike as being the product of "northern" influence (relative to Vietnam). Perhaps this is why some people react with surprise when they are told that there are other "Viet" peoples out there. David873 (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions in the article?

It is not encyclopeadic. I'm going to remove it soon.Sea888 (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It should be discussed first. The questions can easily be rephrased as statements. We don't allow POV at Wikipedia, no matter how strongly individual editors may feel they need to express them. Badagnani (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Name

"First Chinese domination" seems non-specific, since China has dominated, colonized and occupied other parts of Asia multiple times, aside from Vietnam. Chinese Turkestan is a region that has been in and out of China multiple times in its history. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"First Chinese domination of Vietnam" would make things clear, or to be even more apt, it should read "First Chinese domination of northern Vietnam".--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Name changes

I noticed that ༆ has changed all occurrences of the name "Nanyue" to "Nam Việt" in this article recently. Personally I do favor the name "Nam Việt" (or Nam Viet) instead of "Nanyue" as the name of the said article because according to both Google Books and the general Google search the former name is more common than the latter name in English (it is not about whether it was a Chinese or Vietnamese state or not, but about the common name in English). Does User:༆ have any thoughts to propose the name change in Talk:Nanyue? I will certainly support you from the beginning if you do. Nevertheless, it is not really recommended to make such name changes in this (or other) articles before the change of that article title actually takes place (someone can in fact do the opposite since Nanyue is currently still the article title). Thanks for your understanding. --Evecurid (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Are these duplicate articles: First Chinese domination of Vietnam and Han–Nanyue War

Im currently compiling a list of Ancient wars User:Navops47/sandbox16 I'm a bit confused is this article and this article Han–Nanyue War a duplicate or different wars? Can anyone shed any light on the subject.--Navops47 (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Resectioning

@ReaganWyatt: Please discuss instead of reverting with non-descriptive edit summaries as you have been doing here.

It doesn’t makes sense to have a History section that only contains one subsection about the end of this period. It’s also normal to have Administration (which is not really about cultural Sinification) as a separate section. The standalone one-subsection section "The Nanyue Kingdom" also doesn’t make sense. Please explain any other changes that you are suggesting.

You should also take a look at other article about historical periods to see what these articles typically look like. For example: Tang dynasty, Mongol Empire, Early modern France, Nguyễn dynasty. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Amy Chua as a source

Please do not put Amy Chua as a source in this article. She has no background or expertise in either Chinese or Vietnamese history. She is not a historian or has any background in historical topics and only tangentially touching on the topic in the most surface level way. For example the source quotes "land of the southern barbarians" but does not provide a source for where it came from. Many other specialized works provide more nuanced information on the topic regarding the matter of race and culture. Promoting Chua is not a reliable source. Qiushufang (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm also concerned by the WP:PEACOCK language and redundancy that is prevalent in the passage that @SimeonManier: is restoring. Wording like "group of backward, primitive, and uncivilized barbarians" is completely unnecessary and can be summed up in one word. "Barbarian" already means all those things. Similarly, saying "Celestial Empire as the supreme cosmic center of the universe" doesn't provide any new information than saying Celestial Empire, because that's what it already means. The sentence about sinicization causing Vietnamese rebellions is a trope that is contested in modern historiography and is also repeated in the next paragraph. Coupled with the unreliable Chua source, I am against re-adding this language into the article. If Chua is saying something that is corroborated by other authors, then quote them instead rather than Chua. Simply agreeing with other authors does not make her a reliable source. Qiushufang (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)