Talk:Hoa people/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Occupations

Warning! The above paragraph is very misleading. It's a bad translation of the original vietnamese paragraph. The original vietnamese paragraph is below:

"Để đối phó lại phong trào cách mạng ở miền Nam Việt Nam trong thế trận phát triển không ngừng, đế quốc Mỹ, một mặt dùng quân sự đánh phá nông thôn, khủng bố mạnh ở đô thị, tiến hành "chiến tranh đặc biệt"; mặt khác, để có chỗ dựa về chính trị, đế quốc Mỹ nuôi dưỡng và phát triển tầng lớp tư sản mại bản ở Sài Gòn - Chợ Lớn. Họ lũng đoạn nền kinh tế miền Nam, chiếm 80% cơ sở công nghiệp gia công chế biến, 90% đại lý buôn bán và 50% bán lẻ, 80% ngân hàng tín dụng, 42 công ty có số vốn trên một tỷ đồng (trước đây ở miền Nam chỉ có 60 công ty có số vốn lớn hàng tỷ đồng). Thông qua hoạt động kinh tế, giai cấp tư sản mại bản đã nắm được trong tay mình hàng vạn công nhân và có ảnh hưởng lớn đến các tầng lớp lao động khác ở thành phố Sài Gòn - Chợ Lớn."

From the book called "Chung Một Bóng Cờ" published in 1993 in Ho chi Minh city. Visit the link below see the full page which contains the paragraph (in Vietnamese): http://www.hochiminhcity.gov.vn/home/left/gioi_thieu/lich_su_van_hoa/lich_su/tp_chung_nhan_cua_dong_chay_ls/khang_chien_chong_my/nguoihoa.htm?left_menu=1 (added by an unsigned user)

Actually, no, the text was taken word for word from the Library of Congress country studies, published in 1987: [2] --Yuje 00:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Christy Chung

I note that Chung is the daughter of a Chinese father and a Vietnamese mother; however, she was born in Canada and has never lived in Vietnam, or held Vietnamese citizenship. The term Hoa refers to ethnic Chinese living in Vietnam, or at least Chinese born in Vietnam. She is a mix of Chinese and Vietnamese, and that her Chinese father has nothing to do with Vietnam. Thus is she a Hoa at all? She is a Chinese Canadian and Vietnamese Canadian, that's all. You might want to query me if you have objections. Mr Tan (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

ABout the WikiProject China template

I am afraid that the deplorable WikiProject China template will have to stay off the talk page until an appropriate response appears at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China. There has been no opposition to the original motion for more 24 hours. 122.105.145.151 (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I just objected. Roadrunner (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's now how things work here. You still don't have consensus. There's nothing wrong with pages labeled with multiple WikiProject Templates. And the fact that Hoa is mentioned as part of Overseas Chinese should warrant inclusion. I see you have your biased views about the close relations between people of present-day Southern China and Vietnam. But those days are long gone. Southern Chinese don't hate Northern Chinese today for killing their ancestors (or with all the immigration, hardly anybody can be sure they're all southern-blooded). Since Northern Song was defeated by the Jurchens, the Han Culture has been survived by southerners and only southerners until the Ming Dynasty moved back to present-day Beijing. And since Southern Song, present-day Southern China has fully assimilated to the Han Chinese culture. If you have enough knowledge in linguistics, you'll understand that present-day southern Chinese dialects have much more similarities to Mandarin than Vietnamese, and I'm talking about grammar here. Grammar is everything in linguistics, not vocabulary, which can be influenced by foreign powers (at one time or another, Chinese influence in Japan, Korea or Vietnam--see sinosphere). Stop talking about "genocides". This ain't the crusaders, holocaust or Yugoslavia. HkCaGu (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

When the user of the above post said that the days of viewing the peoples of present day southern China and Vietnam as being closely related are long gone, which era was he referring to? I was under the impression that this view is as strong as ever especially among many culturally minded overseas Vietnamese.

I don't know what overseas Vietnamese think in general about the relationship between China and Vietnam, and would be very interested in having their views included. However, I do have some idea about what overseas Chinese think (since I happen to be one), and the statements that you added about how overseas Chinese see the Hoa and how they see themselves are just plain *wrong*. Now if you can point to some websites or literature that suggests that my view of things is incomplete, I'd be happy to discuss the issue. Roadrunner (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, any reader who comes across the claim that there is no hatred because of the alleged genocide and that the 'genocide' was not a genocide should ignore or dismiss the claim on the spot. As I have said in a previous posting, the article Nam Viet speaks for itself the fact that the alleged genocide really happened. As for the hatred, where is the evidence?

The fact that the father of modern Chinese nationalism Sun Yat-Sen was Cantonese ought to say something. Traditionally Cantonese have been some of the most nationalistic Chinese, because they had more contact with European imperialism than northern Chinese. What happened a thousand years ago is something that no one cares about today. Roadrunner (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, there are nationalist movements that are beginning to spring up that agitate for Cantonese independence from China.

If you can point to a website, that would help the discussion. There aren't any very strong movements for Cantonese independence that I know of. There is a movement for Hong Kong democratization, but that's different. Roadrunner (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

122.105.146.168 (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Authoritative sources

I agree that websites from the ROC or PRC governments shouldn't be taken as authoritative sources on objective reality, but websites from the ROC and PRC governments should be taken as authoritative sources on what the official and unofficial views of the ROC and PRC governments are toward the world. In this case, I used those sources to point out that both the ROC and PRC consider Hoa to be ethnically Chinese, and therefore that statement that Chinese uniformly think of Hoa as ethnically Vietnamese is just wrong.

Now it may be that in Sydney, Australia, overseas Chinese think of Hoa as ethnically Vietnamese. I don't know, I've never been to Sydney, Australia. It may also be that in Sydney, Australia, Cantonese think of themselves as Vietnamese. I don't know. If this is the case, it needs to be added, but you need some sort of credible evidence that this is the case before doing that. Basically, you just need something that indicates that you aren't making this stuff up.

Also Sydney, Australia is not the world. Even if people in Sydney, Australia have these views, it seems incorrect to change all of the categorizations to conform to the classifications there.

Roadrunner (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nam Viet - Huh???

I'm reading the article on Nam Viet, and I see absolutely nothing there that talks about genocide or suggests that it happened. Again, if you have any scholarly articles that talk about genocide in the context of Nam Viet or any current groups that view Nam Viet as a genocide, it needs to be added to that article.

Most of our 21st century ideas on race, state, and ethnicity were actually created in the 19th century, and Nam Viet seems to be a good example of how confusing things can get if you project 19th century idea back to the 1st century, and the article does a good job of explanation the sorts of confusions.

You find lots of ironic things and interesting things with DNA testing. I wouldn't be surprised at all if most Cantonese are genetically similar to people in northern Vietnam than they are to people in Shandong. Also looking over the history of Vietnam, I wouldn't be too surprised if people in Saigon are genetically closer to people in Phnon Phem than they are to people in Hanoi.

So what? This just goes to show how ethnicity and race are social/political classifications and not biological ones.

Roadrunner (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about my ignorance about what was going on at Nam Viet days ago. It turns out that some anonymous editor had the audacity to vandalise Nam Viet by removing one crucial paragraph. I have fixed the vandalism now so all editors interested can reread the article as it stood before the vandalism occurred.

For the record, the affected paragraph was as follows.

The Yue, under the domination of the Han (Han Wudi) was forced, wiped, tortured and enslaved to repair and enhance the Great Wall of China.

So, there you go. And for anyone willing to see it, there is a lot of indirect evidence regarding the genocides out there! All that is needed is a little 'reading between the lines' in order to get past some rather sneaky euphemisms such as 'assimilated' and 'absorbed'. 122.105.148.25 (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I reverted that paragraph pending citations. If you are going to be making accusations of torture and genocide, you'll need to mention where those accusations come from. Acceptable sources would include any historical work (either Chinese or Vietnamese), any peer reviewed work, or any history book. If you can even find a situation in which some current group levels an accusation of torture and genocide, that would also work.

I don't care if it's a biased source as long as it is citation. What I'm looking for is *any* source.

Also one group absorbing another isn't evidence of torture or genocide.

Roadrunner (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

One question that I have for you that you might try answering while you are doing your research. If Han Wudi was responsible for committing genocide against the Yue, then how come current Cantonese and Vietnamese seem to be genetically related to the Yue. If Han Wudi was successful at wiping out the Yue, or overwhelming them with northern settlers, then how come any of the people on Guangdong are related to the Yue. The second question is if Han Wudi moved large numbers of Yue to the north in order to work on the Great Wall, then shouldn't we see lots of northern Chinese with Yue ancenstry, and isn't this fundamentally inconsistent with your view that Cantonese and Vietnamese are more similar than northern and southern Chinese?

Again, if you aren't making this up, then you should find some history book that explains all of this. Again, I don't care how biased the history book is. It just needs to be something citable.

Roadrunner (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

When I was talking about genocide I was talking about it in a broad sense; that is, all the horrors associated with it. Too many people believe that genocide simply means wiping out one or more peoples by systematic murder. But as any one who has read genocide knows, genocides do not necessarily lead to the depletion of targeted groups.

Again, I don't object to you adding charges of genocide to the Nam-Viet article if you can properly cite those charges. If you can, then the reader can make up your their mind as to the accuracy and relaiblility of those sources. If you can't find a citation for the sources, then there is no basis for discussion. Also if you add your sources, I can add mine. There is a whole section of the Cambridge History of China regarding the settlement of southern China, and their view is that most of the population movements happened after the fall of the Han dynasty, as people were moving away from the political mess in the north. Roadrunner (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What does happen is that the cultures of the targeted peoples are either severely damaged or disappear. In the case of the genocides committed against the Viet peoples, many of these peoples survived; however, the native cultures of many of these peoples simply disappeared. For example, virtually all Viet peoples spoke a language that did NOT belong to the Sino-Tibetan family circa 500 BC. However, within 1500 years thereafter, all this changed.

And most second generation immigrants to the United States lose their language, and no one in Spain except the Basque speaks the pre-Roman languages, and Welsh has declined in Wales sharply this century. Personally, I think that labelling all examples of cultural shifts as genocide wildly cheapens the term, and puts a moral equivalence between Welsh coal miners speaking English with death camps, and that strongly cheapens the horrific experiences that people in death camps went through. Roadrunner (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Today, only a handful of Viet peoples actually have ties to the cultures of their ancestors; the others have simply lost their identity and are unable to escape the indignity of being associated with a culture that had severely mutilated their identity in the first place.

We all came from Africa, and everyone has gone through lots of cultural shifts and changes along the way.

Indeed, many of the Vietnamese people still smear the Cantonese people by labeling them 'Chinese' despite their common histories of being oppressed at the hands of the Han Chinese throughout world history.

Ummmmm..... I hate to tell you this but every Hoa and Cantonese person that I've ever met is quite proud of being labelled Chinese and no one considers it a "smear". To be honest, a lot of overseas Chinese like being labelled as members of a Chinese minority since it makes them think of themselves as better than the majority population.

I do know that a lot of Vietnamese nationalist identity involves portraying history as a struggle to avoid Chinese domination, and I'm interested in knowing what the Vietnamese (as well as Chinese) history books say about Nam-Viet. If Vietnamese are taught about Nam-Viet as "Chinese genocide" I'd be interested in knowing that, although I frankly doubt it because 1) there isn't much of a cult of victimhood in Vietnamese history 2) although Vietnam wants to establish itself as separate from China, there isn't a desire to create a blood feud and 3) if you talk negatively about the Sinicification of Guangdong, then you have a problem with you talk about the Vietnamization of Cham and Khmer peoples in what is today southern Vietnam. One of the ironies is that both Vietnam and China are both relatively new nation-states which were created in the 19th and 20th century, which is one reason both insist on having histories that go back thousands of years.

Finally, you do seem to have interesting views about history, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia article so your views (and my views) don't matter much. We both need to find citable sources that group X thinks Y. If there is a significant number of people that share your views, they need to be included in the encyclopedia.

One final thing about cultural preservation and growth. My experience is that if you want people (including your kids) to adopt a culture, you just *can't* present everything in terms of victimhood and oppression. If identity X is solely identified with victimhood and oppression then people will tend to run away from it, if they have a choice and in both Australia and the United States, they do (i.e. they can become "white"). Identity isn't solely (or even mostly) determined by genetics, and people have a lot of choice in the identities that they take, and my experience has been that people tend to have good reasons for the choices they make.

Roadrunner (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

122.109.121.215 (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The identity of the Hoa people

Mendaliv's recent edit to the article is problematic since it leads readers to ask the following question: 'Who considers the Hoa people to be ethnic Chinese?'. Since the article as it stood before Mendaliv's recent edit did give a somewhat satisfactory answer to the question without placing undue weight to any given point of view, I will revert the edit unless a clear case can be made for allowing Mendaliv's recent edit to stay. So, any opinions on the latest edits? 122.105.147.194 (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that you have been editing for more than a month under various dynamic IPs and you have been nothing but an annoyance. You created a controversy and then call something controversial and demand and carry out changes. You create and make the text POV and call established consensus POV. You tried to revive long-ended hatred between ethnic groups that had long mixed and intermarried and tried to present it as current thinking of those currently residing in those areas. You have attracted enough attention that your further edits are easily recognized and will be promptly reverted. I advice you to cease doing such disruptive edits, carefully re-learn what Wikipedia is (Wikipedia:About), and do something more constructive. HkCaGu (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC) HkCaGu (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems some editors here have lost the plot. Regrettably, many of the discussions here would suggest to an outside observer that there is a prolonged pattern of systematic bias that has severely compromised the quality of the article. There is a general impression here that the inability to analyse, synthesise and evaluate information effectively is a chronic problem that will not go away overnight. I have already flagged that the article has factual inaccuracies and neutrality problems; regrettably, this article is still in poor shape many weeks later even after a massive purge and refactoring of alleged CCP (and possibly Viet Cong) propaganda from the article. I believe that it is time that more people from Wikipedia:WikiProject Vietnam and elsewhere actually check out this article to see first-hand the mess that it is still in (and maybe ask for a neutral expert to scrutinise and fix the article while it is locked from editing by others. 122.105.150.76 (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, User:HkCaGu keeps reinserting comments that have not been proven and which clearly do not belong here. The comments sound like propaganda that is designed to make people submit to a particular point of view and promote an 'us and them' attitude between ethnic Vietnamese and other Viet peoples. Could that user explain why the disputed comments should stay here? 122.109.121.12 (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a talk page, not the article. Things don't just get censored for "controversial" reasons (as in you alone unilaterally declare it controversial and POV). If you continue to act this way, you will not be tolerated. HkCaGu (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I just have two questions for everyone here. Why is it that most editors here now seem to have Sino-centric views? Why are editors here also so keen to promote an 'us and them' attitude between ethnic Vietnamese and other Viet peoples such as the Cantonese and Teo Chew peoples?
For those editors out there who are either confused or are not convinced just how similar the Vietnamese, Cantonese and Teo Chew peoples really are, I suggest that they read [3] and [4]. Some popularly held myths are also disproved. 122.105.147.67 (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Why us and them? Because thats a fact! Again and again, you insist all Yue peoples (Hundred Yue) are the same in this and other discussion pages. This is simply not true. In response to what you said about the Hoa people in Austrilia... In California, where there's a large Hoa populations, I have not met a single Hoa that considers themself ethnic Vietnamese. Things must be very different down under. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.18.170.225 (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This IP user has been pushing the same ideas during the last few days (often in a highly propagandist fashion) at Talk:Guangdong, Talk:Cantonese people and Talk:Nanyue. According to him, Vietnam has nothing to do with the ancient kingdom of Nanyue and the Cantonese people have little or no connection with the Vietnamese people. Both of these ideas are wrong. This editor has now been reported for suspected sockpuppetry and I advise all editors to deal with his comments very carefully. David873 (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Etymology and meaning

Is Hoa simply 華, meaning "Chinese", or does it come from a different word and thus a different meaning? LordAmeth (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

More questions

My understanding based on how it is translated into Chinese, is that Hoa is simply the Vietnamese term for "hua". I'd very much like to have confirmation from a native Vietnamese speaker. Also what I would also like to know is whether in Vietnamese, does the term "Hoa" apply to Chinese outside of Vietnam.

Yet another question involves state policy. In the PRC, the nationality is listed on identity documents. Is this the case with "Hoa" (i.e. is there a state record of someone being Hoa)? Also I'd be interested in rules for inclusion/exclusion. Hypothetically, a Hoa and a non-Hoa marry, what would the identity of their kids. Also suppose someone from Beijing moves to Vietnam. Would they be considered "Hoa" or not?

Also what sort of political views to Hoa hold? What sort of political views are Hoa accused of holding? What are the stereotypes?

Roadrunner (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In Vietnamese identity documents, called giấy chứng minh nhân dân (proof of citizenship), the cardholder's ethnic group ("dân tộc") must be identified (for example, see this picture). For ethnic Vietnamese, this field is filled with Kinh. The Hoa are identified as "Hoa".

Interesting. It seems that Vietnamese nationality policy is similar to Chinese nationality policy which is similar to Soviet nationality policy. In China, "ethnic Vietnamese" are identified as "Jing" which I assume is the Chinese cognate for "Kinh." Roadrunner (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In Vietnamese, "Hoa" can refer to Chinese living in any country, not just Vietnam, but when it's used without qualifiers, it usually refers to the ethnic minority in Vietnam. Overseas Chinese are known as "Hoa kiều" in Vietnamese. I haven't seen the term "Hoa" used to refer to Chinese living in China proper though, although "Trung Hoa" is one of the names for China. DHN (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume that Hoa kieu is a transliteration of "hua qiao" and "Trung Hoa" is a transliteration of "Zhong hua". I'll put this information in the main article when I have some time. Roadrunner (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Tone of article

This article has become little more than a reinforcement of popular myths and is highly patronising to many people around the globe as a result. In particular, this article:

1. Falsely implies that most Cantonese and Teo Chew peoples are of Han ethnicity. In fact nothing else can be further from the truth. In fact, their ancestors were the victims of one of the worst genocides in world history at the hands of various Chinese armies. Once subjugated, the existences of distinct Cantonese and Teo Chew ethnic identities (as opposed to 'regional' identities) were 'conveniently' forgotten by most people in the world (and tragically to this day). Thus from this point of view, the label of Han ethnicity was a brutal imposition upon the Cantonese and Teo Chew peoples against the wills of the said local peoples.
2. Fails to clearly state that the Cantonese and Vietnamese peoples are very similar, both culturally and genetically and that most people of Cantonese or Teo Chew ancestry who come from Vietnam are also of Vietnamese ancestry (due to very high rates of inter-cultural marriage).
3. Fails to make any real distinctions between the concepts of ancestry and ethnicity whatsoever. There is more to ethnicity than simply being descended from a particular ancestor. Naturally, ethnic identities evolve and may even change over time (but not counting genocides). One could even argue that the concept of ancestry is nothing more than a political and social misconstruct since a recent scientific study has proven beyond reasonable doubt that all modern humans were descended from Africans.
4. Contains contradictory information and inappropriate references. Some of the information also appears seriously out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.147.120 (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The above points, in particular, MUST be taken seriously. Someone who is an expert on the subject matter of this article must edit this article IMMEDIATELY to remove the blatant biases in the article (including population figures).

I also note that parts of this article could intensify unnecessary divisions between 'native' Vietnamese people and Vietnamese people who happen to have Cantonese or Teo Chew ancestry.

If this article is not fixed by 21 March 2008, 00:00 UTC, this article will be **NOMINATED FOR DELETION**.

Note: I would have attempted to correct some of the biases in the article, but owing to the fact that most of the required references are very difficult to obtain (and generally not found on the internet), I have called for an expert to fix the article instead.

UPDATE: Procedures for proposing that this article be deleted are now underway.

Excuse me? I think you have a good point saying this article is pretty biased and needs major help, but some of your points don't click with me too well. Cantonese and Chaozhou people are indeed Chinese; I'm Cantonese myself, and Chaozhou actually came out of Fujian many centuries ago.

I don't think it needs to be said in this article that they are very similar. It already says in the Vietnamese people article that Vietnamese are practically East Asians. Plus, adding such tidbits to this article would add to how unbalanced and biased it already is.

Looks like your attempt to nominate it didn't work so well, as although you placed a tag upon this article... I did not see a page to discuss the deletion and removed the tag in March. If you are truly interested in placing this article up for deletion, then open up a page to discuss it and then we'll see what the results are. Lady Galaxy 21:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hoa is 華, which means Chinese, period.

Please learn where the name came from before you talk about all those nonsense regarding Hoa people are not chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siyu798 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Chinese attitudes toward Hoa

This statement that Chinese in the PRC, Taiwan, and Hong Kong uniformly do not regard Hoa as ethnic Chinese is false. Here are statistics on overseas Chinese in Vietnam from the OCAC in Taiwan

http://www.ocac.gov.tw/english/public/public.asp?selno=1163&no=1163&level=B

Here is the website of OCAC in Ho Chi Minh city

http://www.ocac.gov.tw/overseas/index.asp?nodeno=6132&con=1&cou=44

That has some good information about Sino-Vietnamese

I'm looking for statements from the PRC, but I found this article talking about resettlement of 200,000 Hoa Refugees in China after the fall of Saigon

http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/13/4/374

and these two pages

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2201663

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=97787930

I've removed the statement that Chinese don't consider Hoa to be ethnic Chinese, since I've come up with several citations indicating that they do, and I certainly do, and the Hoa I know think of themselves as ethnic Chinese. If you can find a contrary citation we can argue the issue.

Also the idea that people from Mainland China, Taiwan, or Hong Kong don't think of Hoa as ethnic Chinese is a bit silly since Hoa is a literal translation of the Chinese term "hua" meaning ethnic Chinese. The Chinese term for Hoa, is literally Vietnam ethnic Chinese.

Roadrunner (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just be aware that sources that come directly from the communist Vietnamese or PRC governments are NOT to be trusted at all. Care should also taken for any source about the Hoa people coming out of the ROC government (since the ROC is often pressured into telling high tales to the world in order to satisfy the demands of the PRC) or the American Library of Congress (as they rely too heavily on sources provided by the Viet Cong). 122.105.145.151 (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, let's see your sources, and we can argue the issue. Roadrunner (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me make two facts plain. Firstly, the Hoa people are rarely, if ever, distinguishable from other ethnic Vietnamese. They are virtually genetically identical (indeed, even DNA studies show that the Cantonese and Vietnamese peoples are almost genetically identical). The culture of the Hoa people is also almost identical with Vietnamese culture and if they happen to speak Cantonese, Teo Chew, etc then it is done in a Vietnamese accent. Some descendants of the Hoa people outside Vietnam who did not learn to speak Vietnamese during their childhood have sought to do so later in life, acknowledging their Vietnamese heritage.

Secondly, it is hard to believe that any culturally minded Hoa person or their descendants would want to label themselves as ethnic Chinese.

It's hard for *YOU* to believe this, but they do. If you can come up with *any* citation on the internet that says that they don't, we can discuss the issue. Otherwise, I don't see anything to discuss here. Roadrunner (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The simple fact is that their ancestors (dating back to the 2nd century BC) were victims of one of the worst genocides at the hands of the Han Chinese military. Given the horrific nature of the conquests, yet the almost non-recognition that the conquests amounted to genocide, I will leave the article Nam Viet to do the rest of the talking. May be after we all read the said article, then we will have a long and hard look at the genocidal acts committed against the Cantonese, Teo Chew, Vietnamese and other Viet peoples by the Han Chinese throughout world history. 122.105.145.151 (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not a fact that the culture of the Hoa people is almost identical with Vietnamese culture. The Hoa people remain separate from the native Vietnamese. They don't just "happen to speak Cantonese". Before 1975, the Hoa people went to Chinese schools, studied Vietnamese as a second language. The Hoa never considered themselves as Vietnamese.

The Hoa people are Chinese. Sc29492 (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Expert attention requested

I have just requested that an expert be recruited in order to address the chronic factual inaccuracies and biases throughout the article. Since there are so many problems throughout the article, it would be impractical to list them. However, some main points of contention can be identified:

• The Hoa people are not considered ethnically Chinese by most Mainland Chinese, Hong Kongers and Taiwanese; it is unclear if this view is widely held by most other peoples. Yet, this has not stopped some editors from pushing forward the notion that Hoa people are ethnically Chinese as though there were no dispute.

From personal experience, it is true about the Hoa people are not considered ethnically Chinese from China, HK and Taiwan. I agreed that there should be a study on how wide spread this view is. However, there is not question regarding the notion that Hoa people are Chinese. This term is used to described the group of Chinese (regardless from where) migrating to Vietnam. Sc29492 (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Some of the transliterations of 'Hoa' that were removed from the article may be problematic in the sense that it may presume the ethnic identity of the Hoa people. The validity of these transliterations needs to be checked.
• The article fails to mention the fact that the Hoa people are very similar culturally and virtually genetically identical to other Vietnamese people. It also fails to mention the close cultural links between the Vietnamese and other Viet peoples such as the Cantonese and Teo Chew peoples. Furthermore, the article fails to mention the fact that the 'Hoa' identity has been and continues to be a political label designed to marginalise certain people based on distorted notions of ethnicity. 122.105.150.76 (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Culturally, the Hoa and the Vietnamese are not very similar. Saying that they are similar is like saying all Asian cultures are similar. Sc29492 (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

These are interesting opinions. However, it is clear that the terms "Vietnamese" and "Chinese" have well-understood meanings to both the Vietnamese and Chinese people, and the Vietnamese are one of the ethnic groups in China and the Chinese are one of the ethnic groups in Vietnam. The fact that all East Asians were formerly part of the same haplogroup tens of thousands of years ago does not change the fact that the Hoa really are Vietnamese of Chinese origin, and because the Cantonese spoke another language before they became sinicized thousands of years ago does not mean that the Cantonese today are for this reason "really more like Vietnamese than Chinese" or whatever it is you're trying to imply and push into various articles. Regarding the claim that the Hoa are indistinguishable from other Vietnamese, it depends on what degree and criteria one uses. Jewish Americans, for example, are very similar in many ways to other white Americans yet we don't claim this ethnic group doesn't exist, or that its members are "really just Americans." Badagnani (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be noted that the label 'Hoa' (and related labels) were often (and continues to be) used abusively on a regular basis by some ethnic Vietnamese both in and out of Vietnam. We need to realise that for many ethnic Vietnamese, being descended from someone of Chinese origin (or perception thereof) is not something to be proud of; it is seen as shameful and humiliating. As someone once said, 'The Chinese are our misfortune' (note the similarity to an imfamous expression frequently used in Nazi Germany).

If you can find a citable source for this, then note it. I don't know nearly enough about how ethnic Vietnamese view the Hoa in general. I do know that your original statements about how ethnic Chinese view Hoa are wrong.Roadrunner (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Now, it is widely known that the Vietnamese and Cantonese peoples are virtually genetically identical and culturally quite similar.

Again. Citable sources. Generally national groups turn out to be a mismash of various groups that have very little genetic similarity. Given the history of Vietnam, it wouldn't surprise me at all if someone living in Hanoi is genetically similar to someone living in Guangzhou, then someone living in Saigon. I would be very surprised if Cantonese and Vietnamese were homogenous groups.Roadrunner (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It is also known that many Hoa people are of Cantonese origin. So what has gone wrong here? Well, it would appear that for some unfortunate reason, the Vietnamese people have started viewing Cantonese people (and many other people who were subjugated by the Chinese centuries ago) as 'ethnic Chinese', perhaps convinced that the peoples they are smearing have somehow been irreparably damaged when they were subjegated.

Most people involved don't see anything "wrong" here. Ethnic groups often have a myth of common ancestry, but that myth usually falls apart very quickly. Ethnicity is not genetically determined. You can raise on twin in Beijing and another in Louisiana. One becomes a Han Chinese. The other becomes a white American. The fact that you probably have lots of common ancestry between Cantonese and northern Vietnamese seems to be a fact that is completely irrelevant to everyone in the world except for you. One important fact here is that most Sino-Vietnamese that I know are quite proud of "being Chinese." Roadrunner (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, we need to investigate this fact and put it in the article if appropriate

Original research. The problem here is not that you have a political ax to grind. Everyone here has a political ax. The problem is that you seem to be very alone in your views on how the world should be, and the purpose of the wikipedia is to describe what the general views of people involves are. Roadrunner (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

122.109.121.70 (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Those editors who have not done so already should probably read the two sources provided at the end of the section "The identity of the Hoa people". The sources make it quite clear that the Cantonese people are very similar genetically to the Vietnamese people AND suggest that the Cantonese people were victims of genocides at the hands of the Han Chinese thousands of years ago. So on that basis alone, it is worth investigating how and why some ethnic Vietnamese (both in and out of Vietnam) have started using derogatory labels against not only their oppressors but also some of the peoples that were also subjugated such as the Cantonese and Teo Chew peoples. 122.105.148.55 (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

History

I have tagged an expand tag in the "History" section because it's too short. The Hoa people community had a remarkable role in history of southern Vietnam. Some of them became high-ranking mandarins such as Trinh Hoai Duc, Ngo Nhon Tinh... The current content, which mentions only the post-1975 period, should be expanded.

If you were interested in expanding, there were some pictures which you could use.

• 
  Inside of Dinh Minh Huong Gia Thanh (Ming Dynasty Assembly Hall), a temple which was established in 1789 by groups of Chinese residents
• 
  And outside of Dinh Minh Huong Gia Thanh
• 
  Mac Cuu, first leader of Minh-huong community in southern Vietnam.[1]

Thank in advance.--Amore Mio (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Continual POV pushing

There seems to be POV pushing whenever someone says something here or edits the article itself. I have inspected the article's edit history and it seems that there are some serious questions that just have to be asked.

• Why was CCP propaganda introduced in the article in the first place (which has subsequently been deleted)? Was this article created for propagandist purposes?
• Where did the claim that Mainland Chinese, Hong Kongers and Taiwanese do not consider the Hoa people to be ethnically Chinese originate? What was the real motivation for deleting this claim from the article?

The motivation is that it isn't true as far as I can see. Roadrunner (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Why was a revision to the lead paragraph (so that it says that 'Hoa' refers to imputation of ethnicity rather than actual ethnicity) been deleted? Is this a result of the failure of some editors to realise that the supposed differences between the 'Hoa' people and the 'native' Vietnamese people are really nothing more than politically expediant myths?

All ethnic definitions are based on politically expedient myths. Roadrunner (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Overbroad generalization, and in any case a highly controversial and POV statement. Kwertii (talk) 05:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Why is there is a section on 'Hoa' communities when they do not exist as distinct communities and are synonymous with ethnic Vietnamese communities (e.g. in Australia, the 'Hoa' people and their descendants are completely integrated/assimilated with other ethnic Vietnamese and have little or no interaction with ethnic Chinese at all)?

Because the situation in Australia is not universal, and in parts of the world (like central Texas), the Hoa have a lot of interaction with ethnic Chinese. Roadrunner (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Aren't there other ethnic Vietnamese living in the same area too? David873 (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually as a "Hoa" member myself, I'd have to say that at least in the Los Angeles Area, the Chinese-Vietnamese assimilate with their Chinese origins a lot more than they would Vietnamese. Thus "Hoa" of LA live in the San Gabriel Valley (traditionally Taiwanese/Mandarin Chinese) rather than the Orange County (mostly Vietnamese). There are exceptions, but this is generally true. I don't have proof on the internet, but my mom knows most of those who lived in the Chinatown in Hanoi, who eventually moved to the San Gabriel Valley --Losershoes (talk) 05:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I must also add that in Australia, most descendants of the Hoa people do not say that they are ethnic Chinese. They usually describe their ethnicity as 'Cantonese', 'Teo Chew' or 'Vietnamese'. Some of them also claim that since their families came from Vietnam, then it is fair to describe their ethnicity as Vietnamese (which is consistent with the definition of ethnicity).

This isn't the case in the United States, in which most Hoa consider themselves ethnically Chinese. If you want to talk about the Australia situation. That is fine. Roadrunner (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you really sure about this? The article Vietnamese American seems to give a considerably different impression (even before I edited it in order to remove some rather hilarious nonsense). David873 (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

To add, "Cantonese", and "Teo Chew" are ethnically Han Chinese, thus ethnically Chinese. --Losershoes (talk) 05:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I just do not understand why there is so much fuss over the supposed differences between the Hoa and other ethnic Vietnamese peoples. Any ideas? David873 (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just removed the condescending assertion that "Hoa" people are ethnically Chinese. As some other established editors have noted before, many, if not most, "Hoa" people were labelled as such only because strong anti-Chinese sentiment in Vietnamese society (rightly or wrongly) has led to a situation where the idea that the Vietnamese ethnic identity is really a multicultural identity encompassing various ethnic groups of modern-day Vietnam and southern China is seen as insulting by many people; hence the need to invent "us and them" identities.

Perhaps, but the purpose of wikipedia is to describe, not perscribe. It doesn't matter why the definitions are defined they way they are, it's not up to wikipedia to change things. Roadrunner (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, even people of Cantonese ancestry living in Vietnam are not immune from being "accused" of being "ethnic Chinese" even though the Cantonese and Vietnamese peoples historically shared common socio-political experiences of armed struggle against subjugation by ethnic Han Chinese (see Yue (peoples) and Nanyue for vague references). I wonder if this is because of a perception that the Cantonese people have somehow been irreparably "damaged" when they were subjugated or if this due to historical ignorance on the Vietnamese populace's part. David873 (talk) 06:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what the fuss is about. How is asserting that Hoa are Chinese condescending? Some of them do consider themselves Chinese. It seems you have bees in your bonnet. The Vietnamese government, who has jurisdiction over them, classify them as an ethnic minority. At least find some source to back up your claim instead of using truthiness. DHN (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You have just asserted that some (note the operative word) Hoa people "consider themselves Chinese"; a consequence of this is that some Hoa people do not consider themselves to be ethnically Chinese at all. This alone is grounds for talking about inputation of ethnicity rather than actual ethnicity.

It needs to be noted that there is a major difference between self-identification and identification by the wider community. To give an unrelated example, in Taiwan, self-identification leads to a plethora of ethnic labels among its residents mainly becuase of the ongoing controversies regarding Taiwan's status and its underlying culture and society. However, all of this does not change the fact that in the wider Taiwanese community, there are four ethnic groups that are recognised as existing in Taiwan, namely Hoklo, Hakka, Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese Aborigines. The last four labels are based on the concept that ethnicity is shaped by a "common socio-political experience"; self-identified labels will not necessarily satisfy this criterion. So, considering the information already provided in the relevent articles, it follows that Hoa people are definitely ethnic Vietnamese using the criterion I have just mentioned; in contrast, the claim that Hoa people are ethnically Chinese is very dubious using this criterion.

As for reliable sources that directly address this issue, I believe that they are hard to come by, considering that the issue of Hoa ethnicity is an obscure topic for a general encyclopedia. I think the only context where the Hoa identity would be treated in depth would be that of ethnic relations in Vietnamese communities (both in Vietnam and abroad). In the meantime, I just found this information from Taiwanese people, which although used to explain the Taiwanese identity, can be easily generalised to explain the emergence and identities of other ethnic groups. Perhaps, it might erase some misconceptions that many editors seem to be having.

Although group identity is often claimed on the basis of race and culture, in actuality it is held together by a common socio-political experience (Corcuff 2000). Any connection Taiwanese may have with one another is purely subjective, based on the shared belief in a common destiny stemming from the very real parameters of daily life, including government, economy, education, popular culture and mass media (Anderson 1983; Hsiau 2000:10-14). However, political leaders often attempt to manipulate and fix identities for political gain, by assigning an essentialist identity to a community.

It should also be noted that identities are not fixed, but fluid and change with time and memory or in response to a changing environment rather than stemming from a primordial or authentic source (Bhabha 1994:1; Brown 2004:5). New identities are continually emerging based on individuals’ perceptions of commonalities and differences as the patterns of local communities, kinship and language pattern usage change with economic, cultural and demographic change, and on the national experience (Harrell 1996:5).

So, we see that socio-political experience is the defining feature of ethnicity, nothing else. David873 (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Which means that talking about the difference between implied ethnicity and actual ethnicity as you seem to be doing is meaningless. Roadrunner (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the message that I was trying to convey has been lost somehow. The point that was actually made here is that trying to suggest that Hoa people are ethnically Chinese is ultimately an exercise in self-delusion since the Hoa people and their descendants have always interacted closely with "native" Vietnamese and are not distinguishable with the later; on the other hand, there is only minimal or no interaction between Hoa people and ethnic Chinese and the later two groups are clearly distinct. This is especially true in places like the United States or Australia; indeed, even the article Vietnamese American asserts that Vietnamese Americans of Hoa descent are usually not considered Chinese American (I did not make this up; it was already there when I began editting the article). Furthermore, if Hoa is a sub-ethnic group of Vietnamese American, shouldn't this fact imply that Hoa people are of Vietnamese ethnicity? I really do not understand why some Hoa people and their descendants refuse to identity themselves as ethnic Vietnamese (becuase of underlying and chronic social issues such as prolonged and severe discrimination perhaps?). David873 (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Remove this since it just isn't true:

Notwithstanding any of the aforementioned information, most Mainland Chinese, Hong Kongers and Taiwanese (and indeed most Westerners) consider the Hoa people to be ethnic Vietnamese.

We went through this before in which I posted several links in from the government of PRC, ROC showing that they consider Hoa to be ethnic Chinese. The Chinese term for Hoa is "Vietnamese ethnic Chinese." If Hoa in Australia don't think of themselves as Chinese, then that as fine and should be mentioned, but the notion that only the Vietnamese government thinks of Hoa was ethnic Chinese is just wrong, wrong wrong. Most overseas Chinese consider Hoa to be ethnic Chinese.

You seem to be the only one in the world that doesn't consider Hoa to be ethnic Chinese. I'm curious if you can find anyone else that has viewpoint.

Roadrunner (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem here. We still have not seen a single source about the views of the populaces of various countries on this matter. All we have are censuses and other government sources. I think another user has already explained at Talk:Vietnamese American that determining the number of Vietnamese Americans for census purposes is not a trivial matter and is actually subject to all the controversies surrounding the "Hoa" identity, many of which seem to have occurred because of historical ignorance or failure to appreciate that ethnic identity is based on a shared socio-political experience, not merely what people want themselves to be. So I think that just becuase another government source has been found that contradicts the idea that Hoa people are not ethnic Chinese does not automatically make the statement "Most overseas Chinese consider Hoa to be ethnic Chinese" true; in fact I actually found the statement just quoted to be false from what I have seen (note that a person claiming to be of "Cantonese" ethnicity (or variation thereof) is not necessarily saying that they are of Chinese ethnicity; in fact, this seems to say something about their views on Chinese and Vietnamese ethnic identities).

Every ethnic Chinese who has commented on this issue has indicated that they think that Hoa are ethnically Chinese. If you think that they aren't, you need to find something that even remotely suggests the assertions that you are making. I do know of some Vietnamese that have Chinese ancestors that don't consider themselves ethnic Chinese, but they don't consider themselves Hoa either. Roadrunner (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be remembered that the topic of Hoa ethnicity is a very obscure topic except for ethnic Vietnamese and people carrying out reasearch into Vietnamese ethnic relations (see the project templates at the top of this page). David873 (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that someone else has already pointed out at Talk:Han Chinese that the Hoa people are certainly not ethnic Chinese as far as the statistics from the ROC are concerned ("Note that the population figures for the Chinese immigrants in Vietnam are not inclusive of the Hoa" as stated by another established user). David873 (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the case. There are often two or three communities of "ethnic Chinese" in an area, and the descriptions vary. The fact that someone has to put a note "Chinese immigrants don't include Hoa" means that there is some linguistic overlap, since no one has put a note saying that "Chinese immigrants don't include people from from Brazil or Zambia." Roadrunner (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is the Vietnamese government and, in fact, the wider community of Vietnamese, do not consider the Hoa ethnically Vietnamese. The Hoa, in fact, are descendants of immigrants during the end of the Ming dynasty. Those who have been in the area for thousands of years and intermarried with the locals have already been completely integrated and are not considered "Hoa" at all. The Hoa, however, are culturally distinct: they have been massacred by the Tay Son for their support of the Nguyen Lords, lived in their "ghettos" for hundreds of years, and their level of assimilation with the "other" Viethamese are probably lower than that of the Chinese in Thailand. You don't consider the Chinese in Thailand Thais, do you? DHN (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And the fact of the matter is that the Chinese governments, and in fact, the wider community of Chinese also consider the Hoa ethnically Chinese. You might not like that fact. You might think that it is absurd and unjustified, but that is just the way that it is. You (the person that is trying to assert that Hoa are not considered ethnic Chinese) have obviously been doing a lot of research, and my bet is that despite weeks of trying you haven't found any citable sources that justify any of your claims. That should tell you something. You can at least start by finding *one other human being in the entire world* that agrees with your views. There are websites for people who think the world is 6000 years old, websites for people that think that Texas should be independent, websites for people that think that the government is beaming mind control rays into their brains. Yet there are no websites that I know of that argue that Hoa are not ethnically Chinese and every internet post that people have been able to dig up suggests otherwise. Roadrunner (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Its funny that someone suggested that the "wider community of Vietnamese" do not usually view the Hoa people (and their descendants) as ethnically Vietnamese; is this becuase there is some sort of lingering prejudice here? After all, most Westerners do not distinguish between Hoa people and other ethnic Vietnamese living overseas; otherwise, a lot of the information about the Hoa people in Vietnamese American would come under serious question (I also noticed that in Vietnamese Australian, no references to Hoa people or their descendants are directly made; there is only an indirect claim in the lead paragraph that is meant to include them).

A lot of Westerners don't distinguish between Chinese and Japanese people. Roadrunner (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant to say that most Westerners view the Hoa people as ethnically Vietnamese and not ethnically Chinese. But since the Vietnamese ethnicity still suffers from a chronic image problem in many parts of the world, it is not a surprise that no sources could be found that asserts that Hoa people are ethnically Vietnamese. David873 (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the fact that there is a very high rate of inter-marrigae between Hoa people and "native" Vietnamese seems to violate the notion that Hoa people are ethnically separate from ethnic Vietnamese; on the contrary, this seems to suggest Hoa people being a sub-group of ethnic Vietnamese

It's not either or. Personally I change my ethnic identity the way most people change shirts. Depending on the context, I can be Han, Chinese, Asian, or White. Roadrunner (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(using the concept that an ethnic identity is shaped by having a shared socio-political experience). David873 (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I followed the talks from the Chinese American talk page and to this talk page. I find it interesting that there is actually this debate about "Hoa" not being ethnic Chinese. I typed in "Hoa ethnic group" in google, and pretty much every sources shown up tells that Hoa are of Chinese ethnicity. http://www.vietnam-culture.com/hoa-ethnic-group.aspx, http://www.voyagevietnam.net/elpophtml/hoa.htm, http://www.vietnamopentour.com/english_info/minority_people.htm, http://www.k12academics.com/vietnam_demographics.htm, http://www.saigontourist.hochiminhcity.gov.vn/news/detail_en.asp?id=10987, http://english.vietnamnet.vn/social/2007/02/665885/, http://www.aboutvietnam.org/People/Hoa_People.html.--Sevilledade (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Yet another reference

http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~salaff/conference/papers/MPhan-DraftSinoVietnamese.pdf

With about ten minutes of googling, I can find dozens of papers that Hoa are considered ethnic Chinese. With several weeks of searching you haven't found any citable references that say that they aren't.

This dispute has lasted long enough. Can we take it to arbitration since the situation seems to be one person against the rest of the world.

Again, it must be realised that the topic of Hoa people is obscure.

No topic is obscure on wikipedia. One reason I'm fascinated by the Hoa is that I'm interested in the experiences of other overseas Chinese like myself. Roadrunner (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that about the only people who are interested in it (apart from CCP propagandists, their sympathisers and others that they manage to intimidate into "submission" such as high-ranking officials in the Taiwanese government) are ethnic Vietnamese, a limited number of Overseas Chinese and people carrying out research into Vietnamese ethnic relations. Even then, we need to realise that the Vietnamese ethnic identity has been sidelined to the point that some descendants of Hoa people will even refuse to classify themselves as ethnic Vietnamese outright.

If you have all these people agree on one thing (i.e. that Hoa are ethnically Chinese), and no one that you can point to disagreeing with it, well then that's the version that goes into the article. We are still waiting for you to point to *one single other person in the entire universe* that thinks that Hoa are not ethnic Chinese.Roadrunner (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that most of the websites that were given above follow the Vietnamese government's official views. David873 (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If you type in Hoa in Google or Yahoo!, these are the kind of sites you would find. You also did not provide any sources to prove or validate that these English-language websites follow Vietnamese government's official views (you simply said they follow the Vietnamese government's view). Some of the websites are official Vietnamese websites (hence the "vn" sign signifying the domain), but others are English-language and academic websites promoting Vietnamese culture and tourism. Whether or not they are subjected to any political opinion (much like a lot of your comments here seems to be quite politically-oriented), that is subjective. --Sevilledade (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Also there is the matter that the word "Hoa" itself is a Vietnamese form of the word "Hua" which means ethnic Chinese. The formal name of the People's Republic of China in Vietnamese is Trung ***Hoa*** Nhân dân Cộng hòa quốc. The term of "Hoa" in Chinese is "ethnic Chinese in Vietnam" which the Chinese title of the article this is linked to. Roadrunner (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the debate has well and truely run its course becuase we seem to have exhausted all available sources and recruiting meatpuppets in order to continue the debate is actually a violation of Wikipedia policy. Worst stilll is the fact that I actually have a copy of a "research paper" by Charles Price that would not even let Hoa people or their descendants be ethnically Vietnamese (the "research" can be found in People and Place, vol. 7 no. 4 pp 12-16 and I believe this material is hosted at Monash University's website). So perhaps I might try again if a reliable source actually surfaces that directly proves the claims that I had been trying to make. David873 (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

An unrelated but somewhat controversial matter nevertheless that some editors might also wish to explore is this simple but frequently asked question: "Are Egyptians ethnically Arabs?" To put things in perspective, if we are going to allow the article Hoa to say that most Hoa people are ethnically Chinese, then to be consistent, no one would be able to stop any editor from asserting that Egyptians are ethnically Arab at the relevant articles.

There is no rule that ethnic identity is consistent and there is no objective rule for determining ethnicity. The only thing that we can do is to describe how people define and use these terms. Roadrunner (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do I say this? This is because Egyptians are ethically, culturally and genetically distinct from ethnic Arabs; yet for some inexplicable reason, some people view them as though they are ethnic Arabs.

If people view them as ethnically Arabs, then they are ethnically Arabs. Period. In reality these are usually quite complex, and different people will classify people in different ways, and often the same person will classify people in different ways depending on social context. The example of Hoa is interesting because as far as I can tell there is no verifiable, 3rd party source that argues that they *aren't* ethnically Chinese. If there were a controversy then we would need to describe it, but as far as I can tell, there isn't one. If there was a real controversy, (like whether Tibetans and Taiwanese are Chinese) we'd have ten people screaming at each other. We don't. Roadrunner (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the plights of Tibetans, Taiwanese and Egyptians being "mislabelled" are far more publicised than the plights of Hoa people who have been "mislabelled". Besides, you can't tell the difference between Hoa people and other ethnic Vietnamese so most people would not even be aware that a degree of "us and them" between the later two peoples actually exists. This reminds me of the Australian Federal government's outrageous but largely unknown decision to call Macedonian refugees "Slav Macedonians" some years ago (I believe they are still sticking to this policy). David873 (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, the Hoa people are ethically, culturally and genetically distinct from ethnic Chinese. In addition, they are ethically, culturally and genetically very similar to other ethnic Vietnamese (I think some other registered editor has already gone though this). But again, some people find an excuse to mislabel them (by people outside Wikipedia of course)! The tragedy in the later case is that far fewer people are aware of this rort (unlike the plights of Egyptians that have been wrongfully labelled "Arab"). David873 (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Finally, the following paragraph by an annonymous editor 81.155.103.36 (which originally appeared in this talk page at 02:15, 26 June 2007) also seems to sum up the points that I had been trying to say (but I guess the editors reading it now are going to dismiss it as "a gutful of rubbish" or something along those lines).

However the Hoa's are genetically more Gin than Han Chinese. The Vietnamese classify them as Chinese simply because they claim at some point in their genetic history, there was a Chinese ancestor. The Hoa look like other Vietnamese, and not at all like a Han Chinese.

And this is similar to the "one drop rule" classification of "black" in the American South. If this is the way people are classified as "ethnic Chinese" then it's an interesting fact that belongs in the article. Different ethnic groups have different ways of classifying who is "in" and "out", and there is no consistency. For example, for "native Americans" it usually works the other way, in that if you have any ancestors that aren't native Americans, then you aren't considered one. Roadrunner (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the point being made here is that the supposed differences between Hoa people and other Vietnamese have largely, if not all, been made up by some people who obviously tried very hard to portray Vietnamese culture as though there were little or no Chinese influence (or indeed influence from non-Chinese peoples in what is now southern China). To many Vietnamese today, even the idea that one of their ancestors is of Cantonese or Teo Chew ethnicity insults them. As far as the detractors are concerned, anything that seems out of step with mainstream Vietnamese society must be the product of Chinese influence and is, therefore, insulting and disgraceful (the "Hoa" identity was such an example). The funny thing is that Cantonese and Teo Chew peoples suffered as much as the Vietnamese did earlier in history when the Chinese subjugated them. It is all a mess really. David873 (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The point that the annonymous editor has made is that the Hoa identity is really a highly politicised imputation of ethnicity (on the Vietnamese government's part) that bears little or no relation to actual ethnic interaction.

All ethnicities are highly politicized. The whole concept of separating people into ethnicities was a consequence of 19th nationalism. As far as the actual ethnic interaction, the problem with the edits is that they argue things that aren't true. For example, the statement most Chinese do not consider Hoa to be "ethnic Chinese" needed to be removed because it isn't true. Roadrunner (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What I really meant to say is that the Hoa identity is an extreme case of politicisation that almost defies human comprehension. It clearly displays the blatant direagrd of the multicultural history of the Vietnamese ethnicity by many ethnic Vietnamese both in and out of Vietnam with all its catastrophic consequcnes. David873 (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In particular, note the expression "they claim" in the quoted paragraph. David873 (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)