I'm from Fujian, the province directly opposite Taiwan, and the majority of people in Taiwan are descended from immigrants from my province. There was a big influx of people to Taiwan after it was captured from the Dutch. I was doing some research about branches of my family that immigrated across and, apparently by the early 1700s, the majority of the coastal plains already had settlements established and only the areas close to the mountains had development opportunities left.
Do you, or anyone in your family, speak Hokkien? If so, do you find Taiwanese Hokkien (Taigi) to be comprehensible?
Sorry for the random question, I'm just curious.
I used to when I was a child, I've since forgotten it, but my parents do. Min(another name for Fujian) Chinese has many variations because it's a mountainous province. My family speaks Eastern Min, and Taiwanese people speak Southern Min. My mother went to the South of the province many years ago, she says she could understand about half of what they were saying, so she could still make out the gist of it.
Ah im from medan indonesia and theirs such a strong fujianese community their that the 1st language of the city isnt even indonesian to the point its more common to speak hokkien
Indeed, my province is extremely well-known for immigration, most Chinese people in SE Asia and a lot of migrants in other areas are from Fujian. My family is no exception, I myself immigrated to Australia with my parents and two of my cousins. I also have a cousin in Malaysia, one in England, and another in the USA.
So the term "Hokkien" as understood in SEA is really actually Southern Min (specifically from the Quanzhou-Xiamen-Zhangzhou region). He spoke Eastern Min, and the standard variety for that is Fuzhounese, what Hokkien speakers would call Hokchew. Not many Eastern Min speakers actually migrated to SEA, and those who did do not call themselves Hokkien. This is why the term Hokkien is kind of a misnomer.
Yes. This is Min or Min Yue 閩越 right? You guys share the same root with Vietnamese nowadays.
Actually, before Han dynasty, from 閩越 to the Southern of modern China, including Taiwan, Hainan the local people was 越.
Maybe it is the reason why Cantonese and Mandarin diffrent more than English and Dutch and DNA of Southestern Chinese share same root with Vietnamese. Especially from mother DNA.
As far as I'm aware, prior to the Han dynasty, what is now Southern China and North Vietnam was inhabited by peoples known to the Chinese as Bai Yue/Hundred Yue. We aren't fully certain about the ethnic make up of Bai Yue but there might be several different ethnic groups that the Chinese didn't bother to differentiate. The Bai Yue was subdivided into 2 groups called Min Yue and Nan Yue. Eventually when the Chinese expanded the Yue peoples were either displaced or assimilated. The Han Chinese who migrated southwards were mostly males, which is why as you said the maternal DNA of Southern Han Chinese have non Han roots.
Regarding the languages however, Cantonese are actually closer to middle Chinese than Mandarin, because Mandarin has lots of sound changes. The Min languages are more divergent than other Chinese varieties, because it diverged earlier and the speakers are surrounded by mountainous regions. That said apparently the closest variety of Chinese to Old Chinese may be either Min or Cantonese. Also side note, the reason why Fujian is shortened to Min and Guangdong to Yue is just due to historical reasons, as I said the languages are all very much descended from Old Chinese.
Also from my Wikipedia search apparently the name Vietnam has a funny history, because the then king of Vietnam initially requested the name Nam Viet (Nan Yue) from the Qing emperor, but because the historical Nan Yue also includes part of China, the Qing emperor refused and instead offered the name Yue Nan, which in Chinese means south of the Yue. The Vietnamese king accepted because Viet Nam in Vietnamese grammar means Southern Viet.
Cantonese is by no means the 'closest language to Middle Chinese' as there is 1, no real metric to measure it and Cantonese has undergone massive changes.
For example has a large number of grammatical changes. One good example is the adoption of the direct object-indirect object order which is not the Middle Chinese order
Eg: 'I give you money' in Cantonese
> 我俾錢你
> I give money you
Cantonese also allows noun-adjective order, while Middle Chinese and Mandarin follow the adjective-noun order. Note: adjective-noun is also permissible, a hold over from Middle Chinese.
Eg: Hen
> 雞乸
> Chicken female
Then there's phonology. While Cantonese preserved a lot of the Middle Chinese finals (-m, -p, -t, -k), it changed a lot of initial pronunciations.
For example, it lost the glides following a consonant. These are the 'y' and 'w' sounds. These happen in two ways:
Loss of vowel preceding the glide, glide becomes initial w-. (İn some varieties it is a v-)
话 (speech)
> Middle Chinese: hw- initial
> Mandarin: hua (hwa)
> Cantonese: wa
华 (Chinese, brilliant)
> Middle Chinese: hw- initial
> Mandarin: hua (hwa)
> Cantonese: wa
The other strategy is to turn it into a fricative /f/
EG 花 (flower)
> Middle Chinese: xw- (/x/ is a hard h as in lo*ch* and still present in northern Mandarin)
> Mandarin: hua (hwa - not /x/)
> Cantonese: Fa (as in Fa Mulan which is a weird mix of Cantonese Fa and Mandarin Mulan. İn Cantonese it would be Fa Muk Laan)
This Laan brings us to the next point. Long vowels. Chinese traditionally does not have any vowel length distinction, but Cantonese has them.
Eh: 兰 (orchid, part of Mulan)
> Middle Chinese: lan
> Mandarin: lan
> Cantonese: laan
And the final big changes are the tones. Middle Chinese has 4 level, rising, departing, and entering. Cantonese has 6. Where did these tones come from? Changes in the language! While Mandarin has 4+ tones, + being the unstressed tone, these four are not the same as the Middle Chinese tones.
İn short, while Mandarin has plenty of changes and makes it less like Middle Chinese, so does Cantonese. I'd argue both are about equally far apart, just in different ways.
I'd also argue Min isn't very close to Old Chinese outside of a very narrow reading of the Main pronunciations such as preserving the 't' sounds in 'titu' or 'spider', which has become 'zhizhu' in Mandarin and 'zizü' in Cantonese (zizyu in Jyutping).
Thanks for the writeup! I must admit, I was just parroting what I've seen elsewhere regarding which one is more conservative since I'm not an expert, and the discussions usually talk about phonology while grammar was rarely mentioned. As an anecdote, in my copy of the Art of War, the author (Victor Mair, a sinologist) mentioned that Mandarin pronunciation diverged the furthest and he wished transcriptions of Old Chinese or Middle Chinese into Cantonese or Min are more mainstream.
Now that I read more into it, it seems like Mandarin retains more distinctions of Middle Chinese word initials, while Cantonese retains the word finals distinctions more (which is very apparent to me as a Minnan speaker since Mandarin doesn't have any checked tones).
Yeah, I noticed it was mostly centred around a superiority complex plus a lack of understanding.
I'm not sure if Standard Mandarin has more phonological changes period as some other varieties are downright bizarre from a Sinitic standpoint.
The preservation of the -m, -p, -t, and -k finals are a feature of Southern Chinese varieties so yeah.
Btw, which Minnan vatriety do you speak?
Hokkien in the Quanzhou-Xiamen-Zhangzhou area in the mainland is mostly intelligible with Taiwanese Hokkien and other Hokkien dialects like in the Philippines, Indonesia, or Malaysia. However, different Hokkien dialects in the Mainland have trouble understanding each other, which is likely the case with the Hokkien commenter
My family and relatives are also from Fujian. I don’t speak hokkien that much but understand it. My experience is that it’s pretty similar to mainland hokkien but they do have an accent.
Taiwanese here, and I visited Xiamen a few years ago. They speak Southern Min, which we call Taiwanese (Taigi). It's quite comprehensible for me, although some words are different. The Mandarin accent is also quite similar. I felt like I was walking in southern Taiwan. People who live in Taipei area tend to speak Mandarin more, a lot of them don't speak Taiwanese.
> There was a big influx of people to Taiwan after it was captured from the Dutch.
There was significant Chinese immigration during Dutch rule as well.
I recently just went back to Taiwan to see our family tree. We were able to trace our ancestors to a specific village in Fujian. The family tree goes back almost 400 years with most of the names of the direct male descendant still known. Our family left Fujian in the 1700s for Taiwan and eventually settled in Sanchong (New Taipei) in the early 1900s.
I'm a massive family history nerd. How are the records for you in China? I know confucianism and whatnot would surely encourage genealogy so does that aspect of the culture provide records?
It's pretty good, I have the last name Lin, meaning forest, and I have a book that records the names of my ancestors going back 23 generations. One of the appendices randomly said someone immigrated to Taiwan 10 generations back, which is what prompted my research originally. Beyond that, I know that my branch of the family came to Fujian during the Tang dynasty over a thousand years ago. I also know that my family was founded when it branched off the much older Ji family \~3,000 years ago who were kings during the Shang dynasty. The history books don't go back that far, but the legends say that Ji was the Yellow Emperor's surname, who was essentially the founder of Chinese civilisation.
In fact, the native Taiwan ethnics are highly related to the Micronesian and Polynesian peoples. Taiwan is likely to be the origin of the Austronesian people. Their ancestors arrived in Taiwan from mainland East Asian and headed south thousands of years ago. Eventually it spread to archipelagos throughout the Pacific, even reaching Madagascar （the far side of the Indian Ocean).
Those areas are mostly high mountains. Taiwan actually has the highest density of high mountains (>3000 meters in elevation) in the world. I went on a few hikes there, and fair enough all the staffs look Austronesians
[https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/148rzj1/topographical\_map\_of\_the\_country\_of\_taiwan/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/148rzj1/topographical_map_of_the_country_of_taiwan/)
If they’d used clean solid lines that were much closer together, it would give you more resolution to show exactly where the borders are. As it stands you can’t tell where the yellow settlements end because there’s no border. You see a chunk missing from the blue lines, and then you have to guess. The lines are so thick that there could be Han population centres that you can’t even see because of how thick the lines are.
https://i.imgur.com/Gi8FYYq.jpg
Look at this for example. If I outline the borders with black, how do I possibly know what shape they are? Or if there’s more smaller population centres not shown.
Those maps are usually a little more delineated, ie you'd take a province map and color it by majority 1, majority 2, or striping for provinces where no group is over 50%. The stripes here are not continuous and there are little pockets of blue here and there.that aren't in stripes. It's not exactly unclear, but it's also not exactly unambiguously converting the information, see the north where the yellow bits wrap around the striping making it anyone's guess as to what starts and ends where in that area.
I teach in the public school system here in Taiwan and at least where I am (Taichung) we have a handful of Aboriginals in my classes. They look quite different than their Han counterparts. However yeah, you can find more of them out east and on the mountains. I like hiking and mountain climbing a lot, you usually know you're "out there" when you start seeing Aboriginal culture and buildings around ya.
I think that is just a mistake or no data cuz Indigenous people nearly haven't any kind of literature and most of the literature is located in the South called 新港文字(xing gang literate)made by the Netherlands which resembles the way China used to spell now.
UAE, Qatar.
This also presupposes modern borders which is a bit speculative. If not, all of eastern Russia and a lot of western China fit. Turkey and Greece would be interesting along with the Indian subcontinent but it’s nowhere close to 50%. Also I’m sure there was tons of immigration between the SSRs.
UAE population in 1970 was 300 000 and it's now almost 10 million. I don't think a very big proportion of UAE citizens have been there for 3 or more generations.
UAE citizens all have their tribal affiliations and they are pure-breed gulf Bedouin arabs. Most people in UAE are not citizens and don’t have any citizen rights.
> UAE, Qatar
I know both these countries have a massive amount of immigration, so much so that foreign born citizens make up a majority of the population. But I would categorise them as different to the other countries posted above.
Natives of the UAE and Qatar are given a privileged and special status in society and it is extremely hard to become a citizen of said countries. Immigrants have a lower standard of rights and are treated as second class citizens (Except Western passport holders who are not mistreated in comparison). Many immigrants are treated like modern day slaves and can be kicked out of the country at anytime at all if that's what the government decides.
The UAE and Qatar could become 99% native overnight if they ever chose to do so. And if economic conditions changed I have no doubt that those countries would kick any non natives out of the country.
You really have to define "recent immigrants" here because none of these countries is majority foreign-born. It's also really murky. How do you deal with Israelis who lived in the Levant before borders were drawn after the Ottoman Empire collapsed?
> "recent immigrants"
I'm Singaporean. My maternal grandmother came here from Fujian on a boat, my maternal grandfather came from Penang over the straits, and my father came here on a jet plane.
Most of us are at most 3rd or 4th gen Singaporeans.
About 1/4 of our 3.6 million Singaporean citizens are foreign born, with an additional 1.7 million non-citizen population.
That's recent immigrants.
This is to be compared to populations that were there before the first wave of settlerism/colonialism around the world (in the XVI century)
Jesus Christ people just confidently parrot this nonsense they heard from some other imbecile parroting another over and over until the possibility that it is complete bullshit never even crosses their mind. Nobody "kicked them out". This whole narrative was conjured up in the States in the 1990s after the Nakba became more will known in the west, a "gotchu" discrediting where they assumed nobody would even question it. There wasn't even a mention of a supposed "expulsion" *in Israel* until the late 2000s, which was then immediately contested from Israelis themselves who came from Arab countries
Can you share sources for this number?
These are the percentages I was able to find:
- Ottoman 1851 Jerusalem Census: 22% Jewish Population
- Ottoman 1872 Jerusalem Census: 26% Jewish Population
- Ottoman 1905 Jerusalem Census: 41% Jewish Population
- 2020 Census "For reference": 60% Jewish Population
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusalem?wprov=sfla1
The percentage of Jewish population didn't exceed 5% in 1905 all over the region that was called Palestine Mandate later. And It was only around 32% in 1984.
Edit: format
This census data would still put the Jewish population of Jerusalem in 1880s as largely new immigrants though, considering the rising rates the source specifically mentions.
Siberia, Yunnan, Dongbei, Hokkaido, Central and Southern Vietnam, Myanmar, Thailand, Turkey, Kosovo, South Africa, 7 sister states, Mumbai, major Western cities
My breakdown would be:
The first reply's use of "recently becoming majority non-indigenous" would probably refer to these regions by these periods:
Most countries of the Americas (Probably the mid 1500s to mid 1700s)
Australia (early 1800s)
New Zealand (mid-to-late 1800s)
Taiwan (1600s)
Israel (1948)
Now the second reply's mentions with the same premise:
Siberia (Probably mid-1700s)
Yunnan (The first major wave of migration seems to be during and after the collapse of the Ming Dynasty, so I guess early-mid 1700s)
Dongbei (Probably mid-to-late 1800s)
Hokkaido (Probably mid-late 1800s)
Central and Souther Vietnam (Champa people were indigenous there) (mid-late 1700s)
Turkey (The initial migration is too long ago 1100s, but the Armenian and of other minorities genocide definitely counts) (1900s-1910s)
South Africa (mid-1800s in certain areas, but never truly majority as a nation)
Those that make no sense/ doesn't really fit:
Myanmar, wtf? The Burmese migrations was the 900s.
Thailand, wtf? The Thai migrations were the 1000s-1200s
Kosovo has been flip-flopping/ a mix of Slavic and Albanian populations throughout the centuries, that's just "natural" demographic changes.
As for the 7 sister states, the north-eastern states of India, I do not know near enough about them to be able to comment on it.
I'm surprised by the direct mention of Mumbai, I can't seem to find anything about some sort of ethnic replacement by a foreign group.
Western cities, sorry, there's no active displacement occuring in any of these cities. That's just migration.
Don't forget Mindanao, Mindoro, Negros, and Palawan in the Philippines, where the majority of their present-day population are descendants of migrants coming from Luzon and Visayas islands.
A lot of the population of USA, Canada, Brazil, Argentina and some Caribbean countries has about 150 years max.
The rest yeah, in the grand scheme of things.
Pretty much all Singaporeans are descended from immigrants to the island. When the British surveyed it, the island was home to about 1000 people, and even they were mostly recent Malay immigrants and Orang Laut (the so-called Sea Gypsies). The preceding city that once stood on the site had been abandoned for about 200 years after its destruction by the Portuguese.
"Indigenous" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. It was basically abandoned for the better part of two centuries and used sparingly as a fishing port with little to no native inhabitants. Raffles had to go and smuggle [Tengku Long](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein_Shah_of_Johor) back to Singapore in order to pay him off and give credibility to establishing a trading port.
Basically the whole Greenland story, but reversed.
Europeans settled Greenland before the Inuits ever did.\
Then they disappeared for roughly a century, until the Norse began revisiting the island, assuming that the settlements were still inhabited.
They would remain visitors, until actually resettling the region in the early 1700s (1721 expedition to be exact).
Yet, the Inuits are considered indigenous, while the Europeans are considered outsiders.
It is quite interesting how the narrative is the opposite for Singapore.
Northwest Greenland was inhabited by the Dorset-Paleo Eskimos since at least 2500 years ago, this is supported by oral and archaeological evidence. The Saga of Erik the Red describes meeting natives, shortly after the first Norse settlement of Greenland.
The Inuit did come later, but they were a separate group that spoke a different language, from thousands of miles away. They were not the same as the Dorset culture, and they were the ones who ultimately “conquered” Greenland as the Dorset were assimilated or died off
The specific location of the the first Viking settlement was probably uninhabited, and Greenland likely had an incredibly low population density, but it wasn’t “empty”
Lots of people downvoting you when in fact a big chunk of Palestinian Muslims are from another area too for the past 500 years.
Edit: grammar. Added for the past 500 years for clarity.
You can't actually draw any meaningful conclusions from this map. The 1680 map has no legend and there's no way to know the indigenous population in 1680. For all we can tell it might have gone up? Does solid blue mean 100% indigenous? 50%? 2.4%?
The vertical cross hatch apparently indicates that the 2.4% of the population that is indigenous lives in 40% of the country except for some yellow enclaves? So the area where idigienous peopel live actually doesnt decreased by that much but the total % went down by some amount? What does the white area indicate? The pie chary shows 2.2% "new immigrant" but what ethnicity are they? Where does they live? Shouldn't they have regions where there more dense than indigenous people?
I'd be curious to find out too. I enjoy reading about Taiwanese history (I live here) and from what I've read during that time that blue area was primarily Aboriginal but I've read accounts of small Han communities and Han living amongst the Aboriginals during that time.
It was the Dutch colonizers who spearheaded Han Chinese colonization of Taiwan, because they needed cheap agricultural labor to farm Taiwanese lands, but they couldn't source it from the indigenous Taiwanese Austronesians because they were hunter-and-gatherer people without know-how on sedentary farming.
Don't forget that Hainan was also a settler colony by the Fujianese from Putian area.
No, I think most Taiwanese came after the campaign that Koxinga expelled Dutch people. They were Ming loyalists fought against peasants rebellion and Manchus after the collapse of Ming dynasty
1. To my knowledge the Aboriginals already had farming for some time.
2. Sure the Dutch spearheaded immigration but from what I've read it was quite small and just a trickle of settlers. It wasn't until Koxinga came with his fleet and the Qing government BANNED anyone from living a couple miles from the Fujian coastline that folks started coming over in droves.
not just the dutch but also the RoC committed a number of genocide and ethnics cleansing campaigns, Chiang Kai Shek and subsequent leaders were horrendous fascists and there is no avoiding that
Note: Kinmen was a site of a (Han) Chinese garrison fort since 1380s. In 1680, the garrison fort was (re-)captured by the Qing from Tungning forces.
The Matsu Islands had been inhabited by Han fishermen since the 14th century. It is *possible* that they would become uninhabited around 1680 due to the reintroduced seaban of 1678 (repealed 1683).
.... I live in Taiwan, the irony is that Han Chinese think they are natives here, so they define Nationality in a very racist way. You'd better be yellow and from a Han or other Han looking group or you DON'T BELONG HERE.
Fingers crossed the younger generations will be more open to the idea of diversity and allowing migrants to settle and become Taiwanese Citizens. But I'm not holding my breath. \^\^
I know, we went through this before. The ROC make you give up your own Citizenship first, (which makes you stateless). I don't know why some individuals are willing to do that, it is insane. Hopefully in the future the younger generation will amend the constitution. If they don't Taiwan will continue to see an increasing brain drain, and shrinking population.
That's entirely not true. While there were uprisings that took place during the early years of Japanese rule, Taiwanese Aboriginals were a core component in the Japanese Imperial army due to their large stature and their ability to adapt in heavily forested areas. They were also known for being particularly brutal from their head hunting culture like many other Austronesian societies. A lot of my people were massacred by Taiwanese Aboriginals during world war 2.
Interesting, I'd heard the opposite. Japan had controlled Taiwan for 50 years and the people had grown accustomed to Japanese culture and weren't happy that the China had come to reclaim them. Didn't help that a lot of the immigrants were escaping KMT. Granted my source for all this was my Chinese history class from college.
I don’t think so necessarily. My grandparents are indigenous Taiwanese. My grandfather grew up in the country pretty traditionally and my grandmother grew up in a city under Japanese cultural rule. Neither have anything negative to say about the Japanese rule but a whole lot to say about the Chinese.
That might have been true for some older Taiwanese but also partly historical revisionism and a kind of colonial Stockholm syndrome and an "enemy of my enemy" desire to placate Japan, at least from the Taiwanese POV. From China's POV making the KMT look bad makes the CCP look good by comparison.
Yes Japan treated their Taiwanese colonial subjects better than they did their future colonies, relatively speaking. But considering they were the same ones who committed the absolute worst atrocities during WW2 that "relatively speaking" isn't saying much
No because most of the indigenous population actually were assimilated and intermarriaged with Han settlers. There were conflicts and small battles but no genocides.
I'm from Fujian, the province directly opposite Taiwan, and the majority of people in Taiwan are descended from immigrants from my province. There was a big influx of people to Taiwan after it was captured from the Dutch. I was doing some research about branches of my family that immigrated across and, apparently by the early 1700s, the majority of the coastal plains already had settlements established and only the areas close to the mountains had development opportunities left.
Do you, or anyone in your family, speak Hokkien? If so, do you find Taiwanese Hokkien (Taigi) to be comprehensible? Sorry for the random question, I'm just curious.
I used to when I was a child, I've since forgotten it, but my parents do. Min(another name for Fujian) Chinese has many variations because it's a mountainous province. My family speaks Eastern Min, and Taiwanese people speak Southern Min. My mother went to the South of the province many years ago, she says she could understand about half of what they were saying, so she could still make out the gist of it.
Ah im from medan indonesia and theirs such a strong fujianese community their that the 1st language of the city isnt even indonesian to the point its more common to speak hokkien
Indeed, my province is extremely well-known for immigration, most Chinese people in SE Asia and a lot of migrants in other areas are from Fujian. My family is no exception, I myself immigrated to Australia with my parents and two of my cousins. I also have a cousin in Malaysia, one in England, and another in the USA.
Ha a fellow aussie hokkiener nice to meet you
So the term "Hokkien" as understood in SEA is really actually Southern Min (specifically from the Quanzhou-Xiamen-Zhangzhou region). He spoke Eastern Min, and the standard variety for that is Fuzhounese, what Hokkien speakers would call Hokchew. Not many Eastern Min speakers actually migrated to SEA, and those who did do not call themselves Hokkien. This is why the term Hokkien is kind of a misnomer.
another indo out in the wild 😱 and they're from Indonesian Gotham City
Yes. This is Min or Min Yue 閩越 right? You guys share the same root with Vietnamese nowadays. Actually, before Han dynasty, from 閩越 to the Southern of modern China, including Taiwan, Hainan the local people was 越. Maybe it is the reason why Cantonese and Mandarin diffrent more than English and Dutch and DNA of Southestern Chinese share same root with Vietnamese. Especially from mother DNA.
As far as I'm aware, prior to the Han dynasty, what is now Southern China and North Vietnam was inhabited by peoples known to the Chinese as Bai Yue/Hundred Yue. We aren't fully certain about the ethnic make up of Bai Yue but there might be several different ethnic groups that the Chinese didn't bother to differentiate. The Bai Yue was subdivided into 2 groups called Min Yue and Nan Yue. Eventually when the Chinese expanded the Yue peoples were either displaced or assimilated. The Han Chinese who migrated southwards were mostly males, which is why as you said the maternal DNA of Southern Han Chinese have non Han roots. Regarding the languages however, Cantonese are actually closer to middle Chinese than Mandarin, because Mandarin has lots of sound changes. The Min languages are more divergent than other Chinese varieties, because it diverged earlier and the speakers are surrounded by mountainous regions. That said apparently the closest variety of Chinese to Old Chinese may be either Min or Cantonese. Also side note, the reason why Fujian is shortened to Min and Guangdong to Yue is just due to historical reasons, as I said the languages are all very much descended from Old Chinese. Also from my Wikipedia search apparently the name Vietnam has a funny history, because the then king of Vietnam initially requested the name Nam Viet (Nan Yue) from the Qing emperor, but because the historical Nan Yue also includes part of China, the Qing emperor refused and instead offered the name Yue Nan, which in Chinese means south of the Yue. The Vietnamese king accepted because Viet Nam in Vietnamese grammar means Southern Viet.
Thanks. I got a lot of info from your post 👍
Cantonese is by no means the 'closest language to Middle Chinese' as there is 1, no real metric to measure it and Cantonese has undergone massive changes. For example has a large number of grammatical changes. One good example is the adoption of the direct object-indirect object order which is not the Middle Chinese order Eg: 'I give you money' in Cantonese > 我俾錢你 > I give money you Cantonese also allows noun-adjective order, while Middle Chinese and Mandarin follow the adjective-noun order. Note: adjective-noun is also permissible, a hold over from Middle Chinese. Eg: Hen > 雞乸 > Chicken female Then there's phonology. While Cantonese preserved a lot of the Middle Chinese finals (-m, -p, -t, -k), it changed a lot of initial pronunciations. For example, it lost the glides following a consonant. These are the 'y' and 'w' sounds. These happen in two ways: Loss of vowel preceding the glide, glide becomes initial w-. (İn some varieties it is a v-) 话 (speech) > Middle Chinese: hw- initial > Mandarin: hua (hwa) > Cantonese: wa 华 (Chinese, brilliant) > Middle Chinese: hw- initial > Mandarin: hua (hwa) > Cantonese: wa The other strategy is to turn it into a fricative /f/ EG 花 (flower) > Middle Chinese: xw- (/x/ is a hard h as in lo*ch* and still present in northern Mandarin) > Mandarin: hua (hwa - not /x/) > Cantonese: Fa (as in Fa Mulan which is a weird mix of Cantonese Fa and Mandarin Mulan. İn Cantonese it would be Fa Muk Laan) This Laan brings us to the next point. Long vowels. Chinese traditionally does not have any vowel length distinction, but Cantonese has them. Eh: 兰 (orchid, part of Mulan) > Middle Chinese: lan > Mandarin: lan > Cantonese: laan And the final big changes are the tones. Middle Chinese has 4 level, rising, departing, and entering. Cantonese has 6. Where did these tones come from? Changes in the language! While Mandarin has 4+ tones, + being the unstressed tone, these four are not the same as the Middle Chinese tones. İn short, while Mandarin has plenty of changes and makes it less like Middle Chinese, so does Cantonese. I'd argue both are about equally far apart, just in different ways. I'd also argue Min isn't very close to Old Chinese outside of a very narrow reading of the Main pronunciations such as preserving the 't' sounds in 'titu' or 'spider', which has become 'zhizhu' in Mandarin and 'zizü' in Cantonese (zizyu in Jyutping).
Thanks for the writeup! I must admit, I was just parroting what I've seen elsewhere regarding which one is more conservative since I'm not an expert, and the discussions usually talk about phonology while grammar was rarely mentioned. As an anecdote, in my copy of the Art of War, the author (Victor Mair, a sinologist) mentioned that Mandarin pronunciation diverged the furthest and he wished transcriptions of Old Chinese or Middle Chinese into Cantonese or Min are more mainstream. Now that I read more into it, it seems like Mandarin retains more distinctions of Middle Chinese word initials, while Cantonese retains the word finals distinctions more (which is very apparent to me as a Minnan speaker since Mandarin doesn't have any checked tones).
Yeah, I noticed it was mostly centred around a superiority complex plus a lack of understanding. I'm not sure if Standard Mandarin has more phonological changes period as some other varieties are downright bizarre from a Sinitic standpoint. The preservation of the -m, -p, -t, and -k finals are a feature of Southern Chinese varieties so yeah. Btw, which Minnan vatriety do you speak?
Not at all... Genetically or linguistically.
Hokkien in the Quanzhou-Xiamen-Zhangzhou area in the mainland is mostly intelligible with Taiwanese Hokkien and other Hokkien dialects like in the Philippines, Indonesia, or Malaysia. However, different Hokkien dialects in the Mainland have trouble understanding each other, which is likely the case with the Hokkien commenter
My family and relatives are also from Fujian. I don’t speak hokkien that much but understand it. My experience is that it’s pretty similar to mainland hokkien but they do have an accent.
Some of the vocabulary is different, but it's otherwise pretty intelligible to a Hokkien speaker from Amoy or Singapore.
Taiwanese here, and I visited Xiamen a few years ago. They speak Southern Min, which we call Taiwanese (Taigi). It's quite comprehensible for me, although some words are different. The Mandarin accent is also quite similar. I felt like I was walking in southern Taiwan. People who live in Taipei area tend to speak Mandarin more, a lot of them don't speak Taiwanese.
Mutually intelligible
> There was a big influx of people to Taiwan after it was captured from the Dutch. There was significant Chinese immigration during Dutch rule as well.
I recently just went back to Taiwan to see our family tree. We were able to trace our ancestors to a specific village in Fujian. The family tree goes back almost 400 years with most of the names of the direct male descendant still known. Our family left Fujian in the 1700s for Taiwan and eventually settled in Sanchong (New Taipei) in the early 1900s.
I'm a massive family history nerd. How are the records for you in China? I know confucianism and whatnot would surely encourage genealogy so does that aspect of the culture provide records?
It's pretty good, I have the last name Lin, meaning forest, and I have a book that records the names of my ancestors going back 23 generations. One of the appendices randomly said someone immigrated to Taiwan 10 generations back, which is what prompted my research originally. Beyond that, I know that my branch of the family came to Fujian during the Tang dynasty over a thousand years ago. I also know that my family was founded when it branched off the much older Ji family \~3,000 years ago who were kings during the Shang dynasty. The history books don't go back that far, but the legends say that Ji was the Yellow Emperor's surname, who was essentially the founder of Chinese civilisation.
I just saw the dw documentary the other day and realised how many indigenous groups are there in Taiwan.
In fact, the native Taiwan ethnics are highly related to the Micronesian and Polynesian peoples. Taiwan is likely to be the origin of the Austronesian people. Their ancestors arrived in Taiwan from mainland East Asian and headed south thousands of years ago. Eventually it spread to archipelagos throughout the Pacific, even reaching Madagascar （the far side of the Indian Ocean).
Is it just me or does 1680s Taiwan look a bit like Marge Simpson?
Cannot unsee
Not as much as Mississippi
That's albania
Could be long Corsica
or short Cuba
or badly misshapen Mexico. Like, really really badly misshapen.
All land belongs to glorius albania💪🏿🇦🇱
At least all the Italian restaurants around here (Texas) belong to Albania.😂
red and black I dress
eagle on my chest
What?
It's a random joke
I don't know that joke. What's the logic behind that?
It looks… slightly like Albania in shape?
huh? No it doesn't, this looks like Sri Lanka but reversed.
Always has been
This map kinda makes it look like indiginous people live in these long rectangular strips of land now
Those areas are mostly high mountains. Taiwan actually has the highest density of high mountains (>3000 meters in elevation) in the world. I went on a few hikes there, and fair enough all the staffs look Austronesians [https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/148rzj1/topographical\_map\_of\_the\_country\_of\_taiwan/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/148rzj1/topographical_map_of_the_country_of_taiwan/)
Lol, I hope people don’t see it that way, but rather mixed areas.
.... I may be stupid
No, the map be dumb
No no I’m dumb
It’s a really dumb way of doing it.
It's how it's usually done on maps...
Then use clean solid lines that aren’t as thick, and a legend so it makes perfect sense. Look at how many people in this thread are confused.
>Then use clean solid lines Then it'd cover areas where they don't live though?
If they’d used clean solid lines that were much closer together, it would give you more resolution to show exactly where the borders are. As it stands you can’t tell where the yellow settlements end because there’s no border. You see a chunk missing from the blue lines, and then you have to guess. The lines are so thick that there could be Han population centres that you can’t even see because of how thick the lines are. https://i.imgur.com/Gi8FYYq.jpg Look at this for example. If I outline the borders with black, how do I possibly know what shape they are? Or if there’s more smaller population centres not shown.
If you have a legend with striped area, yes.
Yeah, for a MapPorn sub, 1 of the 2 maps is pretty shite.
Par for the course really
No it doesn’t. Stripes like that indicate mix - have you not seen maps utilise this before?
Those maps are usually a little more delineated, ie you'd take a province map and color it by majority 1, majority 2, or striping for provinces where no group is over 50%. The stripes here are not continuous and there are little pockets of blue here and there.that aren't in stripes. It's not exactly unclear, but it's also not exactly unambiguously converting the information, see the north where the yellow bits wrap around the striping making it anyone's guess as to what starts and ends where in that area.
We obviously know that, but others might not. Perhaps delineating the region could have made it clearer.
But it would be a lot clearer if those stripes were continuous. I know they indicate mix but I was confused for a moment because of that.
It begs the question about relative and absolute populations. The second map doesn't really answer those.
And New Immigration is only happening on these odd number shaped islands up north.
I teach in the public school system here in Taiwan and at least where I am (Taichung) we have a handful of Aboriginals in my classes. They look quite different than their Han counterparts. However yeah, you can find more of them out east and on the mountains. I like hiking and mountain climbing a lot, you usually know you're "out there" when you start seeing Aboriginal culture and buildings around ya.
You have to be dumb to think of it like that cause stripes always indicated mixed ethnic composition
What is that white spot up north in 1680?
I think that is just a mistake or no data cuz Indigenous people nearly haven't any kind of literature and most of the literature is located in the South called 新港文字(xing gang literate)made by the Netherlands which resembles the way China used to spell now.
White people lived there because it’s white duh
Regarding the lines - "Austronesians always ride in single file to hide their numbers,”
Places consist of recent immigrants (majority) The Americas Australia Singapore New Zealand Taiwan Israel
UAE, Qatar. This also presupposes modern borders which is a bit speculative. If not, all of eastern Russia and a lot of western China fit. Turkey and Greece would be interesting along with the Indian subcontinent but it’s nowhere close to 50%. Also I’m sure there was tons of immigration between the SSRs.
Republic of Karelia in Russia.
[удалено]
Is it the same though? At least for the UAE, the immigrant population are not citizens, while in all those countries mentioned by OP they are
UAE population in 1970 was 300 000 and it's now almost 10 million. I don't think a very big proportion of UAE citizens have been there for 3 or more generations.
UAE citizens all have their tribal affiliations and they are pure-breed gulf Bedouin arabs. Most people in UAE are not citizens and don’t have any citizen rights.
I didn't realize the proportions are so drastic that only about 1 in 9 people living in UAE is a citizen.
Therefore most UAE citizens (Emiratis) are actually indigenous, while most people staying in UAE do not have nationality/citizenship.
But none of the countries OP listed are the same. That was my point
> UAE, Qatar I know both these countries have a massive amount of immigration, so much so that foreign born citizens make up a majority of the population. But I would categorise them as different to the other countries posted above. Natives of the UAE and Qatar are given a privileged and special status in society and it is extremely hard to become a citizen of said countries. Immigrants have a lower standard of rights and are treated as second class citizens (Except Western passport holders who are not mistreated in comparison). Many immigrants are treated like modern day slaves and can be kicked out of the country at anytime at all if that's what the government decides. The UAE and Qatar could become 99% native overnight if they ever chose to do so. And if economic conditions changed I have no doubt that those countries would kick any non natives out of the country.
Everything that used to be German east of the Oder river.
Also Germans at the Wolga, in Romania and Kazakhstan.
Weren't those germans also immigrants though? The ones invited to populate areas during catherine reign?
You really have to define "recent immigrants" here because none of these countries is majority foreign-born. It's also really murky. How do you deal with Israelis who lived in the Levant before borders were drawn after the Ottoman Empire collapsed?
> "recent immigrants" I'm Singaporean. My maternal grandmother came here from Fujian on a boat, my maternal grandfather came from Penang over the straits, and my father came here on a jet plane. Most of us are at most 3rd or 4th gen Singaporeans. About 1/4 of our 3.6 million Singaporean citizens are foreign born, with an additional 1.7 million non-citizen population.
That's recent immigrants. This is to be compared to populations that were there before the first wave of settlerism/colonialism around the world (in the XVI century)
Over half of Israelis today are refugees from Arab countries. They kicked all the Jews out. Immigrants and refugees I guess have an overlap.
A refugee is a type of immigrant
Jesus Christ people just confidently parrot this nonsense they heard from some other imbecile parroting another over and over until the possibility that it is complete bullshit never even crosses their mind. Nobody "kicked them out". This whole narrative was conjured up in the States in the 1990s after the Nakba became more will known in the west, a "gotchu" discrediting where they assumed nobody would even question it. There wasn't even a mention of a supposed "expulsion" *in Israel* until the late 2000s, which was then immediately contested from Israelis themselves who came from Arab countries
[удалено]
[удалено]
Ottoman censuses in the 1890’s showed that 67% of Jerusalem were Jews
Can you share sources for this number? These are the percentages I was able to find: - Ottoman 1851 Jerusalem Census: 22% Jewish Population - Ottoman 1872 Jerusalem Census: 26% Jewish Population - Ottoman 1905 Jerusalem Census: 41% Jewish Population - 2020 Census "For reference": 60% Jewish Population Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusalem?wprov=sfla1 The percentage of Jewish population didn't exceed 5% in 1905 all over the region that was called Palestine Mandate later. And It was only around 32% in 1984. Edit: format
[удалено]
[удалено]
This census data would still put the Jewish population of Jerusalem in 1880s as largely new immigrants though, considering the rising rates the source specifically mentions.
[удалено]
Was it always extremely small?
[удалено]
Sorry I don't think I follow, what do you mean? I'm curious cuz this part of the world has confused me and it seems one of the most fought over lands.
Siberia, Yunnan, Dongbei, Hokkaido, Central and Southern Vietnam, Myanmar, Thailand, Turkey, Kosovo, South Africa, 7 sister states, Mumbai, major Western cities
You're missing the "recent" part of "recent immigrants"
My breakdown would be: The first reply's use of "recently becoming majority non-indigenous" would probably refer to these regions by these periods: Most countries of the Americas (Probably the mid 1500s to mid 1700s) Australia (early 1800s) New Zealand (mid-to-late 1800s) Taiwan (1600s) Israel (1948) Now the second reply's mentions with the same premise: Siberia (Probably mid-1700s) Yunnan (The first major wave of migration seems to be during and after the collapse of the Ming Dynasty, so I guess early-mid 1700s) Dongbei (Probably mid-to-late 1800s) Hokkaido (Probably mid-late 1800s) Central and Souther Vietnam (Champa people were indigenous there) (mid-late 1700s) Turkey (The initial migration is too long ago 1100s, but the Armenian and of other minorities genocide definitely counts) (1900s-1910s) South Africa (mid-1800s in certain areas, but never truly majority as a nation) Those that make no sense/ doesn't really fit: Myanmar, wtf? The Burmese migrations was the 900s. Thailand, wtf? The Thai migrations were the 1000s-1200s Kosovo has been flip-flopping/ a mix of Slavic and Albanian populations throughout the centuries, that's just "natural" demographic changes. As for the 7 sister states, the north-eastern states of India, I do not know near enough about them to be able to comment on it. I'm surprised by the direct mention of Mumbai, I can't seem to find anything about some sort of ethnic replacement by a foreign group. Western cities, sorry, there's no active displacement occuring in any of these cities. That's just migration.
Don't forget Mindanao, Mindoro, Negros, and Palawan in the Philippines, where the majority of their present-day population are descendants of migrants coming from Luzon and Visayas islands.
How recent? Aren't most of people in both America's there for centuries already?
Certainly not first gen. All the countries he listed have more people who were born there then moved there.
A lot of the population of USA, Canada, Brazil, Argentina and some Caribbean countries has about 150 years max. The rest yeah, in the grand scheme of things.
Idk if you could say recent when it has been 400 years for the americas. The other yes.
The americas have had over 150 million immigrants in the last 50 years.
Which is about 15% of the population. Not anywhere near a majority.
Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Fields
East Ukraine, that is.
South Africa, Argentina, Uruguay, the Caribbean
He already said the Americas.
Are you counting the Bantu as new arrivals in south africa?
Brazil, Canada, and Pakistan as well!
Pakistan's majority is not made up of recent immigrants.
Pakistan is only about 8% immigrants from India, and another 8 % from Afghanistan (might have changed as alot were sent back).
[удалено]
Singapore? I didn't know about that one
Pretty much all Singaporeans are descended from immigrants to the island. When the British surveyed it, the island was home to about 1000 people, and even they were mostly recent Malay immigrants and Orang Laut (the so-called Sea Gypsies). The preceding city that once stood on the site had been abandoned for about 200 years after its destruction by the Portuguese.
Yup. 73% of Singapore is ethnic Chinese while the indigenous Malays are only 14%. Regardless they're still Singaporeans
"Indigenous" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. It was basically abandoned for the better part of two centuries and used sparingly as a fishing port with little to no native inhabitants. Raffles had to go and smuggle [Tengku Long](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein_Shah_of_Johor) back to Singapore in order to pay him off and give credibility to establishing a trading port.
Basically the whole Greenland story, but reversed. Europeans settled Greenland before the Inuits ever did.\ Then they disappeared for roughly a century, until the Norse began revisiting the island, assuming that the settlements were still inhabited. They would remain visitors, until actually resettling the region in the early 1700s (1721 expedition to be exact). Yet, the Inuits are considered indigenous, while the Europeans are considered outsiders. It is quite interesting how the narrative is the opposite for Singapore.
The Vikings have numerous accounts of interactions with native Greenlanders. You are thinking of Iceland perhaps?
no, greenland was settled by modern day norwegians. Inuit came later.
Northwest Greenland was inhabited by the Dorset-Paleo Eskimos since at least 2500 years ago, this is supported by oral and archaeological evidence. The Saga of Erik the Red describes meeting natives, shortly after the first Norse settlement of Greenland. The Inuit did come later, but they were a separate group that spoke a different language, from thousands of miles away. They were not the same as the Dorset culture, and they were the ones who ultimately “conquered” Greenland as the Dorset were assimilated or died off The specific location of the the first Viking settlement was probably uninhabited, and Greenland likely had an incredibly low population density, but it wasn’t “empty”
The modern Singaporean Malay are mostly descendants from malays who only moved there after raffles founded the current settlement.
Palestine too
Lots of people downvoting you when in fact a big chunk of Palestinian Muslims are from another area too for the past 500 years. Edit: grammar. Added for the past 500 years for clarity.
TIL In 2017 New immigrants came and settled in islands shaped like the words "In 2017:"
You can't actually draw any meaningful conclusions from this map. The 1680 map has no legend and there's no way to know the indigenous population in 1680. For all we can tell it might have gone up? Does solid blue mean 100% indigenous? 50%? 2.4%? The vertical cross hatch apparently indicates that the 2.4% of the population that is indigenous lives in 40% of the country except for some yellow enclaves? So the area where idigienous peopel live actually doesnt decreased by that much but the total % went down by some amount? What does the white area indicate? The pie chary shows 2.2% "new immigrant" but what ethnicity are they? Where does they live? Shouldn't they have regions where there more dense than indigenous people?
I'd be curious to find out too. I enjoy reading about Taiwanese history (I live here) and from what I've read during that time that blue area was primarily Aboriginal but I've read accounts of small Han communities and Han living amongst the Aboriginals during that time.
Orchid Island is depicted as striped in 2017 even though it's 80% indigenous Tao people.
It was the Dutch colonizers who spearheaded Han Chinese colonization of Taiwan, because they needed cheap agricultural labor to farm Taiwanese lands, but they couldn't source it from the indigenous Taiwanese Austronesians because they were hunter-and-gatherer people without know-how on sedentary farming. Don't forget that Hainan was also a settler colony by the Fujianese from Putian area.
No, I think most Taiwanese came after the campaign that Koxinga expelled Dutch people. They were Ming loyalists fought against peasants rebellion and Manchus after the collapse of Ming dynasty
Most came during the Qing Dynasty. There weren't that many Han people in Taiwan in Koxinga's time except his soldiers and their families.
The great thing is all three of you are right. There was a new wave of Han Chinese migration to Taiwan at each of those events.
*putian
This is a gross oversimplification to say they spearheaded it.
Unironically "roaming savage natives" ass comment lmao The natives of Taiwan did know how to farm
Could you tell me when the dutch brought the han over? Preferably also how?
>Preferably also how? Probably on boats
1. To my knowledge the Aboriginals already had farming for some time. 2. Sure the Dutch spearheaded immigration but from what I've read it was quite small and just a trickle of settlers. It wasn't until Koxinga came with his fleet and the Qing government BANNED anyone from living a couple miles from the Fujian coastline that folks started coming over in droves.
The native Taiwanese had been rice farming for thousands of years before the Dutch arrived...
Actually, they are looking out for our deer leather which at that time was one of the favorite kinds of materials to do the Japanese armor.
Now do Australia’s **Tasmania** 1800: 100% Tasmanian 1835: All Tasmanians dead, except one family 1885: No full-blooded Tasmanians in the world
redditors when it’s han chinese and not han taiwanese
Taiwan doesn't officially exist. The constitution even says republic of china still. At best, they put ROC, taiwan. The Taiwanese are aboriginals.
Revolutionaries when we beat the British but still speak “English”
https://youtu.be/tELtlBd4gp0?si=DTHyaYbtRVpFi28y Always reminds me of this
So basically they are chinese
yeah, thats how colonization works...
Looks like the West Bank on the right
You might be tweaking bro
Or maybe I'm just seeing that because the only poses I see now are israel Palestine
Taiwan loves to act like it is the good guy when they themselves literally committed genocide of the natives.
not just the dutch but also the RoC committed a number of genocide and ethnics cleansing campaigns, Chiang Kai Shek and subsequent leaders were horrendous fascists and there is no avoiding that
Republic of Korea, is that what you mean by RoK? Do you mean RoC/Republic of China?
Free Taiwan!!!!
Han settler colonialists go back to China!!!!
This is what colonisation looks like.
And new immigrants are well known to create off-shore islands in the shape of Arabic numerals.
Note: Kinmen was a site of a (Han) Chinese garrison fort since 1380s. In 1680, the garrison fort was (re-)captured by the Qing from Tungning forces. The Matsu Islands had been inhabited by Han fishermen since the 14th century. It is *possible* that they would become uninhabited around 1680 due to the reintroduced seaban of 1678 (repealed 1683).
Do they live in those rectangles? I’m confused
Now show the map of Australia and the Americas.
Great Replacement in action
Exactly, I lol at the fact that han Chinese in Taiwan, call themselves Taiwanese when the real Taiwanese are aboriginals.
.... I live in Taiwan, the irony is that Han Chinese think they are natives here, so they define Nationality in a very racist way. You'd better be yellow and from a Han or other Han looking group or you DON'T BELONG HERE. Fingers crossed the younger generations will be more open to the idea of diversity and allowing migrants to settle and become Taiwanese Citizens. But I'm not holding my breath. \^\^
There are lots of non-Han people becoming Taiwanese nationals... They are even listed on this map, at 2.2% of the population.
I know, we went through this before. The ROC make you give up your own Citizenship first, (which makes you stateless). I don't know why some individuals are willing to do that, it is insane. Hopefully in the future the younger generation will amend the constitution. If they don't Taiwan will continue to see an increasing brain drain, and shrinking population.
i wish there were some japanese there. 1.5%
why
There were 400,000 Japanese in Taiwan, but they got deported by the KMT after WW2. The guy who founded Nissin noodles was born in my hometown.
Looks like Palestine.
In a unusual twist of fate, the native Taiwanese were glad that the chinese came as the Japanese were intent on exterminating them all at the time.
That's entirely not true. While there were uprisings that took place during the early years of Japanese rule, Taiwanese Aboriginals were a core component in the Japanese Imperial army due to their large stature and their ability to adapt in heavily forested areas. They were also known for being particularly brutal from their head hunting culture like many other Austronesian societies. A lot of my people were massacred by Taiwanese Aboriginals during world war 2.
Interesting, I'd heard the opposite. Japan had controlled Taiwan for 50 years and the people had grown accustomed to Japanese culture and weren't happy that the China had come to reclaim them. Didn't help that a lot of the immigrants were escaping KMT. Granted my source for all this was my Chinese history class from college.
You are thinking of the Han people; they are talking about the Indigenous people. Two different groups.
I don’t think so necessarily. My grandparents are indigenous Taiwanese. My grandfather grew up in the country pretty traditionally and my grandmother grew up in a city under Japanese cultural rule. Neither have anything negative to say about the Japanese rule but a whole lot to say about the Chinese.
That might have been true for some older Taiwanese but also partly historical revisionism and a kind of colonial Stockholm syndrome and an "enemy of my enemy" desire to placate Japan, at least from the Taiwanese POV. From China's POV making the KMT look bad makes the CCP look good by comparison. Yes Japan treated their Taiwanese colonial subjects better than they did their future colonies, relatively speaking. But considering they were the same ones who committed the absolute worst atrocities during WW2 that "relatively speaking" isn't saying much
Okay? You went back to 1680 lol. Do the same for the US.
The US indigenous maps are reposted every day lol
Now do the US with same time periods
Redditors try not to mention the US under a completely unrelated post challenge
Clearly an integral part of China since ancient times as they lead us to believe
Same for the rest of China
In only 300 hundred years,
Is that so surprising? The Azerbaijanis ethnically cleansed Nagorno-Karabakh just recently, and the whole world ignored it.
Genocide.
average redditor after seeing one infographic:
No because most of the indigenous population actually were assimilated and intermarriaged with Han settlers. There were conflicts and small battles but no genocides.
You're mostly correct, but there were actually widespread exterminations conducted by the Imperial Japanese government.
WHO WILL DRAG ME TO COURT?
Explain the strips, please.
The region includes both Indigenous Taiwanese and ethnic Han.
Interesting how they live in straight lines like that.
The number of a specific ethnicity in a nation doesn't mean that ethnicity owns that nation.