Eastern Europe is NOT under-represented

[cybrxkhan]

They are the first empire in vietnam/north-western indo-china region.
Viet kingdom owning Champa and you gloating about it today is a bit like North Chinese (Wei empire for eg) beating the $not out of South Chinese ( Wu) and some Chinese dood gloating for one side.
Or some British guy going 'england before scotland...no,scotland before england...no wales, hello wales!' type of weird-isms.

Anyways, hey, if it floats your boat, go for it- as i recommended in my idea, a patch to let us mix-n-match would be nice and then you can call your empire Viet power and go sending spies to sabotage Champa wussies and so on and so forth.

hey, hey, i know all that stuff, don't worry.

chams aren't exactly Viets, anyhow. the relationship between Viets and Chams are not like the Northern Chinese (Mandarin) and Southern Chinese (Cantonese), really. its more like the... well, i have no idea. your Chinese example was from a civil war; the Chams were a separate entity, existing for centuries south of Vietnam as a neighbor. in Vietnam these days, Chams are considered a "minority", not in a "major" minority, but a minority minority - we pretty much assimilated them if there are any left (similar to Romans over Gauls). in fact, Champa was our only real major offensive campaign (and we're known for defensive campaigns, you know?).
anyhow, off topic.

 

[Ahimsadharma]

well, i have no idea

Chams = Viet people mixed with a lot of Indian people. The Cham empire was basically a Viet-Indian hybrid, possibly Chola or Kalingan - two of the major maritime trading & conquering empires of India and two empires who've very strong links in colonizing/settling parts of South-East Asia in certain historic times. Back in those days, there were a few heavily mixed Indian kingdoms in south-east asia, since Indians were great sea-faring traders who deeply influenced the culture of south-east asia and intermarried a lot with them, including founding some new settlements & colonies.

in fact, Champa was our only real major offensive campaign

Well, apart from the Filipinos, i seriously cannot think of any group of people who have never gone stir-crazy and whacked a few of her neighbours at one point or another in history.

and we're known for defensive campaigns, you know?

I know . First the Chinese, then the Mongols, then the Yanks. You guys are good at whacking people who overstay their visit in your lands. Good on ya. One day i will visit your country and i will make sure i don't overstay my visit either, unless everything is cool.

 

[cybrxkhan]

this is a full-blood Viet speaking here...

Chams = Viet people mixed with a lot of Indian people. The Cham empire was basically a Viet-Indian hybrid, possibly Chola or Kalingan - two of the major maritime trading & conquering empires of India and two empires who've very strong links in colonizing/settling parts of South-East Asia in certain historic times. Back in those days, there were a few heavily mixed Indian kingdoms in south-east asia, since Indians were great sea-faring traders who deeply influenced the culture of south-east asia and intermarried a lot with them, including founding some new settlements & colonies.

the Chams aren't Vietnamese. they are a separate ethnic group. we just happened to swallow them up like the Romans swallowed up Gaul.

but otherwise, you are quite right. Vietnam "luckily" fell under China's grace, and became one of the four classical "East Asian" nations. Champa, on the other hand, fell under the Indian culture's grace, and... got swallowed up by us.

 

[Ahimsadharma]

the Chams aren't Vietnamese. they are a separate ethnic group.

As far as i know ( and i will stand corrected if you dispute this,since i dont want to presume i know more about your country than you do), Chams were viets mixed with Indians.
They 'were' already 'mixed' and heavily Indianized due to inter-marriage and trade with India for about 400-500 years already when you guys took them out of the picture. I've heard/read this version in Indian historical chronicles and some Thai history.
Perhaps due to intermingling for 400-500 years and lack of records of these times from the Viet's part (for whatever reason) is why the Chams are perceived to be a different race/people ?

 

[Ahimsadharma]

Vietnam "luckily" fell under China's grace, and became one of the four classical "East Asian" nations. Champa, on the other hand, fell under the Indian culture's grace, and... got swallowed up by us.

Who knows, what happened really. Perhaps you are right. Maybe ahimsa and buddhism didnt work out for Champa that well. Oh well, who cares- no doubt both your cultures were enriched by one party swallowing up the other and both have benefited over time. Thats all that matters, IMO.
I am all for conquest, so long as it is more or less an India-style (which is more or less an EU style but more hardcore in some ways) union of cultures to form a bigger political nation for the common good.

 

[cybrxkhan]

right, im liking this discussion. its healthy and not insane.

As far as i know ( and i will stand corrected if you dispute this,since i dont want to presume i know more about your country than you do), Chams were viets mixed with Indians.
They 'were' already 'mixed' and heavily Indianized due to inter-marriage and trade with India for about 400-500 years already when you guys took them out of the picture. I've heard/read this version in Indian historical chronicles and some Thai history.
Perhaps due to intermingling for 400-500 years and lack of records of these times from the Viet's part (for whatever reason) is why the Chams are perceived to be a different race/people ?

actually, we are, at least in legend, related. heres how it goes: once a upon a time, water dragon prince and mountain fairy princess marry and have 100 kids. 50 follow father into water and become Vietnamese ancestors. 50 follow mother into mountains and become the "minorities" - ala Chams, Hmong, etc.

 

[cybrxkhan]

also, to add, the "closeness" of Chams to Viets is as close as Serbs to Croats, Babylonians to Assryans, etc.

So perhaps we did intermarry a lot, but otherwise, we are two different peoples and consider each other so.

Also, according to wikipedia, a lota Chams converted to Islam by the "reinessance age".

we're off topic, you notice?

 

[Ahimsadharma]

we're off topic, you notice?

Tee hee. Who cares really ? this is fun sometimes.

Here is some of our 'legends'- Sometime around 200/300 BC period, bunch of indian ships show up around Vietnam, set up shop in the south because they wanted a stop-over in their trade route with china. The Chinese-Indian trade brought a lot of Indian merchants to the region, predominantly southern vietnam from India's perspective. This led to a lot of cultural exchange, vietnam being introduced to Buddhism/Hinduism concepts and a lot of intermarriage & trade. Since most of the Indian presence was in southern part of Vietnam (continuation of the coastal presence of Indians & their diffusion in cambodia, thailand, indonesia,malaysia etc), the people there perhaps became different 'racially' speaking because of this intermarriage stuff.
I can easily see this happening over 300-400 years ( that is on average, 20 generations in ancient times sake-thats longer than white people in Australia!) and causing a massive demographic shift in the southern areas of vietnam, as well as creating a new cultural identity. It is natural that northern vietnam would be less influenced by Indian culture, since Indian presence was towards the southern ends & thus retained a more traditional vietnamese cultural core.
This seeming cultural & ethnic gap ( after 20 generations) was perhaps the reason viet kingdom & champa started viewing themselves as different from each other with one (very distant) common root as shown in your legend ?

Also, according to wikipedia, a lota Chams converted to Islam by the "reinessance age".

Yeah. Thats when the Islamic beat-stick arrived. I can empathize.

 

[cybrxkhan]

^perhaps we were closely related, but not like the actual same ethnic group, but very closley related. then you Indians came and liked a certain family of girls more, and then the Chams left forever.

from what i remember, the "original" Vietnam comprised of only the northern third, while the middle third was Champa, and the lower third was Khmer-held. so i think it is possible though we weren't exactly the same, that we were closely related.

however, the Cham language is not in the same language family as Vietnam. even without the Chinese influences, Vietnam is an Austro-asiatic language, and Cham is an Austronesian language.

all in all, however, the Cham in Vietnam are most luckily now defended by one of the greatest homeland defenders of all time.

 

[dutchking]

I thought "lets discuss poland" was the mainstream thread and this was closed.


...

 

[aronnax]

Is it me or is Cyberkhan happy to participate in a vietnamese-topic conversation

 

[dutchking]

We should start a thread:
Southeast Asia is SEVERELY Under-represented!!!!
That'll be the day...

 

[aronnax]

We should start a thread:
Southeast Asia is SEVERELY Under-represented!!!!
That'll be the day...

Let me stick that with

Central asia...
South America...
Non-Medditerean Africa...
Pacific...
Siberia...

is SEVERELY Under-represented

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

We should start a thread:
Southeast Asia is SEVERELY Under-represented!!!!
That'll be the day...

I'm not sure that enough people care. Because....y'know, all too few seem to care about Asia, despite its deep history. It certainly wouldn't reach the epic proportions of this thread! One of these days, I'm going to tour Asia and do nothing but eat all sorts of awesome(and/or weird) food. I'm sure that's what cybrxkhan wants....the Vietnamese Pho is so tasty because it contains a mind control chemical, that, if consumed enough, will turn you into a zombie, which would then allow Vietnam to take over the Earth and send pho into the stars!

Seriously, I've already gone to work on modding a little bit...but I'm really not sure how to make it work like...a...well, mod. Everything's fine if I modify the actual game files...but it doesn't seem to work loaded as mod. I'll have to hit up the help forums. Vietnam will be included! And....not all of its leaders will be protective!

 

[Spearthrower]

Agreed - of all continents, Europe is the only one NOT under-represented.

 

[Spearthrower]

I'm not sure that enough people care. Because....y'know, all too few seem to care about Asia!

That's just relative to these forums.... there are plenty of people in Asia who care!!

 

[aronnax]

Agreed - of all continents, West Europe is the only one NOT under-represented.

I fixed your post, no need to thank me.

 

[Spearthrower]

I fixed your post, no need to thank me.

When did Western Europe become a continent?

 

[Poppa Candy]

The challenge was clearly laid and you have refused (been unable to, I assume ?) to rise to it.All of your words in this thread are vacuous spirals with no content and barely a coherent argument in sight (I especially enjoy how your initially state that you agree with me, but by the end you don't like any of it - seems like your reasoning is clouded by your mood?).

You are making inappropriate use of the expression “logical coherence”. When I said “I don’t like any of it”, I was of course referring to the passage quoted in that context, I wasn't referring to absolutely everything you have said on subject of Poland. Clearly there is no contradiction in agreeing with some of the things you said in other places without agreeing with any of the statements from that quoted passage. To think otherwise is to confuse the pronoun “some” with the pronoun “all”. I think that the root of your problem is that you have inadequate understanding of elementary logical notions such as “coherence” and “validity”. Do please read the introduction to elementary logic I recommended in my previous post. This will help you greatly in clarifying your confusion concerning fundamental logical matters.

Everything you've said is rife with logical fallacies, flaws and underpinning it all, absolutely no point. This isn't philosophy - if you wish to debate history Poppa, first you need some facts.... then you need some interpretations.

You will be in a position to debate on the history of Poland only if you develop a more sophisticated knowledge of the relevant historical facts, and learn how to construct logically valid arguments within the framework of those facts. So far you have failed on both accounts. The second sort of failure – that involving misuse of logical notions – is the most serious and persistent one. You can remedy to that by providing the relevant evidence, and showing how your interpretation is supposed to follow from that evidence.

As you clearly haven't got even a sketchy outline of the facts, or you would have supplied them by now, I deem this all to be a rather torturous trolling session. Until I see something factual, this is my interpretation.

Your interpretation is too vague and superficial as it stands. In order to make it more precise, you need to back it up with factual statement. You said you would have provided the factual evidence upon request, but so far you have consistently failed to do so.

May I congratulate you though on your writing skills - compared to all of your other posts on this site, you seem to have finally found your timbre. Now if only this had been a philosophical debate, your words may have had some relevence.
As it is, you challenge historical fact with unfounded opinionated empty statements and audaciously request that the very thing you challenge needs to supply sources when your own words are pulled out of your.... hat! If you wish to challenge people's interpretation of history, the onus is on you to provide a factual retort, not a subjective swirl of contorted reasoning.
Overall, B- for style , E for content..... please show sources in future.

Your overall assessment of my counter-argument, including your final attempt at giving marks, is once again superficial and based upon poor understanding of the notions involved. When you assess somebody else’s piece of reasoning, you need to show less animosity and develop a more sober evaluation of what is being said. Based on what I have seen so far, your marking skills appear to be rather amateurish and somewhat lacking in both style and content. If so, you would need to learn more about how to give out marks in an appropriate manner, and how to justify your marks with useful feedback. If you want to improve your marking skills, I strongly suggest you to take a training course in “Marking and Assessment”. This sort of courses are usually offered by academic institutions providing training for prospective markers. The important lesson to learn is that you need to justify your marks with reasonable and well founded motivations, if you want to be taken seriously as a marker.

 

[Spearthrower]

I called your bluff and you failed to make good on it.

I would estimate that you have written 2000 to 3000 words on this so far and have yet not managed to raise one single fact.

Talking about history without using facts is equivalent to taking a shower in a raincoat: The form is there, but the function and purpose is lost.

I'd recommend a job in sales Poppa.... there you can use your ability to.... blag in a productive fashion. Repetition of baseless points is often good at confusing people - it doesn't work so well when they know more about the subject than you though.

Don't go into academia, you wouldn't like it - they use facts... and stuff like that.