6 ms·

You don't think teaching Chinese in Mandarin (5% first language) rather than Cantonese (90% first language) or trying to introduce national education into the c

You don't think teaching Chinese in Mandarin (5% first language) rather than Cantonese (90% first language) or trying to introduce national education into the curriculum is assimilation? Responding to criticism that it's brainwashing propaganda, here's what the chairman of a pro-Beijing education lobbying group had to say: "A brain needs washing if there is a problem, just as clothes need washing if they're dirty and a kidney needs washing if it's sick," said Jiang Yudui, chairman of the Beijing-friendly China Civic Education Promotion Association of Hong Kong, according to news reports. Jiang's comments in July came at the same time that tens of thousands, including many parents pushing their children in strollers, took to the streets to protest against the plan.

UIZealot 7y ago
> You don't think teaching Chinese in Mandarin (5% first language) rather than Cantonese (90% first language) or trying to introduce national education into the curriculum is assimilation? No I do not. That's just what you teach to your citizens. When the US took over Puerto Rico, kids there damn well learned English, the American history, the national anthem, and the star spangled banner in school. Do you call that assimilation? Or is that OK because it's the US that did it?
- partialrecall 7y ago
  > "When the US took over Puerto Rico, kids there damn well learned English, the American history, the national anthem, and the star spangled banner in school. Do you call that assimilation?" If that's not assimilation, then I have no clue what the term means. > "Or is that OK because it's the US that did it? " If your argument relies on all Americans being hypocritical sycophants of the American government, it's a bad argument. Criticism of America is mainstream in America. One can be American and be critical of the American government, just as one can be Chinese and be critical of the Chinese government. In fact there is ample reason for both to be critical of both.
  - UIZealot 7y ago
    Call it assimilation if you want. My point is that it's what all governments will do under the situation. The fact that China did not push through national education forcibly shows that it's willing to forgo even that minimum amount of "assimilation". It has actually been a model of hands-off administration. EDIT: Actually do not call it assimilation. Learning Mandarin as a shared language does not mean eradicating Cantonese, and most Hongkongers are ethnic Chinese and share much of the same culture, there's nothing to assimilate.
    - partialrecall 7y ago
      Oh yeah, the Chinese government is the model of restraint. Give me a break dude. Are you free to criticize your government or not? I freely criticize mine, and you should do the same.
      - UIZealot 7y ago
        The Chinese government certainly has a lot to improve when it comes to how it governs the people of mainland China. But we are talking about Hong Kong here. And it has been a model of restraint here, if you are being honest with yourself.
        bsznjyewgd 7y ago
        We are talking about the same Hong Kong in which sellers of questionable books were disappeared to the mainland, apparently without the knowledge of the HK government.
        UIZealot 7y ago
        The book seller only had to give a guilty confession on TV and was free to go home. Had Hong Kong remained under British rule and the book seller sold books that embarrassed the Queen, he would've ended up dead like Princess Diana. Were Hong Kong ruled by the US, he would've ended up dead like Jeffery Epstein. The Chinese government comes out looking pretty restraint, wouldn't you say?
- joyeuse6701 7y ago
  That is assimilation I think by definition, without the value judgment. The question is whether or not Puerto Rico wanted it and if it was forced. Puerto Rico is a poor example, especially since they seem to want to be inducted into the U.S. officially as a state! Hong Kong does not seem to share the same sentiment with Beijing.
  - UIZealot 7y ago
    Since you're revisiting this thread. I will try to clarify the issue. No it is not. It's only assimilation if you aim to wipe out the local language and culture and replace them with your own. So it's not assimilation in either case, Puerto Rico or Hong Kong, as the US did not attempt to eradicate Spanish, nor is China trying to eradicate Cantonese. People who accuse China of assimilation are surely smart enough to know the difference. The thing is, they have already made up their minds, China is evil no matter what it does.
  - Leary 7y ago
    "In 1914, the Puerto Rican House of Delegates voted unanimously in favor of independence from the United States, but this was rejected by the U.S. Congress as "unconstitutional" " [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico History does tend to repeat itself, doesn't it.
    - joyeuse6701 7y ago
      It sure does, but not everything is black and white...[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statehood_movement_in_Puerto_Rico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statehood_movement_in_Puerto_R...
est 7y ago
However Chinese and Cantonese share the same writing system. And don't put gibberish Cantonese scripts as an example, it's called 白字 which means illiterate writing style. You can type that online in forums and IM, SMS to friends but it's not something official nor standard. Should Ebonics be taught in schools instead of standard English?
- bsznjyewgd 7y ago
  Mandarin and Cantonese share the same writing system in the sense that English and French share the same writing system: mostly the same characters, innumerous cognates, and I can read the back of my cereal box. Spoken Cantonese is a different language from spoken Mandarin, with different grammar and vocabulary, and when you write them down you get correspondingly different written languages. That written Cantonese hasn't undergone a formal standardization the way Mandarin did in the early 20th century doesn't make written Cantonese gibberish, just not fully standardized. And written Cantonese isn't only used for memeing on forums or text-speak, it's also widely used for casual writing in newspaper columns or in advertisement, or to authentically transcribe spoken Cantonese (rather than paraphrasing in Mandarin). See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Written_Cantonese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Written_Cantonese https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/index.php?s=written+cantonese https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/index.php?s=written+ca... [Edit: That kids were (and perhaps are) taught to read and write in Mandarin at school using Cantonese sound values, rather than writing in Cantonese, also doesn't say all that much about Cantonese as a written language. Rather, it demonstrates that Hong Kong is a diglossic (well, polyglossic) society.]
  - UIZealot 7y ago
    > Mandarin and Cantonese share the same writing system in the sense that English and French share the same writing system: mostly the same characters, innumerous cognates, and I can read the back of my cereal box. Completely wrong. A Chinese character is more or less equivalent to a word in English/French. Are all the words the same in English and French? Can you look at French text and know what it's saying if you didn't speak French already? Someone who speaks only Cantonese can read and understand text written by Mandarin speakers without any issue. The reverse is less true, see below. > Spoken Cantonese is a different language from spoken Mandarin, with different grammar and vocabulary, and when you write them down you get correspondingly different written languages. Wrong again. They use largely the same grammar and vocabulary. Because Cantonese is ancient Chinese, over the years they have lost track of what semantic characters to use for some of the Cantonese words. Tracking down which semantic character corresponds to which Cantonese word could be done if there's enough interest and funding for such work. Once the mapping is done, you will be able to write down Cantonese and have it understood all over China. Since the work hasn't been done, you can only write down Cantonese with the help of some phonetic characters, which denote only pronunciation but not meaning. It's not gibberish, but neither is it proper written Cantonese. EDIT: Even in its current form, written Cantonese is still 80% intelligible to Mandarin speakers.
UIZealot 7y ago
Whoever flagged my reply to try to suppress it, do you care to explain yourselves? Is there anything I said that's factually untrue? Or are you afraid of the truth?

UIZealot 7y ago

> You don't think teaching Chinese in Mandarin (5% first language) rather than Cantonese (90% first language) or trying to introduce national education into the curriculum is assimilation? No I do not. That's just what you teach to your citizens. When the US took over Puerto Rico, kids there damn well learned English, the American history, the national anthem, and the star spangled banner in school. Do you call that assimilation? Or is that OK because it's the US that did it?

partialrecall 7y ago
> "When the US took over Puerto Rico, kids there damn well learned English, the American history, the national anthem, and the star spangled banner in school. Do you call that assimilation?" If that's not assimilation, then I have no clue what the term means. > "Or is that OK because it's the US that did it? " If your argument relies on all Americans being hypocritical sycophants of the American government, it's a bad argument. Criticism of America is mainstream in America. One can be American and be critical of the American government, just as one can be Chinese and be critical of the Chinese government. In fact there is ample reason for both to be critical of both.
- UIZealot 7y ago
  Call it assimilation if you want. My point is that it's what all governments will do under the situation. The fact that China did not push through national education forcibly shows that it's willing to forgo even that minimum amount of "assimilation". It has actually been a model of hands-off administration. EDIT: Actually do not call it assimilation. Learning Mandarin as a shared language does not mean eradicating Cantonese, and most Hongkongers are ethnic Chinese and share much of the same culture, there's nothing to assimilate.
  - partialrecall 7y ago
    Oh yeah, the Chinese government is the model of restraint. Give me a break dude. Are you free to criticize your government or not? I freely criticize mine, and you should do the same.
    - UIZealot 7y ago
      The Chinese government certainly has a lot to improve when it comes to how it governs the people of mainland China. But we are talking about Hong Kong here. And it has been a model of restraint here, if you are being honest with yourself.
      - bsznjyewgd 7y ago
        We are talking about the same Hong Kong in which sellers of questionable books were disappeared to the mainland, apparently without the knowledge of the HK government.
        UIZealot 7y ago
        The book seller only had to give a guilty confession on TV and was free to go home. Had Hong Kong remained under British rule and the book seller sold books that embarrassed the Queen, he would've ended up dead like Princess Diana. Were Hong Kong ruled by the US, he would've ended up dead like Jeffery Epstein. The Chinese government comes out looking pretty restraint, wouldn't you say?
joyeuse6701 7y ago
That is assimilation I think by definition, without the value judgment. The question is whether or not Puerto Rico wanted it and if it was forced. Puerto Rico is a poor example, especially since they seem to want to be inducted into the U.S. officially as a state! Hong Kong does not seem to share the same sentiment with Beijing.
- UIZealot 7y ago
  Since you're revisiting this thread. I will try to clarify the issue. No it is not. It's only assimilation if you aim to wipe out the local language and culture and replace them with your own. So it's not assimilation in either case, Puerto Rico or Hong Kong, as the US did not attempt to eradicate Spanish, nor is China trying to eradicate Cantonese. People who accuse China of assimilation are surely smart enough to know the difference. The thing is, they have already made up their minds, China is evil no matter what it does.
- Leary 7y ago
  "In 1914, the Puerto Rican House of Delegates voted unanimously in favor of independence from the United States, but this was rejected by the U.S. Congress as "unconstitutional" " [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico History does tend to repeat itself, doesn't it.
  - joyeuse6701 7y ago
    It sure does, but not everything is black and white...[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statehood_movement_in_Puerto_Rico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statehood_movement_in_Puerto_R...

est 7y ago

However Chinese and Cantonese share the same writing system. And don't put gibberish Cantonese scripts as an example, it's called 白字 which means illiterate writing style. You can type that online in forums and IM, SMS to friends but it's not something official nor standard. Should Ebonics be taught in schools instead of standard English?

bsznjyewgd 7y ago
Mandarin and Cantonese share the same writing system in the sense that English and French share the same writing system: mostly the same characters, innumerous cognates, and I can read the back of my cereal box. Spoken Cantonese is a different language from spoken Mandarin, with different grammar and vocabulary, and when you write them down you get correspondingly different written languages. That written Cantonese hasn't undergone a formal standardization the way Mandarin did in the early 20th century doesn't make written Cantonese gibberish, just not fully standardized. And written Cantonese isn't only used for memeing on forums or text-speak, it's also widely used for casual writing in newspaper columns or in advertisement, or to authentically transcribe spoken Cantonese (rather than paraphrasing in Mandarin). See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Written_Cantonese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Written_Cantonese https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/index.php?s=written+cantonese https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/index.php?s=written+ca... [Edit: That kids were (and perhaps are) taught to read and write in Mandarin at school using Cantonese sound values, rather than writing in Cantonese, also doesn't say all that much about Cantonese as a written language. Rather, it demonstrates that Hong Kong is a diglossic (well, polyglossic) society.]
- UIZealot 7y ago
  > Mandarin and Cantonese share the same writing system in the sense that English and French share the same writing system: mostly the same characters, innumerous cognates, and I can read the back of my cereal box. Completely wrong. A Chinese character is more or less equivalent to a word in English/French. Are all the words the same in English and French? Can you look at French text and know what it's saying if you didn't speak French already? Someone who speaks only Cantonese can read and understand text written by Mandarin speakers without any issue. The reverse is less true, see below. > Spoken Cantonese is a different language from spoken Mandarin, with different grammar and vocabulary, and when you write them down you get correspondingly different written languages. Wrong again. They use largely the same grammar and vocabulary. Because Cantonese is ancient Chinese, over the years they have lost track of what semantic characters to use for some of the Cantonese words. Tracking down which semantic character corresponds to which Cantonese word could be done if there's enough interest and funding for such work. Once the mapping is done, you will be able to write down Cantonese and have it understood all over China. Since the work hasn't been done, you can only write down Cantonese with the help of some phonetic characters, which denote only pronunciation but not meaning. It's not gibberish, but neither is it proper written Cantonese. EDIT: Even in its current form, written Cantonese is still 80% intelligible to Mandarin speakers.

UIZealot 7y ago

Whoever flagged my reply to try to suppress it, do you care to explain yourselves? Is there anything I said that's factually untrue? Or are you afraid of the truth?