|
Diaspora and the Predicament of Origins:
Interrogating Hmong Postcolonial History and Identity
(By Gary Yia Lee, Ph D)
Scholar-in-Residence, Center for Hmong Studies, Concordia University, St.
Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Hmong Studies
Journal, Volume
8, 2007
Contents
1
Abstract
2
Introduction
3
Who are
the Hmong
4
Theorizing Hmong origins
5
Discussion
6
Conclusion
Abstract
This paper examines two basic issues that have been of major concern
to the Hmong in the diaspora: (1). What is their historical and
geographic origin; and (2) are the Hmong part of the Miao
nationality in China, and should they accept being known under this
generic name?
There have been many theories about where the Hmong originally came
from, ranging from Mesopotamia in the Middle East during Biblical
times, the North Pole, Siberia, to Mongolia and China. This paper
consolidates these many propositions with their supporting evidence,
and draws its own surprising conclusion as to the real location of
the original homeland of the Hmong. Depending on what they regard as
their origin and which history they wish to be aligned with, the
Hmong may have to reconsider being known as Miao or Meo, a name
which most have vehemently rejected because of its derogatory
connotation, especially among the more politically conscious Hmong
now living in Western countries.
Introduction
This paper deals with the search by the Hmong for their history and
national identity after being subject to Chinese control for many
centuries in China, followed for those who later migrated to
Indochina by a further 80 years under Western colonial and
neo-colonial domination. The post-independence world has given many
enlightened Hmong in Western countries the opportunities to know
more about themselves from frequent contacts with co-ethnics in
other places during the last 30 years through cross-border visits or
by telephone and on the Internet. In the process, they have been
confronted with uncertainties and many unresolved questions about
their historical roots and how to fill the black holes in their
history, a history usually written by others and from the
perspective of outsiders. For example, the simple search for the
home of their ancestors before the latter’s migration to Southern
China where most of the Hmong still are today, is often met with
contradictory explanations as they learn more about their past.
The
problem lies in the fact that this search for ancestral origins
inevitably touches on the definition of who the Hmong are and how
they are related to the other three ethnicities in the larger entity
more broadly known as “Miao” with whom they have been classified, a
classification originally imposed by the conquering Chinese. Because
of this forced affiliation between four different groups,
conflicting historical narratives have been presented, with some
even borrowed from other sources and
people.
Each of these Miao groups has their own history, and their own views
about who were their ancestors and where they originated from, but
these varied versions have now been combined to read like a single
unified account (Vwj Zoov Tsheej, 2004). To further complicate
matters, these groups speak different languages and cannot
communicate with each other. Although they have their own local
ethno-names, they like being known nationally as Miao and do not
find this appellation derogatory, unlike the Hmong outside China who
strongly resent it, and who steadfastly resist its application to
them.
With such major differences, what do the Hmong and Miao have in
common? Did they have the same cultural and geographic origin? Were
they historically different or the same people who now call
themselves by different names like Hmong, Qho Xiong, Hmu and A Hmao?
If they share the same history, what roles did each of the groups
play? Can this origin and related historical events be disentangled
for identification, or should they be left as revisited-revised
proceedings purposefully joined together into a glorious acceptable
narrative to be appreciated, but not to be questioned too much as to
which groups its many elements really belong to? These questions
have caused much self-reflection among the Hmong in the diaspora
today after their post-1975 scattering around the world from Laos
and the postcolonial desire for a written history of their own that
will pull together the disconnected parts in their collective
memories.
While not claiming to make a definitive statement here, I will
examine these issues from an “emic” (insider) perspective, from the
view point of a Hmong and a researcher, using “etic” (outsider)
discourses provided by non-Hmong writers. In addition, I will adopt
a “critical theory” stance in that I see historical analysis as
grounded not primarily in the search for truth and universal values,
but more in the need to problematize the present for its political
relevance and utility for social action (Dean, 1994). It is hoped
that these two approaches will help bring together the major issues
and theories involved, and will add a new position to the discussion
of this most controversial subject and attempts at Miao/Hmong
historical recovery.
Who are the
Hmong?
The
Hmong form one of the many tribal minorities, also known as Miao/Meo,
who are scattered in the border regions of China, Vietnam, Laos and
Thailand. Those classified as belonging to what Schein (2004: 274)
calls “the cumbersome umbrella” term ‘Miao’ in China include:
-
the "Qho Xiong" in
Western Hunan;
-
the "Hmub", "Gha Ne" or "Hmu"
for a group speaking the same dialect in South eastern Guizhou;
-
the "A Hmao" in Northwest
Guizhou and Northeast Yunnan; and
-
the "Hmong" in South
Szechwan, West Guizhou and South Yunnan.
The
separate ethnic name also refers to the language spoken by each
group concerned. The social organization of these groups is based
on the clan system through the sharing of specific surnames similar
to those of the Chinese.
The
total number of Miao population in China in 2000 is estimated at 9.2
million with 3.1 million being Hmong. The figure for the latter
increases to 4.5 million world-wide if we add the following: 787,000
in Vietnam; 460,000 in Laos; 120,000 in Thailand; 2,000-3,000 in
Myanmar; 200,000 in the USA; 15,000 in France; 2,000 in Australia;
1,400 in Canada; 300 in Argentina; and 110 in Germany (Lemoine,
2005).
The
Hmong in Laos were greatly affected by French colonialism in that
small country from 1893 to 1954. During this period, they became
politically divided into two major factions, one supporting the
French and the maintenance of their colonial project under the Royal
Lao government, the other joining the independence movement that
fought to take back Laos from France. After the departure of France
from Laos in 1954, civil war broke out between ideologically opposed
Lao political parties as the Americans stepped in to fight against
communism in Indochina. The Hmong factions continued their separate
political alliance, with those under the French now working closely
with the Americans. The war took a heavy toll with a third of the
estimated 300,000 Hmong dead or injured from being recruited to
fight for the warring factions, and half of the total Hmong
population forcibly displaced in various areas. Many subsequently
escaped to Thailand as refugees from the newly installed Lao
communist regime in 1975, and were eventually resettled in the
United States and other Western countries, the latest group as
recently as 2005 from the Tham Krabok Temple camp.
Although the Hmong form the major group of the Miao to have migrated
out of China in the 19th century to Southeast Asia, they
do not have their own written records to show where they originated
from. Claims have been made that they left Mesopotamia after the
fall of the Tower of Babel, then gradually migrated north through
Russia, Siberia and Mongolia before ending in their present location
in southern China (Savina, 1924; and Quincy, 1988). Other writers
have refuted these claims, stating that the Hmong’s original home
has always been southern China before it was slowly conquered over
the centuries by the Han Chinese, judging by the religious, language
and cultural assimilation between the two groups[i]
(Bradley, 1987; Geddes, 1976; Lee and Tapp, 2005; and Yang, 1995).
As a diaspora today, the Hmong have myths that foretell their
eventual reunion one day by a messiah or king who would give them
back their history and their country, a country that was believed to
have been lost somewhere in the distant past.
Until their exodus from Laos as refugees to Thailand and the West,
the Hmong were called “Meo” by other people, a derivative of the
Chinese word "Miao" used for them in China. However, this is not
the term the Hmong outside of China use or want to refer to
themselves. With a slight change in accent, the word "Meo" in Lao
and Thai can be pronounced to mean "cat". It is most offensive for
many Asians to be compared to an animal, a lower form of being in
their views. For this reason, the Hmong have taken exception to
being known as "Meo". After much advocacy, the term "Hmong" has
come to be used internationally during the last thirty years. The
main issue is that their co-ethnics in China seem to have no problem
with being called “Miao”, although they readily switch identity when
they deal with the American Hmong by calling themselves “Hmong” (Schein,
2004: 284-285). The Hmong, however, have little desire to change to
“Miao” in such encounters, or would only do so most reluctantly.
No
longer controlled by any colonial power nor confined under
restrictive political regimes today, those Hmong in the West who are
more vocal have started to question these differences, to wonder
whether their fellow majority in the former homeland of China really
form one single people with them, one Hmong nation scattered across
many borders. This attempt at postcolonial ethnic identification
has placed the long-separated Miao and Hmong in a difficult
predicament – as people who desire unity but who have conflicting
ethno-names, diverse languages and ambiguous identities.
As
a result, it has not been easy to decide which origins, historical
events and figures from which Chinese minorities and which Miao/Hmong
groups to adopt for the larger national entity. This tenuous
position has led to endless debates and many discourses among Hmong
Internet discussion groups and other intellectuals (see
soc.cult.hmong discussion on the www. Hmong Homepage.com; and the
Hmong “Sib Tham” group in Yahoo.com). Often, “these discourses have
the aura of authority and the effect of definitively identifying,
framing and stabilizing what constitutes ‘Miao-ness’ …. [and] are
seen as highly legitimate, perhaps even more reliable when produced
by non-Miao.” (Schein, 2000: 35-36).
Theorizing Hmong Origins
These Miao/Hmong, where did they originate from? In trying to answer
this question, we may also be able to shed light on who they are, or
what kind of identity and history they have or want to maintain.
Let us now look at some of the major claims and explanations that
have been advanced as answers to this question.
1. Mythical Origin
The
Hmong have stories about the creation of the world and how the first
people came to populate the earth. The most important text that
refers to this mythical origin is the Song of “Showing the Way” or
“Qhuab Ke”, the first ritual that opens the funeral ceremony.
The ritual performer opens by asking whether the dead person really
dies or is only faking death. If he or she is truly dead, then the
person is informed that his or her body is to be washed and dressed
in mortuary costumes, and the soul will be guided back to all the
places he or she has lived to show them gratitude before joining the
ancestors in the After World. Prior to making this journey,
however, the “Qhuab Ke” chanter informs the dead person about the
beginning of the world, the getting of seeds for crops and why
people die. The “Showing the Way” chant says that a pair of female
and male super-beings,
Nkauj Ntsuab (Gau Njua) and Sis Nab (Shi Na) were sent from the
Nether World to fashion the world, to make the mountains and plains,
the rivers and lakes; and to populate it with people without
specifying who they were.
Where is this Afterworld of the ancestors that the soul of the dead
is sent back to? And what does it look like? Can it be said to be
the mythical original home of the Hmong? In the “Showing the Way”
funeral chant, it is said that the sacrificial animals for the dead
are given to the soul of a dead person for use either as food or
assets to pay debts incurred while alive on Earth. Should he or she
want to replenish this stable of animals, the need will be made
known through a sickness among the close living descendants who will
then have to carry out an “ox ceremony” (ua nyuj dab) involving the
killing of a cow. Thus, if we look at the number of sacrificial
oxen killed at the funeral of a Hmong elderly together with those
killed for the “ox ceremony”, it would appear that this distant
mythical domain is “a pastoral heavenly place where animal husbandry
is a major economic activity” (Lee, 2005:27). Apart from incense,
rice alcohol, paper money and these sacrificial cattle, no other
economic needs are mentioned in Hmong rituals. Yet, cattle grazing
is only a minor activity undertaken by the more wealthy Hmong in
real life, although the ability to afford meat as part of their diet
is a major issue.
Other than the Qhuab Ke, the Hmong have folk tales that relate to
the First and Second Creations, and to life in mythical times. A
story, “How People Lived in Very Ancient Times” from the Ch’uan Miao
in China (Graham, 1954: 19), states that:
“In
very ancient times people were not accustomed to wearing clothing.
A man wore only a grass skirt to cover his lower organs. A woman
wore a wooden apron over her abdomen to cover her shame. They had
no good things to eat. In warm weather they had merely the fruit
they picked, and during the winter they captured and ate small
living creatures. In warm weather they lived in the old forests,
and in winter they returned to their (natural) stone caves. As to
their way of living, a few tens might live in one group, or only a
few people. We do not know how long they lived in this way.”
A
story entitled “Ancient People Who Secured Seed” in the same
collection says that “the ancient Miao tribe” came “from a mountain
wilderness” where they cut the trees to burn and plowed the land in
order to plant crop seed (Graham, op. cit.: 18). It thus appears
that gathering and living in “forests” and “natural caves” were
practised “in very ancient times”, followed by slash and burn
farming after the “ancient people” were able to obtain rice “seed”
and learn to plow.
In
another tale from the Hmong of Laos (Livo and Cha, 1991: 33), it is
said that long ago the world was a black flat rock and humans lived
far underground with their animals. One day, a man and his wife
were following their dog as it was chasing a monkey through a long
rock tunnel. They eventually emerged on the face of the earth.
After seeing it, they decided to go back home, gathered all their
worms, animals and seeds, and returned to live on the surface where
they sowed the seeds and put the worms in the ground. Soon the
seeds sprang up, the worms multiplied and life began on earth.
Although there is no space here to give all the details, it should
be noted that this story, called the First Beginning of the World
(Johnson, 1992: 3), does not mention Hmong or Miao but only humans
after the earth was settled by the original couple from underground.
It also makes no reference to the making of the earth by a
Supernatural Being like God, nor that the wife was made from a rib
from the man, but only that she emerged from the same place as he
did.
The next story, known as the Great Flood and the Second Creation,
refers to the creation of the Hmong and their many clans, following
a great flood from which only a brother and sister survived. In the
version by the Miao of Guizhou, China (Bender, 2006: 159-68), the
brother became restless and lonely: “Jang Vang (the brother) looked
to the East, and then gazed to the West… he saw no one to love.” In
the end, the cotton bamboos advised him to “find your sister and
talk of love, and brother and sister will become a pair.” (pp.
163-164) The sister did not want to marry her brother, but he was
cunning and used various tricks to convince her until she agreed to
call him “husband”. After the marriage, she gave birth to a lump of
flesh: “it had feet but no arms; it had no face, but had eyes...
like a fish wrapped in paddy grass; just as ugly.” (pp. 166-167).
In anger, the husband cut it up into small pieces with a crooked
sickle, filled nine manure buckets with them and spread them over
nine hills.
The
version of the story from the Hmong in Vietnam, Laos and Thailand
says that the next morning little huts sprang up where the pieces of
meat fell. With smoke coming out of them, each hut was occupied by
a couple.
The piece of flesh that landed in the goat house (tsev tshis) gave
rise to the Lee (Lis) clan, the one that ended up in the garden (vaj)
yielded the Vang (Vaj) clan, and so on (Johnson, 1992: 115-117). The
fleshy pieces also turned into insects, birds, oxen, buffaloes and
rodents (Livo and Cha, op.cit.: 43). However, the version from
the Guizhou Miao says that the scattered pieces of flesh “turned
into many, many peoples, turned into myriads of persons” of
different races like the Dong, the Lolo, Chinese, etc.. (Bender,
op.cit.: 167). The bones (tough and marrow-rich) turned into the
Miao people, the meat (rich in nourishment) into Han Chinese, and
the intestines (of lower quality) into other groups, although these
were not named (Bender, p. 208, note 9). It is interesting to note
that this epic creation story puts different ethnic groups into a
hierarchy based on which body parts they came from and according the
elevation of the landscape where they live today.
One
may ask if the brother and sister who gave birth to the Hmong were
not Hmong, then what race did they belong to? If they were not
Hmong, how could their children be Hmong? Were they the ancestors
of the Hmong only as stated by the story of the Hmong in Laos, or
were they also parents of other races as told by the Miao of Guizhou?
2. Biblical/Caucasian Origin
Savina (op.cit.: X-XI, 103-104 and 246-247) states that the Miao
inform him they originally moved to a region called “To Sia” (which
he translated as a big plateau but should have correctly been
“highlands” or “Toj Siab”) to the north of their current abode in
China (Hunan). The move took place, following these Biblical
events:
-
the confusion of the tongues (which he describes in Hmong as: phay
lu), and
-
the dispersion of people (phay du phay te) after the destruction
of the Tower of Babel (Nthay Ndu – heavenly stairs).
He
also claims that the Hmong have folk stories that are similar to
those in the Bible such as tales about the creation of the world,
the first woman being made after the first man, the original sin
caused by the woman eating the forbidden strawberry (but not an
apple as in the Bible), their banishment from their original home,
and the Great Flood. This claim is made, despite the fact that the
Hmong stories are quite different from those of the Bible with their
omission of God as the creator of the world in seven days, or the
first woman being made from one of the first man’s ribs.
Regardless, Savina (op.cit.: 103) links the Hmong to an origin in
Mesopotamia where Biblical mankind was believed to have first
started, for only the Hmong, the Armenians and the Chaldeans still
“keep memories of the Deluge, the Tower of Babel, the confusion of
languages and the scattering of peoples” - with Hmong traditions
“possessing stories that closely parallel to the first chapters of
Genesis.”
These interpretations are very common in older books about the Hmong,
particularly with early missionaries who were looking for Christian
converts and who might have an interest in linking the Miao/Hmong
with a Biblical origin in order to render them more susceptible to a
new set of religious beliefs from Europe. Savina also likens the
Hmong to Caucasian people, and therefore with a Caucasian origin.
This is despite the lack of any supporting evidence, except he
noticed that some Hmong children were fair-skinned and had blue
eyes, even though albino children were also found in other
non-European groups.
This Mesopotamian Biblical origin has been repeated by many writers
up to the present day, including Quincy (1988), the latest Hmong
history book that has been so popular that it went into a second
edition (1995). This is despite his many fanciful speculations that
are completely devoid of supporting evidence or references.
3. Genetic Origin
Although Savina believes that the Hmong may have been Caucasian in
the very distant past due to some of them having fair skin and blue
eyes, there was no genetic evidence to support this since no one
tried to obtain such evidence in the early 1920’s when Savina wrote
his book. As with the Chinese, for example, claims that they are
related genetically to Caucasian people, have been refuted on the
ground that genetic analysis shows most Han Chinese not to have
'Caucasoid' genetic markers. Past mixing with other races may have
caused one out of 10,000 Han Chinese to have a Caucasoid genetic
marker, but DNA samples from at least 50,000 Han Chinese spread all
over China would need to be collected to obtain representative
samples. They would have to be analyzed very carefully and even then
the results may not be generalized to the larger Chinese population
(Bobo Huang, 2004).
The
Genographic project, under the National Geographic Magazine,
has tried to explore the “Human Journey” by tracing the origins of
different races through the analysis of their genes.
It examines the presence of specific types of
Y-chromosome DNA markers among people in different parts of the
world, and finds that the Haplogroup 0 with the genetic marker M175
“appears in 80-90% of all human males in East and Southeast
Asia…[but it] is almost nonexistent in Western and Northern Asia and
is completely absent from Europe, Africa, and the Americas…”
The on-line Wikipedia states that Haplogroup
O has 3 subclades:
Haplogroup O1,
Haplogroup O2, and
Haplogroup O3.
These
subclades with their defining mutation
further consist of:
On
the basis of this classification of Haplogroup O genetic markers,
the National Geographic project has completed tracing for a
number of racial groups, although no analysis has been done on the
subgroup Hmong-Mien who carries genetic marker M159. Among the
groups so far studied,
two with genetic markers in the subclades closest to the Hmong are:
-
Haplogroup 03 with marker
M122, believed to have existed within the last 10,000 years
probably beginning in China with a widespread distribution of
descendants (more than half of Chinese men). This suggests that
its members could have been the descendants of the first rice
cultivators in China, based on archaeological evidence found in
northern China with millet (a wheat-like grain) grown about 7,000
years ago.
-
Haplogroup 0 with marker
M175, first appeared 35,000 years ago in Central and East Asia.
The carriers of this marker are part of the M9 Eurasian clan whose
early members, probably Siberian hunters, traveled east along the
great steppes and gradually crossed southern Siberia. Today, 80-90
per cent of people living east of Central Asia belong to this
group, with marker M175 almost absent in inhabitants of Western
Asia and Europe.
In
a separate research project that focused specifically on Hmong-Mien
“mt DNA genetic/molecular variance”, Bo Wien (2005: 725-734) and 17
other university scientists in China (Shanghai and Yunnan) and the
United States (Cincinnati, Ohio), took blood samples from 537
individuals in 17 sites in Hunan, Yunnan, Guangxi and Guangdong
provinces, China. After some complicated analysis and much
tabulation, they observed the following:
-
A close “relatedness”
between the Hmong-Mien (H-M) people and other southern East Asians
(SEAs), with the Miao in Hunan (believed to be the site of their
original home) “closer to” northeast Asians than other H-M
populations (p. 730).
-
A significant correlation
between genetic and geographic distances across H-M and SEAs: gene
flow between adjacent populations is more evident than with
distant ones.
-
“a general southern
origin of maternal lineages” with “more contact” between Hmong-Mien
and northern East Asians than other people, due to “the higher
frequency of north-dominating lineages observed in the Hmong
people” (p.725).
These findings are said to be “consistent with” archaeological and
historical evidence linking proto-H-M with the Neolithic culture in
the Middle Reach of the Yangtze River in southern China (Fei, 1999),
including the Daxi Culture (5,300-6,400 Years Before Present) and
the Qujialing Culture (4,600-5,000 YBP) – accounted for by the
presence of Haplogroup B5a which is “very homogenous” in 11% of H-M
mtDNAs and exists in most of the H-M populations (p.732).
It
is worthy of note that the Bo Wien study finds the Miao populations
to be relatively distant from the Yao/Mien populations. The
researchers also state that their findings (for a general southern
Miao origin with more northern contacts) “might provide some clues
for tracing” the history of the San-Miao from their establishment
in the Lake Tungting area and expansion northward to the Yellow
River basin, led by Chiyou before their defeat by the Yan-Huang
tribe (under Huangti) and push-back to the south. They conclude
that “our systematic study of H-M mtDNA diversity provides genetic
evidence for the origin and migration of the H-M populations and the
data for further investigation of the genetic structure of East
Asians.” (p.733).
4. Linguistic Origin
According to the online
Brittanica.com,
Miao-Yao (myou'you') is a small group of languages whose speakers
are found in mountainous areas of southern China and Southeast Asia.
Previously, Hmong-Mien (H-M) languages were included in the
Sino-Tibetan language family, but are now seen as being a family of
their own. Originating probably in southern and central China,
their greatest diversity is found between the Yangtze and Mekong
rivers today. This distribution has led to speculation that their
speakers could have been the millet growers of the Shang dynasty,
since the Hmong tale of Creation and other stories mention rice
growing very early in their legendary past (Bender, 2006: 92-107;
and Livo and Cha, 1991: 33-35). The original H-M language
diversity is believed to have spread even to northern China, but few
dialects have survived there to the present. The Hmong-Miao branch
of the family now has some 35 dialects divided into: 'Gelo',
northern Hmong, Xiangxi Miao (Red Miao), Western Hmong, Libo Miao,
Weining Miao, Yi Miao, Hmong proper (includes Hmong Njua [Blue/Green
Miao], Hmong Daw [White Miao], and Magpie Miao), Central Hmong,
Qiandong Miao (Black Miao), Longli Miao, East Guizhou, Patengic,
Pa-Hng and Yongcong.
Having learned the Hmong Daw (Western Hmong) dialect and composed
the first Hmong-French dictionary, Savina (1924: 42-69) compares 239
Hmong words with those used in nine other languages (Man, Lolo,
Thai, Vietnamese, Chinese, Tibetan, Tartar, Malay and Sting), and
concludes that:
-
Miao, Man, Lolo and
Tibetan (being monosyllabic) belong to the Nordist (Northern)
group of languages which originated from the Tourane – a plateau
in ancient Persia.
-
Chinese, Malay, Thai and
Vietnamese belong to the Sudist (Southern) group – deriving from
the Dravidian language family of Davira in India (pp.92-100).
Other linguists, however, have different explanations. Schein
(2000: 46), citing Cao Cuiyun (a Beijing linguist researching the
Miao language), states that “the presence or absence of certain
terms in the Miao lexicon pointed convincingly to the conclusion
that they could not have originated farther north than their present
distribution.” In other words, the Miao have always been in central
and southern China where they are today. This is further supported
by Ratliff (2004: 147-160) with her study on H-M environment and
subsistence vocabulary. She looks at the origins of Hmong and
Chinese terms for animals (elephants, monkey, pangolin, river deer,
thrush and tiger), plants (onion, cogon grass and tshuaj kab raus),
hunting (cross bow, to shoot, to track, track/footprint), domestic
animals (chicken, crest of chicken, to lay eggs, dog, duck, horse,
to ride, stable/pen, pig, sheep/goat and water buffalo), non-rice
agriculture (bean, buckwheat, cucumber, eggplant, soybean, sweet
potato and taro), and rice agriculture (rice, chaff, cooked rice,
glutinous rice, growing or unhusked rice/rice paddy, husked rice,
paddy field, sickle, rice cake, rice head and rice seedling). She
finds that some H-M terms (relating to hunting, local flora and
fauna and rice culture) in this vocabulary are native to the H-M or
connected to Austronesian and Mon-Khmer languages, but words from
the fields of animal husbandry and non-rice agriculture “show such
strong ties to Chinese” and “rice terms show an overlay of Chinese
influence, especially with respect to terms for wet rice
cultivation…”.
Thus, Ratliff concludes, “it seems clear that the Hmong and Mien
people have occupied roughly the same areas of southern China that
they occupy today for at least the past two millennia.” (p. 160).
Culas and Michaud (2004: 65) also point out the suggestion by
Haudricourt (1974), a French linguist, that the rich Hmong technical
vocabulary linked to wet-rice farming exists not from borrowing from
the Chinese language but from a long tradition of “sedentary
agriculture by the Miao/Hmong in China.” According to Bender
(personal communication, 12/6/07), recent archaeological digs in
Southeast China in the Yangzi delta in Zhejiang province, suggest
that rice cultivation took place as early as 7,500 yrs ago in the
region, and this rice growing practice could have been “exported
upriver to the west along the very same lines that early Miao or
proto-Miao groups may have traveled.” An earlier study of the Miao
language edited by Purnell (1972) further finds many Miao/Hmong
words to be actually Chinese words. This may have arisen from
borrowing and assimilation by Miao speakers over many centuries of
contact with the Chinese, as they are now doing with the languages
of their neighbors in Vietnam, Laos, Thailand and other countries.
Bradley (1987: 282) also finds that many ancient words are shared
between the 'Miao' and Chinese languages; and 'such words indicate
that there was early, intimate contact between the ancestors of the
Miao and the Chinese'.
5. Middle-East/Siberian origin
A
northerly origin has also been suggested, based on “stories” of the
Hmong migration from a “land at the back of China” (Suav Teb Tom Ub),
a “land of ice and darkness” where the sun only shines for six
months of the year, and a “land of scorching sky and brittle
earth” (Savina,1924: x; and Quincy 1988: 20-25). However, no such
stories can be found among today’s Hmong
In the most comprehensive collection with a staggering 752 Hmong
folk stories by Graham (1954), there is not one story that alludes
to any land with the afore-mentioned descriptions. The only story in
this huge collection that mentions anything about Hmong origin and
the weather, is called “Ancient People Who Secured Seed”. It asks:
“Where did the Miao come from? From a mountain wilderness… When
those Miao first came, [they] remembered that they should clear a
wilderness” so they could plow and grow crops (pp. 18-19). After
the “green bird” flew to get seed from “Ntzi’s granary” in the “Lo
Tse’en Tsi land”,
“the ancient Miao received the seed and put it into a barrel. He
waited until spring arrived with two cool months. There are two
cold months in winter. When the weather was temperate, during the
first moon, and the place was warm and the sky was dry, and the land
was also dry, then the ancient Miao took fire and burnt off a
mountain….. then returned home and rested…..”
The
story only states “two cool months” of spring and “two cold months
in winter” such as that found in south China, but not “six months of
darkness” as would be the situation if it was the North Pole.
Furthermore, the Hmong do not have stories that would indicate an
ice or snow culture. Savina’s speculations about a northern polar
origin probably stemmed from an inaccurate translation of Hmong
terms. For example, Savina translates 'dej npau' as 'snow and ice'
when it should be 'boiling water' - the opposite. Also, a verse in
the poetic funeral chant “Qhuab Ke” (Showing the Way) which urges
the soul of the dead to take left-over food and drink to the
ancestors, states that the latter live in “ ntuj qhua teb nkig,
ntuj txias teb tsaus”. This should be correctly translated as 'under
dry Sky on brittle Earth, cold Sky on dark Earth’. However, it
was wrongly rendered as 'under burning skies on the scorched
earth, under icy skies on the dark earth’ by Ken White from the
Hmong transcription of the ritual by Lemoine (1983: 8).
There is major difference in meaning between “dry” and “burning”,
“brittle” and “scorched”, or “cold” and “icy”, particularly when
the Hmong do not even have a word for “ice” in their vocabulary, and
the Hmong word for “burning” is “kub hnyiab” (ku nhia). These
translation mistakes have led other writers to conjecture that the
Hmong came from a land of ice and snow (as in Siberia or the North
Pole) and before that, from a land of 'burning skies' and 'hot
earth' (such as Mesopotamia in the Middle East). But these funeral
metaphors are only Hmong poetic expressions for the sinister
world of the dead rather than any real place on Earth. The last word
of the above verse “teb tsaus” (dark earth) is critical and
should not have been taken out of its original context where it is
used to rhyme with the next verse which has been left out of
the discussion, namely “koj thiaj muaj noj muaj haus” (so you
will have things to eat and drink).
Did
they come from Mongolia? What evidence is there? Do they have
anything in common with the Mongols? On this issue, Yang Kaiyi
(1995) is at pain to refute the misconception by many Hmong in
America that they originated from Mongolia. He points out that the
Hmong have very different physical, linguistic and cultural features
from the Mongols. This mistaken belief probably arose because of
the similarity in the syllable "mong" in the two names. However, a
closer examination reveals that the Hmong do not have anything that
would link them to Mongolia. Nothing could be said to have been
influenced by the Mongols such as words or religious rituals.
Although they have folk tales about kings (huab tais, or Huangti in
Chinese), they do not have any legends about emperors and Khans, or
being conquered by Mongolians. They have no stories about a
grassland nomadic life involving horses and sheep like that in
Mongolia, but have many stories about tigers and jungles as found in
the highlands of China, and especially tales about Chinese whom they
call “mab suav” who chased them across rivers and mountains, so they
ended up today in southern China and Southeast Asia.
6. China Origin: North, East, South, West and Center
Despite speculating that the Hmong originated from Mesopotamia,
Savina (1924: VII) opens the Preface to his book “Histoire des Miao”
by stating that “From times immemorial there exists in China a race
of men whose origin no one knows.” He goes on to say that these
people, who call themselves “Hmong” in their own language, already
occupied the lower basin of the Yellow River and the Hoi River in
the distant past when the ancestors of the Chinese made their first
appearance on these shores and “through their arrogance” called the
Hmong “Miao”, meaning natives or savages – “a name which survives
until today”.
The
term "Miao" was used in pre-Qin China (before 207 BC) to refer to
non-Chinese people of Southern China, often in combination with such
names as "Miao Min" (the Miao people), "Yu Miao" (the Miao) and
"San-Miao" (the three groups of Miao). But the name “Miao”
disappeared for many centuries until the Tang (A.D. 618-907) and
Sung (A.D. 960-1279) dynasties when the word "Nan Man" (Southern
Barbarians) was used.
The term "Miao" appeared again in 862 A.D. in Fan Chuo's book
Manshu on the Man Tribes. During the Ming and Qing dynasties,
both the terms "Man" and "Miao" were used. However, late Ming and
Qing gazetteers preferred to classify the Miao as Raw (Sheng) and
Cooked (Shu) Miao – the first referring to those who refused to be
assimilated into Chinese ways and the latter those who “were
sinicized and therefore more civilized.” (Diamond, 1995: 100). By
1741, the name came to be used for thirteen kinds of Miao people,
distinguished from each other by cultural traits and the ethnic
costumes of their women. The Qing dynasty (1644-1911 A.D.) finally
saw the term used for the four Miao minorities in today's China
where they are also called "Miao-Tseu" (Miao zu or Miao
nationality) in Chinese.
Schein (2000: 44-48), writing about the Miao/Hmu people in Southeast
Guizhou, China, provides a succinct summary of the main explanations
advanced by both Chinese and Western writers. She concludes that
there are at least five different theories about where the Miao came
from: the North, the South, the East, the West, and the Centre of
China. If the Miao “whose origin no one knows” have been in China
“since times immemorial”, as stated by Savina above, it is possible
that they have always been there and did not come originally from
any far-flung places. According to him (op.cit: VIII), the first
encounters between these “Miao” and the Han Chinese took place
probably in the 27th century BC during the time of Chiyou
and the Chinese Yellow Emperor Shun. With continued Chinese
expansion through military conquests and civilian usurpation of
native lands, the Miao slowly migrated from their original home in
the Yellow river basin, some to the northwest of China (Shunsi,
Shensi and the basin of the Wei river), others to the southwest
(towards the mountains of the Blue river basin and Sikiang), thus
leaving the basin of the Hoai river to the Chinese invaders (Savina,
op.cit.: 97). It is said that some later established “a strong
Hmong kingdom in the Hupei-Hunan-Kwangsi region” but this was
believed to have been annexed by the Kingdom of Nanchao in the
seventh century (Marks, 1994: 106). All this, of course, is
speculation, not historical facts.
Further evidence that the original home of the Miao/Hmong is
somewhere around the Yellow river basin in China, is provided by the
Chinese classics (the Mang-tsze and the Shu Ching)
which mentioned the 'San-Miao' or 'Three Miao' as living in that
region 4000 years ago (Geddes, 1976: 4-5). A popular epic poem of
the Miao in Guizhou also describes the home of their original
ancestors as being a place where “the earth and waters were as one,
the shining waves billowed up to the blue sky: everything was as
flat as a bamboo mat, like the river flats where grain is dried.”
(Bender, 2006: 170). The next line of the poem goes on to ask “When
the parents (ancestors) lived in the East, what clothes did they
wear? What food did they eat?” This seems to suggest that the
origin of the Miao is east of Guizhou where they now are, possibly
near Lake Tungting (in present-day Hunan province) and Lake Poyang
(in northwestern Kiangsi), for it would probably be around these big
lakes that the “waves billowed up to the blue sky” and where the
shore and land around was “as flat as a bamboo mat.” It is further
said that the ancient “Five Pairs of Parents” of the Miao “lived in
the east along a sea shore” in China and later moved west “because
of poverty and overcrowding” (Bender, op.cit., p. 191)
Lee
and Tapp (2005), Bradley (1987), Geddes (1976: 3-15) and Ratliff
(2004) argue that the Miao/Hmong must have always been in Southern
China, based on folk stories, linguistic and cultural features they
have developed or share with the Han Chinese. The Miao/Hmong
original home was probably more to the Southeast of Beijing – for
the name “Beijing” translates as “City of the North, or City of
Heaven” (Pem Ceeb) in Hmong. The Hmong in China send the soul of
their dead to “Pem Ceeb” while those outside China send it to “Tuam
Tshoj Teb” (Land of China). There are also many religious and
cultural similarities between the Chinese and the Hmong which
suggest that the Hmong have always been in close contact with the
Chinese, rather than any other people. Hmong stories and funeral
rituals often mention the Chinese (Suav) but no other peoples, with
one folk story even saying that the ancestors of the Hmong and the
Han Chinese were once two brothers worshipping at the same ancestral
grave but parted company due to conflict over properties (Graham,
1954: 27).
Tapp (2003: 444-45) relates another story which says that “… long
ago, the ancestor of the Miao and the ancestor of the Chinese were
brothers, the Chinese being the older brother and the Miao being the
younger”. The Jade Emperor gave each of them a text, but a cow ate
the text of the Miao while they were resting at a bridge so Miao
people had no writing today. Some writers, however, believe that
“the Miao were in China before the Chinese” (Mottin, 1980: 16), and
“Wherever the Chinese are now in the north and east, the Miao were
there before them.” (Clarke, 1907: 252).
The
acceptance of the Miao/Hmong origin as being in China would depend
on whether the Hmong accept as their ancestors the Miao mentioned in
Chinese legendary history 5,000 years ago. Such acceptance would
also assume that the four groups currently classified under the
umbrella name “Miao” are descendants of the legendary Miao in
Chinese history. A further assumption is that the current Miao
people are homogenous (displaying unity and uniformity) in
acknowledging these historical references and their experiences of
perceived historical traumas. There is also the issue of how events
of the past should be interpreted in relation to each and all four
groups, for as During (2005: 60) remarks, “the past we have today is
not, in any clear way, the past as it was once variously
experienced.” Each group has obviously experienced this past
differently, judging by their diverse reactions to being called by
the same Miao name.
What is also important here is whether the mythologized “Miao” in
Chinese historical records can be seen as the ancestors of today’s
Miao/Hmong, or whether they were other indigenous non-Han minorities
in southern China. And those armed encounters between them and the
Chinese, can the Miao/Hmong claim them to be part of their lost
history? A positive answer to this question may mean that they are
trying to recover, even revise, their history on the ground of what
During (op.cit.: 59-60) refers to as “organized collective
memories”, a paradigmatic means of looking at the past based on
organized texts and change-driven social memories in an attempt “to
resist and correct false representations of a community by outsiders
- often for political purpose, especially in the case of
marginalized oppressed groups in colonial contexts.”
Discussion
Each of the six explanations of the origins of the Hmong discussed
above can be contextualized as attempts at historical recovery for
the Miao/Hmong by them and other interested people. Schein (op.cit:
49) sees this search for origins as stemming initially from the need
to lend continuity and credence to Miao history and to articulate
inter-ethnic relations in China and the repositioning of the Miao in
relation to the majority Han Chinese, although this discourse has
now been extended beyond the Chinese borders into a transnational
international context to include the Hmong in the diaspora. Today,
these diverse perspectives make it difficult to assess their
validity, but they represent the outcome of the conflicts that exist
in historical production, conflicts between the inaccessible
mythical past, the interpretation of often disjointed historical
events and the contradictory present. Nevertheless, such
interpretation is necessary when it will help to bring the many
unconnected origins into focus and to see if it is possible to reach
a unified single all-encompassing explanation.
In
a sense, these accounts of different Miao/Hmong origins can all be
taken as equally useful. Each explanation has its own function and
validity, depending on what we want to do with it and the political
purpose for which we are looking at the issue. As pointed out by
During (op. cit.: 54-60), history can exist for many reasons. It can
be produced and consumed as: (1) politics or representation of the
rulers, (2) public social memories to be celebrated or mourned; (3)
ground of identity at the family ( through genealogy) and social
levels through the identification of a group with certain historical
events; (4) “nostalgia for the past” which is a sign of the lack of
“real history in the present” and the weakening of the role of the
past in the construction of social identity; (5) entertainment in
fictionalized TV films/documentaries; (6) popular, middle-class
centered “heritage industry” based on organized/commercial
cultural memories preserved as monuments/models in historic
villages, parks and museums; and (7) injury/trauma/collective
injustices used as a paradigm to see the past based on organized
cultural memories to resist and correct false representations of a
community by outsiders.
Today, the Hmong’s interest in tracing their origins obviously stems
from most if not all of these uses of history. I would suggest that
seeing history as a critical inquiry, a collective paradigm to
affect social change, plays a big role in this endeavor, as the
Hmong now realize the need to redress past injustices and to correct
false representations or the lack of representations within the
vicissitudes of world history. The Miao in China have accepted that
they were already in China before the coming of the Han Chinese, and
are related to the “San-Miao” referred to in ancient Chinese
history, because such a (re)claim “imparts a legendary stature to
the present-day Miao, positioning them as important players during
the formative period of the Han people. This identification also
bestows the dignity of great antiquity, authoritativeness and a firm
standing in the documentary record.” (Schein, op.cit.: 38).
For
these reasons, the four groups of Miao in China today do not wish to
let go of the use of this name for them due to the benefits such a
close association with ancient Chinese history can bring to them.
If it is true that “Man knows himself only in history, never through
introspection” (Dilthey, 1962: 138), then the Miao must have known
themselves well. They have adopted Chiyou as their first ancient
hero so as to take their history back to mythical times. They have
claimed the “San-Miao” as their ancestors, having the foresight to
appreciate the political utility of being linked to the San-Miao
kingdom. They have used history for its practical possibilities,
using history not for the sake of knowledge but as a useable tool to
bring about social change, emancipation and freedom from oppression
and injustice, as a means to stimulate new ways of thinking and
action. To quote Best (1995: xii) from another context:
“They know that the ability to define the meaning of the past grants
the power to define the meaning of the present and future; they
understand that a people without a historical memory are easily
manipulated through myths of the present. To lack a narrative of
one’s own past, from the personal to the national level, is to fall
victim to the pseudohistorical representations of others. Each
culture needs to see the present as history and to create its own
narratives that secure their meaning and identities…”
Such a project and vision, even if they consist only of
essentializing what is needed from all the myriad of jumbling
events, accords well with the critical theory of history, for to
study and to know history is to be able “to loosen the grip of
established reality… to create a space of concrete freedom i.e. of
possible transformation” (Foucault in Kritzman, 1988: 36).
Historiography, the writing of history, can be affected by the
quality and amount of information transmitted from the past, and by
how we interpret and use this information – whether for knowledge
only or also for social criticism and political change, for making
us concerned with past and present forms of inequality. As seen by
Best (op.cit.: ix-x), history “is the continuous present that
instantly recedes into the past and from which we project the
future…. History begins when human beings… realize they have a past
that is useful to know, interpret, relate, study and maintain…” In
this way, history is a creation of people about their past through
the narration of events from specific perspectives, especially those
in dominant positions.
Arnold (2000:114-115) states that although using facts, the craft of
writing history is also an art, the art of rhetoric persuasion.
Fiske (1868:29), referring to the French critic Sainte-Beuve who
sees history as being mostly “a set of fables which people agree to
believe in”, suggests that “much of what is currently accredited as
authentic history is in fact a mixture of flattery and calumny, myth
and fable”. If this is the case and if history is both an art
(subjective knowledge reflective of the observer) and a science
(objective facts and knowledge unconnected to the observer), then we
are faced with the need to resolve the conflict between (a) a truth
that is based on myth, meaning and perception; and (b) a truth that
is grounded in inert facts and “reality”. In history, however, an
event can be studied many times and from many perspectives, so that
its “facts” become part of the context of its meaning and
interpretation. Truth is thus a process of consensus, a general
acceptance by one’s fellow human beings – a matter of feeling and
understanding. This is despite the need for historians to stay with
what is made possible by the sources of information, and to
recognize what is not, without inventing new evidence or suppressing
facts that do not agree with their agenda or narratives.
Apart from references in Chinese historical books, there are no
archaeological ruins and other “factual” evidence that could be
claimed to belong to the Miao/Hmong or to show their “true”
origin. They do not seem to have built lasting monuments or carved
distinctive structures anywhere, except in China where cave
dwellings and burial sites have allegedly been found (Xiong,
2000). If truth is a matter of interpretation and if we can only
interpret history from the sources of information available to us,
then what we choose for Hmong history today depends very much on
what we want to get from the act of historical reconstruction.
Thus, based on the existing information, the various theories on the
origins of the Miao/Hmong and the fact that history is both an art
and a science, what can we conclude about the original homeland of
the Miao/Hmong people and ultimately the foundation for their
historical identity?
Conclusion
In
my view and from all the accessible evidence, an origin in China is
the most plausible, especially given the results of recent DNA
testing on the distribution of genetic markers which clearly show a
southern China origin for the Hmong-Mien people. Furthermore,
contacts with Han Chinese must have been initiated so long ago that
Chinese impact on Hmong life has run very deep: in Hmong history,
Miao/Hmong legends and folk stories, language, and their collective
memories of China and the Chinese. The Hmong have made Chinese
influences into narratives, into a concrete reality deeply engrained
in their psyche and culture. Their funeral rituals and religious
practices contain measures to prevent grave desecration and
robberies of the dead by the “Suav” (Chinese). Han oppression has
been made an integral part of Hmong traditions. The recognition
that they originated only in China and the search for this origin
through the inclusive “Miao” designation are thus stronger than any
other explanations. It also lends credibility to their political
voice when backed up by 9.2 million Miao around the globe, compared
to much smaller populations if they are divided into more
distinctive ethnic groups with their own origins. Which would the
Hmong prefer, being known as Miao and having a long history
stretching back to the antiquity of China with a large global
population, or possessing only a sketchy history going back to the
19th century AD when they first converted to Christianity
and became known as Hmong,
with only 4.5 million members world-wide?
The
Chinese Miao have recognized the potential of having an ancient
history and being the fifth largest nationality in China. They have
struggled for this identity over many years and joined hands as one
single people with one ethno-name, as this gives them the strength
and support, as well as the recognition and respect they need.
They refuse to be known only as “hill tribes”, “little brothers” and
a people without history. Again, to borrow Best (op.cit.: xiv),
they “challenge the current state of affairs… with awareness that
social reality is historical and contingent in nature, with the
knowledge that things have not always been this way and therefore
could be otherwise, with the realization that what has been
constituted can be deconstituted and reconstituted…[as] potential
forms of empowerment…” This issue, however, has not even begun to
enter the thinking of the 200,000 Hmong in the diaspora, except
that they do not want to be known as Miao because of its negative
connotation of earlier times.
Yet, the Hmong are today reclaiming their history based on this very
identity, on a deconstruction and reconstruction of historical
events claimed earlier for the Miao. However, they cannot choose the
soft option of simply substituting the name “Hmong” for “Miao” in
the historical context of China, as some of them have tried to do,
unless they accept the Miao people in Chinese history as their
ancestors, and regardless of whether all the Miao groups today speak
the same language or not. A second alternative may be to accept to
be called Miao in one context and Hmong in another, but this will be
confusing and unusual – for few groups of people in the world have
multiple names and conflicting identities like Miao/Hmong/Mong. The
final choice is to stay with being Hmong and have nothing to do with
other Miao groups and their histories. But will the 3.1 million
Hmong in China agree to this when they cannot extract themselves
from the official classification “Miao”? What will be the long-term
consequences? Whatever is decided in the tortuous pursuit of their
history with the Miao in China, the diasporic Hmong are now wedged
between a rock and a hard place. In the end, they may have to stop
being resentful and to learn to take pride in being known as “Miao”
like their more numerous brothers and sisters in China who see their
national name as a proud group designation with a long past
stretching over 5000 years and no negativity.
Foot notes
Revised
version of a paper presented at a seminar hosted by Center for
Southeast Asian Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, on 16
February 2007.
See Robert
Entenmann, “The Myth of Sonom”, Hmong Studies Journal, Vol.
6, 2005.
I would like
to thank the anonymous blind reviewer of this paper for pointing out
the importance of the Quab Ke chant in tracing the mythical origin
of the Hmong. For a full and accurate English translation of
the chant, see Symonds (2004: 193-238).
It is interesting to note that the pair is always mentioned
together, but with female first.
However,
Bender (2006), in a note to the Prelude to the Epic Poems of the
Miao in Guizhou, China, states that the gods (Fu Fang, Bu Pa, Ye
Xing, Niu Dliang and Hu Li) were born first, and it was only after
Jang Vang was born that “the present age of humans begin” (p.
192).
Many other
ethnic groups in Asia have similar stories about a great flood
giving rise to new people or their own ancestors. Van was able
to collect 307 such stories among minority groups in Vietnam and
neighboring countries. See Van, D.N. (1993). “The Flood
Myth and the Origin of Ethnic Groups in Southeast Asia.”
Journal of American Folklore, Summer 1993, 106:
304-337.
Bender, personal communication, 6 December 2007.
See
http://www.asiawind.com/forums/read.php?f=2&i=4123&t=305).
I am grateful to Michel Ya-Lu, through Prof. Louisa Schein, who
brings this project to my attention.
See
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/pi/jin_profile.html
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_O3_(Y-DNA)
see
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html?card=my042
See
http://www.Britannica.com/miao-yao
see the 3
volumes of “Dab Neeg Hmoob” ((1985) from the Hmong in Laos
published by Fr. Yves Bertrais and his 29 Hmong folk tales collected
from China “Dab Neeg Kwv Txhiaj Keeb Kwm Nyob Moos Laj”
(1992). Also Charles Johnson in his book “Myths, Legends
and Folk Tales from the Hmong of
Laos”
(1992), with 27 tales.
See
also further discussion of this subject in
Lemoine, Jacques, “Mythes d’origine, mythes d’identification”,
L’Homme, 101, Janv.-Mars 1987 XXVII(1) : 58-85
For a discussion of the terms “Miao” and “Hmong”, see Enwall
1992) who concludes that the Hmong in the diaspora may have to be
content with the name “Miao” as it is not derogatory in China and is
easy to write in Chinese compared to “Hmong”.
Bender (personal communication, 12/6/07) points out that the
term "Miao-Tseu" seems to be similar to the modern term "Miao-zi", a
derogatory appellation still sometimes heard today, but not in front
of Miao people, as it is taboo under government regulations.
Chiyou is
today regarded by the Miao/Hmong of China as their hero and
ancestor, and is honored annually through festivals and
commemorative events in various places. See
“A Hmong Hero of
Pre-China – Chiyou” by Lee Maoqing in (http://www.hmonghome.com/dongtai.asp).
Accessed 2/19/07
Culas and
Michaud (2004: 70) state that the name “Hmong” was used for the
first time in writing in 1911 by the British missionary, Samuel
Clarke, in his book, Among the Tribes of South-West China
(London: China Inland Mission, 1911).
See Cheung
(2004: 237-272) who finds, in his study of Miao identity in Western
Guizhou during the Republican period before 1949, that the Nuosu and
the A Hmao actively sought to appropriate the classification “Miao”
for themselves in their struggles for official recognition, thereby
redefining the Miao identity beyond the terms of its traditional
meaning and the boundaries of these two ethnic groups.
References
John Arnold, History: a Very Short
Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).
Mark Bender, Butterfly Mother: Miao (Hmong) Creation Epics
from Guizhou, China
(Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2006).
______, personal communication/email comments on present paper,
12/6/07.
Yves Bertrais, “Dab Neeg Hmoob” (Javouhey: Patrimoine
Culturel Hmong, 1985), 3 volumes.
______, Dab Neeg Kwv Txhiaj Keeb Kwm Nyob Moos Laj (Javouhey:
Patrimoine Culturel Hmong, 1992).
Steven Best, The Politics of Historical Vision: Marx,
Foucault, Habermas (New York: Guildford Press, 1995).
Bo Wen et al., “Genetic Structure of Hmong-Mien Speaking
Populations in East Asia as Revealed by mtDNA Lineages”,
Molecular Biology and Evolution, 2005, 22(3): 725-734.
William Bradley, The Languages of
China
(Princeton University Press, 1987).
Cheung Siu-woo, “ Miao Identity in Western Guizhou: China during
the Republican Period” , in Jean Michaud, Christian Culas, Nick
Tapp and Gary Lee, Hmong/Miao of Asia (Chiangmai:
Silkworm Books, 2004).
Samuel R. Clarke, “The Province of Kweichow”, in
MarshalBroomhall ed., The Chinese Empire: a General and
Missionary Survey (London: Morgan and Scott, 1907).
_____ ,
Among
the Tribes of South-West China
(London: China Inland Mission, 1911).
Christian Culas and Jean Michaud, “A
Contribution to the Study of Hmong (Miao) Migrations and
History”, in Jean Michaud, Christian Culas, Nick Tapp and Gary
Lee, Hmong/Miao of Asia (Chiangmai: Silkworm Books,
2004).
Mitchell Dean, Effective and Critical Histories:
Foucault’s Methods and Historical Sociology (New York:
Routledge, 1994).
Norma Diamond, “Defining the Miao”, in Stevan Harrell ed.
Cultural Encounters on China’s Ethnic Frontiers (Seattle:
University of Washington Press, 1995).
Wilhelm Dilthey, Pattern and Meaning in History, ed. by
H. P. Rickman (New York: Harper and Row, 1962).
Simon During, Cultural Studies: a Critical
Introduction (New York: Routledge, 2005).
Joakim Enwall, “Miao or Hmong?”, Thai-Yunnan
Project Newsletter, No. 17, June 1992 (online).
Fei, Xiao Tong, The Pattern of Diversity in Unity of
the Chinese Nation (Beijing: Central University for
Nationalities Press, 1999). In Chinese.
John Fiske, “Historical Difficulties” (1868) in The Unseen
World and Other Essays (Adelaide: The University of
Adelaide Library Electronic Texts Collection, 2003).
David Graham, Songs and Stories of the Ch’uan Miao
(Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1954).
Andre Georges Haudricourt, “Le nom du Champ sur brulis et le nom
de la riziere irriguee”. Etudes Rurales, 53-56: 367-71.
Charles Johnson, Myths, Legends and Folk Stories of
the Hmong from Laos
(St. Paul: Macalister College, 1992).
Lawrence D. Kritzman ed. Michel Foucault: Politics,
Philosophy, Culture (New York: Routledge, 1988).
Gary Y. Lee, “The Shaping of Traditions: Agriculture and Hmong
Society”, Hmong Studies Journal, 2005, 6: 1-33.
_____ and Nicholas Tapp, “Current Hmong
Issues: Updated 12-Point Statement” in
www.garyyialee.com (accessed 20
February 2007).
Jacques Lemoine, Kr’ua Ke (Showing the
Way) (Bangkok: Pandora, 1983).
_____ “What is the Actual Number of the (H)mong in the World?”,
Hmong studies Journal, Vol. 6, 2005.
_____ “Mythes
d’origine, mythes d’identification”, L’Homme, 101, Janv.-Mars
1987 XXVII(1) : 58-85.
Norma Livo and Dia Cha, Folk Stories of
the Hmong of Vietnam,
Laos and Thailand
(Englewood, Col.: Libraries Unlimited, 1991).
Tom Marks, Making History: Insurgency of the Communist Party
of Thailand
n Structural Perspective
(Bangkok: White Lotus, 1994).
Jean Mottin, History of the Hmong (Meo) (Bangkok: Odeon
Store, 1980).
National Geographic,
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/pi/jin_profile.html
for the Gnographic Project. Accessed: 28
February 2007.
Keith Quincy, The Hmong: History of a People (Cheney:
East Washington University Press, 1988).
Martha Ratliff, “ Vocabulary of Environment and Subsistence in
the Hmong-Mien Proto- language” , in Jean Michaud, Christian
Culas, Nick Tapp and Gary Lee (2004), op.cit.
Francois M. Savina, Histoire des Miao (Hong Kong:
Societe des Missions Etrangeres, 1924).
Louisa Schein, Minority Rules: the Miao
and The Feminine in China’s Cultural Politics (Durham: Duke
University Press, 2000).
______ “Hmong/Miao Transnationality: Identity Beyond Culture”,
in Jean Michaud, Christian Culas, Nick Tapp and Gary Lee (2004),
op.cit.
Patricia Symonds, Calling in the Soul: Gender and the Cycle
of Life in a Hmong Village (Seattle: University of
Washington Press, 2004).
Nicholas Tapp, The Hmong of
China (Boston: Brill Academic
Publishers, 2003).
Vwj Zoov Tsheej, Haiv Hmoob Lij Xwm (Quezon City:
Patrimoine Hmong, 2004). A large compilation of Miao history
and culture written in China and published in RPA Hmong.
Van, D.N. (1993). “The Flood Myth and the Origin of Ethnic
Groups in Southeast Asia.” Journal of American Folklore,
106 (Summer 1993): 304-337.
Yang Kaiyi (1995), “The Hmong are not
Mongols” originally published in Hmong Forum, and now
online at http://www.geocities.com/hmongarenotmongols/index.html?200716.
Accessed 10/16/07.
Yang, N. (1995), ‘History and Origin of the Hmong,’ St Paul, MN:
Hmong Cultural Centre, at
http://www.hmongcenter.org/hmonbib.html.
Accessed 21 February 2007.
Yuepheng Xiong, “Taug Txoj Lwv Tshav: Keeb
Kwm Hmoob nyob Suav Teb” (Follow the Blood Path: Hmong History
in China) (St. Paul, MN: Hmong ABC, 2000). Video, Vol. 1
|
