Re: Ba'ch Vie^.t - Ly' La~o

[hduc@airmoon.epa.nsw.gov.au]

Hello ba'c La^m, AiViet and all,

Try to catch up with vnsa mail and with you guys :-). I would like to 
make a few short comments on what you have discussed.

On Wed, 23 Jul 1997, Hong Lam Vu wrote:

> Hi ba'c Vie^.t,
> 
> Ca^`n pha?i pha^n bie^.t 2 ma(.t kha'c nhau tuy co' lie^n quan dde^'n
> nhau: diffusion of Chinese culture and diffusion of Chinese people.
> 
> Thailand can serve as an example: a few Thai aristocrat was able to impose
> their culture upon a majority of Mon-Khmer origines.
> Anthropologically, the Siamese are close to the Khmers. But culturally,
> they are close to other Thai peoples in South China or North Vietnam.
> ...

I think the Thai absorbed the Mon-Khmer culture into their way of life. 
Not the other way around. Culturally they are close to the Khmer than 
other Thais in the North East and highland of Indochina. Thailand absorbed 
the remnant of Indian culture in Khmer culture (the Ramayana legend, theatre 
plays, Hindi gods, court rituals..), the architecture of court, religious 
buildings, the conceptual and religious languages and the Theravadan 
buddhist religion all from the Khmer. From the ethnic point of view, the 
Thai has little common with the original Mon_Khmer but their culture are 
so close to the Khmer. The Thais are also related strongly to the Laos 
who are their cousins.

> Culturally, the Vietnamese become so sinized that it is quite hardly to
> find out whether they share more common elements with the Southaest Asian
> or with the Chinese.
>  
> ... 
You are right. The Vietnamese did not adopted, absorbed and improved the 
cultural heritage of the Cham and the Khmer in the Central and South of the 
country. Otherwise, our culture will be so similar to the Thai, Laos, and 
Khmer, Burmese. Instead we imposed the sinicised cultural elements on top 
of this remnant heritage.

> BTW, cha con Ly' Uye^n, Ly' The^' Da^n (sa'ng la^.p ra nha` Dduo+`ng) 
> cu~ng cha(?ng pha?i Ta`u chi'nh go^'c gi` cho cam. Sa'ch Le monde chinois
> cu?a Jacques Gernet ba?o ho. Ly' na`y la` demi-Turc. Nha^n dda^y qua?ng
> ca'o cho cu. Gernet. Sa'ch na`y vie^'t ra^'t kha', co' di.ch sang mo.i
> thu+' tie^'ng lo+'n, ai thi'ch ti`m hie^?u Ta`u ne^n co' ma` tra cu+'u.
> 

Another good source is Rene Grousset of Academie Francaise, a 
contemporary of the famed historian Will Durant. His book on Chinese 
civilisation in French was translated to many languages including English. 
Rene Grousset English version "The splendour of Chinese civilisation" is 
worth a look. The English world is not fond of French scholarship, but 
this one is an exception :-).

Comments on DDo^ng A' and Tra^`n period :
Anh AiViet mentioned that the Tra^`n kings had the root in an Chinese 
immigrant. I have doubt on this. The Tran period was the most original 
Viet renaissance in culture. King Tran Nhan Tong used to tell his sons 
and siblings that :
 "Nha` ta vo^'n la` da^n ha. ba.n, ddo+`i ddo+`i u+a chuo^.g vie^.c hu`ng 
du~ng. Thu+o+`ng thi'ch hi`nh ro^`ng va`o ddu`i dde^? chu+'ng to? 
mi`nh kho^ng que^n go^'c que^n to^?".

He mentioned that tattoing the dragon in the body as an ancient custom of 
the original Tran means a few things : (a) the ancient Viet customs of 
tattoing applied to the Tran (b) the Tran came from humble background 
of river or sea fishing communities.

Now are we opening some more new discussion on the Tran cultural heritage 
period :-)

Cheers,

Hiep Nguyen