Le Loi was not an ethnic Muong? Options

[XigonCongchua]

There's a theory that Le Loi, a Vietnamese hero who fought against the Ming, was an ethnic Muong. This theory has been spread around for awhile and many people came to believe it. But the following article shows that both his mother and father were ethnic Kinh/Viet (according to gia phả and various sources). He just happened to come from an area where there are lots of ethnic Muong today, but also according to the article, the Muong people only moved there since the 19th century. Back in 15th century, it was still a Kinh area

http://www.tienphong.vn/Van-Hoa/111212/Le-...guoi-Muong.html

What do you think?

[serpent]

I do not give much consideration to history. History is written and rewritten by the victors time and again ever since writing was first invented. Besides, people change surnames all the time. The Đinh, Lê, Lý and all the royal families of Vietnam changed their surnames multiple times. Something not written in textbooks.

The Nguyễn used to be just a band of 5 brothers without any specific family clan. Being Việt they chose a bird to represent them, the five swallows (Ngũ Yến = Nguyễn). The Phạm are most interesting. Adhering to the family motto take precedence over blood relations. This means an adopted child is more a Phạm than the biological son if he upholds the family motto. Many Phạm have been disowned and many have adopted the Phạm clan name. Here we can see the Phạm are not necessary blood related.

The Khanh, oh the Khanh. When Kublai Khan decided to annex Vietnam, they all changed their last name. Let see, what else that I have learned that are not written in textbooks. Oh yes, Hồ Chí Minh is not a Hồ nor a Nguyễn. And Lý Thường Kiệt, one of my most cherished hero, is a Ngô .

This is why I have always regard those gia phả with a grain of salt. Even my own. Especially when there is royalty involved. But thank heaven for DNA. We will know who is who no matter how often they change their last name.

That's how this serpent sees it.

[XigonCongchua]

I don't think you answered the question And it's not just about gia phả, did you read the article? I'm not asking for your feeling about surnames, clans and funky stuff like that, I'm asking for your opinion about the article itself.

And excuse me, but I find it very offensive when you say you regard gia phả with a grain of salt, I find it very very disrespecting to families who have been keeping gia phả carefully and trying to pass it down like mine. It's a treasure of our ancestors, you have no idea how much we value it, just because your family doesn't have one it doesn't mean you can devalue gia phả of other families. It doesn't matter if you believe it or not, just don't disrespect it, you're disrespecting our ancestors and all the people who have been trying to keep gia pha.

And what does this have to do with surname changing? I don't get where you're going.


P/S: Reading your fairy tales about surnames, I can't help but thinking you're not getting the gist of this. It's not about how a surname is formed, it's about who your ancestors were, what they did, where they were from, where they migrated to, it's about your family history, how you came to the present day.

[papen]

I don't see the point of the article. What is it trying to tell us? And its conclusion

Cho nên, với những chứng cứ đã nêu (mà quý nhất là thông tin từ bản gia phả họ Lê ở Thọ Ngọc) chúng ta càng yên tâm để kết luận nguồn gốc dân tộc của Lê Lợi là nguồn gốc Việt (Kinh) từ trang Bái Đô đến.

I don't see what's wrong if Le Loi was a Muong.

[XigonCongchua]

It's not about what's wrong with his ethnicity. It's about clearing ambiguities surrounding a historical figure. Some said LL was a Muong and some said he was a Kinh. The point of the article is investigating this ambiguity. Do you think the facts in the article are objective and so on yadaa yadaa, is there any flaw in the reasoning of the author, you know what I'm talking about?

I've realized that, as reflected here, Vietnamese tend to rely too much on emotion when they make commentaries on academic subjects. For example here, I asked people to comment on the facts and objectiveness of the article and they went off discussing about surnames and ethnicities... I think my question wasn't clear. I was trying to ask what do you think about the article, not what you feel about ethnicity or surname of Lê Lợi, is it clear?

[papen]

I just don't like its conclusion "Cho nên, với những chứng cứ đã nêu (mà quý nhất là thông tin từ bản gia phả họ Lê ở Thọ Ngọc) chúng ta càng yên tâm để kết luận nguồn gốc dân tộc của Lê Lợi là nguồn gốc Việt (Kinh) từ trang Bái Đô đến." It also writes Viet (Kinh).

I don't see a point of the (Kinh). Muong was not Viet? And do you think in ancient time or to be specific Le Loi time, Viet people called themselves Kinh? Besides, I talked about ethics because the article's is trying to prove one of them is true:

Như vậy, về nguồn gốc dân tộc của Lê Lợi cho đến nay vẫn còn tồn tại ba ý kiến khác nhau, đó là: Lê Lợi là người dân tộc Mường (đã từng làm tù trưởng Mường); Lê Lợi là người nửa Việt, nửa Mường (cha Việt, mẹ Mường, đẻ ra ở vùng Mường gốc); Lê Lợi là người Việt, có nguồn gốc từ nơi khác đến.

I also doubt a lot of people read or ever heard of " “Lam Sơn thực lục”, “Hoàng Lê ngọc phả” , or “Toàn thư” “Cương mục”.

This post has been edited by papen: Sep 11 2011, 06:28 PM

[XigonCongchua]

Yes, they did call themselves Kinh back at that time I don't care what he is...I'm just curious on the truth. I myself for a long time believed that he was a Muong and I wrote that in many topics...Now I'm just wondering, was I wrong?